Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 210 (Monday, November 3, 2025)

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 210 (Monday, November 3, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49062-49145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19747]

[[Page 49061]]

Vol. 90

Monday,

No. 210

November 3, 2025

Part II

Department of Homeland Security

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

8 CFR Parts 1, 103, et al.

Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 210 / Monday, November 3, 2025 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 49062]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Parts 1, 103, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 216,
235, 236, 240, 244, 245, 245a, 264, 287, 333 and 335

[CIS No. 2814-25; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0205]
RIN 1615-AC99

Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to
amend its regulations governing biometrics use and collection. DHS
proposes to require submission of biometrics by any individual,
regardless of age, filing or associated with an immigration benefit
request, other request, or collection of information, unless exempted;
expand biometrics collection authority upon alien arrest; define
``biometrics;'' codify reuse requirements; codify and expand DNA
testing, use and storage; establish an ``extraordinary circumstances''
standard to excuse a failure to appear at a biometric services
appointment; modify how VAWA self-petitioners and T nonimmigrant status
applicants demonstrate good moral character; and clarify biometrics
collection purposes.

DATES: Submission of Public Comments: Written comments on the proposed
rule must be submitted on or before January 2, 2026. Comments on the
information collection described in the Paperwork Reduction Act section
of this proposed rule must be received on or before January 2, 2026.
The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments
prior to midnight eastern time at the end of that day.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the entirety of this proposed
rulemaking package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0205,
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.
Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation
must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to
USCIS will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information,
or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted
in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or
letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments
on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Please
note that DHS and USCIS will not accept or consider any comments that
are hand-delivered, couriered, or sent by mail. In addition, USCIS
cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage
devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. If you cannot submit your
comment by using http://www.regulations.gov, please contact the
Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security,
by telephone at (240) 721-3000 for alternate instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Security and Public Safety Division,
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive,
Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
III. Background and Purpose
A. Legal Authority and Guidance for DHS Collection and Use of
Biometrics
1. Background Checks
2. Secure Document Production
3. Biometric Collection From U.S. Citizens, U.S. Nationals, and
Lawful Permanent Residents
4. Required Biometric Collections
5. Administrative Guidance
B. The Use of Biometrics by DHS
IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes
A. Use of Biometrics for Identity Management and Enhanced
Vetting
1. Identity Management
2. Enhanced and Continuous Vetting
B. Verify Identity, Familial Relationships, and Preclude
Imposters
1. Use of DNA Evidence
2. Special Treatment of DNA Evidence
3. Identity Management
C. Flexibility in Biometrics Requirements
1. Definition of Biometrics
2. Additional Modalities
3. Amend Related Regulations To Align With the Purposes of This
Proposed Rule and To Facilitate Electronic Filing
D. Biometrics Requirement for U.S. Citizens, U.S. Nationals, and
Lawful Permanent Residents
1. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
2. The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA)
3. Certain Family-Based Petitioners
4. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Self-Petitioners
5. T Nonimmigrant Adjustment of Status Applicants
6. Persons Involved With EB-5 Regional Center Program
7. Collection of Biometrics From Other Individuals Associated
With a Benefit Request, Other Request, or Collection of Information
E. Biometrics Services Appointments and Interviews
1. Biometric Services Appointments
2. Interviews for Benefits
3. Interviews for Alien Spouses
F. Proposed Implementation
1. Phased-In Additional Biometrics Collection
2. Collection of the Biometric Services Fee
G. Evidence of Age and Birth Parentage for an Adopted Child
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192
(Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
1. Summary
2. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule
3. Population
4. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(Congressional Review Act)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Family Assessment
I. National Environmental Policy Act
J. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
L. Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)
M. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks)
N. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

Table of Abbreviations

AAC accompanied alien children
ABIS Automated Biometric Identification System
ADIT Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ASC Application Support Center
AWA Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
BIA Board of Immigration Appeals
BCR Biometrics Collection Rate
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CFRP Cuban Family Reunification Parole
CHRI Criminal History Record Information
CJIS FBI Criminal Justice Information Services

[[Page 49063]]

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
CPI-U Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
CPMS Customer Profile Management System
DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
DOS U.S. Department of State
EAD employment authorization document
ELIS Electronic Immigration System
EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FWVP Filipino World War II Veterans Parole
FY Fiscal Year
GSA General Services Administration
HFRP Haitian Family Reunification Parole
HLA human leukocyte antigen
HSI Homeland Security Investigations
HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Directive
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IDENT Automated Biometric Identification System
IdHS Identity History Summary
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996
IMBRA International Marriage Broker Regulation Act
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
IRIS Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate
LPR lawful permanent resident
INA Immigration and Nationality Act
NASS National Appointment Scheduling System
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NGI Next Generation Identification
NPD National Production Dataset
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTA Notice to Appear (issued to initiate removal proceedings under
INA sec. 240)
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPQ Office of Performance and Quality
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
RAIO Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
RIA regulatory impact analysis
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
TPS Temporary Protected Status
UAC Unaccompanied Alien Children
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
VAWA Violence Against Women Act

I. Public Participation

DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on
all aspects of this proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that
relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might
result from this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in English,
or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide
the most assistance to USCIS will reference a specific portion of the
proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include data, information, or authority that support such recommended
change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above,
including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be
considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response
from DHS.
Instructions: If you submit a comment, you must include the agency
name (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the DHS Docket No.
USCIS-2025-0205 for this rulemaking. Regardless of the method used for
submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted,
without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you
provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You
may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that
you provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make to DHS.
DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing
that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy and
Security Notice at http://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket and to read background documents
or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, referencing DHS
Docket No. USCIS-2025-0205. You may also sign up for email alerts on
the online docket to be notified when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.

II. Executive Summary

DHS proposes to amend its regulations concerning the use and
submission of biometrics in the administration and enforcement of
immigration and naturalization laws and the adjudication of any
immigration application, petition, or benefit or any other related
request or collection of information. This section summarizes the
changes made by this proposed rule, which are described in detail in
section IV of this preamble.

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action

As detailed in section III.A of this preamble, DHS has broad
statutory authority \1\ to collect or require submission of biometrics
from: applicants, petitioners, and beneficiaries for immigration
benefits; any individual filing or associated with a benefit request,
other request, or collection of information; and from aliens upon their
arrest for purposes of processing, care, custody, and initiation of
removal proceedings.^{2 3 4} DHS currently collects, stores,
and uses biometrics for various purposes, including but not limited to:
conducting background checks to determine eligibility for a benefit
request, other request, or collection of information; document
production associated with an application, petition, or other request
for certain immigration

[[Page 49064]]

and naturalization benefits or other actions; and performing other
functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and
naturalization laws, such as identity verification upon issuance of a
Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings undersection 240 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The applicable statutory sections of each provision are
explained in the body of the preamble which follows this Executive
Summary.
\2\ This rule proposes changes to the regulations governing
collection of biometrics for benefit and other requests administered
by USCIS. It also impacts U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which have
immigration enforcement responsibilities that may require
collection, use, and storage of biometrics and use of USCIS systems
or forms for which biometrics would be required by this rule. For
example, ICE, Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) uses USCIS
Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, and
Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization Document.
However, this rule generally does not propose to authorize CBP or
ICE to expand biometrics collections beyond either agency's
independent authorities, aside from authorizing the collection of
additional biometrics modalities and authorizing the expansion of
CBP and ICE authority to collect biometrics from aliens under the
age of 14, within their respective statutorily authorized mission
spaces. The applicable provisions are discussed further below.
\3\ On October 27, 2025, CBP published the final rule,
``Collection of Biometric Data from Aliens Upon Entry to and
Departure from the United States,'' 90 FR 48604 (Oct. 27, 2025) (CBP
Final Rule). DHS considered the CBP Final Rule during the drafting
of this NPRM and notes that the CBP Final Rule specifically amends
DHS regulations relating to aliens' photographs when entering or
exiting the United States. While the CBP Final Rule states that
exemptions in current biometrics collections based on age (i.e.,
under 14 and over 79) will continue to apply to biometrics other
than facial images, 90 FR at 48609, DHS is now proposing to amend
such exemptions for the reasons stated throughout this rule.Found 1
occurrence(s) in 1 file(s)
\4\ In this notice, the terms ``benefit request'' or ``other
request'' or ``collection of information'' refers to all requests
processed by USCIS, including those that do not meet the definition
of ``benefit request'' at 8 CFR 1.2 (``any application, petition,
motion, appeal, or other request relating to an immigration or
naturalization benefit''). For example, deferred action is solely an
exercise of prosecutorial discretion by DHS, whereby an alien can
request that DHS defer removal action for a certain period of time,
and not an immigration benefit. Accordingly, a request for deferred
action is not a ``benefit request,'' but is instead a request
processed by USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS is precluded in many cases from approving, granting, or
providing immigration benefits to individuals with a record of certain
criminal offenses or administrative violations, or who may pose risks
to national security or public safety. Criminal histories are relevant
because they are used to determine eligibility for immigration benefits
and are part of the totality of the circumstances that USCIS considers
when making a discretionary determination. Therefore, DHS must include
national security considerations and criminal history background checks
in its adjudications. Several statutes authorize DHS to conduct
biometrics collections in relation to national security and public
safety purposes, as well as for document production.\5\ Additionally,
DHS is authorized to collect the biometrics of U.S. citizen and lawful
permanent resident petitioners of family-based immigrant and
nonimmigrant fianc[eacute](e) petitions to determine if a petitioner
has been convicted of certain crimes. Therefore, DHS requires a robust
system for biometrics collection, storage, and use related to
adjudicating immigration benefits and other requests and performing
other functions necessary for administering and enforcing immigration
and naturalization laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See section III.A. of this preamble for a detailed
description of DHS's statutory authorities to collect biometrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current regulations also provide general authorities for the
collection of biometrics in connection with administering immigration
and naturalization benefits requests and in connection with
administering and enforcing immigration laws. For example, any
applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing a
benefit request, other request, or collection of information request
may be required to appear for biometrics collection. See 8 CFR
103.2(b)(9). DHS currently has authority to require an individual to
submit biometric information to conduct background and security checks
and perform other functions related to administering and enforcing
immigration laws. See 8 CFR 103.16(a).
The immigration benefit request adjudication process requires DHS
to verify the identity of an individual applying for or seeking to
receive any benefit and requires that national security and criminal
history background checks be conducted to determine if such an
individual is statutorily eligible for the benefit. In general,
adjudication of an immigration benefit request, other request, or
collection of information includes a review of the individual's current
immigration status, current and past immigration filings, and whether
previous benefits were granted or denied. Immigration laws preclude DHS
from granting many immigration and naturalization benefits to
individuals with certain criminal or administrative violations, or with
certain disqualifying characteristics, while also providing DHS
discretion in granting an immigration benefit in many instances. DHS
conducts checks to determine if an individual has a history that could
render him or her inadmissible or removable, including a criminal
record or association or involvement with human rights violations or
terrorist activities or organizations. The current DHS biometric
collection process for adjudication of immigration benefit requests or
other requests or collections of information often begins with the
collection of an individual's photograph, fingerprints, and signature
at an authorized biometrics collection site. Collections outside the
United States may be conducted on behalf of DHS by other federal
agencies.
While DHS has the authority to collect biometrics from any
applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, requestor, or individual
filing or associated with a benefit request, other request, or
collection of information, or to perform other functions related to
administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws,
submission of biometrics is currently only mandatory for certain
benefit requests and enforcement actions. For all other benefit
requests or other requests or collections of information and
enforcement actions, DHS has discretion, in accordance with its
statutory and regulatory authorities, to determine if the circumstances
of the specific request or enforcement action warrant the collection of
biometrics. If DHS determines that biometrics are needed in the
individual case, DHS issues a notice to the individual with
instructions for submitting biometrics and an explanation of the
general purposes for which they may be used.
DHS has determined that it is necessary to expand its routine
biometric collections to include individuals associated with
immigration benefit requests or other requests or collection of
information, and to perform other functions related to administering
and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws, such as
verifying identity. Using biometrics for identity verification \6\ and
management will assist DHS's efforts to combat trafficking, confirm the
results of biographical criminal history checks, and deter fraud.
Therefore, DHS proposes in this rule that any applicant, petitioner,
sponsor, supporter, derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual
filing or associated \7\ with a benefit request or other request or
collection of information,\8\ including U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals
and lawful permanent residents, and without regard to age, must submit
biometrics unless DHS otherwise exempts the requirement. For the same
reasons, the proposed rule proposes to authorize DHS to require
biometrics for all aliens subject to section 240 removal proceedings,
as well as aliens processed through other removal pathways including
expedited removal under section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, and
aliens being processed for removal under section 238(b) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1228(b). This rule also proposes that DHS may collect biometrics
from aliens subject to reinstatement of a prior removal order under
section 241 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231, and aliens subject to removal
under the Visa Waiver Program, INA sec. 217, 8 U.S.C. 1187.
Additionally, DHS proposes to remove the age restrictions for
biometrics submission when issuing an NTA for section 240 removal
proceedings or when processing aliens for removal

[[Page 49065]]

through other pathways. See proposed 8 CFR 236.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See https://www.dhs.gov/biometrics (last updated Jan. 24,
2025).
\7\ By ``associated,'' DHS means a person with substantial
involvement or participation in the immigration benefit request,
other request, or collection of information, such as a named
derivative, beneficiary, petitioner's signatory, sponsor, or co-
applicant. The terms ``file,'' ``submit,'' ``associated with'' or
variations thereof, as used throughout this rule, do not relate to
attorneys and accredited representatives, although attorneys and
accredited representatives may file or submit a request on behalf of
a client. DHS, at this time, is not proposing biometrics submission
by attorneys and accredited representatives.
\8\ A ``collection of information'' includes forms filed with
USCIS that do not request an immigration benefit, but which provide
information, typically in support of someone who is requesting an
immigration benefit. For example, certain immigration benefits
require proof of sufficient financial resources or support (such as
parole based on urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
benefit) for the duration of the alien's stay in the United States.
In such instances, Form I-134, Declaration of Financial Support, is
filed by an individual who agrees to provide financial support to
the alien who requested the benefit, but the supporter is not
requesting a benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this rule is to establish a standard and provide
notice that every individual filing or associated with a benefit
request, other request, or collection of information is subject to the
biometrics requirement, unless DHS exempts a category of requests or
individuals, or a specific individual. This includes any alien
apprehended, arrested or encountered by DHS in the course of performing
its functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration
and naturalization laws of the United States. As it relates to benefit
requests, other requests and collections of information, notice of this
requirement will be added in the form instructions for the relevant
forms, as needed.
Under this proposed rule, if finalized, DHS will use biometrics for
identity management in the immigration lifecycle,\9\ which will assist
DHS in transitioning to a person-centric model to organize and manage
its records, manage unique identities, and verify immigration records.
Critically, it will also allow DHS to reduce reliance on biographic
data for identity management. In general, biographic data is associated
with an individual and is not intrinsically unique to that individual,
at least as such biographic data relates to identification. For
example, thousands of individuals may share the same name.
Additionally, biographic data possesses inherent characteristics that
limit its suitability for identity management, such that it can be
changed over time. A person's name could have multiple spellings, a
name can be legally changed, the digits in a date of birth could be
transposed, and any identifier could relate to multiple individuals.
Exclusive reliance on biographic data may result in errors,
misidentification of individuals, and the potential that immigration
benefits may be granted to ineligible or incorrect individuals or
imposters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Immigration lifecycle refers to the processing period
between an alien's first benefit request, other request, or
collection of information submission, encounter, or apprehension,
through naturalization or removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In contrast to biographic data, using biometrics for identity
verification and management in the immigration lifecycle will help
ensure that an individual's immigration records pertain only to that
specific individual. Biometrics-based identity management will also
help DHS locate, maintain, and update the individual's immigration
status, previously submitted identity documentation, as well as certain
biographic data. DHS proposes to collect biometrics at any age to
ensure the immigration records created for children can be related to
their adult records later, and to help combat child trafficking,
smuggling, and labor exploitation by facilitating identity
verification, while also confirming the absence of criminal history or
associations with terrorist organizations or gang membership.
In sum, the changes proposed in this rule will help DHS transition
towards a biometric based system for identity verification and
management. This will ensure that DHS can carry out its various
responsibilities under the INA related to the administration and
enforcement of the immigration and naturalization laws. It will also
help ensure that DHS grants immigration-related benefits only to
individuals who are statutorily eligible to receive them and will
enable DHS to more effectively enforce the immigration laws against
aliens who are potentially subject to removal.
DHS also plans to implement a program of continuous immigration
vetting and require that aliens receive continued and subsequent
evaluation to ensure they continue to present no risks to national
security or public safety subsequent to their entry. This rule proposes
that any individual alien who is present in the United States following
an approved immigration benefit may be required to submit biometrics--
without regard to any immigration filing--until they obtain or acquire
U.S. citizenship. The rule further proposes that a U.S. citizen, U.S.
national or lawful permanent resident may be required to submit
biometrics if he or she filed a benefit request, other request, or
collection of information in the past and it was either reopened or the
previous approval is relevant to a benefit request, other request, or
collection of information currently pending with DHS. The changes to
the use and collection of biometrics and expanded scope of populations
also are pertinent to CBP, ICE, and the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR), a component of the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ), given that immigration judges and the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) are prohibited from granting relief or
protection from removal to an alien 14 years of age or older unless an
ICE attorney reports that all required ``identity, law enforcement, or
security investigations or examinations'' have been completed. See INA
sec. 262, 8 U.S.C. 1302, and 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6) and 1003.47(g) (related
to fingerprinting biometrics specifically). ICE attorneys rely, in
part, on USCIS' biometric collection to confirm and report this.
Further, DHS has leeway in terms of which background and security
checks are performed in this regard. See ``Background and Security
Investigations in Proceedings Before Immigration Judges and the Board
of Immigration Appeals,'' 70 FR 4743, 4744 (2005) (``There is no need
for this rule to specify the exact types of background and security
checks that DHS may conduct with respect to aliens in proceedings.'').
As a result, this rule will help to ensure that ICE, immigration
judges, and the BIA are timely and fully informed of the results of all
identity, law enforcement, and security investigations prior to EOIR
granting an alien relief or protection from removal.
DHS recognizes that it is removing the age restrictions associated
with biometrics collection in DHS regulations, without DOJ making
conforming changes and removing the age restrictions associated with
biometrics collection in DOJ EOIR regulations. DHS and DOJ have
disparate authorities and processes for collecting biometrics.
Notwithstanding any conflict between DHS and DOJ authorities, DHS
regulatory provisions control all DHS biometrics collections, since DHS
can only collect biometrics under its own authorities, even if the
benefit is pending with DOJ. DHS collects biometrics on behalf of DOJ
as a courtesy to DOJ because of the existence of DHS/USCIS Application
Support Centers. However, DHS is not authorized to operate or collect
biometrics under DOJ authorities, and the rule does not seek to change
that. Each Department is bound by their respective authorities and
regulations. Noting that the expansion of the DHS regulations to
encompass a broader scope does not constrain, supersede, or diminish
the authority or application of the DOJ regulations in any respect. The
agencies will continue to resolve any conflicts that result from
disparate practices related to the collection and submission of
biometrics through operational guidance and intra-governmental
agreements when appropriate.
DHS anticipates that by removing age restrictions on the collection
of biometrics this rule will enhance the ability of ICE and CBP to
identify fraudulently claimed genetic relationships at the border and
upon encounter.\10\ Under the current interpretation of the Flores
Settlement Agreement, DHS is required to release

[[Page 49066]]

or transfer to a licensed facility as expeditiously as possible any
minor apprehended with a parent or legal guardian. This has led in the
past to the practice of DHS releasing families together if their cases
could not be fully resolved within approximately 20 days.\11\ This has
encouraged the proliferation of fraudulent family unit schemes wherein
unrelated adults and children claim genetic relationships in order to
secure prompt release into the United States. Alien smuggling
organizations are aware of this loophole and are taking full advantage
of it, placing children into the hands of adult strangers, so they can
pose as families and be released from immigration custody after
crossing the border, creating another safety issue for these
children.\12\ DHS's ability to collect biometrics, including DNA,
regardless of a minor's age, will allow DHS to accurately prove or
disprove claimed genetic relationships among apprehended aliens and
ensure that unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are properly identified
and cared for.\13\ Under the authority granted by the proposed rule, if
finalized, individual DHS components may establish an age threshold as
necessary for biometric collection specific to a particular component's
operational needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ To clarify, DHS is not proposing mandatory DNA collection
at U.S. ports of entry.
\11\ Flores v. Reno, 85-4544-RJK (C.D. CA, 1997) stipulated
settlement agreement.
\12\ See https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2018/02/15/unaccompanied-alien-children-and-family-units-are-flooding-border-because-catch-and (last updated Apr. 10, 2025).
\13\ DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for the Rapid DNA
Operational Use,'' DHS/ICE/PIA-050 (June 25, 2019), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-rapiddna-june2019_3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under this proposed rule, DHS may also require, request, or accept
raw DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or DNA test results, which include a
partial DNA profile,\14\ as evidence of genetic relationship, to
determine eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits or to
perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing
immigration and naturalization laws. Where evidence of a relationship
is required, this rule proposes to grant DHS express authority to
require, request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results (which include
a partial DNA profile) from relevant parties such as applicants,
petitioners, derivatives, dependents, and beneficiaries, to prove or
disprove the existence of a claimed, or unclaimed, genetic relationship
or biological sex.\15\ DHS recognizes that there are qualifying family
members, such as adopted children, who do not have a genetic
relationship to the individual who makes an immigration benefit request
on their behalf. To the extent the rule discusses using DNA evidence to
establish claimed or unclaimed relationships in support of certain
immigration benefit requests, it refers only to genetic relationships
that can be demonstrated through DNA testing. Current regulations
generally require documentary evidence such as marriage and birth
certificates, and secondary evidence such as medical records, school
records, religious documents, and affidavits to support claims based on
familial relationships. DHS currently does not have regulatory
provisions in place to require, request, or accept DNA testing results
to prove or disprove the existence of claimed or unclaimed genetic
relationships, but because documentary evidence may be unreliable or
unavailable, in some situations, individuals are allowed to voluntarily
submit DNA test results. Under this rule, DHS may expressly require,
request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results which include a partial
DNA profile to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed, or
unclaimed, genetic relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See Section IV--Discussion of Proposed Changes, Section B
for a discussion of ``partial DNA profile.''
\15\ This proposed rule is not concerned with, and creates no
authority to limit, DNA sample collection required by 34 U.S.C.
40702(a)(1)(A) and 28 CFR 28.12 from individuals who are arrested,
facing charges, or convicted and from non-United States persons who
are detained under the authority of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, under this rule, DHS may expressly require, request, or
accept raw DNA or DNA test results (which include a partial DNA
profile) as evidence to determine eligibility for immigration and
naturalization benefits or to perform any other functions necessary for
administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. For
example, DHS may request DNA evidence to prove or disprove an
individual's biological sex in instances where that determination will
impact benefit eligibility. DHS currently does not have regulatory
provisions in place to require, request, or accept DNA testing results
for such purposes, but because documentary evidence may be unreliable
or unavailable, in some situations, individuals may voluntarily submit
DNA test results.
DHS proposes to collect, treat, and locate raw DNA (the physical
sample taken from the applicable individual) that is taken as a
biometric modality distinct from the other biometric modalities it is
authorized to collect, at a DHS or DHS-authorized facility and further
proposes to not handle, store or share any raw DNA for any reason
beyond the original purpose of submission (e.g., to prove or disprove
the existence of a claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship or
biological sex), unless DHS is required to share by law.\16\ DNA test
results, which include a partial DNA profile, like other evidence,
becomes part of the record, and DHS will store and share DNA test
results for adjudication purposes, including to determine eligibility
for immigration benefits or to perform any other functions necessary
for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws, to
the extent permitted by law.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/understanding-our-data (last updated Dec. 2, 2020).
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent years, government agencies have grouped together
identifying features and actions, such as fingerprints, photographs,
and signatures under the broad term, biometrics. The terms, biometric
``information,'' ``identifiers,'' or ``data,'' are used to refer to all
of these modalities, including additional features such as ocular
image, palm print, voice print, and DNA. As a result, DHS has adopted
the practice of referring to fingerprints, photographs, and signature
collectively as ``biometrics,'' ``biometric information,'' or
``biometric services.'' With the exception of fingerprints, most laws
on the subject do not specify individual biometric modalities such as
ocular image, palm print, voice print, DNA, and/or any other biometric
modalities that may be collected from an individual in the future. DHS
is proposing to update the terminology in the applicable regulations to
uniformly use the term ``biometrics.'' DHS seeks to utilize a single,
inclusive term comprehensively throughout regulations and form
instructions. DHS proposes to define the term ``biometrics'' to clarify
and fully explain its authority to collect more than just
``fingerprints'' in connection with administering and enforcing the
immigration and naturalization benefits or other services, and to
expressly define ``biometrics'' to include a wider range of modalities
than just fingerprints, photographs and signatures. DHS proposes to
define the term ``biometrics'' to mean ``measurable biological
(anatomical, physiological or molecular structure) or behavioral
characteristics of an individual,'' and include a list of modalities of
biometric collection. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2. DHS

[[Page 49067]]

proposes the following biometrics as authorized biometric modalities
that DHS may request, require, or accept from individuals in connection
with services provided by DHS and to perform other functions related to
administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws:
Facial imagery (digital image, specifically for facial
recognition and facial comparison);
Prints (including fingerprints and palm prints);
Signature (handwritten);
Ocular imagery (to include iris, retina and sclera);
Voice (voice print, vocal signature, and voice
recognition); and/or
DNA (including partial DNA profile).
The proposed definition of biometrics would authorize the
collection of specific biometric modalities and the use of biometrics
for: identity enrollment, verification, and management in the
immigration lifecycle; national security and criminal history
background checks to support determinations of eligibility for
immigration and naturalization benefits; the production of secure
identity documents; to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or
unclaimed genetic relationship; establish biological sex (in
circumstances when needed to determine benefit eligibility) and to
perform other functions related to administering and enforcing the
immigration and naturalization laws. To conform to the proposed
definition, DHS proposes to remove individual references to
``fingerprints,'' ``photographs,'' and ``signatures'' in various
provisions of its regulations and replace them with the term
``biometrics.''
DHS has internal procedural safeguards to ensure technology used to
collect, assess, and store the differing modalities is accurate,
reliable, and valid.\18\ Further, as to any USCIS adjudication subject
to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16), if a decision will be adverse to an applicant,
petitioner, or requestor, and is based on unclassified derogatory
information the agency considered, including information obtained
through biometrics, he or she shall be advised of that fact and offered
an opportunity to rebut the information. DNA, while a biometric, would
only be collected in limited circumstances, for example to prove or
disprove existence of a claimed, or unclaimed, genetic relationship or
biological sex, to determine eligibility for immigration and
naturalization benefits, or perform any other function necessary for
administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See https://www.dhs.gov/biometrics (last updated Jan 24,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS originally codified restrictions on the ages of individuals
from whom biometrics could be collected based on the Department
policies, practice, and on technological limitations. For biometrics
use to expand to allow for identity management and verification through
the entire immigration lifecycle, this rule would allow for biometric
collection from any individual, without age limitation. Therefore, DHS
proposes to remove all age limitations or restrictions on biometrics
collection from current regulations in the context of both immigration
benefit requests, other requests, or collection of information,
entering or exiting the United States, NTA issuance, and to perform
other functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration
and naturalization laws.
DHS also proposes to consolidate sections of 8 CFR providing what
USCIS can or will do with an immigration benefit request, other
request, or collection of information, when required biometrics are not
submitted and how biometrics appointments may be rescheduled. DHS is
clarifying that it may reschedule a biometrics appointment in its
discretion. In instances when an individual has informed DHS of an
address change prior to the biometrics appointment, and the individual
did not receive a notification of appointment to that new address,
USCIS will reschedule the appointment.
DHS also proposes to incorporate a new standard that must be met if
an individual seeks to reschedule a biometric services appointment.
Under the proposed rule, an individual may reschedule their biometric
services appointment one time prior to the date of their scheduled
biometric services appointment for any reason. However, after the first
reschedule, the individual must meet the standard of ``extraordinary
circumstances'' to justify rescheduling a subsequent biometrics
services appointment any additional times. DHS also proposes to apply
the ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard if the individual fails to
appear at any biometric services appointment that was not
rescheduled.\19\ DHS believes in most cases the current ``good cause''
standard in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(ii) does not create a high enough
standard for rescheduling a biometrics appointment. The current ``good
cause'' standard allows appointments to be frequently rescheduled and
creates operational inefficiencies in the biometric submission process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Upon publication of this rule, USCIS will issue policy
guidance providing examples of ``extraordinary circumstances'' that
meet the standard for rescheduling a biometric services appointment.
USCIS similarly does not define the term ``good cause'' in the
current text of 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) but has issued accompanying policy
guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual. See USCIS Policy Manual, Volume
1, Part C, Chapter 2--Biometrics Collection, A--Biometric Services
Appointments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS further proposes to define instances that justify USCIS
biometric reuse for an individual who may have a pending benefit
request, other request, or collection of information that requires
biometric submission and has previously submitted biometrics for
another benefit request, other request, or collection of information.
In those situations, USCIS must obtain a positive biometric-based
identity verification before reusing an individual's previously
submitted biometrics to process a benefit request, other request, or
collection of information. Identity verification based solely upon a
comparison of the individual's name or other non-unique biographic
identification characteristics or data, or combinations thereof, does
not constitute positive identity verification and will not be permitted
to justify biometric reuse.
DHS is also proposing to remove or replace language that applies to
paper filings with language that encourages electronic filing.
References to position titles, form numbers, mailing addresses, copies,
and office jurisdiction are proposed to be removed. In addition, DHS is
proposing to remove internal USCIS processes from the regulatory text.
DHS is also proposing to eliminate outdated requirements for submitting
photographs for certain immigration benefit requests. The photograph
submission and use requirements specified in the INA may be met by the
collection and storage of digital images.
DHS is also proposing to require biometrics from U.S. citizens,
U.S. nationals, or lawful permanent residents, including when they
submit a family-based visa petition. This will assist in compliance
with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (AWA),\20\
which prohibits DHS from approving family-based immigrant visa
petitions and nonimmigrant fianc[eacute](e) visa petitions if the
petitioner has been convicted of certain offenses. In addition, the
International Marriage

[[Page 49068]]

Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) \21\ provides that petitioners for an
alien fianc[eacute](e) or alien spouse must submit criminal conviction
information for certain crimes. The DHS proposal will allow DHS to
review a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report of the
petitioner's criminal history to comply with the AWA and IMBRA. The
proposed requirement would extend to family-based petitions for a
spouse, fianc[eacute](e), parent, unmarried child under 21 years of
age, unmarried son or daughter 21 years of age or over, married son or
daughter of any age, sibling, and any derivative beneficiary of an
immigrant or nonimmigrant visa based on a familial relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Public Law 109-248, section 402; 120 Stat. 587, 622 (July
27, 2006); INA secs. 204(a)(1)(A)(viii) and (B)(i)(I).
\21\ Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), Public Law 109-162, 119
Stat. 2960 (2006); and (VAWA 2013), Public Law 113-4, sections 807-
8, 127 Stat. 54, 112-17; 8 U.S.C. 1375a); INA secs. 214(d)(1) and
(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with this, DHS proposes to require that Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners appear for biometric collection, and
to remove the language advising self-petitioners who have resided in
the United States for at least the 3-year period immediately preceding
the filing of the self-petition to submit police clearance letters as
evidence of good moral character, as well as the requirement that VAWA
self-petitioners submit an affidavit as primary evidence of their good
moral character. DHS will no longer need such police clearances or the
self-petitioner's affidavit because it will be able to obtain the self-
petitioner's criminal history using the submitted biometrics, reducing
the burden on both DHS and many self-petitioners.
VAWA self-petitioners are currently required to demonstrate that
they are persons of good moral character in order to be eligible for a
VAWA self-petition. USCIS generally looks at the 3-year period
immediately preceding the date the self-petition is filed, and may
consider any conduct, behavior, acts, or convictions. Good moral
character may be established by primary evidence, such as the self-
petitioner's affidavit and local police clearances, or state-issued
criminal background checks from each locality or state in the United
States where the self-petitioner has been physically present or resided
for 6 or more months during the 3 years before filing. While self-
petitioners are encouraged to submit primary evidence, when possible,
USCIS must consider any credible evidence relevant to the petition. DHS
proposes to require biometrics from VAWA self-petitioners to obtain the
self-petitioner's official FBI criminal history; support identity
enrollment, verification, and management in the immigration lifecycle;
and conduct national security and criminal history background checks.
The proposed change will reduce the evidence required to establish good
moral character for many self-petitioners. Law enforcement clearances
or background checks will be required for self-petitioners who resided
outside the United States or were physically present for 6 months or
more, during the 3-year period immediately preceding the filing of the
self-petition. DHS proposes to require the self-petitioner submit
arrest reports which occurred during the 3 years prior to filing the
self-petition, regardless of the petitioner residing or being
physically present in the jurisdiction for 6 or more months. In
addition, DHS proposes in certain cases to consider VAWA self-
petitioners' conduct beyond the 3 years immediately before filing where
earlier conduct is relevant to establishing the good moral character
for a VAWA self-petitioner. See proposed 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v),
(e)(2)(v), and (j)(2)(v).
DHS further proposes to remove the automatic presumption of good
moral character for VAWA self-petitioners under 14 years of age and
require VAWA self-petitioners under 14 to submit biometrics like any
other VAWA self-petitioner. Similarly, DHS proposes to eliminate the
requirement that VAWA self-petitioners submit police clearance letters,
unless they lived outside the United States during the requisite
period. Adjudicators would assess good moral character based on the
applicant's criminal history, national security background check, and
any other credible and relevant evidence submitted. DHS also proposes
to amend 8 CFR 245.23(g) to refer to the relevant ``continuous period''
rather than ``continued presence,'' and to provide that USCIS would be
able to consider the applicant's conduct beyond the requisite period,
where earlier conduct is relevant to the applicant's moral character
and conduct during the requisite period does not reflect a reform of
character.
DHS also proposes to remove the presumption of good moral character
for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants under 14 years of
age. The rule proposes that such applicants submit biometrics that
USCIS will use in the determination of good moral character and
provides USCIS with the authority to require additional evidence of
good moral character. See proposed 8 CFR 245.23(g). The proposed
changes would remove the superfluous need for police clearance letters
from T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants.
DHS proposes to continue its existing practice and collect
biometrics and perform background checks on U.S. citizens, lawful
permanent residents, and any other persons involved with an EB-5
regional center, new commercial enterprise or job-creating entity. See
INA sec. 203(b)(5)(H)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1152(b)(5)(H)(iii). USCIS proposes
to also continue its existing practice to review the results of
national security and criminal history background checks to decide
whether such persons involved with such entities, and the entities
themselves, are bona fide and eligible to participate in the regional
center program. Id.
DHS also proposes to remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1), ``Authority to waive
interview,'' and 8 CFR 216.4(b)(2), ``Location of interview'' as they
apply to a joint petition to remove the conditional basis of lawful
permanent resident status filed by the alien and the alien's spouse. As
any decision to waive the mandatory interview is purely discretionary,
and 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) simply reiterates this discretion, it serves no
purpose, especially since determining whether the eligibility
requirements for removal of conditions in 8 CFR 216.4(c) were
established is central to the adjudication of the petition itself.
Additionally, the limitation on who can conduct an interview and who
has jurisdiction over an interview created by 8 CFR 216.4(b)(2) is
unnecessary and creates operational restrictions that interfere with
USCIS' ability to adjudicate the Form I-751, Petition to Remove
Conditions on Residence. The decision to assign an interviewer and the
location of an interview is a purely operational and procedural
decision, and one that should be made upon the adjudicative priorities
and operational resources available to USCIS.
DHS does not plan to immediately expand all of its programs to
provide that all new biometrics modalities would be required of all
individuals as of the effective date of a potential final rule. Only
those revised forms that propose to add a particular biometric
collection or DNA submission requirement in conjunction with this rule
(as described in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble)
will be immediately subject to new biometrics, modalities, or DNA
requirements.\22\ DHS proposes that DHS component agencies may expand
or contract their biometrics submission requirements described within
this rule

[[Page 49069]]

in the future by notice in the Federal Register, updated form
instructions, or otherwise consistent with the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) and the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Under this proposed rule USCIS maintains the right to
request biometrics, as needed, via individualized notice to the
individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

USCIS is authorized to collect biometric services fees and has
generally incorporated the biometric services costs into most of the
underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric
services are applicable in its most recent rule addressing the USCIS
fee schedule (89 FR 6194, Jan. 31, 2024 (Fee Rule)).
In 2020, DHS previously published a similar Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend DHS regulations governing the use
and collection of biometrics in the enforcement and administration of
immigration laws (85 FR 56338, Sept. 11, 2020), however that NPRM was
later withdrawn in May 2021 consistent with E.O. 14012 (86 FR 8277,
Feb. 5, 2021), and the priorities of the administration at that time
(86 FR 24750, May 10, 2021). On January 20, 2025, E.O. 14012 was
rescinded by President Trump, and DHS intends to continue its previous
efforts to enhance biometric submission, while also ensuring that all
aliens seeking admission to the United States, or who are already in
the United States, are vetted and screened (E.O. 14159, 90 FR 8443,
Jan. 29, 2025; E.O. 14161, 90 FR 8451, Jan. 30, 2025).

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits

The proposed rule would enable DHS to conduct the administration
and adjudication of immigration benefit requests with increased
fidelity and is conducive to the evolution to a person-centric model
for organizing and managing its records, enhanced and continuous
vetting, and reduced dependence on paper documents, as is described
more fully in the preamble. DHS estimates that about 1.12 million more
biometrics submissions will be collected annually, and the resulting
biometrics-submitting population will increase from a current baseline
of 2.07 million to 3.19 million.
DHS estimates that the annual costs for individuals who will submit
biometrics under the proposed rule will be $231.5 million. This
includes costs to petitioners of family-based requests, costs to VAWA
self-petitioners and T nonimmigrant petitioners submitting evidence to
demonstrate good moral character, costs to potential persons involved
with regional centers, and fee costs incurred by Temporary Protected
Status (TPS) registrants and individuals in EOIR proceedings. DHS
estimates costs to the government of $55,040 for fees that the FBI will
collect for providing fingerprint-based Criminal History Record
Information (CHRI) checks prior to issuing NTAs. Combining the
biometrics portion, which includes the biometric services fees and fees
charged by the FBI related to CHRI checks (noted above), plus $57.1
million in the DNA submission costs, the total monetized costs of this
proposed rule will potentially be $288.7 million annually. To compare
costs over a 10-year period of analysis Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 through
FY 2035, DHS applies 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates to the
total estimated costs of the proposed rule. DHS estimates the 10-year
total costs of the proposed rule to be $2.5 billion discounted at 3
percent, and $2.0 billion discounted at 7 percent.
The proposed rule will benefit the public by reducing the
evidentiary burden of VAWA self-petitioners and T nonimmigrant
petitioners who will in most cases no longer have to gather evidence
such as police clearance reports and affidavits to demonstrate good
moral character. It will provide individuals requesting or associated
with immigration and naturalization benefits a more reliable system for
verifying their identity when submitting a benefit request. This will
limit the potential for identity theft while also reducing the
likelihood that DHS will be unable to verify an individual's identity
and consequently deny the benefit. DHS is unable to quantify this
benefit because it has no data on how often these events happen under
existing regulations. Increasing the types of biometrics collected will
allow for better identification of individuals because each modality
increases the unique physical, biological or behavioral characteristics
that USCIS can use to identify the individual.
Finally, the allowance of individuals to use DNA testing as
evidence to demonstrate the existence of a claimed genetic relationship
provides them the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship
using quicker, less intrusive, and more effective technology than the
blood tests provided for in past regulations. See 8 CFR
204.2(d)(2)(vi). Similarly, the use of DNA test results as evidence to
establish biological sex will also allow applicants to provide proof
without the need to produce additional documentation such as birth
records, or other information.
The proposed rule will benefit the U.S. Government by providing it
with the necessary tools to tackle and limit identity fraud and improve
USCIS identity management systems. The proposed rule will enable DHS to
have more fidelity and efficiency in identity management in the
immigration lifecycle and vetting of individuals seeking certain
immigration and naturalization benefits. Expanding the population
subject to biometrics submission provides DHS with the ability to
better identify and limit fraud because biometrics comprise unique
physical or behavioral characteristics that are difficult to falsify
and are less likely to change over time the way biographical
information does in the majority of cases. Biometrics will also help to
reduce the administrative burden involved in identity verification and
the performance of criminal history checks, by reducing the need for
manual document review and name-based security checks. The proposed
rule will also enhance the U.S. Government's capability to identify
criminal activity and protect vulnerable groups by extending the
submission of biometrics to populations under certain benefit requests.
The removal of age restrictions and the collection of biometrics from
all aliens under the age of 14 will assist DHS in its mission to combat
human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation,
and alien smuggling.

III. Background and Purpose

A. Legal Authority and Guidance for DHS Collection and Use of
Biometrics

As discussed in detail below in section IV of this preamble, DHS is
proposing to amend its regulations governing its use and collection of
biometrics by USCIS and other DHS components. In short, the key
proposed changes include:
Requiring any individual filing or associated with an
immigration-related benefit request or other request adjudicated by
DHS, regardless of age, to appear for biometrics submission unless
exempted.
Clarifying the purposes for which biometrics are
collected, stored, and utilized and when they can be reused, including
for enhanced and continuous vetting.
Expanding biometrics collection authority upon alien
arrest or encounter.
Defining the term ``biometrics'' as the measurable
biological (anatomical, physiological and molecular structure) or
behavioral characteristics of an individual. Modalities meeting this
definition of biometrics include but are not limited to DHS-approved:
facial imagery (digital image, specifically for facial recognition and
facial comparison), prints (including fingerprints and palm prints),
signature (handwritten), ocular imagery (to include iris, retina, and
sclera), voice (including voice print, vocal signature,

[[Page 49070]]

and voice recognition), and DNA (partial DNA profile).
Specifying that DHS may require, request, or accept the
submission of raw DNA or DNA test results to prove or disprove the
existence of a claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship or as evidence
of biological sex when a relationship or biological sex is relevant to
an individual's statutory eligibility for an immigration-related
benefit.
Using biometrics for VAWA self-petitioners and T
nonimmigrant status applicants for assessing good moral character; and
Establishing an ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard
to govern an individual's request to reschedule a biometric services
appointment in certain circumstances, or when an individual fails to
appear for appointment.
DHS has broad statutory authority under the INA to make these
proposed changes. First, INA sec. 103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1),
provides DHS with expansive authority to administer and enforce the
nation's immigration and naturalization laws, and INA sec. 103(a)(3), 8
U.S.C. 1103(a)(3), provides the Secretary of Homeland Security (``the
Secretary'') with the authority to issue forms, regulations,
instructions, other papers, and perform such other acts the Secretary
deems necessary to carry out DHS's functions under the INA. See also 6
U.S.C. 202 (authorities of the Secretary). Under the INA, DHS, through
USCIS, has authority to adjudicate most immigration-related
benefits,\23\ and DHS components including ICE and CBP have authority
related to the apprehension, inspection and admission, detention, and
removal of aliens encountered in the interior of the United States or
at or between the U.S. ports of entry.\24\ Accordingly, the Secretary
has broad authority to issue regulations necessary to carry out DHS's
functions related to immigration benefits and enforcement of the
immigration laws. Establishing and verifying an individual's identity
using biometrics falls within this authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Section 415(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(``HSA''), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 271(b)
transferred authority from DOJ to DHS to adjudicate most
immigration-related benefits under INA, and charged USCIS, under the
direction of the Secretary and the Director of USCIS with exercising
this function. See also DHS, ``Delegation to The Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services,'' Delegation of Authority
0150.1, https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=234775.
\24\ See INA secs. 235, 236, 241, 8 U.S.C. 1225, 1226, 1231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 287(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1357(b), also provides DHS with
authority for this proposed rule. That statute provides DHS with broad
discretion and authority to ``take and consider evidence concerning the
privilege of any person to enter, reenter, pass through, or reside in
the United States, or concerning any matter which is material or
relevant to the enforcement of this chapter and the administration of
the Service.'' \25\ Id. DHS's authority to adjudicate benefits under
the INA necessarily includes an obligation to ensure that benefits are
granted only to those individuals who are statutorily eligible and
warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. If finalized, this proposed
rule would enhance DHS's ability to take and use evidence, through
biometrics, to better ensure that USCIS grants benefits only to
eligible individuals and identifies criminal or other threat actors
attempting to obtain immigration benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Prior to the HSA, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization
Service (``INS'') administered the provisions of the INA related to
immigration enforcement and benefits adjudication. In 2002, Congress
abolished the INS and transferred these functions to the then-newly
created DHS. By operation of the HSA, certain references to the
``Attorney General'' and the ``Service'' in the INA are understood
to refer to the ``Secretary'' and ``DHS''. HSA 1517, 6 U.S.C. 557.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As explained below in section IV of the preamble, this proposed
rule, if finalized, would allow DHS to collect and use biometrics more
robustly to help verify and manage an individual's identity to deter
fraud and provide DHS with increased fidelity in benefits
adjudications. It would also enhance DHS's ability to complete
background, criminal history, and other immigration history checks
necessary to adjudicate certain benefits consistent with law. The
expanded use of DNA would enable DHS to confirm or non-confirm
eligibility for certain family-based immigration-benefit requests where
relevant. This rule, if finalized, would also support DHS's efforts to
use biometrics more robustly through enhanced and continuous vetting to
ensure that aliens who have been granted benefits under the INA should
continue to have the ``privilege'' of ``residing'' in the United States
and are not a risk to national security or the public safety. It would
also support DHS's ability to collect and use or reuse biometrics to
establish identity throughout the immigration lifecycle which will
increase the effective and efficient ``administration'' of DHS
functions related to benefits adjudications. Therefore, this proposed
rule fits within the authority granted under INA sec. 287(b), 8 U.S.C.
1357(b).
For similar reasons, INA sec. 235(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(3),
provides additional authority for this proposed rule. This statute
provides that the Secretary and immigration officers shall:

have power . . . to take and consider evidence of or from any person
touching the privilege of any alien or person he believes or
suspects to be an alien to enter, reenter, transit through, or
reside in the United States or concerning any matter which is
material and relevant to the enforcement of this chapter and the
administration of the Service.

This statute, in addition to the other statutes discussed above,
provides authority to collect biometrics from all inadmissible and
deportable aliens, regardless of age, that are subject to section 240
removal proceedings or other proceedings under INA secs. 235 (expedited
removal) and 238(b) (aggravated felon removal), 8 U.S.C. 1225, 1238(b),
in addition to certain other removable aliens, as proposed in this
rule.
Accordingly, DHS is proposing to issue this regulation pursuant to
the Secretary's broad authority under INA sec. 103(a), 8 U.S.C.
1103(a), to issue regulations necessary to carry out DHS's various
functions and authorities under the INA, including under INA secs.
287(b) and 235(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1357(b) and 1225(d)(3), and the various
statutes in the INA related to benefits administered and adjudicated by
DHS.
1. Background Checks
In addition to DHS's broad authorities discussed above, various
provisions of the INA governing immigration benefits impose an
obligation on USCIS to confirm that an alien has not been convicted of
a disqualifying offense and does not pose a threat to national security
or public safety. Indeed, DHS is precluded in many cases from
approving, granting, or providing immigration benefits to aliens with a
record of certain criminal offenses or administrative violations.\26\
Whether granting a benefit is discretionary or not, criminal histories
are relevant because they are used to determine eligibility for
benefits and are part of the totality of the circumstances that USCIS
considers when making a discretionary determination. Additionally, DHS
is mandated to protect the American public from ``aliens who intend to
commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse
hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for
malevolent purposes'' and to ``vet and screen to the maximum degree
possible all aliens

[[Page 49071]]

who intend to be admitted, enter, or are already inside the United
States.'' See E.O. 14161 secs. 1(a) and 2(a), 90 FR 8451, (Jan. 20,
2025). Therefore, DHS adjudications must include national security
considerations and criminal history background checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ DHS would like to note that limitations on biometric
collection or use in this proposed rule would not impact existing
law enforcement authorities or other national security or
intelligence gathering activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, one statute precludes the filing of a family-based
immigrant petition by someone who has been convicted of a ``specified
offense against a minor.'' See INA sec. 204(a)(1)(A)(viii), 8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)(viii). The criminal and security-related grounds of
inadmissibility found in INA secs. 212(a)(2) through (3), 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(2) through (3), apply to many benefits, such as adjustment to
lawful permanent resident status, refugee status, and TPS. The INA
provides that refugee applicants must be admissible as immigrants and
the criminal, security, and terrorism-related grounds of
inadmissibility apply to refugee applicants. See INA sec. 207(c)(1), 8
U.S.C. 1157(c)(1); INA sec. 212, 8 U.S.C. 1182. The INA provides that
asylum may be granted on a discretionary basis. See INA sec.
208(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(1)(A). It provides that asylum
applicants are subject to mandatory criminal and security bars. See INA
sec. 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A). Sections of the INA apply
the criminal, security, and terrorism-related bars to TPS applicants,
including the mandatory asylum bars above. See INA secs.
244(c)(2)(A)(iii) through (B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(A)(iii) through
(B). Various INA sections require that adjustment of status applicants
be admissible in order to qualify. See, e.g., INA secs. 245(a)(2) and
209(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. 1159(b)(5). The INA also
provides a good moral character requirement for any applicant to be
naturalized. See INA sec. 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3).
As discussed further below in section III.B. of this preamble,
USCIS has long required aliens and certain other individuals associated
with benefits applications to submit certain biometrics. USCIS needs
these biometrics to run background checks to verify that an individual
is not statutorily ineligible for the requested benefit and to protect
national security and public safety. This proposed rule, if finalized,
would enhance DHS's ability to establish an individual's identity
through required biometrics collections and expanded modalities, which
in turn will increase USCIS' ability to run background checks more
quickly and with greater accuracy as discussed below.
Other statutes explicitly authorize DHS to conduct biometric
services in relation to national security and public safety purposes.
For example, Congress directed in the Uniting and Strengthening America
by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat.
354 (2001), reauthorized by Public Law 114-23, 129 Stat. 268 (2015)
(codified at note to 8 U.S.C. 1365a, that ``biometric technology''
should be utilized in the development of the integrated entry-exit
system originally mandated by the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 104-208, 110
Stat. 3009 (1996) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1365a). The Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat.
3638 (2004) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1365b), required the
completion of a biometric data system to facilitate efficient
immigration benefits processing and to protect the United States by
preventing the entry of terrorists. These statutes reflect that
Congress has recognized the importance and value of biometrics to the
administration and enforcement of immigration laws, including to make
the process of identifying aliens more efficient and accurate, and to
protect national security. Although the primary focus of this proposed
rule is biometrics collection and use for immigration-related benefits
and processes, the rule is consistent with these overall goals. For
USCIS, any limitations on the collection or use of biometrics in this
proposed rule does not impact DHS law enforcement authorities or other
national security or intelligence gathering activities.
Background checks are also required by EOIR regulation for aliens
who apply for relief and protection in removal proceedings.
Specifically, immigration judges and the BIA are prohibited from
granting relief and protection to an alien unless an ICE attorney
reports that all required ``identity, law enforcement, or security
investigations or examinations'' have been completed. See 8 CFR
1003.1(d)(6) and 1003.47(g). Indeed, as pertaining to asylum
applications, there is a statutory basis for such background checks as
well. See INA sec. 208(d)(5)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(i); See also
8 CFR 1208.10. To the extent that any controversy may arise
interpreting DHS and DOJ regulations regarding the removal of age
restrictions for biometrics collection, DHS is not authorized to
operate or collect biometrics under DOJ authorities, and this rule does
not seek to change that. Each department is bound by their respective
regulations. The agencies will continue to resolve any conflicts that
result from disparate practices related to the collection and
submission of biometrics through operational guidance and intra-
governmental agreements when appropriate.
2. Secure Document Production
Still other statutes require the collection of biometrics for
secure document production. For example, photographs are required by
statute to create certificates of naturalization. See INA sec. 333(a),
8 U.S.C. 1444(a). Additionally, an alien granted asylum will be granted
an employment authorization document (EAD) that shall at a minimum
contain the fingerprint and photograph of such alien. See 8 U.S.C.
1738. Relatedly, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
of 2002 (Border Security Act), Public Law 107-173, 116 Stat. 543
(2002), requires that DHS issue aliens machine-readable, tamper-
resistant visas and other travel and entry documents using biometric
identifiers. See 8 U.S.C. 1732(b)(1).
3. Biometric Collection From U.S. Citizens, U.S. Nationals, and Lawful
Permanent Residents
DHS is also authorized to collect the biometrics of U.S. citizens,
U.S. nationals and lawful permanent resident petitioners of family-
based immigrant petitions, and U.S. citizen petitioners of nonimmigrant
fianc[eacute](e) petitions, to determine if a petitioner has been
convicted of certain crimes pursuant to the AWA, Public Law 109-248,
120 Stat. 587 (2006) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18
and 42 U.S.C.) See INA secs. 402(a) and (b) (applicable immigration
provisions), and IMBRA, Public Law 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960 (2006)
(codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1375a). The AWA:
Prohibits U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals and lawful
permanent residents who have been convicted of any ``specified offense
against a minor'' from filing a family-based immigrant visa petition on
behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary determines, in his or
her sole and unreviewable discretion, that the petitioner poses ``no
risk'' to the beneficiary. INA secs. 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) and
(B)(i)(II); 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) and (B)(i)(II).
Renders ineligible to file ``K'' nonimmigrant
fianc[eacute](e) petitions those U.S. citizens convicted of such
offenses, unless the Secretary determines, in his or her sole and
unreviewable discretion,

[[Page 49072]]

that the petitioner poses ``no risk'' to the fianc[eacute](e)
beneficiary. INA sec. 101(a)(15)(K), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K).
Independent of the AWA, USCIS is also required to disclose
information regarding certain violent arrests and convictions for some
U.S. citizen petitioners who file K-visas for fianc[eacute]s or spouses
in accordance with IMBRA, 8 U.S.C. 1375a.
4. Required Biometric Collections
Several sections of the INA also require DHS to collect certain
biometrics from certain aliens for specific purposes. For example:
INA sec. 203(b)(5)(H)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(H)(iii),
requires the Secretary to collect ``fingerprints or other biometrics''
from certain purposes related to the EB-5 visa category, specifically
the regional center program.
INA secs. 333 and 335, 8 U.S.C. 1444 and 1446, require the
submission of photographs and a personal investigation before an
application for naturalization, citizenship or other similar requests
may be approved.
INA sec. 262(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(a), generally
requires aliens aged 14 and older, in the United States, to register
with DHS and be fingerprinted, and INA sec. 264, 8 U.S.C. 1302,
generally directs DHS to prepare registration and fingerprinting forms
for such aliens.
INA sec. 287(f), 8 U.S.C. 1357(f), requires DHS to
fingerprint and photograph each alien 14 years of age or older when DHS
issues an NTA.
These statutes require DHS to, at minimum, collect certain
biometrics for certain populations, but they do not preclude or limit
DHS from collecting additional modalities or expanding the populations
subject to biometric requirements. Under this proposed rule, DHS will
continue to collect the required biometrics from the individuals and
aliens covered by these statutes. However, this rule proposes to expand
the biometric modalities that DHS may collect from these individuals
and others covered by the rule. Moreover, upon publication of this
rule, DHS may require the submission of biometrics without regard to
age from aliens against whom proceedings based on inadmissibility under
section 212(a) of the INA or deportability under section 237 of the Act
are initiated, including proceedings under sections 235, 238(b), and
240 of the INA. See proposed 8 CFR 236.5.
As discussed above in this section of the preamble, DHS has broad
authority and discretion, including under INA secs. 103(a), 287(b), and
235(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), 1357(b) and 1225(d)(3), to collect
biometrics from any person to establish and verify an individual's
identity, eligibility for a benefit, and for other purposes material
and relevant to DHS's benefits adjudication and enforcement functions
under the INA. This authority also includes taking measures like the
biometrics requirements proposed in this rule that are necessary for
the effective and efficient administration of these functions.
Therefore, Congress's decision to require certain biometric modalities
from certain populations, does not limit DHS's broad authority to
collect additional biometrics or expand the populations subject to
biometrics submission requirements.
5. Administrative Guidance
This proposed rule is also consistent with non-statutory guidance
on effective mechanisms for foreign national vetting, screening, and
identification. DHS was directed by executive branch guidance to take
actions that require a robust system for biometrics collection,
storage, and use related to providing adjudication and naturalization
services of immigration benefits. For example, with respect to secure
documents, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 11,
``Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures,'' (Aug. 27,
2004) directs DHS to ``incorporate security features . . . that resist
circumvention to the greatest extent possible.'' DHS is directed to
consider the ``. . . information individuals must present, including,
as appropriate, the type of biometric identifier[s] or other form of
identification or identifying information to be presented, at
particular screening opportunities.'' DHS was also directed to expand
the use of biometrics, consistent with applicable law, to identify and
screen for individuals who may pose a threat to national security by
HSPD 24, ``Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance
National Security,'' (June 5, 2008). Further, National Security
Presidential Memorandum--9 established the DHS-led National Vetting
Center to improve vetting ``to identify potential threats to national
security, border security, homeland security, and public safety'', and
included expanding biometric integration, sharing, and use to that
end.\27\ More recently, DHS is directed, by E.O. 14161, to ``identify
all resources that may be used to ensure that all aliens seeking
admission to the United States, or who are already in the United
States, are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible'' with
the intended goal to ``protect its citizens from aliens who intend to
commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse
hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for
malevolent purposes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ ``Optimizing the Use of Federal Government Information in
Support of the National Vetting Enterprise'' (Aug.5, 2018). https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NSPM-9%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Use of Biometrics by DHS

Current regulations provide both general authorities for the
collection of biometrics in connection with administering immigration
and naturalization benefits as well as requirements specific to certain
benefit types.\28\ Moreover, USCIS has authority under its current
regulations to require an applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary,
or individual filing a benefit request, other request, or collection of
information to appear for biometrics. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). In
addition, DHS has the authority to require biometrics and payment of
any associated biometric services fee from any applicant, petitioner,
sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing or seeking a
benefit request, other request, or collection of information on a case-
by-case basis, through form instructions, or through a Federal Register
notice. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 103.16(a), 204.2(a)(2) (requiring evidence
of the claimed relationship), 204.3(c)(3) (requiring
fingerprinting), 204.2(d)(2)(vi) (authorizing blood testing),
245a.2(d) (requiring photographs and a completed fingerprint card),
and 316.4(a) (referring to form instructions which may require
photographs and fingerprinting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The former INS first used fingerprints for immigration processing
solely for the purpose of performing criminal history background checks
related to applications for which eligibility required good moral
character or non-existence of a record of certain criminal offenses.
See, e.g., 63 FR 12979 (Mar. 17, 1998) (prohibiting the former INS from
accepting fingerprints for the purpose of conducting criminal
background checks unless collected by certain U.S. Government
entities). The beneficiary or applicant would submit fingerprints which
were then checked against FBI databases to determine if they matched
any criminal activity on file. The fingerprints were not retained by
the INS and delays in processing would often result in individuals
needing to submit fingerprints multiple times for the same application.
Photographs were not historically collected by INS as a biometric
identifier. For those immigration benefit requests that required a
photograph to produce a resulting identity document, the regulations
required submission of a

[[Page 49073]]

passport-style photograph. See, e.g., 8 CFR 204.2, 8 CFR 2210.5, and 8
CFR 264.2.
Today, DHS handles biometrics differently. Biometrics are still
used in criminal history background checks to determine eligibility for
immigration benefits and for public safety, fraud, and national
security vetting. In addition, biometrics may be stored by DHS and used
to verify an individual's identity in subsequent encounters with DHS.
These encounters could vary from travel to and from the United States
where an individual may encounter CBP officers, to arrest and detention
by law enforcement components such as ICE, or to initiate removal
proceedings.
DHS also uses collected biometric information for document
production related to immigration benefits and status, including but
not limited to: Travel Documents (Form I-512L), Permanent Resident
Cards (Form I-551), Employment Authorization Documents (Form I-766),
Certificates of Citizenship (Form N-560), Certificates of
Naturalization (Form N-550), Replacement Certificates of Citizenship
(Form N-561), and Replacement Certificates of Naturalization (Form N-
570).\29\ Most of these secure documents are created using the digital
photograph (and signature) that is taken by DHS at an ASC, and not the
paper photograph mailed with the benefit request.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence
or Adjust Status; Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent
Resident Card; Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization;
Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship; Form N-400,
Application for Naturalization; Form N-565, Application for
Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document; See also, 8 U.S.C.
1732(b) (Machine-readable, tamper-resistant entry and exit
documents, Requirements) and 8 CFR 264.1(b) (Registration and
fingerprinting).
\30\ The paper photograph is retained and may be used to verify
the identity of an applicant who is required to be interviewed by
comparing it to the digitally captured photograph or the applicant's
motor vehicle operator's license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of the benefit adjudications process, DHS must first verify
the identity of an individual applying for or seeking any benefit.
Biometric identity verification helps protect against fraud and
imposters in subsequent encounters or filings for immigration benefits.
Second, DHS must determine if the individual is eligible to receive the
requested benefit. That determination may focus on the criminal,
national security, and immigration history of the individual, depending
on the eligibility requirements for the particular benefit type, and is
accomplished through national security and criminal history background
checks.
The immigration history review includes a review of the
individual's current immigration status, current and past immigration
filings, and whether previous immigration benefits were granted or
denied. DHS conducts national security and criminal history background
checks on individuals applying for an immigration benefit because U.S.
immigration laws preclude DHS from granting many immigration and
naturalization benefits to individuals with certain criminal or
administrative violations, or with certain disqualifying
characteristics (e.g., certain communicable diseases, association with
terrorist organizations, or lack of good moral character), while also
providing DHS discretion in granting an immigration benefit in many
instances.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See, e.g., INA sec 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)
(mandatory bars to asylum); INA secs. 245(a) through (k), 8 U.S.C.
1255(a)(2) (admissibility requirements for adjustment of status
applicants); INA sec. 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3) (good moral
character requirement for naturalization).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS conducts multiple types of national security and criminal
history background checks, including but not limited to: (1) biographic
information-based checks such as the FBI Name Check, and (2) biometrics
checks against the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System
(IDENT), the FBI Next Generation Identification (NGI) system, and the
Department of Defense (DoD) Automated Biometric Identification System
(ABIS).^{32 33 34} DHS also uses biometrics to determine if an
individual has ties in their background, to activities such as an
association with human rights violations, involvement in terrorist
activities, or affiliation with terrorist organizations rendering them
inadmissible. To that end, DHS may vet an individual's biometrics
against data sets of foreign partners in accordance with international
arrangements.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ IDENT will be replaced by a system called the Homeland
Advanced Recognition Technology (HART). DHS will use the term
``IDENT'' in this rule to refer to both the current and successor
systems.
\33\ The FBI NGI system is operated by the FBI's Criminal
Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division and provides the
criminal justice community with multi-modal biometric and criminal
history information. See ``Privacy Impact Assessment Update for
Biometric Interoperability Between the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and the U.S. Department of Justice,'' (Oct. 13, 2011),
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_nppd_visit_update-b.pdf. FBI's NGI database, in turn,
also provides access to DoD's ABIS database.
\34\ DoD's ABIS system is operated by the DoD and contains
biometric records of individuals encountered overseas by the DoD
that include known or suspected terrorists. The biographic and
biometric data from ABIS is also transferred to the DoD's Special
Operations Force Exhibition (SOFEX) Portal for additional biometric
matching. Once complete, the NGI system forwards responses back from
both the NGI and the ABIS systems to the IDENT system. When data is
initially submitted and processed through IDENT, NGI, and ABIS, an
ICE Analyst conducts biometric and biographic checks against other
law enforcement and classified Intelligence Community databases
before processing, exploiting, summarizing, and disseminating
findings to the relevant ICE Attach[eacute] and Biometric
Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program (BITMAP) PMT.
\35\ See DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for the International
Biometric Information Sharing Program (IBIS),'' DHS/ALL/PIA-095,
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsallpia-095-international-biometric-information-sharing-program-ibis; DHS, ``Privacy Impact
Assessment for the Immigration Benefits Background Check System
(IBBCS),'' DHS/USCIS/PIA-033, https://www.dhs.gov/publication/immigration-benefits-background-check-systems-ibbcs; ``Statement of
Mutual Understanding on Information Sharing,'' https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/statement-mutual-understanding-information-sharing/statement.html (last
updated Feb. 19, 2003); ``Canada (13-1121)--Agreement for the
Sharing of Visa and Immigration Information,'' (Dec. 21, 2013),
https://www.state.gov/13-1121; ``Agreement between the United States
of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, Amending the agreement of April 18, 2013, as amended,''
(Dec. 31, 2020), https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20-1231.3-Consular-Affairs-Visa-UK.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The DHS biometrics process for benefits adjudication purposes
generally begins with the collection of an individual's biometrics at
an authorized biometrics collection site, including DHS offices, ASCs,
military installations, U.S. consular offices abroad, and, in some
cases, Federal, State, and local law enforcement installations.
Biometrics may also be collected digitally by an agency-approved
technology. Domestically, DHS established a robust program to allow
individuals to provide biometrics at ASC facilities, where individuals
are generally scheduled to appear at a location close to their address
of record. DHS has also established mobile biometrics collection
capabilities domestically for certain limited scenarios (e.g., those
who are homebound or reside in certain remote locations). For
collections outside the United States, biometrics may be handled
differently. When biometrics are required by DHS and DHS does not have
a presence in that country, the Department of State (DOS) will continue
to collect biometrics on behalf of DHS. In cases where DOS will issue a
boarding foil, immigrant visa, or non-immigrant visa associated with a
DHS form, DOS will continue to collect biometrics under its existing
authority.
Currently, USCIS biometrics consist of a photograph, fingerprints,
and signature to conduct identity, eligibility, national security, and
criminal history background checks, and in certain

[[Page 49074]]

situations, voluntary DNA testing to verify a claimed genetic
relationship. For certain family-based benefit requests, where other
evidence proves inconclusive, USCIS accepts, but does not require, DNA
test results obtained from approved laboratories (along with other
necessary identifiers, such as a name and date of birth), as evidence
to assist in establishing the existence of genetic relationships. In
these limited cases where DNA test results are voluntarily submitted,
USCIS requires that DNA test results establish a sufficient probability
of the existence of the alleged relationship to be accepted as evidence
of that relationship.
DHS is bound by the confidentiality provisions of section 1367 of
title 8 of the U.S. Code, ``Penalties for disclosure of information''
(originally enacted as section 384 of IIRIRA). Unless certain statutory
exceptions apply (e.g., the alien was convicted of a crime or crimes
listed at INA 237(a)(2), etc.), all DHS officers and employees are
generally prohibited from permitting use by or disclosure to anyone
other than a sworn officer or employee of DHS, DOS, or DOJ of any
information relating to a beneficiary of a pending or approved request
for certain victim-based immigration benefits, such as an abused spouse
waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove conditions on
residence, a VAWA self-petition by an abused spouse or child of a U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident, VAWA cancellation of removal or
suspension of deportation, or application or petition for T or U
nonimmigrant status, including the fact that they have requested such a
benefit. Importantly, the protection against disclosure extends to all
records or other information, including those that do not specifically
identify the individual as an applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary of
the T visa, U visa, or VAWA protections, and only ends when the benefit
request is denied and all opportunities for appeal of the denial have
been exhausted. Therefore, the biometric collection contemplated here
would also be protected from disclosure during that period in
accordance with the requirements and exceptions found in 8 U.S.C. 1367.
Thus, DHS has not separately codified the section 1367 protections in
this proposed rule.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes

A. Use of Biometrics for Identity Management and Enhanced Vetting

DHS requires the submission of biometrics for certain immigration
benefit requests \36\ and for law enforcement purposes, including
functions incident to apprehending, arresting, processing, and care and
custody of aliens.\37\ In addition, DHS has the authority to require
biometrics and a biometric services fee from any applicant, petitioner,
sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing a request on a
case-by-case basis via individual notice. Notice of this requirement
may also be made through law, regulation, form instructions or as
provided in a Federal Register notice. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9),
103.7(b)(1)(i)(C), and 103.17. Under this construct, although DHS has
the authority to collect biometrics from any applicant, petitioner,
sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing a request,
biometrics are only mandatory for certain benefit requests. For all
others, DHS must decide if the benefit requested, or circumstances of
the request, justifies collection of biometrics and, if so, notify an
individual that their biometrics are required along with when and where
they will be collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 204.310(b), 210.2(c)(2)(i), 210.5(b)(2),
212.7(e)(3)(ii), 214.2(w)(16), 245.15(g)(1), 245a.2(d),
245a.4(b)(4).
\37\ See e.g., 8 CFR 236.5 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to flip the current
construct from one where biometrics may be collected based on past
practices, individual notice, regulations, or the form instructions for
a particular benefit, to a system under which biometrics are required
for any immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of
information unless DHS determines that biometrics are unnecessary for a
specific population or benefit.
To this end, DHS is proposing to revise 8 CFR 103.16 to require
that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual
filing or associated with a benefit request, other request, or
collection of information, to include U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals,
and lawful permanent residents, and without regard to age, must submit
biometrics, unless DHS otherwise exempts the requirement. See proposed
8 CFR 103.16(a)(1).\38\ This proposed rule would also give DHS
discretion to require any individual associated with such requests or
collections of information to submit or update biometrics while the
request is pending with DHS for adjudication. See proposed 8 CFR
103.16(c)(1). DHS also proposes to establish standards related to
scheduling, rescheduling, and failure to appear at biometrics
appointments to better ensure that biometrics collections do not slow
down USCIS' adjudication of benefits requests, other requests, and
collections of information as discussed below in section IV.E of this
preamble.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ As explained more fully later in this preamble, DHS is not
proposing that the requirement that any applicant, petitioner,
sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a
benefit request or other request, U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals and
lawful permanent residents, and without regard to age, must appear
for biometrics collection will apply to DNA.
\39\ DHS will make reasonable efforts that are consistent with
the Government's need for biometrics in certain contexts and will
comply with all requirements that are applicable under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed further below, these proposed changes, if finalized,
would increase DHS's ability to collect and use biometrics to establish
and verify, with greater certainty, the identity of individuals
requesting or associated with immigration-related benefits. DHS
believes that the proposed changes, if finalized, would enhance DHS's
ability to ensure that benefits are granted only to those who are
eligible and to identify fraud, national security, and public safety
risks during the benefits adjudication process, while also improving
services to those who submit such benefit requests. USCIS' use of
biometrics for criminal history background checks and document
production is outdated.
As outlined above, DHS has broad statutory authority to administer
and enforce immigration laws and adjudicate immigration-related
benefits. This authority necessarily includes the use of tools, such as
biometrics, needed to better verify identity and statutory eligibility,
and to determine whether or not the individual poses a risk to national
security or public safety in those instances where these factors may
impact eligibility for an immigration benefit. Moreover, this proposed
rule is intended to increase the collection and use of biometric
information beyond benefits eligibility determinations. To this end,
DHS proposes to expand the population of aliens who are subject to
biometrics collection upon apprehension, arrest, or encounter by: (1)
clarifying that DHS may require biometrics for all aliens subject to
section 240 removal proceedings, as well as aliens processed through
other removal pathways including expedited removal under section 235 of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, and aliens subject to reinstatement of a prior
removal order under section 241 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231 and (2)
removing age restrictions on biometrics as discussed further below in
section IV.C.3 of this preamble. See proposed 8 CFR 236.5.
Biometrics collection upon apprehension, arrest, or encounter by

[[Page 49075]]

DHS will allow DHS in subsequent encounters or filings to accurately
identify the individuals encountered, and can prove or disprove any
claimed, or unclaimed, genetic relationship. This in turn will allow
DHS to make better informed decisions as to the processing,
transporting, and managing the custody of aliens subject to DHS's law
enforcement authorities. Having more reliable data about the identities
of aliens in DHS custody will increase the safety of DHS facilities in
which aliens are held in custody for both DHS law enforcement officers
and aliens. It would also eliminate an incentive that currently exists
for unscrupulous aliens to jeopardize the health and safety of minors
to whom they are unrelated, transporting the minors on a dangerous
journey across the United States border, and claiming to be the parents
of unrelated minors in order to claim to be a ``family unit'' and thus
obtain a relatively quick release from DHS custody.
This rule also supports DHS's efforts to implement a program of
continuous immigration vetting. Under this proposed rule, any alien who
is present in the United States following an approved immigration
benefit request, other request, or collection of information may be
required to submit biometrics or undergo biometric-based screening and
vetting unless and until they are granted U.S. citizenship. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(3), (c)(2). To further implement continuous
vetting, the rule proposes to clarify that DHS may store biometrics
(other than raw DNA) submitted by an individual in connection with an
immigration-related benefits request or other collection of information
and use or reuse biometrics to conduct background checks to verify
continued eligibility for immigration and naturalization-related
benefits and for administering and enforcing the immigration laws. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.16(d)(1).
In sum, these proposed changes and others discussed throughout this
preamble, are intended to enhance DHS's ability to collect and use
biometrics throughout the immigration lifecycle, i.e., the period
between an alien's first benefit request, other request, or collection
of information submission, encounter, or apprehension, through
naturalization or removal.
However, DHS does not propose to impose an absolute biometrics
collection requirement in all instances for all forms filed with the
USCIS.\40\ There may be circumstances where biometric collection would
be unnecessary or duplicative. A particular application or petition
(e.g., an inadmissibility waiver request) may not require its own
complete biometric collection when it is filed in conjunction with
another benefit request, other request, or collection of information
that already carries a biometrics collection requirement, and/or DHS
determines it may reuse previously collected biometrics after a
biometric-based verification. Under appropriate circumstances, DHS
proposes to retain discretion to exempt certain forms from the complete
biometric collection requirement because it would result in waste or
redundancy to both the agency and the public. For example, when an
alien files Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or
Adjust Status, biometrics are collected from all applicants. However,
if the same applicant also files Form I-601, Application for Waiver of
Grounds of Inadmissibility, due to an inadmissibility concern, that
form is associated with the Form I-485. In most cases, there is no need
to independently require complete biometrics collection in conjunction
with Form I-601 because DHS is already collecting biometrics in
association with Form I-485. Form I-601 would never be filed without an
associated form carrying a biometrics collection requirement (i.e., an
immigrant visa application, adjustment of status application, certain
non-immigrant visa applications, etc.). In instances such as this, DHS
will simply reuse and associate the biometrics collected on the Form I-
485 to the Form I-601. If the Form I-601 was not concurrently filed
with the Form I-485, USCIS would first obtain a positive biometrics-
based identity verification and a biographic data match to the
previously submitted Form I-485 before associating different biometrics
to the Form I-601. Identity verification based solely upon a comparison
of the individual's name or other non-unique biographic identification
characteristics or data, or combinations thereof, would never
constitute positive identity verification for purposes of USCIS
biometric reuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Only certain family-based or other benefit requests would
be impacted by the proposed provision to allow, request, or require
DNA evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or
unclaimed genetic relationship or biological sex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, DHS recognizes that there is no value in imposing a
biometric collection for forms that are only filed in conjunction with
other forms that already require biometrics collection. Consequently,
the DHS forms that are being revised and posted in accordance with the
PRA for public comments do not include an absolute requirement for
biometrics collection. Instead, the revised form instructions put the
individual on notice that (1) every applicant, petitioner, sponsor,
supporter, derivative, dependent, and beneficiary of an immigration
benefit request, other request, or collection of information submitted
to DHS is required to provide biometrics unless DHS otherwise exempts
the requirement, and (2) that the individual will be notified of the
time and place for the appointment. For most forms for which DHS
proposes to mandate biometrics as proposed under this rule, DHS has
incorporated any costs and fees associated with a biometric services
appointment within the filing fee for the immigration benefit being
sought.\41\ See the PRA section of this rule for information on how to
comment on the proposed form instructions for implementing the changes
proposed in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ See 8 CFR part 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Identity Management
DHS is proposing to use biometrics for identity management, during
the entire course of the immigration lifecycle for several reasons.
This will facilitate DHS's transition to a person-centric model for
organizing and managing its records.\42\ DHS plans to begin using
biometrics to establish and manage unique identities as it organizes
and verifies immigration records in a highly reliable, on-going, and
continuous manner. Currently, USCIS relies on declared biographic data
for identity management in the immigration lifecycle. Once an identity
has been enrolled in IDENT \43\ and established within DHS, future
activities and encounters may be added to the original enrollment and
will be confirmed through identity verification at various points in
the immigration lifecycle. Biometric-based identity verification may be
done outside of the United States (by DHS or DOS) or within the United
States (at ASCs, USCIS offices, or as prescribed by DHS in accordance
with law). Biometric-based identity verification also allows the reuse
of enrolled identity data (both biometric and biographic) that has
already been

[[Page 49076]]

vetted. Such reuse reduces the amount of erroneous or conflicting data
that can be entered into systems and reduces the cost and complexity of
repetitive collection and verification. After an identity has been
biometrically verified, reusable fingerprints allow for more immediate
and recurrent background checks, and reusable photographs allow for
quick production of documents with high consistency and integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ See DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for the Person Centric
Identity Services (PCIS) Initiative,'' DHS Reference No. DHS/USCIS/
PIA-087 (Dec. 7, 2022), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/privacy-pia-uscis-pia087-pcis-december2022.pdf.
\43\ See https://www.dhs.gov/exchanging-biometric-data (last
updated Apr. 4, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this proposed rule, DHS recognizes that biometric reuse is
acceptable only when there is a biometric-based identity
verification.\44\ See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(4). DHS has a duty to
the public to ensure that immigration benefits are granted only to
those who are eligible for them, to ensure that no benefit is provided
to the wrong individual, and to verify that individuals entering the
country are who they say they are. See generally INA sec. 103, 8 U.S.C.
1103 (charging DHS with the administration and enforcement of the INA).
Further, DHS's responsibility is reinforced by E.O. 14161, which
directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to ``determine the
information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission,
or other benefit under the INA for one of its nationals, and to
ascertain whether the individual seeking the benefit is who the
individual claims to be and that the individual is not a security or
public-safety threat.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ USCIS has allowed biometric reuse in specific situations
including during the COVID-19 pandemic to address public health
concerns. See https://www.uscis.gov/archive/uscis-to-continue-processing-applications-for-employment-authorization-extension-requests-despite (last updated Mar. 30, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A biometrically-based, person-centric records model ensures that an
individual's records are complete and pertain only to that individual.
Under this model, DHS would be able to easily locate, maintain, and
update the correct individual's information such as: results from
national security and criminal history background checks, current
address (physical and mailing), immigration status, or to associate
previously submitted identity documentation, such as birth certificates
and marriage licenses, in future adjudications thereby reducing
duplicative biographic or other evidentiary collections.
Biometrics are unique to each individual and provide USCIS with
tools for identity management, which is critical to better ensuring
benefits are granted only to those who are eligible, while improving
the services provided to those who submit immigration benefit requests.
With regard to age, DHS proposes to reserve the authority to collect
biometrics at any age to ensure the immigration records created for
children can more assuredly be related to their subsequent adult
records despite changes to their physical appearance and biographic
information. USCIS notes that with respect to these biometrics, as with
any other agency decision subject to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16), if a decision
will be adverse to an applicant, petitioner, or requestor, and is based
on unclassified derogatory information the agency considered, he or she
shall be advised of that fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the
information.
Another key driver for eliminating the age restrictions for
biometric collection is the number of UAC and accompanied alien
children (AAC) that have been intercepted at the border in recent
years. The DHS proposal to remove age restrictions will help combat
human trafficking, specifically human trafficking of children,
including the trafficking and exploitation of children forced to
accompany adults traveling to the United States with the goal of
avoiding detention and exploiting immigration laws.
Beginning in May 2019, ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
and CBP conducted a pilot program where, with consent from aliens
presenting themselves as family units, officers used Rapid DNA \45\
testing technologies as a precise and focused investigative tool to
identify suspected fraudulent families and vulnerable children who may
be potentially exploited. Between June 2019 and September 2021, ICE HSI
and CBP completed 3,516 Rapid DNA tests in instances where a parent-
child relationship was suspect. Of those tested, 300 instances resulted
in a negative finding, counter to the claimed parent-child relationship
and indicating possible fraud (8.5 percent). The pilot program was
concluded in May 2021 due to decreased testing attributable to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic-related travel restrictions, among
other considerations.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for the Rapid DNA
Operational Use,'' DHS/ICE/PIA-050 (June 25, 2019), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-rapiddna-june2019_3.pdf.
\46\ Office of Inspector General, DHS, ``CBP Officials
Implemented Rapid DNA Testing to Verify Claimed Parent-Child
Relationships,'' OIG-22-27 (Feb. 8, 2022), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2022-02/OIG-22-27-Feb22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collecting biometrics on children that DHS encounters would assist
in enabling definitive identification of them and may show that they
have been reported missing. Generally, DHS plans to use the biometric
information collected from children for identity management in the
immigration lifecycle only, but will retain the authority for other
uses in its discretion, such as background checks and for law
enforcement purposes. DHS components have different statutory
authorities and mission spaces; while ICE or CBP may elect to submit
UAC or AAC collected biometrics to the FBI for criminal history
background checks, USCIS would not routinely do so. Rather, for USCIS
the biometrics collected from the majority of these children would be
stored in IDENT \47\ to help DHS with future encounters. USCIS is
authorized to share relevant information with law enforcement or other
DHS components, including ``biometrics'' for identity verification and,
consequently, it may share DNA test results, which include a partial
DNA profile, with other agencies as it does other record information
pursuant to existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ IDENT is the DHS enterprise repository for biometrics and
provides biometric identification management services to DHS
Components with technology for matching, storing, and sharing
biometric data. DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM)
is the lead designated provider of biometric identity services for
DHS and maintains the largest biometric repository in the U.S.
government. See https://www.dhs.gov/obim (last updated Dec. 10,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS will have the express authority to send UAC or AAC biometrics
to the FBI for criminal history background checks, but depending on the
DHS component encountering the subject may only send biometrics to the
FBI if DHS has some articulable derogatory information on the subject
and needs to confirm criminal history or an association with other
illegal or terrorist organizations in the interests of public safety
and national security. Biometrics collected to identify or refute
claimed or unclaimed genetic relationships at the border would be
maintained in law enforcement systems for future identity verification,
subject to the restrictions found in proposed 8 CFR 103.16.
2. Enhanced and Continuous Vetting
Individuals with certain types of criminal convictions, or those
who present a threat to national security or public safety are not
eligible for certain benefits. Benefit eligibility determinations in
these cases often focus on the criminal, national security, and
immigration history of the individual. The immigration history review
considers the individual's current immigration status, past immigration
filings, and whether previous benefits were granted or

[[Page 49077]]

denied. DHS conducts national security and criminal history background
checks on individuals applying for or seeking an immigration benefit
because U.S. immigration laws preclude DHS from granting many
immigration and naturalization benefits to individuals with certain
criminal or administrative violations, or with certain disqualifying
characteristics (e.g., lack of good moral character, certain
communicable diseases, or association with terrorist organizations),
while also providing DHS discretion in granting an immigration benefit
in many instances. See, e.g., INA sec. 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C.
1158(b)(2)(A) (mandatory bars to asylum); INA sec. 245(a)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1255(a)(2) (admissibility requirements for adjustment of status
applicants and agency discretion); and INA sec. 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C.
1427(a)(3) (good moral character requirement for naturalization).
This proposed rule would enhance DHS's ability to collect and use
biometrics throughout the immigration lifecycle, from first benefit
request, encounter, or apprehension to naturalization or removal. In
the enforcement context, biometric collection when an individual is
first encountered can establish an identity that can be relied upon in
future encounters and interactions with the Federal government, help
officers identify individuals in subsequent encounters, detect
fraudulent identities, and confirm relationships between adults and
children. Establishing and being able to match and confirm identities
through biometric collection helps in the identification of scenarios
and encounters involving child smuggling, trafficking, and
exploitation. It can also help identify when an adult who has been
previously encountered is posing as a child. Collection of biometrics
during removal proceedings is primarily to verify that the individual
is the correct individual being removed.
As part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, DHS
requires robust processes and procedures to administer the collection
and use of biometrics from foreign nationals who enter the United
States to ensure, as directed by the President, ``that admitted aliens
and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear
hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government,
institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or
support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national
security.'' See E.O. 14161 sec. 1, 90 FR 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025). To
accomplish this the President has directed the Secretary of Homeland
Security to ``vet and screen to the maximum degree possible all aliens
who intend to be admitted, enter, or are already inside the United
States, particularly those aliens coming from regions or nations with
identified security risks.'' Id. at sec. 2. The President also directed
the Secretary to ``take all appropriate action to use any available
technologies and procedures to determine the validity of any claimed
familial relationship between aliens encountered or apprehended by the
Department of Homeland Security'' See E.O. 14165 sec. 9, 90 FR 8467,
8468 (Jan. 20, 2025).
The changes proposed in this rule would assist DHS in developing
appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information
necessary for a rigorous evaluation of any grounds of inadmissibility
or grounds for the denial of an immigration benefit request, other
request, or collection of information. Notably, expanding biometrics
collection will provide DHS with more comprehensive biometric-based
information, including criminal and immigration history information
that may be missed if biometrics submission is only required from a
limited population and in a less expansive way than proposed by this
rule. For example, enhanced biometric submission may reveal a history
of crimes involving moral turpitude, activities related to terrorism,
fraud or misrepresentation, or derogatory immigration history such as
illegal entries and immigration violations.\48\ There are documented
instances where biographical information was provided to USCIS, and
relied upon in an adjudication, and subsequent biometric-based
screening and vetting revealed additional derogatory information.\49\
The rule proposes to broaden the population required to submit
biometrics, expands biometric modalities and enhances subject
identification and the detection of possible threats to national
security and public safety. Collectively, information obtained via
biometric submission per this proposed rule will improve national
security and public safety while ensuring that only eligible
individuals are granted immigration benefits and are permitted to
maintain a previously granted benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ See generally INA sec. 212, 8 U.S.C. 1182, Grounds of
Inadmissibility.
\49\ See, e.g., ``Individuals with Multiple Identities in
Historical Fingerprint Enrollment Records Who Have Received
Immigration Benefits,'' Department of Homeland Security, Office of
Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG-
17-111 (Sept. 2017); ``Potentially Ineligible Individuals Have Been
Granted U.S. Citizenship Because of Incomplete Fingerprint
Records,'' Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector
General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG-16-130
(Sept. 2016); ``Review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'
Alien Security Checks, Department of Homeland Security,'' Office of
Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG-
06-06 (Nov. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS plans to implement a program of continuous immigration vetting
during the entirety of the immigration lifecycle. Under continuous
vetting, DHS may require aliens to be subject to continued and
subsequent evaluation of eligibility for their immigration benefits to
ensure they continue to present no risk of causing harm subsequent to
their entry and are maintaining and complying with any terms of
admission or conditions required of their nonimmigrant or immigrant
status. This rule proposes that any individual alien who is present in
the United States following an approved immigration benefit request,
other request, or collection of information may be required to submit
biometrics or undergo biometric-based screening and vetting unless and
until they are granted U.S. citizenship.\50\ DHS also proposes, at its
discretion and in conformance with the requirements articulated in this
NPRM, to reuse previously submitted biometrics in certain circumstances
to perform continuous vetting if DHS is able to obtain a positive
biometrics based identity verification based on the individual's stored
biometrics. See proposed 103.16(a)(4), (d)(1). DHS does not anticipate
the implementation of continuous vetting to have an adverse effect on
DHS's ability to timely adjudicate its pending benefit requests, or
other requests or collections of information as the individuals subject
to continuous vetting will have previously submitted biometrics that
USCIS may reuse at its discretion after a biometric based identity
verification.\51\ The rule further proposes that a U.S. citizen, U.S.
national, or lawful permanent resident may be required to submit
biometrics if he or she filed an immigration-related application,
petition, or request in the past, and it was either reopened or the
previous approval is relevant to the benefit request, other request, or
collection of information pending with USCIS. See proposed 8 CFR
103.16(c)(2). For example, if an alien lost an approval notice from a
previously approved visa petition, he or she would have to file a Form
I-824, Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition.
Biometrics

[[Page 49078]]

would be necessary to better verify the identity of the individual
filing the Form I-824. In another example, if a United States citizen
petitioner had a previously approved visa petition for a spouse and DHS
discovered the potential existence of a ``specified offense against a
minor'' it could result in a revocation of the approved visa petition--
even where the conviction occurred prior to the visa petition approval
or the enactment of the Adam Walsh Act.\52\ For any such case, DHS
would begin by requesting biometrics for the United States citizen
petitioner in order to confirm the existence of any potentially
disqualifying criminal history information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ See DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for Continuous
Immigration Vetting,'' DHS/USCIS/PIA-076 (Feb. 14, 2019), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pia-uscis-fdnsciv-february2019_0.pdf.
\51\ Id.
\52\ See Matter of Jackson and Erandio, 26 I&N Dec. 314 (BIA
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS welcomes public comment on the increased use of biometrics
beyond criminal history background checks, to include identity
management in the immigration lifecycle and enhanced vetting or other
purposes, as well as any relevant data, information, or proposals.

B. Verify Identity, Familial Relationships, and Preclude Imposters

1. Use of DNA Evidence \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ The DNA Fingerprint Act authorizes the Attorney General to
collect DNA from individuals arrested, facing charges, convicted, or
from non-U.S. persons who are detained under the authority of the
United States. 34 U.S.C. 40702. The implementing DOJ regulations
require any agency of the United States that arrests or detains
individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to collect DNA
samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or
convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under
the authority of the United States. 28 CFR 28.12(b). DHS notes that
the DNA collection requirements of 34 U.S.C. 40702 and 28 CFR part
28, subpart B are for law enforcement identification purposes,
whereas this rule proposes to establish the authority for the use of
DNA to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or unclaimed
genetic relationships in the adjudication of immigration benefit
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and lawful permanent residents
petitioning for a family member, or individuals seeking to include a
family member as a dependent or derivative (accompanying or follow-to-
join) in an application for an immigration benefit, must demonstrate
the existence of claimed genetic relationship or legal relationship in
the case of gestational parentage. Current regulations generally
require documentary evidence such as marriage and birth certificates as
primary evidence of such a claimed relationship.\54\ In the absence of
primary evidence, acceptable secondary evidence includes medical
records, school records, religious documents, and affidavits. See,
e.g., 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2). However, documentary evidence may be
unreliable or unavailable, and individuals need additional means to
establish claimed genetic relationships, in cases where a genetic
relationship is claimed, to avoid denial of a benefit request, other
request, or collection of information. USCIS currently accepts DNA test
results from laboratories accredited by the AABB (formerly the American
Association of Blood Banks) as proof of the existence of a claimed
genetic relationship where other evidence is unavailable.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 103.2(b)(2)(i), 204.2(c)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(i)
through (iii), (d)(5)(ii), (f)(2)(i) through (iii), (g)(2)(i)
through (iii), 207.7(e), 208.21(f), 245.11(b), 245.15(l)(2), and
254.24(h)(1)(iii).
\55\ Although most of the collection of DNA samples is performed
by the AABB-accredited laboratory conducting the testing, for
individuals residing overseas, DHS or the Department of State
facilitate collection and transmission of the DNA sample to the
laboratory to ensure regularity in the collection and proper chain
of custody of the DNA sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS proposes to revise its regulations to provide that DNA genetic
testing can be required, requested, or accepted as evidence, either
primary or secondary, to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed
or unclaimed genetic relationship where necessary.\56\ See proposed 8
CFR 103.16(d)(2). DNA is the only biometric that can verify a genetic
relationship. Current regulations allow USCIS to require Blood Group
Antigen or Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) tests to prove parentage only
after other forms of evidence were inconclusive. See 8 CFR
204.2(d)(2)(vi). But those tests are no longer widely available and are
not as reliable as a DNA test because, while blood-typing can be used
as proof that an individual is not a child's biological parent, it
cannot be used to confirm the individual is the child's parent.\57\
According to the AABB, DNA testing provides the most reliable
scientific test available to resolve a genetic relationship and
replaced older serological testing such as blood typing and serological
HLA typing.\58\ Blood tests are also more invasive than DNA tests, as
DNA collection generally does not require blood to be drawn from any
individuals tested, and the most common method is a noninvasive buccal
(mouth) swab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ This includes requiring, requesting, or accepting DNA
testing to establish a genetic relationship with a birth parent in
the context of a petition to classify a beneficiary as an orphan
under INA sec. 101(b)(1)(F) or as a Convention adoptee under INA
sec. 101(b)(1)(G).
\57\ Gunther Geserick & Ingo Wirth, ``Genetic Kinship
Investigation from Blood Groups to DNA Markers,'' Transfus Med
Hemother 39(3):163-75 (May 11, 2012), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3375130/.
\58\ AABB, ``Standards for Relationship Testing Laboratories,''
Appendix 9 Immigration Testing, 16th ed (Jan. 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS proposes to define the term ``DNA'' in regulation as
``deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the genetic instructions used in
the growth, development, functioning, and reproduction of all known
living organisms.'' See proposed 8 CFR 1.2. When DHS uses the term
``DNA'' in this rule it is a reference to the raw genetic material,
typically saliva, collected via buccal swab from an individual in order
to facilitate DNA testing to prove or disprove genetic relationships or
biological sex.\59\ DHS will only require, request, or accept DNA
testing to prove or disprove a claimed, or unclaimed genetic
relationship or to confirm biological sex. DHS will only store or share
raw DNA or biological samples to facilitate DNA testing (by using a DHS
or DHS-authorized facility, an on-site automated machine, or
transmitting to the AABB-accredited laboratory conducting the testing),
unless DHS is required to share by law. See proposed 8 CFR
103.16(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/understanding-our-data (last updated Dec. 2, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For DHS, there are two different means of testing the raw DNA to
prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or unclaimed genetic
relationship. After DNA samples are collected, an individual's raw DNA
material will be tested at a DHS facility or DHS authorized facility
(locally by an automated machine (i.e., Rapid DNA) \60\ or mailed to a
traditional AABB-accredited laboratory for testing). This testing
allows for the comparison of partial DNA profiles to determine the
statistical probability that the individuals tested have or do not have
a genetic relationship. In either case, a partial DNA profile would be
produced as a result of the test. When DHS uses the term ``partial DNA
profile'' it is a reference to a visual or printed partial
representation of a small portion of an individual's particular DNA
characteristics.\61\ An individual's partial DNA profile is a biometric
identifier as unique as their fingerprints. Significantly, when an
individual's DNA is tested in order to prove or disprove the existence
of a claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship, the test

[[Page 49079]]

does not reveal medical or hereditary conditions.\62\ The particular
genetic markers profiled for relationship testing are markers
specifically used to illustrate the existence of a genetic
relationship. More specifically, the partial DNA profile created for
relationship testing is a very small portion of an individual's full
DNA characteristics. At present, DHS relationship tests profile between
16 and 24 genetic markers out of the nearly 2 million genetic markers
typically contained in human DNA. In contrast with raw DNA or
biological samples, which will not be shared or stored under any
circumstances unless required to share by law, DHS may store or share
DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, with other law
enforcement agencies to the extent permitted by and necessary to
enforce and administer the immigration and naturalization laws. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.16(d)(2). For example, if a claimed genetic
relationship is fraudulent and USCIS denies a petition, the DNA test
results would be retained in the alien's A-file, the same as a rap
sheet or a birth certificate; and if that alien is placed in removal
proceedings EOIR would need to review the basis for the denial and any
finding of fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ The DHS Science and Technology Directorate has been working
in conjunction with DoD and DOJ to fund the development of cost-
effective Rapid DNA equipment to allow non-technical users with
appropriate training to analyze the DNA of individuals in a field
setting and receive reliable results in about one hour.
\61\ https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/understanding-our-data (last updated Dec. 2, 2020).
\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The testing entity conducts the DNA test, either automatically by
machine or in a traditional laboratory environment and generates a DNA
test result. The term ``DNA test result'' is a reference to the
ultimate scientific conclusion made by DHS or DHS authorized AABB-
accredited testing entity as to the claimed or unclaimed genetic
relationship or determination of biological sex.\63\ The DNA test
result is represented by a probability or percentage of the likelihood
of the existence of the genetic relationship as a result of comparing
at least two partial DNA profiles. DHS has established by policy what
minimum threshold probability for the relationship that it would accept
in proving or disproving the existence of a genetic relationship,
depending on the particular relationship in question (i.e., parent,
full-sibling, half-sibling, etc.).\64\ DNA test results which include a
partial DNA profile, where they indicate a sufficient probability of
the existence of the relationship tested, are now accepted as evidence
to establish parent and sibling genetic relationships. See Matter of
Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ Id.
\64\ See USCIS, DHS, ``DNA Evidence of Sibling Relationships,''
PM 602.0106.1, (April 17, 2018) (establishing the threshold
probabilities for full and half sibling relationships); USCIS, DHS,
``Genetic Relationship Testing; Suggesting DNA Tests Revisions to
the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 21 (AFM Update AD07-
25),'' (Mar. 19, 2008) (establishing voluntary or suggested nature
of DNA testing to verify claimed relationships and citing AABB
testing standards); DOS, ``Foreign Affairs Manual,'' 9 FAM 601.11-
1(A)(a)(2), CT: VISA-1276 (May 12, 2021) (stating that DNA ``test
results reporting a 99.5 percent or greater degree of certainty''
may be accepted by consular officers as ``sufficient to support a
biological relationship between a parent and child in visa cases'');
See also DOJ, ``Matter of Nejat Ibrahim RUZKU, Beneficiary of a visa
petition filed by Abdalla Ibrahim Ruzku, Petitioner,'' 26 I&N Dec.
731 (BIA 2016) (Mar. 29, 2016) (holding direct sibling-to-sibling
DNA test results reflecting a 99.5 percent degree of certainty or
higher that a full sibling biological relationship exists should be
accepted and considered to be evidence of the relationship).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This rule further proposes to grant DHS express authority to
require, request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results, which include
a partial DNA profile, from relevant parties, such as applicants,
petitioners, derivatives, dependents, and beneficiaries, to determine
eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits, or to perform
any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing
immigration and naturalization laws. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(1)
and (d)(2)(i)(A), (B). It is in DHS' and the public's interests to
protect the integrity of the immigration system and ensure that any
individual who receives an immigration benefit is eligible for that
benefit. The use of DNA as evidence to support eligibility, where
applicable, may assist in the adjudication of certain benefit requests,
other requests or collection of information where documentary evidence
may be unreliable or unavailable. For example, DHS currently does not
have regulatory provisions in place to require DNA testing results to
prove or disprove an individual's biological sex as it pertains to
eligibility for a non-immigrant visa under INA sec.
101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a), for certain
athletes coming to the United States to compete in a sporting event and
when documentary evidence may be unreliable or unavailable.\65\ In some
situations, individuals are allowed to voluntarily submit DNA test
results. Under this proposed rule, DHS may expressly require, request,
or accept raw DNA or DNA test (to include a partial DNA profile) to
prove or disprove an individual's biological sex in instances where
that determination will impact benefit eligibility. See proposed 8 CFR
103.16(d)(2)(i) and (ii). DHS proposes to collect, treat and locate raw
DNA (the physical sample taken from the applicable individual), at a
DHS or DHS-authorized facility. DHS will not handle or share any raw
DNA for any reason beyond the original purpose of submission (e.g., to
prove or disprove an individual's biological sex), unless DHS is
required to share by law. DNA test results, which include a partial DNA
profile, become part of the record, and DHS will store and share DNA
test results, for adjudication purposes, including to determine
eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits or to perform
any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing
immigration and naturalization laws, to the extent permitted by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ See E.O. 14201, Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports, section
1, 90 FR 9279 (Feb. 5, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with current practice, the DNA test results, which
include a partial DNA profile, obtained by DHS and showing the ultimate
probability of relationship or biological sex, would be retained in the
individual's Alien file (A-file) and made part of the record. Under
this proposed rule, if finalized, DHS may use and store DNA test
results as necessary to administer and enforce the immigration and
naturalization laws, and share said DNA results with other law
enforcement agencies to the extent permitted by law. See proposed 8 CFR
103.16(d)(2)(iii).
Currently, DHS allows individuals in certain situations to
voluntarily submit DNA test results from AABB-accredited laboratories
\66\ where other documentary evidence is inconclusive or
unavailable.\67\ This rule proposes to clarify and codify that DHS may
require, request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results, which include
a partial DNA profile, from relevant parties, such as applicants,
petitioners, derivatives, dependents, and beneficiaries, to an
immigration-related benefit request, other request, or collection of
information as evidence of a claimed, or unclaimed genetic relationship
or biological sex. It also proposes to clarify that DHS may consider
DNA test results in adjudicating certain immigration benefits as a
means of proving or disproving a claimed, or unclaimed genetic
relationship, biological sex or to establish eligibility for the
requested benefit. And the rule proposes to clarify DHS's authority to
collect raw DNA from relevant parties, such as applicants, petitioners,
derivatives, dependents, and beneficiaries, and

[[Page 49080]]

either perform a DNA test at a DHS or DHS-authorized facility or send
the raw DNA to a traditional AABB-accredited lab. DHS requests comments
on all aspects of this proposal, including the collection, use, and
retention of DNA evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ See https://www.aabb.org/home (last visited Apr. 3, 2025).
\67\ See USCIS, DHS, ``Genetic Relationship Testing; Suggesting
DNA Tests Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter
21 (AFM Update AD07-25),'' (Mar. 19, 2008) (establishing voluntary
or suggested nature of DNA testing to verify claimed relationships
and citing AABB testing standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Special Treatment of DNA Evidence
While DNA is fundamentally a biometric identifier, DHS recognizes
the increased sensitivity surrounding the use of genetic information.
DHS believes the other biometric modalities that will be collected are
sufficient for most of the goals of this rule. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2
(definition of biometrics); proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a) (biometric
collection). Therefore, DHS proposes to treat raw DNA as a biometric
modality distinct from the other biometric modalities it is authorized
to collect. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2 (definition of DNA); proposed 8 CFR
103.16(d)(2). For purposes of DNA collected under this rule, DHS
proposes that it will not handle or share any raw DNA for any reason
beyond the original purpose of submission (i.e., to prove or disprove
the existence of a claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship or
biological sex), unless DHS is required to share by law. DHS would only
store, use, and share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA
profile derived from the raw DNA,\68\ as provided by the testing entity
or as produced by DHS, for adjudication purposes and would retain the
results to perform any other functions necessary for administering and
enforcing immigration and naturalization laws, to the extent permitted
by law. DHS would also only use the raw DNA and DNA test results, which
include a partial DNA profile, for the original purpose of submission
(i.e., to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or unclaimed
genetic relationship or an individual's biological sex) or as
authorized by the immigration and naturalization laws. DHS components
are authorized to share relevant information with law enforcement or
other DHS components and, consequently, it may share DNA test results,
which include a partial DNA profile, with other agencies when there are
national security, public safety, fraud, or other investigative needs,
but always pursuant to existing law. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(d). DHS
especially welcomes comments on these proposed provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/understanding-our-data (last updated Dec. 2, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Identity Management
DHS must ensure that immigration benefits are not fraudulently
obtained and are granted to the rightful person, and that individuals
entering the country are who they say they are. As part of the benefit
adjudications process, USCIS must verify the identity of an individual
applying for or seeking any benefit to protect against fraud and
imposters. In all circumstances, DHS must identify persons using
aliases after prior immigration encounters and assist in efforts to
prevent human smuggling and trafficking. Currently DHS relies mainly on
paper-based documentary evidence when evaluating or verifying identity
in administering its programs. Unfortunately, there is no guaranteed
way to prevent the manufacturing, counterfeiting, alteration, sale, and
use of fraudulent identity documents or other fraudulent documents to
circumvent immigration laws or for identity theft. On the other hand,
biometric identifiers are not transferable and may provide confirmation
or non-confirmation of an individual's claimed identity. Therefore, DHS
believes that the best approach to address the vulnerabilities in the
immigration process, preclude imposters, and deter fraud would be to
rely more on biometrics for identity management in the immigration
lifecycle.

C. Flexibility in Biometrics Requirements

1. Definition of Biometrics
In recent years, government agencies have grouped together
identifying features and actions, such as fingerprints, photographs,
and signatures under the broad term, biometrics.\69\ The terms
biometric ``information,'' ``identifiers,'' or ``data'' are used to
refer to all of these features, including additional features such as
ocular image (iris, retina and sclera), palm print, DNA, and voice
print.\70\ For example, authorities such as 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7)(B) and
17 CFR 162.30(b)(8) refer to identifying information, including
``unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print or iris
image, or other unique physical representation.'' The term
``biometrics'' is also used in other laws and regulations. See, e.g.,
18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7)(B), 17 CFR 162.30(b)(8)(ii), 21 CFR 11.3(b)(3),
and 27 CFR 73.3. As a result, DHS has adopted the practice of referring
to fingerprints and photographs collectively as ``biometrics,''
``biometric information,'' or ``biometric services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ See FBI, ``Next Generation Identification (NGI),'' https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/ngi
(last visited Apr. 11, 2025).
\70\ See FBI, ``Biometrics and Fingerprints,'' https://le.fbi.gov/science-and-lab/biometrics-and-fingerprints (last visited
Apr. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, the instructions for Form I-90, Application to Replace
Permanent Resident Card, refer to a ``biometric services appointment,''
while the Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of
Removal, refers to ``biometrics, including fingerprints and
photographs.'' Many forms also include a signature as a type of
biometric identifier. See instructions for Form I-485 which references
providing ``biometrics'' which is described as ``fingerprints,
photograph, and/or signature.'' Most laws on the subject do not specify
individual biometric modalities such as ocular image (iris, retina and
sclera), palm print, voice print, DNA, and/or any other biometric
modalities that may be collected from an individual in the future. See,
e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1732(b)(1) (requiring the issuance of travel documents
that use biometric identifiers recognized by international standards
organizations). By proposing to update the terminology in the
regulations to uniformly use the term ``biometrics'' DHS seeks to
utilize a single, inclusive term comprehensively throughout regulations
and form instructions.
DHS proposes to define the term ``biometrics'' to clarify and
expand its regulatory authority to collect more than just fingerprints
while administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization
benefits or other services or perform any other function necessary for
administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. To do
this, DHS proposes to expressly define ``biometrics'' to mean ``the
measurable biological (anatomical, physiological and molecular
structure) or behavioral characteristics of an individual.'' See
proposed definition of Biometrics in 8 CFR 1.2. Further, DHS proposes
the following biometrics as authorized biometric modalities that may be
requested or required from individuals in connection with the
administration and enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws:
Facial imagery (digital image, specifically for facial
recognition and facial comparison);
Prints (including fingerprints and palm prints);
Signature (handwritten);
Ocular imagery (to include iris, retina, and sclera);
Voice (voice print, vocal signature, and voice
recognition); and/or

[[Page 49081]]

DNA (including partial DNA profile).
The term ``biometric modality'' is used to describe a type or class
of a biometric. The collection of a biometric implies its use in a
system used to identify an individual; hence the use of the term
``modality.'' ``Modality'' is often interchanged, or used in
conjunction, with the term ``biometric'' because the collection of a
biometric implies automation. For example, an individual's face is a
biometric, but DHS intends to collect a digital image of an
individual's face, making a facial digital image the modality.
Similarly, ocular imagery is a biometric, but DHS intends to collect an
image of an individual's iris, retina or sclera, making the iris,
retina or sclera image the ``modality.'' An individual's voice is a
``biometric,'' but DHS intends to collect an audible recording of an
individual's voice, making a voice print the ``modality.'' Finally, an
individual's raw DNA is a ``biometric,'' but upon testing, the partial
DNA profile becomes the ``modality'' and the DNA test result is the
memorialization or evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a
claimed, or unclaimed, genetic relationship or an individual's
biological sex, to determine eligibility for immigration and
naturalization benefits, or perform any other function necessary for
administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. DHS
will collect a photograph (facial image), fingerprint, palm print,
audible recording, DNA, etc., for use in facial recognition,
fingerprint and palm print recognition, ocular image recognition, voice
recognition, DNA testing, etc.
The proposed definition of biometrics would codify and authorize
the collection of specific biometric modalities and the use of
biometrics for: identity enrollment, verification, and management in
the immigration lifecycle; national security and criminal history
background checks; determinations of eligibility for immigration and
naturalization benefits; and the production of secure identity
documents. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2. DNA, while a biometric, would be
collected by USCIS in limited circumstances to prove or disprove the
existence of a claimed, or unclaimed, genetic relationship, or
biological sex and to determine eligibility for immigration and
naturalization benefits or to perform any other functions necessary for
administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. Such
examples include instances to verify a genetic relationship between a
claimed biological parent and biological child or to prove or disprove
an individual's biological sex in instances where that determination
will impact benefit eligibility. Additionally, DNA evidence could be
used to identify fraud in instances where DHS establishes the
likelihood of a genetic relationship that invalidates eligibility for
the benefit sought, such as the discovery of a parent-child or sibling
relationship affiliated with a fraudulent claim of a marital
relationship. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2 and 8 CFR 103.16(d)(2).
2. Additional Modalities
In addition to the current use of fingerprints \71\ and photographs
\72\ (facial images) as biometric modalities, DHS proposes to begin
requesting biometric collection (now and through emerging technologies)
with the following additional biometric modalities: ocular (iris,
retina, and sclera), palm print, voice, and DNA.\73\ See proposed
Definition of Biometrics in 8 CFR 1.2. The technology for collecting
and using biometrics has undergone constant and rapid change.\74\ DHS
needs to keep up with technological developments that will be used by
the FBI and agencies with which we will be sharing and comparing
biometrics and adjust collection and retention practices for both
convenience and security, and to ensure the maximum level of service
for all stakeholders. USCIS also has internal procedural safeguards to
ensure technology used to collect, assess, and store the differing
modalities is accurate, reliable, and valid. Additionally, as with any
other USCIS petition or application, if a decision will be adverse to
an applicant or petitioner and is based on unclassified derogatory
information the agency considered, he or she shall be advised of that
fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information per current 8
CFR 103.2(b)(16). Therefore, DHS proposes that, as of the effective
date of this rule, if finalized, it may begin collecting new biometrics
modalities as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ Currently USCIS does not routinely use signatures for
identity verification purposes other than for document production
and visual verification.
\72\ DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for the Customer Profile
Management System,'' DHS Reference No. DHS/USCIS/PIA-060(d) (Sept.
27, 2024) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/24_0930_priv_pia-dhs-uscis-cpms-060d.pdf.
\73\ While DNA is included in the list of additional modalities,
USCIS is addressing DNA as a distinct modality and discusses DNA
separately.
\74\ FBI, ``Science and Technology,'' https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/science-and-technology (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Ocular Image
DHS proposes to collect and use ocular images as a biometric
modality. The term ocular image refers to the eye and the structures
within the eye to include the iris, retina and sclera. Ocular structure
as a biometric modality is a valuable identifier especially for
individuals whose fingerprints are unclassifiable or unattainable
through loss of fingers, hand amputation, normal wear in the ridges and
patterns over time (e.g., due to age, types of employment, etc.), or
deliberate eradication/distortion of fingerprint ridges to avoid
identification and detection. Ocular scanning biometric technology
measures the unique characteristics and patterns within the iris,\75\
retina and sclera to verify and authenticate identity. Biometric ocular
recognition is fast, accurate, and offers a form of identification
verification that requires no physical contact to collect. DHS may
collect ocular images as part of the biometric enrollment process to
enroll and verify identity against IDENT, as well as to assist in the
adjudication process by verifying against previous immigration
encounters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ See DHS, ``Biometric Technology Report,'' (Dec. 26, 2024)
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/24_1230_st_13e-Final-Report-2024-12-26.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Palm Print
DHS proposes to add palm prints as a biometrics modality in this
rule. This proposal is consistent with what the FBI has announced as
part of its NGI initiative for the development of the requirements for
and deployment of an integrated National Palm Print Service.\76\ Law
enforcement agencies indicate that at least 30 percent of the prints
lifted from crime scenes--from knife hilts, gun grips, steering wheels,
and window panes--are of palms, not fingers. For this reason, capturing
and scanning latent palm prints is becoming an area of increasing
interest among the law enforcement community. The National Palm Print
Service \77\ is being

[[Page 49082]]

developed to improve law enforcement's ability to exchange a more
complete set of biometric information, make additional identifications,
and improve the overall accuracy of identification through criminal
history records. Collecting palm prints would permit DHS to align our
background checks capability with the total available records at the
FBI's CJIS Division, keep current with the changing records of law
enforcement, and make sure immigration benefit background checks are as
accurate and complete as possible. Therefore, DHS proposes to reserve
the authority to incorporate palm prints into its biometrics
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ See Subcommittee on Biometrics, Committee on Homeland and
National Security, Committee on Technology, National Science and
Technology Council, Executive Office of the President, ``Palm Print
Recognition,'' https://ucr.fbi.gov/fingerprints_biometrics/biometric-center-of-excellence/files/palm-print-recognition.pdf
(last visited Apr. 11, 2025). For a basic explanation of NGI, see
https://le.fbi.gov/science-and-lab/biometrics-and-fingerprints/biometrics/next-generation-identification-ngi (last visited Apr. 11,
2025).
\77\ CJIS Division, FBI, ``National Palm Print System,
Repository Available for Law Enforcement Access,'' (Apr. 30, 2019)
https://le.fbi.gov/cjis-division/cjis-link/national-palm-print-system (last accessed June 10, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Facial Image
DHS proposes to expand the use of facial photographs to reduce the
burden of visiting an ASC for individuals previously biometrically
enrolled by USCIS. For example, 1:1 facial biometric verification can
be used in determining whether an applicant is who he or she is
claiming to be and allows the reuse of previously collected
fingerprints. Facial recognition can also be used to verify an identity
if fingerprints are unobtainable subsequent to the initial biometric
enrollment at an ASC. DHS would also use facial images and facial
recognition technology for fraud, public safety or criminal history
background checks, and national security screening and vetting. Facial
photographs, as a biometric modality, are already collected by DHS for
purposes such as secure document production and in some instances may
be used to compare an individual to a claimed identity. DHS has
collected facial photographs both manually and digitally for some time,
such as for identity verification at ports of entry. DHS is proposing
to increase the authorized use of previously collected biometrics,
(such as facial photographs or fingerprints), but only after a
biometric-based identity verification. DHS proposes to expand the use
of facial recognition systems for those biometric-based identity
verifications.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ See DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for the Customer
Profile Management System,'' (Sept. 27, 2024) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/24_0930_priv_pia-dhs-uscis-cpms-060d.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Voice Print
DHS proposes to collect and use voice print as a biometric
modality. DHS can use voice as a biometric in several ways to improve
identity verification in several business processes. First, when
immigration benefit requests are submitted electronically, an
individual's voice print can be used to indicate that the individual
who submitted the application is the same person who subsequently
returns to access or change information.
Second, an individual's voice print can be used for integration
into the call center process to accomplish faster, automated
identification. Collecting and using an individual's voice print may
reduce concerns about the caller's identity. With simpler
identification and less effort, individuals will be able to call for
assistance or inquire about the status of a pending immigration benefit
request, other request, or collection of information more effectively.
The current identity verification process is typically more time-
consuming than voice; in fiscal year 2023, USCIS contact centers
received 14 million calls for assistance from the public.\79\ This
equates to an average of 53,846 calls to USCIS contact centers each
day.\80\ The use of a voice biometric holds the promise of
significantly reducing the time to verify a person's identity. Voice
biometrics can be passive, where the user can say anything and a match
is made from the voice to a voiceprint, or it can be active, where the
caller is asked to recite a previously captured passphrase. In either
option, the process is a natural, effortless way to identify the
caller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ Annual Statistics Report: FY2023, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (2024), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/fy2023_annual_statistical_report.pdf (last
accessed June 1, 2025).
\80\ Calculation: 14,000,000 annual calls received/approximately
260 operational working days in a year = 53,846 calls received per
operational working day (rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third, voice verification could be used for identity verification
in remote locations where an interview is required to adjudicate a
benefit being sought, reducing the need for an applicant to travel to a
USCIS Office. Finally, USCIS may also use voice prints, where
applicable, to identify indicia of fraud, screen for public safety or
criminal history, and vet potential national security issues.
DHS welcomes public comment on the various proposed modalities,
reliability of technology, suggestions for alternative modalities, as
well as its proposal for future modalities.
3. Amend Related Regulations To Align With the Purposes of This
Proposed Rule and To Facilitate Electronic Filing
a. Clarify Terms
To conform with the proposed changes to expand biometric collection
as previously discussed, DHS proposes to remove restrictive language
elsewhere in regulations. Therefore, DHS proposes to remove individual
references to ``fingerprints,'' ``photographs,'' and ``signatures''
where appropriate, and replace them with the more appropriate term
``biometrics.'' Further, DHS proposes to remove references to Blood
Group Antigen tests as DHS seeks to expand biometric collection
abilities to require, request or accept DNA or DNA test results. DHS
proposes the following changes on account of proposed 8 CFR 103.16:
Removing and Reserving 204.2(d)(2)(vi);
Deleting 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3), which requires biometric
submissions from prospective adoptive parent(s), or adult members of
the adoptive parents' household, and outlining potential waivers;
Removing the fingerprint requirement at 8 CFR 204.4(d)(1),
and references to fingerprint and completed background checks as
elements specifically mentioned in 8 CFR 204.4(g)(2)(ii) regarding the
determination that a sponsor is of good moral character;
Deleting biometric submission requirement in 8 CFR
204.5(p)(4);
Deleting and reserving 8 CFR 204.310(b), which outlines
the biometrics, waiver, and alternative evidentiary requirements for
Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a
Child from a Convention Country;
Replacing ``fingerprint processing'' in the second
sentence of 8 CFR 208.10 with ``biometric submission requirements;''
Removing and reserving 8 CFR 210.1(b);
Replacing ``must be fingerprinted for the purpose of
issuance of Form I-688A'' with ``submit biometrics'' pursuant to 8 CFR
103.16 and replacing ``shall'' with ``will'' in proposed 8 CFR
210.2(c)(2)(iv);
Replacing ``shall'' with ``will'' and ``presentation or
completion of Form FD-258 (Fingerprint Card)'' with ``biometric
submission'' in proposed 8 CFR 210.2(c)(3)(iv);
Replacing ``shall'' with ``will'' and ``complete Form FD-
258 (Fingerprint Card)'' with ``appear for biometric submission'' in
proposed 8 CFR 210.2(c)(4)(iii).
Removing biometrics content at 8 CFR 212.7(e)(6).
Replacing ``biometric information would be required'' with
``biometric information will be required'' at 8 CFR 215.9.
Replacing ``fingerprints on Form FD-258'' with ``biometric
collection'' in 8 CFR 235.7(a)(3) and replacing

[[Page 49083]]

``fingerprints'' with ``biometrics'' in 8 CFR 235.7(a)(4)(vi).
Replacing references to fingerprints and photographs with
``submission of biometrics'' at 8 CFR 236.5.
Replaces ``Fingerprinting requirements'' with ``Interview
and biometric collection'' and replaces references to fingerprints and
FD-258s with biometrics at 8 CFR 240.67(a).
Replacing reference to ``fingerprinting'' with
``biometrics'' in 8 CFR 240.68.
Removing ``fingerprinting'' and replacing with
``biometrics'' in 8 CFR 240.70(d)(4).
Removing reference to ``photographs,'' ``a completed
fingerprint card (Form FD-258)'' and ``fingerprint'' and replacing with
``biometrics'' at 8 CFR 245a.2(d), d(2)(ii), and (e)(1).
Removing reference to fingerprints in 8 CFR
245a.3(b)(1)(e).
Removing reference to ``photographs'' and ``a completed
fingerprint card (Form FD-258))'' in 8 CFR 245a.4(b)(4) and removal of
``Form FD-258 (Applicant Card)'' with biometrics in 8 CFR 245a.4(b)(5).
Removing references to fingerprinting and replacing them
with biometrics in 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1), (2), (3), (3)(g), and 3(g)(1).
Removing and reserving 8 CFR 264.2(d) which addressed
fingerprinting.
Removing and reserving 8 CFR 264.5(i) which addressed
photographs and fingerprinting.
Removing ``fingerprints'' and replacing with
``biometrics'' in 8 CFR 287.11(b)(3).
Removing ``fingerprint'' and replacing with ``biometrics
or biometric data'' in 8 CFR 335.2.
b. Remove Age Restrictions
DHS originally codified several of its regulatory biometric
submission requirements with restrictions on the ages of individuals
from whom biometrics could be collected. The codified ages were based
on the policies, procedures, and practices in place at that time, such
as not running criminal history background checks on children \81\ or
technological limitations on collecting fingerprints from elderly
persons.\82\ As stated earlier, DHS is proposing to expand the use of
biometrics beyond criminal history background checks to include
identity management and verification in the immigration lifecycle.
Identity verification and management in the immigration lifecycle via
biometrics is even more important in the case of children because their
physical appearances can change relatively rapidly, and children often
lack identity documents. The Department of State tacitly recognizes the
same principle in issuing passports for individuals under the age of
16, which are only valid for 5 years.\83\ Passports for individuals
over 16 are valid for a period of 10 years.\84\ The validity periods
and collection practices do not render the biometric submission
inaccurate, the photograph of the child is accurate the day it is
collected, but over time the accuracy and reliability of the photograph
diminishes. For those reasons, the removal of age restrictions may lead
to more frequent biometric collections compared to adults.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ ``Children'' and ``minor'' are used interchangeably here
and without regard to any single or specific INA definition.
\82\ See Michael Pearson, ``Fingerprint Waiver Policy for All
Applicants for Benefits Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act
and Procedures for Applicants Whose Fingerprint Responses Expire
after the Age Range During Which Fingerprints are Required,''
Headquarters Office of Field Operations, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, (July
20, 2001) (waiving general fingerprinting requirements for certain
ages and classifications of individuals otherwise required under
regulation).
\83\ DOS, ``Apply for a Child Under 16,'' https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-passport/under-16.html (last updated Feb. 11, 2025).
\84\ DOS, ``Application for a U.S. Passport,'' https://eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds11_pdf.PDF (last visited Apr. 11, 2025).
\85\ DHS acknowledges that some biometric data are more subject
to change over time in children than adults, which may result in
lower accuracy match rates. For example, matches resulting from
facial images of children, when using facial recognition tools, may
have lower accuracy rates than adults due to changes attributed to
growth and development. However, this potential issue can be
mitigated with more frequent image collection, similar to the
Department of State's approach to the validity period of child
passport photos. See generally, U.S. Department of State website,
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/passport-help/after-getting-passport.html, (``If you were age 16 or older when we
issued your passport, your passport is valid for 10 years'' but ``If
you were under 16 when we issued your passport, your passport is
valid for 5 years.''). Further, additional biometric modalities,
such as fingerprints, have been determined to be reliable for the
identification of children long-term. See also, https://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/Publications/Fingerprint/Jainetal_ChildFingerprintRecognition_TechRep_MSU-CSE-16-5.pdf (last
visited Jul. 24, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with this determination, DHS is removing the age
restrictions for biometric collection writ large, including those for
NTA issuance. See proposed 8 CFR 236.5. DHS has authority, under the
immigration laws,\86\ to issue Forms I-862, Notices to Appear and Forms
I-863, Notices of Referral to Immigration Judge, which are thereafter
filed with the Immigration Court to commence removal proceedings under
the INA. In removing the age restrictions for biometric collection
relating to NTA issuance, DHS is ensuring that every individual's
identity is established or verified--regardless of age--when they are
placed in removal proceedings under the INA. Just as with the granting
of immigration benefits, biographical identifiers are of limited use
when verifying identity because individuals share common names and an
individual may misrepresent his or her identity when facing immigration
enforcement action. Furthermore, with respect to children under the age
of 14 who are issued NTAs, the collection of biometric information to
determine identity will significantly assist DHS in its mission to
combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor
exploitation, and alien smuggling, while simultaneously promoting
national security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ See, e.g., INA secs. 103(a) and 239; 8 CFR 2.1 and 239.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS is authorized to share relevant information internally, with
other law enforcement agencies, and as otherwise permitted under law,
including ``biometrics'' and, consequently, is proposing that it may
share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, with other
agencies where there are national security, public safety, fraud, or
other investigative needs, but always consistent with any legal
limitations on such information sharing. Therefore, because the
proposed requirements in this rule, requiring appearance for biometric
collection or interview would apply to any individual, without age
limitation, DHS proposes to remove all age limitations or restrictions
on biometrics collection. However, DHS also proposes that the biometric
collection may be exempted at DHS's discretion. See proposed 8 CFR
103.16.
Under the authority granted by the proposed rule, individual DHS
components will be able to establish an age threshold for biometric
collection specific to a particular component's operational needs.
Immigration officers may collect biometrics, pursuant to the authority
granted by INA sec. 287(b), 8 U.S.C. 1357(b) from individuals under the
age of 14 categorically or on a case-by-case basis, depending on the
circumstances. Section 287(f)(1) of the INA 8 U.S.C. 1357(f)(1)
provides that through regulation DHS shall provide for the
fingerprinting and photographing of each alien 14 years of age or older
placed into removal proceedings. While this requires DHS to fingerprint
and photograph any alien who is 14 years or older who is placed into
removal

[[Page 49084]]

proceedings, it does not limit or prohibit DHS authority to collect
biometrics from aliens younger than 14 when authorized by other laws.
Removing the age restrictions associated with biometric collections
from the regulations will permit DHS components maximum flexibility in
their day-to-day operations.
DHS reviewed statutes containing requirements for individuals to
submit biometrics to DHS at a certain age and determined those statutes
do not restrict or limit the collection of biometrics to these ages.
First, INA sec. 262(b), 8 U.S.C. 1302, states ``Whenever any alien
attains his fourteenth birthday in the United States he shall, within
30 days thereafter, apply in person for registration and to be
fingerprinted.'' Second, INA sec. 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304, provides that
the Secretary is authorized ``to prepare forms for the registration and
fingerprinting of aliens'' aged 14 and older in the United States, as
required by INA sec. 262, 8 U.S.C. 1302. While section 264(a) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a) requires that biometrics be submitted by lawful
permanent residents aged 14 and older, it does not limit or prohibit
DHS authority from requiring anyone, including lawful permanent
residents or individuals seeking immigration benefits who are under the
age of 14, from submitting biometrics as authorized by other laws.
In addition to removing the age limit on biometrics, DHS proposes
to update the regulations at 8 CFR 207.2(a) to provide that, at its
discretion, USCIS may conduct interviews for refugee applicants under
the age of 14. This proposed change will clarify that applicants for
refugee status may be subject to the same interview requirements
provided in proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), allowing USCIS, at its
discretion to require an interview for any applicant, regardless of
age. In applying this provision, if finalized, USCIS will exercise its
discretion on a case-by-case basis, consistent with USCIS guidance and
training materials related to interviewing and adjudicating claims
involving children.
c. Remove Redundant Provisions
DHS proposes in this rule to have one regulatory provision that
governs the requirement to submit biometrics for all immigration
benefit requests or other requests or collections of information. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.16. As discussed in section IV.E of this preamble,
this new provision will also include the standard for rescheduling a
biometrics services appointment and the consequences for failure to
submit required biometrics, unless exempted. Id. Because proposed 8 CFR
103.16 will apply to all immigration benefit requests or other requests
or collections of information adjudicated by USCIS, there is no need
for separate provisions for rescheduling of biometric service
appointments and biometrics submission requirements.\87\ Therefore, DHS
is proposing to either revise separate provisions regarding failure to
submit biometrics to cross-reference 8 CFR 103.16 or remove them
entirely. See proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 103.16(b), 208.10, 240.68,
and 240.70(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ Note that to avoid a disparate standard between USCIS
asylum adjudications and asylum proceedings in the EOIR context, the
current ``exceptional circumstances'' standard for asylum
applicants, as established under 8 CFR 208.10 will be maintained as
status quo. Failure to appear for an asylum interview or biometric
services appointment in connection with an asylum claim will be
excused if the applicant demonstrates that such failure to appear
was the result of exceptional circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Remove Unnecessary Procedures and Requirements
DHS is proposing changes in this rule consistent with continued
efforts to provide flexibility for applicants, petitioners, requestors
and associated individuals to submit biometrics, file benefit requests
or other requests or collections of information, and provide supporting
documentation, as well as for USCIS to receive and process those
requests in an electronic environment. In sections of the regulations
governing biometrics submission requirements, DHS is also proposing to
remove or replace language that applies solely to paper filings and
benefit requests or other requests or collections of information with
language that is applicable in both a paper and electronic environment.
For example, references to position titles, form numbers, mailing,
copies, and office jurisdiction are proposed to be removed, replacing
``the director,'' ``service office having jurisdiction over the prior
petition,'' ``service legalization office,'' ``legalization office,''
``service office designated for this purpose,'' ``successor form,'' and
``The INS,'' with ``USCIS'' or ``DHS'' in 8 CFR 204.4(d)(1),
210.2(c)(2)(iv), 210.2(c)(4)(iii), 210.5(b), 235.7(a), 245a.2; 245a.3,
245a.4, 245a.12, 214.2(k)(1) and 287.11(b)(3). In proposed 8 CFR
204.4(d)(1), the internal USCIS process is removed from the regulatory
text, by replacing the requirement that petitioners submit documents
within 1 year of the date requested, with a deadline provided in the
request. Similarly, in proposed 8 CFR 207.7(f)(2) and 208.21(d), the
specific procedure regarding transmissions to the U.S. Embassy or
consulate is deleted from the regulatory text. In other sections,
requirements to provide a paper fingerprint card or FD-258 are revised
to simply require ``biometrics.'' See 8 CFR 210.2(c)(3)(iv),
210.2(c)(4)(iii), 240.67(a), 245a.2(d), and (e)(1).
To promote electronic filing and lessen dependence on paper, DHS is
also proposing to eliminate references to the ``ADIT [Alien
Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication]-style'' photograph
requirement as outdated and revising any requirement for submitting
photographs with immigration benefit requests or other requests or
collections of information to reference photographs ``in a notice to
the individual,'' ``meeting the requirements in the instructions to the
relevant form,'' or ``in the manner prescribed by biometrics notice or
other notification by USCIS.'' See proposed 8 CFR 103.16, 204.2(a)(2),
210.5(b), and 333.1(a).
DHS believes that the photograph submission and use requirements in
the INA are met by digital photographs collected by USCIS as a
biometric identifier. INA sec. 333, 8 U.S.C. 1444, states:

(a) Three identical photographs of the applicant shall be signed by
and furnished by each applicant for naturalization or citizenship. One
of such photographs shall be affixed by the Attorney General to the
original certificate of naturalization issued to the naturalized
citizen and one to the duplicate certificate of naturalization required
to be forwarded to the Service.
(b) Three identical photographs of the applicant shall be furnished
by each applicant for--
(1) a record of lawful admission for permanent residence to be made
under INA sec. 249;
(2) a certificate of derivative citizenship; (3) a certificate of
naturalization or of citizenship;
(4) a special certificate of naturalization;
(5) a certificate of naturalization or of citizenship, in lieu of
one lost, mutilated, or destroyed;
(6) a new certificate of citizenship in the new name of any
naturalized citizen who, subsequent to naturalization, has had his name
changed by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or by marriage;
and
(7) a declaration of intention.
One such photograph shall be affixed to each such certificate
issued by the Attorney General and one shall be affixed to the copy of
such certificate retained by the Service.

[[Page 49085]]

There is nothing in INA sec. 333 that prohibits the submission of
photographs electronically or with a digital image. A digital
photograph collected at an ASC satisfies all of the requirements of INA
sec. 333. Therefore, DHS proposes to revise 8 CFR 333.1 to provide that
every applicant under section 333 of the Act must provide a photograph
in the manner prescribed in his or her biometrics notice or other
notification by USCIS.
e. Technical Edits and Edits for Clarity
DHS is also proposing technical edits to update or remove
references to position titles, form numbers, mailing addresses, copies,
and office jurisdiction, edits to regulatory text for clarity, and
edits that remove unnecessary operational or procedural constraints
that have become technologically or organizationally outdated. For
example, proposed 8 CFR 207.7(d) uses the correct form name for
``Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition,'' but updates the regulatory text
by replacing ``revoke'' with ``reopened and denied'' to accurately
describe the procedural disposition of the ``Refugee/Asylee Relative
Petition'' under the scenario governed by 8 CFR 207.7(d). DHS also
proposes to amend its regulations to remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) and (2)
because the two sections are purely operational and are superfluous
given the statutory requirements and regulatory revisions proposed to 8
CFR 103.2(b)(9). See INA sec. 216; 8 U.S.C. 1186a. The proposed changes
would not alter regulatory eligibility requirements but rather would
clarify certain interview procedures for conditional permanent
residents to reduce potential redundancies and ensure greater
uniformity within USCIS operations. Additionally, DHS is proposing
edits to update terms and cross-references resulting from the revisions
of this proposed rule. See proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 208.21(f),
209.1(b), 209.2(c), 214.2(e)(23)(viii), 214.2(k)(1), 214.15(f)(1),
240.21(b)(2)(ii), 244.6(a), 244.17(a), and 245a.12(b) and (d).

D. Biometrics Requirement for U.S. Citizens, U.S. Nationals, and Lawful
Permanent Residents

DHS proposes that any individual filing or associated with a
benefit request, other request, or collection of information, must
submit biometrics. In certain circumstances this will include U.S.
citizens, U.S. nationals and lawful permanent residents (LPRs). See
proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(1). Under current regulations, biometrics from
U.S. citizens are generally mandatory only in connection with adoption-
based petitions and applications. See 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3); 8 CFR
204.310(b). The regulations do not generally require biometrics from
U.S. citizens or LPRs filing family-based petitions. See generally 8
CFR 204.1 and 214.2(k). As discussed below, DHS has determined that
U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals and LPR petitioners must submit
biometrics in connection with certain benefit requests in order for DHS
to better ensure that it can comply with existing laws.
1. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (AWA)
amended the INA to prohibit a U.S. citizen or LPR from filing a family-
based immigrant visa petition or nonimmigrant fianc[eacute](e) visa
petition if he or she has been convicted of a ``specified offense
against a minor,'' unless the Secretary first determines, in the
Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, that the petitioner poses
``no risk'' to the beneficiary. See Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006, Public Law 109-248 (July 27, 2006), codified at INA
secs. 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) and (B)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) and (B)(i)(II), and INA sec. 101(a)(15)(K), 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K). To comply with the AWA, USCIS has determined
that the AWA requires that DHS must determine whether the petitioner
poses ``no risk'' to any derivative beneficiaries.
The AWA defines ``specified offense against a minor'' as an offense
against a minor (defined as a person who has not yet attained 18 years
of age) that involves any of the following: \88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 sec.
111(7), Public Law 109-248 (2006) (codified at 34 U.S.C. 20911(7)
after editorial reclassification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian)
involving kidnapping;
An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian)
involving false imprisonment;
Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct;
Use in a sexual performance;
Solicitation to practice prostitution;
Video voyeurism, as described in 18 U.S.C. 1801;
Possession, production, or distribution of child
pornography;
Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of
the internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct; or
Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a
minor.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\89\ ``Sex offense'' is defined in section 111(5)(A) of the Adam
Walsh Act, Public Law 109-248 (2006), codified at 34 U.S.C.
20911(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA)
IMBRA \90\ requires U.S. citizen petitioners for an alien
fianc[eacute](e) (K-1) or alien spouse (K-3) nonimmigrant to submit
with his or her Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fianc[eacute](e),
criminal conviction information on any of the following ``specified
crimes'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\90\ International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005,
Public Law 109-162 (Jan. 5, 2006), codified at INA secs. 214(d)(1),
(r)(1), and (r)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1184(d)(1), (r)(1), and (r)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and
neglect, dating violence, elder abuse, and stalking, or an attempt to
commit any of these crimes;
Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual
contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture, trafficking, peonage,
holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping,
abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, or an
attempt to commit any of these crimes; and
Crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol where
the petitioner has been convicted on at least three occasions and where
such crimes did not arise from a single act.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ INA secs. 214(d), (r), 8 U.S.C. 1184(d), (r).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It also requires petitioners to submit information on any
protection or restraining orders issued against the petitioner related
to the ``specified crimes'' of domestic violence, sexual assault, child
abuse and neglect, dating violence, elder abuse, and stalking, or an
attempt to commit any of these crimes.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ INA secs. 214(d), (r), 8 U.S.C. 1184(d), (r).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a petitioner indicates that he or she has been arrested or
convicted by a court or by a military tribunal for one of these
specified crimes, or if USCIS ascertains through relevant background
checks that the petitioner was arrested or convicted, the petitioner is
required to submit certified copies of all court and police records
showing the charges and dispositions for every such arrest or
conviction. See USCIS Form I-129F and Form I-129F Instructions, Part 3.
If the petition is approved, the petitioner's Form I-129F (including
all criminal background information and information regarding any
protection or restraining orders submitted by the petitioner and any
criminal background information that USCIS discovers during the course
of conducting its routine background check) must be provided to DOS.
Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. 1375a(a)(5)(A)(iii). DOS will then disclose this
information to the beneficiary during the consular

[[Page 49086]]

interview. See Form I-129F Instructions, Part 3.
3. Certain Family-Based Petitioners
USCIS is committed to complying with and furthering the purposes of
AWA and IMBRA so that intended beneficiaries of family-based visa
petitions are not placed at risk of harm from the persons who seek to
facilitate their immigration to the United States. Without complete
biometrics for all family-based petitioners, USCIS is required to rely
only on name-based criminal checks when assessing family-based
petitioners under AWA and IMBRA. These name-based checks do not
identify all offenders with visa petitions who have been convicted of
qualifying crimes under AWA and/or IMBRA. Name-based checks only yield
petitioners who are currently required to register as a sex offender or
who have a current order of protection in place or subject to an order
of protection. However, AWA applies to family-based immigrant petitions
and IMBRA applies to fianc[eacute](e) and spousal nonimmigrant visa
petitions with qualifying convictions regardless of when the
criminality occurred and may apply to crimes in addition to those that
would result in an individual being the subject of a protection order
or a history of being listed as a registered sex offender. The current
reliance on name-based checks means that certain family-based visa
petitioners are not currently identified and vetted under AWA and IMBRA
because USCIS does not routinely request biometrics from these
populations. Requiring biometrics collection for all family-based
petitioners will result in production of an official FBI criminal
history result (currently referred to as an Identity History Summary
(IdHS) and formerly referred to as a Record of Arrest and Prosecution)
which provides greater accuracy and detail relating to the petitioner's
criminal history.
USCIS already requires biometrics from all applicants, petitioners,
their spouses, and all adult members of the household in the
intercountry adoption context involving orphan and Hague Adoption
Convention cases as part of its evaluation of the prospective adoptive
parents' suitability to adopt a foreign-born child.\93\ See 8 CFR
204.3(c)(3), 8 CFR 204.310(b). USCIS likewise needs to review the
criminal histories of other petitioners before approving a family-based
immigration benefit. USCIS' ability to utilize biometrics to conduct
criminal history background checks to identify individuals convicted of
any ``specified offense against a minor'' or ``specified crime'' will
help prevent the approval of a petition in violation of the AWA or
without the proper disclosure required by IMBRA.\94\ Therefore, DHS
proposes to amend the regulations governing the requirements for Form
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and Form I-129F to require those
petitioners to routinely submit biometrics as required by proposed 8
CFR 103.16. See proposed 8 CFR 204.2(a)(2)(i) and 8 CFR 214.2(k)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ In intercountry adoption cases, DHS must be satisfied that
proper care will be provided to the child if admitted to the United
States. INA secs. 101(b)(1)(F) and (G); 8 U.S.C. 1101(F) and (G).
\94\ INA secs. 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) and (B)(i)(II); 8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) and (B)(i)(II), and INA sec. 101(a)(15)(K); 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), as amended by the Adam Walsh Act, tit. IV,
sec. 402, 120 Stat. at 622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected family-based petitions include those petitioning for the
following individuals:
Spouse;
Fianc[eacute](e);
Parent;
Unmarried child under 21 years of age;
Unmarried son or daughter over 21 years of age or over;
Married son or daughter of any age;
Sibling; or
Any derivative beneficiary permitted to receive an
immigrant or nonimmigrant visa based on his or her legal or genetic
familial relationship to the beneficiary of such petition.
See INA secs. 101(a)(15)(K), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 203(a), and (d); 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1153(a), and (d) (governing
nonimmigrant fianc[eacute](e)s, immediate relatives, and family-based
preference and derivative categories/classifications).
4. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Self-Petitioners
Separate from the AWA and IMBRA provisions discussed above, VAWA
self-petitioners \95\ are currently not generally required to submit
biometrics for adjudication, though they may be scheduled for the
limited submission of biometrics for purposes of identity verification
and the production of EADs. For some alien victims of domestic
violence, battery, or extreme cruelty, the U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident family members who are eligible to file immigrant
visa petitions for them threaten to withhold this legal immigration
sponsorship as a tool of abuse. VAWA allows abused aliens to petition
for legal status in the United States without relying on abusive U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident spouses, parents, or children to
petition for and sponsor their immigrant petition and Form I-485. The
purpose of the VAWA program is to allow victims the opportunity to
``self-petition'' or independently seek legal immigration status. DHS
proposes in this rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor,
beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit request,
other request, or collection of information, to include VAWA self-
petitioners, must appear for biometrics collection unless biometrics
are exempted. See proposed 8 CFR 204.2. In addition, as noted in the
PRA section of this preamble, DHS proposes to revise the applicable
forms to require VAWA self-petitioners to comply with the biometrics
submission requirement proposed in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ For purposes of this proposed rule, ``VAWA self-
petitioner'' refers to aliens who file Form I-360, Petition for
Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant under INA secs.
204(a)(1)(A)(iii), (iv), or (vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VAWA self-petitioners are currently not subject to a categorical
biometric collection, however they may be required to submit biometrics
on a non-routine basis for identity verification and the production of
EADs, and they must establish good moral character required under 8 CFR
204.2(c)(2)(v) and 204.2(e)(2)(v). Currently, VAWA self-petitioners may
establish good moral character through primary evidence, such as the
self-petitioner's affidavit and local police clearances, or state-
issued criminal background checks from each locality or state in the
United States where the self-petitioner has resided for 6 or more
months during the 3 years before filing. While VAWA self-petitioners
are encouraged to submit primary evidence, when possible, USCIS
considers any credible evidence of good moral character, such as
affidavits from responsible persons who can knowledgeably attest to the
self-petitioner's good moral character. USCIS does not currently
categorically use biometrics to verify the accuracy or completeness of
the disclosed criminal history information.
The proposed requirement for biometrics collection for VAWA self-
petitioners would result in production of the self-petitioner's IdHS
which provides greater accuracy and detail relating to the self-
petitioner's criminal history. This would accomplish several goals.
First, it would support the identity enrollment, verification, and
management in the immigration lifecycle purpose for USCIS biometrics
collection. Second, it supports the national security and criminal
history background check's purpose for USCIS biometrics collection as
relying on self-petitioners to obtain and present appropriate local
police clearance letters is not the most reliable or efficient

[[Page 49087]]

means of obtaining, or verifying, an accurate and complete criminal
history for a self-petitioner. Third, it will simplify the petition for
the self-petitioner as well as the adjudication for USCIS by reducing
the evidence a self-petitioner must submit to establish good moral
character. The self-petitioner will not need to contact the police
department in every locality or state in which he or she has lived for
6 months during the 3 years prior to filing and USCIS will not need to
analyze multiple police clearance letters or background checks for
their findings. However, per the proposed rule, self-petitioners who
lived outside the United States for 6 or more months during the 3-year
period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition must
generally submit a law enforcement clearance, criminal background
check, or similar report issued by an appropriate authority, until
USCIS has automated data-sharing capabilities that allow the agency to
query a foreign partner country for a self-petitioner's criminal
history record information and notifies the public of such capability.
The proposed revision to 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v), 204.2(e)(2)(v), and
204.2(j)(2)(v) to require biometrics from VAWA self-petitioners will
eliminate the need for self-petitioners who resided in the United
States 3 years before filing to obtain multiple police or law
enforcement clearance letters. The majority of self-petitioners would
only need to travel to one DHS or DHS authorized facility to submit
biometrics. Further, USCIS adjudicators would no longer need to verify
past addresses against police clearance letters, as the information
discovered by collecting biometrics for criminal history and national
security background checks will be credible and relevant evidence when
considering the good moral character requirement.
Under the proposed rule, DHS would also add a provision
incorporating the statutory requirements for self-petitioning parents
enacted in VAWA 2005 related to good moral character. See proposed 8
CFR 204.2(j)(1)(i), see also INA sec. 204(a)(1)(A)(vii), 8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)(vii). The proposed regulatory provision reflects the
plain language of the statute and is consistent with the regulatory
provisions for self-petitions for classification as spouses or
children. Id., See proposed 8 CFR 204.2(j)(1)(i). This requirement is
currently implemented through USCIS policy guidance, and DHS now
proposes codifying it at proposed 8 CFR 204.2(j).
The preamble to the 1996 VAWA Interim Rule noted that the statutory
VAWA self-petitioning provisions do not specify a period during which
good moral character must be established: eligibility to self-petition
requires that the alien ``is a person of good moral character.'' See,
e.g., INA sec. 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(bb), 8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(bb). However, the general definition of good
moral character and the triggering of the conditional bars are premised
on the occurrence of conduct ``during the period for which good moral
character is required to be established.'' See INA sec. 101(f), 8
U.S.C. 1101(f). See, e.g., INA sec. 101(f)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(5),
barring ``one who has been convicted of two or more gambling offenses
committed during such period'' (emphasis added). In the 1996 VAWA
Interim Rule, INS characterized its interpretation and implementation
of this statutory regime as requiring self-petitioners, including
children ages 14 and older, to provide evidence establishing that they
have been persons of good moral character for the 3 years preceding the
date of filing. See 61 FR 13066. Additionally, INS retained discretion
to consider the self-petitioner's conduct or acts prior to the 3-year
period, if it found reason to believe the self-petitioner had not been
a person of good moral character in the past. Id. The 1996 VAWA Interim
Rule, however, did not codify an eligibility requirement that self-
petitioners must demonstrate that they have been persons of good moral
character for the 3 years before filing; the only reference to such a
period is found in the evidentiary provisions stating that self-
petitioners should submit police clearances or similar background
reports for the 3 years before filing. 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v) and
(e)(2)(v). The regulation also provides for the denial of a pending
self-petition, or the revocation of an approved self-petition if the
self-petitioner has not yet been issued an immigrant visa or adjusted
to LPR status, upon disclosure of evidence that the self-petitioner
``is no longer'' a person of good moral character or had not been a
person of good moral character ``in the past.'' 8 CFR 204.2(c)(1)(vii)
and (e)(1)(vii).
Upon publication of the 1996 VAWA Interim Rule, INS asserted in
policy that the rule required self-petitioners 14 years of age and
older to provide evidence of their good moral character for the 3 years
before filing.\96\ In 2005, USCIS reiterated that the ``inquiry into
good moral character focuses on the 3 years immediately preceding the
filing of the self-petition,'' and again specified that USCIS has
discretion to look beyond the 3 years if there is reason to believe
that the self-petitioner may not have been a person of good moral
character during that time.\97\ USCIS retains this policy to date.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\96\ Office of Programs, Immigration and Naturalization
Services, DOJ, ``Implementation of Crime Bill Self-Petitioning for
Abused or Battered Spouses or Children of U.S. Citizens or Lawful
Permanent Residents,'' (Apr. 16, 1996).
\97\ USCIS Office of Domestic Operations, DHS, ``Determinations
of Good Moral Character in VAWA-Based Self-Petitions'' (Jan. 19,
2005).
\98\ See USCIS, ``Policy Manual,'' Volume 3 Humanitarian
Protection and Parole, Part D Violence Against Women Act, Chapter 2
Eligibility Requirements and Evidence, G. Good Moral Character,
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-3-part-d-chapter-2#S-G
(last updated Apr. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through multiple subsequent VAWA reauthorizations, Congress has not
acted to limit or otherwise change this longstanding policy.\99\
Accordingly, DHS proposes to codify its longstanding policy regarding
how USCIS evaluates a self-petitioner's good moral character. DHS
proposes that, when assessing good moral character for a VAWA self-
petitioner, USCIS may consider the self-petitioner's conduct beyond the
3 years immediately before filing, where: 1) the earlier conduct or
acts directly relate to a determination of the self-petitioner's
present moral character; and 2) the conduct of the self-petitioner
during the 3 years immediately before filing does not reflect that
there has been a reform of character from an earlier period. See
proposed 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v), (e)(2)(v), and (j)(2)(v). When USCIS is
aware of any conduct, behavior, acts, or convictions directly related
to a self-petitioner's present good moral character, USCIS may consider
that information even if it occurred prior to the 3-year period. The
passage of time alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate a self-
petitioner's present good moral character when there is evidence that
they lacked good moral character in the past. The proposed rule
codifies, consolidates, and clarifies existing policy and regulatory
text regarding the period when good moral character must be
demonstrated. DHS believes this approach effectively implements the
statutory text requiring present good moral character and maintains
consistency with the well-established policy guidance and falls within
DHS's delegated authority under INA sec. 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ See, e.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 657 (1981)
(``Long continued executive practice, known to and acquiesced in by
Congress, raises a presumption that the President's action has been
taken pursuant to Congress's consent'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS further proposes to remove the automatic presumption of good
moral character for VAWA self-petitioners

[[Page 49088]]

under 14 years of age. Rather, DHS proposes that VAWA self-petitioners
under 14 years of age will submit biometrics like any other VAWA self-
petitioner, which USCIS will use in the determination of good moral
character, and which preserves USCIS' discretionary authority to
require that VAWA self-petitioners provide additional evidence of good
moral character. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16. DHS does not believe this
change is a significant departure from the existing regulatory scheme
or that it will unduly burden self-petitioners under 14, because they
will still not be required to submit evidence of good moral character
apart from submitting biometrics as initial evidence with their self-
petitions. Furthermore, the existing presumption is rebuttable. USCIS
may currently request evidence of good moral character for self-
petitioners under 14 years of age if USCIS has reason to believe a
self-petitioner under 14 years of age lacks good moral character.
The proposed structure is intended to align the VAWA provisions
with the agency's goals regarding biometrics collection from all
applicants, petitioners, sponsors, derivatives, dependents,
beneficiaries and individuals, without regard to age, unless USCIS
exempts the biometrics requirement, while still preserving USCIS'
authority to define evidentiary requirements for demonstrating good
moral character for VAWA self-petitioners under 14 years of age in its
discretion. Additionally, as with any other USCIS petition or
application, if a decision will be adverse to an applicant or
petitioner and is based on unclassified derogatory information the
agency considered, he or she shall generally be advised of that fact
and offered an opportunity to rebut the information. See 8 CFR
103.2(b)(16)(i).
5. T Nonimmigrant Adjustment of Status Applicants
Similar to the VAWA self-petitioners discussed above, aliens
applying to adjust status based on underlying T nonimmigrant status
also have a good moral character requirement. The INA permits the
Secretary to grant T nonimmigrant status to individuals who are or were
victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons who have complied
with any reasonable request by a law enforcement agency for assistance
in the investigation or prosecution of a crime involving acts of
trafficking in persons (unless they were under 18 years of age at the
time at least one of the acts of trafficking occurred, or they are
unable to cooperate due to physical or psychological trauma). See INA
secs. 101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I) and (III), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I) and
(III). After the grant of T nonimmigrant status, an individual can
apply for lawful permanent residence under INA sec. 245(l) and 8 CFR
245.23 by filing a Form I-485. Among several other eligibility
requirements, an applicant seeking to adjust under INA sec. 245(l) must
demonstrate good moral character from the date of lawful admission as a
T nonimmigrant until the time USCIS adjudicates his or her adjustment
of status application. See 8 CFR 245.23(g).
Currently, USCIS evaluates an applicant's good moral character for
T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants by evaluating the applicant's
affidavits, the results of biometric-based security checks, the
submission of a ``local police clearance or a state-issued criminal
background check,'' and other credible evidence on a case-by-case
basis. See 8 CFR 245.23(g). There are several concerns with the use of
affidavits and police clearance letters to establish good moral
character where the applicant has resided domestically for the
requisite period that will be addressed by this proposed rule. First,
this proposed rule would make local police clearance letters for
domestic residents unnecessary, because it would authorize biometrics
to obtain good moral character information for all applicants and
petitioners, including T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants.
DHS proposes in this rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor,
derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated
with a benefit request, other request, or collection of information
must appear for biometrics collection unless biometrics are exempted.
Second, official criminal history results from biometric-based security
checks will provide a more reliable means for obtaining or verifying an
accurate and complete criminal history for an applicant than official
criminal history results that rely on applicants to obtain and present
appropriate local police clearances or state-issued criminal background
checks. Third, this proposed rule eliminates the additional burden that
the submission of local police clearance letters creates for certain
applicants (e.g., applicants who resided in multiple jurisdictions
during the requisite period). Fourth, since the submission of local
police clearance letters is redundant, because T nonimmigrant
adjustment of status applicants are currently subject to a biometrics
requirement, it logically follows that the regulation should reflect
that adjudicators assess good moral character with the most reliable
and comprehensive evidence available (i.e., official criminal history
results from the biometric-based security checks).\100\ Presently,
USCIS requires biometrics for T adjustment of status applicants,
however, the regulations also require applicants to submit police
clearance letters, if available, which adjudicators consider in
addition to other credible evidence when determining good moral
character. For these reasons, DHS proposes to eliminate the requirement
that applicants for adjustment status based on underlying T
nonimmigrant status submit self-obtained police clearance letters from
United States jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\100\ Office of the Attorney General, DOJ, ``Matter of Castillo-
Perez,'' 27 I&N Dec. 664, 666-67 (A.G. 2019) (Oct. 25, 2019)
(discussing meaning of ``good moral character'' and explaining that
``an alien's criminal record is highly probative of whether he
possesses good moral character'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several additional benefits to eliminating the self-
obtained police clearance requirement for T adjustment of status
applicants. First, requiring adjudicators to assess good moral
character based in part on an official FBI criminal history result or
IdHS provides greater accuracy and detail relating to the T
nonimmigrant adjustment applicant's criminal history, as those results
typically cover many jurisdictions. Second, eliminating the requirement
supports the national security and criminal history background check
purposes for USCIS biometrics collection. Third, eliminating the
requirement will simplify the application and adjudication processes
for the T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applications because the
applicant will not need to contact the U.S.-based police department in
every city in which he or she has lived during the requisite period and
USCIS will not need to analyze multiple police letters for their
findings. Due to certain limitations with biometric information sharing
among foreign countries, applicants who have been subject to criminal
arrest, charge, or conviction outside the United States during the
requisite period will have to provide a law enforcement clearance,
criminal background check, or similar report issued by an appropriate
authority from the foreign jurisdiction in which criminal arrest,
charge or conviction took place, until USCIS has automated data-sharing
capabilities that allow the agency to query foreign partner countries
for a self-petitioner's criminal history record information, and
notifies the public of such capability.
As noted above, USCIS currently assesses good moral character based
on

[[Page 49089]]

biometric-based security check results and other relevant evidence in
the file, including an affidavit from the applicant attesting to their
good moral character accompanied by a local police clearance or a
state-issued criminal background check from each locality or state in
the United States in which the applicant has resided for 6 or more
months during the requisite period in continued presence or T-1
nonimmigrant status. The proposed revision of 8 CFR 245.23(g) would
codify the current USCIS policy and practice of collecting biometrics
and eliminate the need for USCIS adjudicators to verify past addresses
against police clearance letters, because the information in the
applicant's criminal history and national security background check
result will be the most relevant and reliable evidence for assessing
good moral character. However, as proposed, if an applicant has been
subject to criminal arrest, charge, or been convicted outside the
United States during the requisite period, the applicant will have to
provide a law enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or
similar report issued by an appropriate authority from the foreign
jurisdiction. Additionally, DHS may, in its discretion, request
evidence of good moral character of a T applicant under the age of 14.
DHS also proposes to clarify regulatory language referring to the
requisite period of good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment
of status applicants. The current regulation references evaluating good
moral character during a requisite period of ``continued presence.''
See 8 CFR 245.23(g)(1). ``Continued presence'' is an established term
in the immigration and trafficking in persons context but is not the
correct term to refer to the period relevant to USCIS' evaluation of
good moral character. Rather, USCIS believes the current regulatory
language was intended to refer to the requirement that the applicant be
physically present ``for a continuous period of at least 3 years since
the date of admission as a nonimmigrant'' or ``continuous period during
the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking.'' See INA sec.
245(l)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(1)(A). Therefore, DHS proposes to amend
8 CFR 245.23(g) to refer to the relevant period, per INA sec.
245(l)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(1)(A), as the ``requisite period'' and
remove references to ``continued presence.''
Consistent with other adjudicative determinations of good moral
character in certain limited circumstances, when assessing good moral
character for T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants, USCIS would be able
to consider the applicant's conduct beyond the requisite period, where:
(1) the earlier conduct directly relates to a determination of the
applicant's moral character during the requisite period; and (2) the
conduct of the applicant during the requisite period does not reflect
that there has been a reform of character from an earlier period. See
generally 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2). In any such circumstance, DHS proposes
that the existence of information within the requisite period would
have to directly connect to the conduct outside the requisite period
and reflect on the T nonimmigrant adjustment applicant's moral
character during the requisite period. For example, if a T nonimmigrant
adjustment applicant's criminal history reveals a violation of
probation within the requisite period, DHS believes that identifying
the conviction that gave rise to the underlying sentence of probation--
even if that conviction occurred outside the requisite period--would
directly bear on the T nonimmigrant adjustment applicant's moral
character during the requisite period. In such an example, the T
nonimmigrant adjustment applicant was under a criminal sentence during
the requisite good moral character period such that USCIS should be
able to assess the conviction, sentence, conditions of probation, and
compliance with those conditions, as all would reflect on the T
nonimmigrant adjustment applicant's good moral character. DHS further
proposes to revise 8 CFR 245.23(g) to remove the presumption of good
moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants
under 14 years of age. See 8 CFR 245.23(g)(4). Rather, the rule
provides that such applicants will submit biometrics like any other
applicant, and it preserves USCIS' discretionary authority to require
that applicants provide additional evidence of good moral character.
See proposed 8 CFR 245.23(g).
DHS does not believe this change is a significant departure from
the existing regulatory scheme or that it will burden applicants under
14 generally, because they will still not be required to submit
evidence of good moral character apart from biometrics as initial
evidence with their applications. Furthermore, the existing presumption
is rebuttable. USCIS may currently request evidence of good moral
character for applicants under 14 years of age if USCIS has reason to
believe the applicant lacks good moral character. The proposed changes
would remove the superfluous need for police clearance letters from T
nonimmigrant adjustment applicants and remove the good moral character
presumption for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants under
age 14. As noted in the PRA section of this preamble, DHS will revise
the applicable forms to eliminate the police clearance letter
requirement for T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants concomitant with
this rule.
DHS proposes these changes to align the T nonimmigrant adjustment
of status provisions with the agency's goals regarding biometrics
collection, including identity management in the immigration lifecycle
(without regard to age, unless USCIS exempts the biometrics
requirement), while still preserving USCIS' discretionary authority to
define evidentiary requirements for child applicants to demonstrate
good moral character.
6. Persons Involved With EB-5 Regional Center Program
DHS proposes to continue its existing practice to require
biometrics collection and perform biometric-based criminal history and
national security background checks, as well as for purposes of
identity verification, on all persons involved with a regional center,
new commercial enterprise or job-creating entity, U.S. citizens, U.S.
nationals and lawful permanent residents, as part of its determination
of whether such persons and entities are eligible to participate in the
regional center program. INA sec. 203(b)(5)(H); 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(H).
DHS proposes to continue its existing practice that the biometric
collection for background checks also extend, if the person is a legal
entity or organization, to those persons having ownership, control, or
beneficial interest in such legal entity or organization. See INA sec.
203(b)(5)(H)(v); 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(H)(v). Further, DHS proposes that
the biometrics requirement may also include additional collections or
checks for purposes of continuous vetting. See proposed 8 CFR
103.16(c)(2). Section 203(b)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5),
authorizes the EB-5 program generally as well as the related EB-5
regional center program.
7. Collection of Biometrics From Other Individuals Associated With a
Benefit Request, Other Request, or Collection of Information
In addition to previously discussed petitioners, beneficiaries, co-
applicants and persons involved with EB-5 regional center program, this
rule, if finalized, would also authorize DHS to require biometrics from
any individual,

[[Page 49090]]

including U.S. citizens, nationals, and LPRs, who is otherwise
associated with an immigration benefit request, other request, or
collection of information as a means to deter and prevent fraud and
protect the public. The proposed rule, if finalized, expands biometric
submission to individuals associated with an immigration benefit
request, other request, or collection of information, to include
individuals who are not beneficiaries, petitioners or filers of forms
submitted to USCIS. This can include but is not limited to financial
sponsors of aliens or individuals who file affidavits of support on an
alien's behalf as part of an immigration benefit request.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\101\ The terms ``file,'' ``submit,'' ``associated with'' or
variations thereof, as used throughout this rule, do not relate to
attorneys and accredited representatives, although attorneys and
accredited representatives may file or submit a request on behalf of
a client. DHS, at this time, is not proposing biometrics submission
by attorneys and accredited representatives. Further, DHS, at this
time, is not proposing biometrics submission by interpreters who may
be associated with the filing of a benefit request, other request,
or collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

By expanding biometric submission to all individuals filing or
associated with an immigration benefit request, other request, or
collection of information, USCIS can prevent and deter fraud by
identifying fraudulent trends that impact the integrity of the request
and identifying national security or public safety threats associated
with the benefit request, other request or collection of information.
For example, in July 2024, USCIS suspended parts of the Cuban, Haitian,
Nicaraguan, Venezuelan (CHNV) parole processes after a USCIS Fraud
Detection and National Security Directorate preliminary assessment
identified concerns related to fraudulent supporter requests.\102\
These reported fraud trends and concerns were identified primarily by
analyzing the biographical information provided by the financial
supporters and filed with USCIS. Had USCIS possessed biometric data
submitted by CHNV financial sponsors, USCIS would have been able to
identify these emerging fraud trends in a more efficient manner.
Biometrics submitted by financial sponsors would have provided USCIS
with a person-centric approach to record management enabling USCIS
systems to quickly detect problematic supporter requests. For example,
the information obtained from biometric submission may have identified
the immigration history of every sponsor, including previous
sponsorships, as well as criminal histories that would be considered
during adjudication of the request.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ See generally, U.S. House of Representatives, Interim
Staff Report of the Committee on the Judiciary and Subcommittee on
Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, The Biden-Harris
Administration's CHNV Parole Program Two Years Later: A Fraud-Ridden
Unmitigated Disaster (Nov 20, 2024). Available at: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-11-20%20The%20Biden%20Harris%20Administration%27s%20CHNV%20Parole%20Program%20Two%20Years%20Later%20-%20A%20Fraud-Ridden%2C%20Unmitigated%20Disaster.pdf (last visited Jul. Available
at: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-11-20%20The%20Biden%20Harris%20Administration%27s%20CHNV%20Parole%20Program%20Two%20Years%20Later%20-%20A%20Fraud-Ridden%2C%20Unmitigated%20Disaster.pdf (last visited Jul. 25, 2025).
\103\ In March 2025, the Secretary exercised her discretionary
authority to terminate the CHNV parole programs in addition to the
parole of aliens who had been granted parole under those programs
but reserved the authority to grant case-by-case exceptions. See 90
FR 13611 (March 25, 2025). The Federal Notice announcing the
termination explained that those parole programs had not
accomplished their stated aims, and that the programs had
exacerbated backlogs, or risked exacerbating backlogs, for the
immigration system writ large''; ``had a disruptive impact'' CBP
operations at air-ports of entry; and were inconsistent with the
Administration's foreign policy goals and ``other measures to
prevent the entry of illegal aliens''. Id. at 13615-13616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS welcomes public comment on all aspects of this proposal,
including expanding biometric collection to U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident family-based petitioners including in order to
better comply with AWA and IMBRA, expanding biometric collection to
VAWA self-petitioners, eliminating police clearance letters for VAWA
self-petitioners and T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants, modifying
the VAWA self-petitioner and T nonimmigrant adjustment applicant's good
moral character requirements for those under 14 years of age, and
continuing biometric collection of persons involved with a regional
center, new commercial enterprise or job-creating entity, U.S.
citizens, U.S. nationals and lawful permanent residents, under the EB-5
program, as well as additional collections or checks for purposes of
continuous vetting throughout the immigration lifecycle.

E. Biometrics Services Appointments and Interviews

1. Biometric Services Appointments
DHS is also proposing a new ``extraordinary circumstance'' standard
when an individual requests rescheduling of a biometrics services
appointment.\104\ Under the proposed rule, an individual may reschedule
their biometric services appointment one time prior to the date of the
scheduled biometric services appointment for any reason. Any additional
requests to reschedule by an individual before the date of the
biometric services appointment must be justified by extraordinary
circumstances that prevent the individual from attending. See proposed
8 CFR 103.16(a)(8). If an individual fails to attend their scheduled
appointment, absent extraordinary circumstances, DHS may take adverse
administrative action on the associated benefit request, other request,
or collection of information. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(b)(1), (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ As discussed below in Section IV.E Discussion of Proposed
Changes: Interviews, DHS is also proposing to apply the
``extraordinary circumstances'' standard when an individual makes a
request to reschedule a required interview. See proposed 8 CFR
103.2(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current regulations employ a ``good cause'' standard that USCIS
considers when an individual requests to reschedule a biometric
services appointment. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(ii). Current policy-based
examples of ``good cause'' to reschedule a biometric services
appointment may include, but are not limited to illness, medical
appointment or hospitalization, previously planned travel or inability
to obtain transportation.\105\ However, in practice, USCIS is aware of
individuals taking advantage of this standard by requesting multiple
biometric services appointment reschedule requests. According to USCIS
data, in FY2023 there were 133,188 applicant-requested biometric
services appointment reschedule requests and by FY2024 that number of
applicant-requested reschedule requests increased to 199,585.\106\
While the aggregate number of applicant-requested reschedule requests
is significant, it is not, without more data indicia of abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\105\ See USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 2--
Biometrics Collection, A--Biometric Services Appointments.
\106\ This data was obtained from USCIS Immigration Records and
Identity Service (IRIS), NASS database, data queried July 25, 2025.
The data provided here for FY 2023 and FY 2024 reflects biometrics
services appointment reschedule requests for only USCIS appointments
as of July 25, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, USCIS data also show that in FY2023 33,285 receipts were
associated with more than one reschedule request; by FY2024 that number
increased to 36,855. In FY2023 and FY2024, USCIS data show 5,917 and
5,343, respectively, receipts associated with more than two reschedule
requests. Realistically, this is over 11,000 receipts absorbing at
least 33,000 ASC appointment slots (two rescheduled appointment slots
and the presumptive third appointment where he or she appeared). In
FY2023, 333 different receipts had five or more

[[Page 49091]]

reschedule requests and, within that population, multiple receipts were
associated with nine reschedule requests. In FY2024, 241 receipts had
five or more reschedule requests and, within that population, one
receipt was associated with ten reschedule requests.\107\ Depending on
when the reschedule request is received, USCIS may be able to fill the
appointment slot with a different individual's biometrics service
appointment, but not all rescheduled appointment slots can be filled
which inevitably results in an unused appointment slot and wasted ASC
capacity. Because biometrics service appointment slots are finite,
unused appointments can contribute to overall increases in USCIS
processing times. USCIS endeavors to achieve the most efficient ASC
operations possible, however USCIS notes that under this proposed rule
there is an increased risk of unused biometrics services appointment
slots adversely impacting USCIS processing times. The proposed rule, if
finalized would increase the number of filings subject to a biometrics
requirement and although USCIS fully intends to modify ASCs to increase
operational capacity, USCIS has an interest in ensuring that baseless
reschedule requests do not hinder operations or adversely affect
processing times. For this reason, a heightened standard will help
USCIS weed out meritless reschedule requests so that appointment slots
can be filled in order to maximize ASC capacity. As such, USCIS is
amending the standard under which it will consider rescheduling a
biometric services appointment to one of ``extraordinary
circumstances.'' See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed further below in Section V.A.3.a.4 of this preamble,
USCIS has found a significant volume of biometric services appointments
are rescheduled under the ``good cause'' standard at least one time.
Rescheduling biometric services appointments increases the operational
burden on USCIS. Not only do USCIS employees need to vet the requests,
but they must also reschedule the appointment for a different date.
This also sometimes results in appointments that could have been used
by another individual whereby that available appointment slot ends up
being unfilled and wasted. In general, this leads to increased
processing times for the adjudication of immigration benefit requests.
Under typical adjudication processes, biometrics are submitted prior to
an adjudicator reviewing a case and, if the biometrics are delayed,
then it necessarily delays the adjudicator's review. However, USCIS
recognizes that an individual may be originally scheduled for a
biometric services appointment on a date they are not able to attend.
To allow some flexibility, under the proposed rule, USCIS will allow
individuals to reschedule their biometric services appointment, one
time, for any reason, and select a new date and time to submit
biometrics. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(8).
The proposed rule authorizes biometrics submission for all
individuals, regardless of age, filing or associated with an
immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of
information, unless exempted. This will likely result in additional
biometric services appointments with USCIS. To ensure a reduced burden
on USCIS biometric services operations and efficient processing times
for benefit requestors, the proposed rule establishes a higher standard
for rescheduling biometrics services appointments and excusing failure
to appear for previously scheduled biometric services appointments. The
proposed ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard will be assessed on a
case-by-case basis to include examples of unforeseen scenarios that
impact an individual's ability to attend a previously scheduled
appointment. For example, the unexpected death of an immediate family
member or if the individual experiences a serious medical emergency
requiring immediate medical attention or hospitalization. USCIS will
exercise discretion in evaluating biometrics services appointment
reschedule requests and requests to excuse a failure to appear for a
previously scheduled biometric services appointment. ``Extraordinary
circumstances'' will be a more stringent standard than the current
``good cause'' standard. However, as stated previously, to help offset
this heightened standard, USCIS will not apply the ``extraordinary
circumstances'' standard to an individual's first request to
reschedule, instead USCIS will allow for the rescheduling of an
individual's first ASC appointment for any reason or no reason. The
individual need only submit a timely request to reschedule according to
current public-facing guidance. Any second or subsequent reschedule
requests would need to satisfy the higher ``extraordinary
circumstances'' standard. ``Extraordinary circumstances'' will ensure
that individuals required to appear for biometrics submission make
every effort under their control to attend their scheduled biometric
services appointment and submit biometrics, as required per the
proposed regulation.
DHS is not, however, proposing to change the standard for failure
to appear at a biometric services appointment in the asylum
context.\108\ Consistent with the current regulation, an asylum
applicant's failure to comply with biometrics submission requirements
without good cause may result in dismissal of the application or waiver
of the right to a USCIS adjudication, and failure to appear for a
biometrics appointment or for an interview will only be excused if the
applicant can demonstrate ``exceptional circumstances.'' See proposed 8
CFR 208.10. DHS is retaining this standard as to not create a disparity
between USCIS asylum adjudications and EOIR asylum proceedings governed
under DOJ regulations. See 8 CFR 1003.10, 1208.10, 1240.67(b)(3), and
1240.68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\108\ DHS is proposing to amend 208.10 to replace references to
``fingerprints'' and with the term ``biometrics'' consistent with
the goals of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Interviews for Benefits
DHS is also proposing to clarify the standards that apply when an
individual seeks to reschedule or fails to appear for an interview with
USCIS. Under the proposed rule, any individual required to appear for
an interview may request to reschedule an interview for extraordinary
circumstances. See proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(iv). In contrast to
proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(8)--allowing an alien to reschedule a
biometric services appointment one time for any reason--USCIS will only
reschedule an interview at the request of the individual, for
extraordinary circumstances. DHS proposes to make these changes to
increase operational efficiency within the adjudicative process. As
with the rescheduling of biometric services appointments noted above,
USCIS believes interviews with individuals filing or associated with a
pending benefit request, other request, or collection of information,
are often rescheduled leading to adjudicative delays. Interviews are
required for the adjudication of many form types and delays caused by
rescheduling can hinder USCIS processing times and delay adjudication,
impacting the agency as well as the individual requesting the benefit.
The interviews performed by USCIS personnel require extensive
preparation, research, and file review to be conducted prior to the
interview. Officer review in preparation for an interview is a more
robust process than what is performed prior to a biometric services
appointment, which

[[Page 49092]]

is completed by contract staff. As such, the proposed rule, in contrast
to the rescheduling of biometric services appointments, does not
provide that an individual may reschedule an interview one time for any
reason, because permitting individuals to fail to appear for an
interview has a much greater and adverse impact on an officer's time
and agency resources. By establishing ``extraordinary circumstances''
as a standard for rescheduling of interviews, USCIS seeks to permit
rescheduling under limited circumstances while preventing delays in the
adjudicative process.
Consistent with existing regulations, see 8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)(ii),
USCIS is also proposing to clarify in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(v) that failure
to appear at an interview without prior authorization may result in a
variety of consequences including denial of a benefit request, other
request, or collection of information. With respect to a showing of
exceptional circumstances in the asylum context, USCIS proposes to
maintain the status quo. See proposed 8 CFR 208.10. As stated above,
DHS is retaining this standard as to not create a disparity between
USCIS asylum adjudications and EOIR asylum proceedings governed under
DOJ regulations. See 8 CFR 1003.10, 1208.10, 1240.67(b)(3), and
1240.68.
3. Interviews for Alien Spouses
As previously stated, DHS also proposes to amend its regulations to
remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) and (2) because the two sections are purely
operational and superfluous given the statutory requirements and
regulatory revisions proposed to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). See INA sec. 216; 8
U.S.C. 1186a. Seeking the removal of the conditional basis for status--
under INA sec. 216, 8 U.S.C. 1186a, and INA sec. 216(c)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1186a(c)(2)--requires that the alien spouse and the petitioning spouse
appear for a personal interview, although DHS may waive the interview
requirement in its discretion. See INA sec. 216(d)(3), 8 U.S.C.
1186a(d)(3). DHS also proposes to remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1), ``Authority
to waive interview,'' and 8 CFR 216.4(b)(2), ``Location of interview''
as they apply to a joint petition to remove the conditional basis of
lawful permanent resident status filed by the alien and the alien's
spouse. The decision to waive the mandatory interview is purely
discretionary and already provided for in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(ii), and
because 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) simply reiterates this discretion, 8 CFR
216.4(b)(1) serves no purpose, especially since determining whether the
eligibility requirements for removal of conditions in 8 CFR 216.4(c)
were established is central to the adjudication of the petition itself.
Any decision to waive the mandatory interview is purely discretionary,
and 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) simply reiterates what is provided in 8 CFR
103.2(b)(9)(ii). Additionally, the limitation on who can conduct an
interview and who has jurisdiction over an interview created by 8 CFR
216.4(b)(2) is unnecessary and creates operational restrictions that
interfere with USCIS' ability to adjudicate the Form I-751. The
decision to assign an interviewer and the location of an interview is a
purely operational and procedural decision, and one that should be made
upon the adjudicative priorities and operational resources available to
USCIS.
Furthermore, proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) will address interview
requirements generally, making 8 CFR 216.4(b)(2) unnecessary.
Proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(iv) provides that failure to appear for
a scheduled interview without prior authorization may result in a
variety of consequences, including termination of conditional permanent
resident status. Under proposed 8 CFR 216.4(b) failure to appear for an
interview in connection with an alien spouse, when requested by USCIS,
will result in automatic termination of the alien's permanent residence
status. As discussed above in this section of the preamble, DHS
proposes that the petitioners may, before the date of the scheduled
interview, request, in the presence of extraordinary circumstances,
that the interview be rescheduled or withdraw the petition. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(iv). Additionally, the provisions at
proposed 8 CFR 216.4(b) would permit petitioners to request
rescheduling if the petitioners failed to appear and the petitioner
demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances prevented the petitioner
from attending the scheduled interview.
Lastly, 8 CFR 216.4(b)(3) will be redesignated as proposed 8 CFR
216.4(b).

F. Proposed Implementation

1. Phased-In Additional Biometrics Collection
DHS does not plan to immediately expand all biometric programs to
provide that all populations or all new modalities would be required as
of the date the new regulations proposed in this rule take effect. As
provided in proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(1), USCIS may exempt certain
benefits requests, other requests, or collections of information, or
any individuals or a specific individual from the rule's proposed
biometric submission requirement. Only those revised forms that propose
to add a particular biometric submission requirement in conjunction
with this rule (as described in the PRA section of this preamble) or
where individual notice is given will be immediately subject to new
biometric requirements.
This rule permits DHS to request, require, or accept raw DNA and
DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, for individual
benefit requests or other requests or collections of information at its
discretion.
As provided in proposed 8 CFR 103.16, DHS may expand or contract
its biometrics submission requirements in the future when required by
law, when required by regulation, by notice in the Federal Register, or
by revising form instructions, consistent with the APA and PRA.
Additionally, just as it is today, a non-routine biometric submission
may be required through direct notice to an individual.\109\ If a
decision by DHS to categorically collect biometrics from a new
population of filers or to categorically collect new biometric
modalities implicate the PRA, DHS will comply with any requirements
that the PRA may impose based on the particular circumstances that are
being changed.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ See generally, 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9).
\110\ In general, form revisions requiring a new biometric
submission are subject to public notice in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, and its
implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding biometrics collections outside of the USCIS adjudication
context, this rule proposes to give DHS components, including ICE and
CBP, expanded authority to collect biometrics from aliens for use in
relation to certain immigration enforcement activities as discussed in
Sections IV.A.3 and IV.C.3.b of this preamble; however, the proposed
rule provides these component with flexibility and discretion to
implement this authority as appropriate within their own mission spaces
and based on operational needs. See proposed 8 CFR 236.5.
2. Collection of the Biometric Services Fee
DHS currently incorporates most fees for biometric services into
the underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric
services are applicable to simplify the fee structure, reduce
rejections of benefit requests for failure to include the biometric
services fee, and better reflect how USCIS uses biometric
information.\111\ In general, the

[[Page 49093]]

fees established in the USCIS Fee Schedule 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. However, there are
instances where a separate biometric services fee may be charged, such
as for a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicant or re-registrant or
the DHS-EOIR biometric services fee.\112\ DHS currently describes this
authority to require a fee for biometric services in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)
(USCIS may require the payment of the biometric services fee in 8 CFR
106.2 or that the individual obtain a fee waiver. Such appearance and
fee may also be required by law, regulation, form instructions, or
Federal Register notice applicable to the request type.) DHS is
proposing to retain this authority but will transfer it to the
Biometric Services regulation at 8 CFR 103.16. See proposed 8 CFR
103.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024).
\112\ See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(50) and 8 CFR 103.7(a)(2),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Evidence of Age and Birth Parentage for an Adopted Child

DHS proposes to require a copy of a prospective adopted child
beneficiary's birth certificate to establish the child's identity and
age, and the identities of the child's birth parents (if known). See
proposed 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vii). Section 101(b)(1)(E) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E), may serve as the basis of the approval of an
immigrant visa petition filed by a U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence on behalf of an adopted child whose
adoption meets the requirements of INA sec. 101(b)(1)(E). Under INA
sec. 101(b)(1)(E), an adopted child is the adoptive parent's child for
immigration purposes, if the adoptive parent adopted the child before
the child reached the age of 16 (or 18 if the sibling exception at INA
sec. 101(b)(1)(E)(ii) applies), and the child has jointly resided with
the adoptive parent in a bona fide parent-child relationship for at
least 2 years, and has been under the legal custody of the adoptive
parent for at least 2 years. To show that the adopted child was under
the requisite age, the petitioner must prove the beneficiary's date of
birth. To show a bona fide parent-child relationship, the petitioner
must, among other things, identify the beneficiary's birth parents and
show that they no longer reside with the child in a parent-child
relationship and no longer exert primary parental control over the
child. The best evidence to show age and birth parentage is a birth
certificate issued by civil authorities. Therefore, DHS proposes to
require that the petitioner submit a copy of the beneficiary's birth
certificate, if available, to establish the beneficiary's identity,
age, and the identities of the beneficiary's birth parents (if known).
See proposed 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi).
DHS additionally proposes to update the regulation to align with
INA sec. 101(b)(1)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E)(ii), which provides
that a beneficiary adopted while under age 18 (rather than age 16) may
qualify as an adopted child under that provision if he or she is the
birth sibling of a child described in INA secs. 101(b)(1)(E)(i) or
(F)(i), was adopted by the same adoptive parent(s), and otherwise meet
the requirements of INA sec. 101(b)(1)(E). While the INA uses the term
``natural sibling,'' DHS generally uses the term ``birth siblings''
synonymously, which includes half-siblings but does not include
adoptive siblings. See proposed 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vii).
DHS is soliciting public comment on all aspects of the proposed
implementation plan, including alternative implementation plans
(phased-in or otherwise).

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192 (Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation)

E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs
and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides
that ``any new incremental costs associated with the new regulations
shall, to the extent permitted by law be offset by the elimination of
existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule
a ``significant regulatory action'' and economically significant as
defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, because its annual effects
on the economy exceed $100 million in any year of the analysis.
Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Additionally, this proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192
regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an
immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary
direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the
United States (as described in INA sec. 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal
Government with respect to aliens. See OMB Memorandum M-25-20,
``Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, titled
``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'' (Mar. 26, 2025).
1. Summary
DHS intends to amend its regulations governing its use and
collection of biometrics. The changes include expanding the submission
of biometrics to require any individual filing, regardless of age,
associated with an immigration benefit or request to appear for
biometrics submission unless exempted from appearing for such
biometrics submission. DHS is also expanding biometrics collection
authority upon alien arrest. The proposed rule makes changes to current
regulations by defining the term ``biometrics'' to clarify and expand
DHS's regulatory authority to collect biometrics information, establish
an ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard to excuse a failure to
appear at a biometric services appointment, modify how VAWA self-
petitioners and T nonimmigrant status applicants demonstrate good moral
character, and codify biometrics reuse requirements. DHS is further
clarifying the purposes for which biometrics are collected, stored, and
utilized. Lastly, the proposed rule provides that DHS may require,
request, or accept the submission of raw DNA or DNA test results to
prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or unclaimed genetic
relationship or as evidence of biological sex.
The following analysis estimates impacts from proposed changes to
the regulations governing collection of biometrics for benefit and
other requests administered by USCIS. It does not include impacts to
CBP and ICE, which have immigration enforcement responsibilities that
may require collection, use, and storage of biometrics and use of USCIS
systems or forms for which biometrics would be required by this rule.
This rule generally does not propose to authorize CBP or ICE to expand
biometrics collections beyond either component's independent

[[Page 49094]]

authorities aside from authorizing the collection of additional
biometrics modalities, and authorizing the expansion of CBP and ICE
authority to collect biometrics from aliens under the age of 14, within
their respective statutorily authorized mission spaces.
DHS estimates that under this proposed rule, about 1.12 million
more biometrics submissions will be collected annually, and the
resulting biometrics-submitting population will increase from a current
baseline of 2.07 million to 3.19 million. Currently, DHS requires
biometric submission from individuals associated with 26 immigration-
related forms and may include additional individuals associated with
other form types on an as-needed basis.\113\ The proposed rule is
expanding DHS's regulatory authority to require biometric submission
from individuals associated with all USCIS forms, including benefit
requests, other requests, and other collections of information. The
increase in biometric submissions will accrue to three population
segments: (i) a small subset of forms in which biometric submissions is
collected routinely and for which the age-eligible population will
expand; (ii) the broadening of routine submissions to forms specified
in the analysis for which submission is not currently routine; and
(iii) the expansion of the age-eligible biometrics population to a
collection of forms characterized by very low filing volumes,
unspecified forms, and forms that are generally co-filed with forms
where biometric submissions are collected routinely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\113\ USCIS has the general authority to require and collect
biometrics from any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or
other individual residing in the United States for any immigration
and naturalization benefit. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS currently incorporates the fee for biometric services into the
underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric
services are applicable to simplify the fee structure, reduce
rejections of benefit requests for failure to include the biometric
services fee, and better reflect how USCIS uses biometric information.
89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024). In general, the fees established in the
USCIS Fee Schedule 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. See 8 CFR 106.1(a). However, there are instances
where a separate biometric services fee may be charged, such as for a
TPS applicant or re-registrant or the DHS-EOIR biometric services fee.
See e.g., 8 CFR 106.2(a)(50)(iii).
DHS estimates that the annual costs for individuals who will submit
biometrics under the proposed rule will be $231.5 million. This
includes costs to petitioners of family-based requests, costs to VAWA
self-petitioners and T nonimmigrant petitioners submitting evidence to
demonstrate good moral character, costs to potential persons involved
with regional centers, and fee costs incurred by TPS registrants and
individuals in EOIR proceedings. DHS estimates costs to the government
totaling $55,040 for fees that the FBI will collect for providing
fingerprint-based CHRI checks prior to NTA issuance. Combining the
biometrics portion, which includes the biometric services fees and fees
charged by the FBI related to CHRI checks prior to NTA issuance (noted
above), plus $57.1 million in the DNA submission costs, the total
monetized costs of this proposed rule will potentially be $288.7
million annually.
USCIS established a robust process for scheduling and collecting
biometric information through its facilities, including its Application
Support Centers (ASCs). These centers mitigate potential costs and
risks associated with the submission and retention of biometric
information, as discussed in DHS's privacy compliance
documentation.\114\ DHS anticipates it will incur costs due to the
increase in biometrics submissions that will require more contract-
based labor; new equipment and information technologies needed to
collect, process, store, and utilize biometrics; cameras that are able
to collect ocular images; devices used to record a voice print; and
other equipment. USCIS currently reimburses the Department of State for
the collection of DNA in countries where it does not have a presence.
DHS does not currently know how many individuals will submit DNA under
this proposed rule but there is the potential for additional costs if
the Department of State facilitates additional DNA testing. DHS does
not know the full costs to the government of expanding biometrics
collection in terms of assets, process, storage, labor, and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\114\ See generally, DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessments'' (last
updated Aug. 29, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-impact-assessments (select drop down ``Information Sharing,
Interoperability, Biometrics, and Facial Recognition''); see also
DHS, ``Privacy Compliance'' (last updated Mar. 28, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/compliance (several public DHS compliance documents
discuss privacy concerns for risks associated with the submission
and retention of biometric information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS estimates that the proposed rule will reduce the evidentiary
burden of VAWA self-petitioners and T nonimmigrant petitioners, who
will no longer have to gather evidence such as police clearance reports
and affidavits to demonstrate good moral character. It will provide
individuals requesting or associated with immigration and
naturalization benefits a more reliable system for verifying their
identity when submitting a benefit request. This will limit the
potential for identity theft while also reducing the likelihood that
DHS will be unable to verify an individual's identity and consequently
deny the benefit. DHS is unable to quantify this benefit because it has
no data on how often these events happen under existing regulations.
Increasing the types of biometrics collected will allow for better
identification of individuals because each modality increases the
unique physical characteristics that USCIS can use to identify the
individual.
Finally, the allowance of individuals to use DNA testing as
evidence to demonstrate the existence of a claimed genetic relationship
will provide them the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship
using a quicker, less intrusive, and more effective technology than the
blood tests provided for in current regulations.\115\ See 8 CFR
204.2(d)(2)(vi). Similarly, the use of DNA test results as evidence to
establish biological sex will allow applicants to provide proof without
the need to produce additional documentation such as birth records, or
other information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\115\ DHS currently accepts DNA on a voluntary basis. DHS sends
a Request for Evidence and affords the petitioner and beneficiary
time to schedule a submission at an AABB accredited collection site.
Currently, DHS only suggests DNA submissions in certain Form I-130s,
Form I-730s, the Haitian Family Reunification Parole (HFRP) Program,
the Cuban Family Reunification Parole (CFRP) Program, and the
Filipino World War II Veterans Parole (FWVP) Program. Beyond these
programs, DHS relies on documentary evidence as proof of the
relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule will benefit the U.S. Government by enabling DHS
to have more fidelity and efficiency in identity management in the
immigration lifecycle and vetting of individuals seeking certain
immigration and naturalization benefits. Expanding the population
subject to biometrics submission provides DHS with the ability to
better identify and limit fraud because biometrics comprise unique
physical characteristics that are difficult to falsify and that do not
change over time in the majority of cases. Biometrics will also help to
reduce the administrative burden involved in identity verification and
the performance of criminal history checks, by reducing the need for
manual document review and name-based security checks. The proposed
rule will also enhance the U.S. Government's capability to identify
criminal activity

[[Page 49095]]

and protect vulnerable groups by extending the submission of biometrics
to populations under certain benefit requests.
In summary, the proposed rule would enable DHS to conduct the
administration and adjudication of immigration benefit requests with
increased fidelity and is conducive to the evolution to a person-
centric model for organizing and managing its records, enhanced and
continuous vetting, and reduced dependence on paper documents, as is
described more fully in the preamble. DHS estimates that this proposed
rule would create annual quantified costs of $288.71 million, including
$288.66 million to the public and $55,040 to the Federal Government
over the 10-year period of analysis (FY 2026 through FY 2035). To
compare costs over time, DHS applies 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates to the total estimated costs of the proposed rule. DHS estimates
the 10-year total costs of the proposed rule to be $2.5 billion
discounted at 3 percent, and $2.0 billion discounted at 7 percent.
Table 1 below provides a detailed summary of estimated quantifiable and
unquantifiable impacts of proposed provisions.

Table 1--Summary of Provisions and Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes under the proposed rule Expected costs Expected benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS proposes to require the Individuals Submitting Biometrics-- Individuals Submitting Biometrics--
submission of biometrics by Quantitative: Qualitative:
any individual, regardless of Total annual direct costs of Provides individuals
age, filing or associated with the proposed rule: requesting or associated with
an immigration benefit [cir] $231.52 million for about 1.12 immigration and naturalization
request, other requests, or million individuals who will now have benefits a more reliable system for
other collections of to submit biometrics. Includes $231.28 verifying their identity when
information, unless exempt. million for biometric submission costs submitting a benefit request. This
and $236,838 for biometric services will limit the potential for identity
fee costs. theft. It will also reduce the
Qualitative: likelihood of DHS being unable to
There could be costs verify an individual's identity and
associated with privacy risks to being required to deny a benefit
individuals related to biometrics request.
submissions; there may be minor time- Government--
related costs to the baseline Qualitative:
population associated with the new DHS will collect biometrics
modalities. information from individuals under
Government contractor-- the age of 14, and therefore,
Qualitative: increase the U.S. Government's
The increase in biometrics capabilities of determining the
likely will require more contract- identity of an individual under the
based labor or other inputs. age of 14 who may be vulnerable to
human trafficking, child sex
trafficking, forced labor
exploitation, and alien smuggling.
Enables DHS to collect
additional modalities and to verify
with greater certainty the identity
of individuals requesting or
associated with immigration and
naturalization benefits. The expanded
use of biometric information provides
DHS with the ability to limit
identity fraud, as biometrics are
unique physical characteristics and
more difficult to falsify.
DHS is expanding the biometric Government-- Government--
modalities that it uses to Qualitative: Qualitative:
collect biometrics information DHS anticipates that there Use of the new biometric
to include the following: palm will be costs for the new equipment, technologies will allow DHS to adapt
prints, DNA, ocular images information technologies, and its programs and requirements in line
(iris, retina, and sclera) and typologies needed to collect, process, with technological developments in
voice print. store, and utilize biometrics, this area and adjust collection
including software updates; cameras practices for both convenience and to
that are able to collect ocular ensure the maximum level of service
images; devices used to record a voice for all stakeholders.
print; and other equipment.
DHS is establishing an Individuals Submitting Biometrics-- Individuals Submitting Biometrics--
``extraordinary Qualitative: Qualitative:
circumstances'' standard to Individuals who fail to appear The proposed rule will ensure
excuse a failure to appear at at a scheduled biometric services submission of biometrics in a timely
a scheduled biometric services appointment, without prior fashion leading to shorter processing
appointment. authorization from USCIS as their times.
circumstances do not meet the
``extraordinary circumstances''
standard to request rescheduling of
their biometric services appointment,
may result in denial, administrative
closure, or dismissal of the
applicable immigration benefit request
or other request.
DHS is proposing to define Individuals Submitting Biometrics-- Individuals Submitting Biometrics--
instances that justify USCIS Quantitative: Quantitative:
biometric reuse for an None. USCIS will reuse biometrics
individual who may have a for those individuals whose biometric-
pending benefit request, other based identity match is positive,
request, or collection of thereby leading to unquantified time
information that requires savings for such individuals.
biometric submission and has
previously submitted
biometrics for another benefit
request or benefit or
collection of information.
DHS may require, request, or Individuals Submitting DNA Evidence--
accept the submission of raw Quantitative:
DNA or DNA test results to Potential annual costs for
prove or disprove the principal filers and beneficiaries/
existence of a claimed or qualifying family members to submit
unclaimed genetic relationship DNA evidence range from $11.43 million
or as evidence of biological to $102.86 million depending on how
sex. many individuals submit DNA evidence
in support of a family-based benefit
request.
There are also expected travel
and time related costs as well as
privacy costs to individuals.
Government-- Individuals Submitting DNA Evidence--
Qualitative: Quantitative:
USCIS currently reimburses the DNA testing results as
Department of State for the collection evidence of claimed or unclaimed
of DNA in countries where it does not genetic relationship give individuals
have a presence. There is the the opportunity to demonstrate a
potential for additional costs if the genetic relationship using a quicker,
Department of State facilitates less intrusive, and more effective
additional DNA testing. technology than previous regulations
provided.

[[Page 49096]]

DHS intends to modify how VAWA VAWA self-petitioners and T VAWA self-petitioners and T
self-petitioners and T nonimmigrant alien petitioners-- nonimmigrant alien petitioners--
nonimmigrant alien Quantitative: Quantitative:
petitioners, including those $8.05 million for about 38,895 The alien need not gather
below the age of 14 years, aliens\116\ to newly submit biometrics evidence such as local police
demonstrate good moral (included in the total costs amount) clearance reports, State-issued
character by proposing Qualitative: criminal background checks, and
requirement for biometrics There could be costs affidavits to demonstrate good moral
collection. associated with privacy risks to character, thereby leading to
aliens related to biometrics unquantified time savings.
submissions; there may be some minor Government--
time-related costs to the baseline Qualitative:
population associated with the new It will help USCIS verify the
modalities. identity of the VAWA self-petitioner
Government contractor-- and T nonimmigrant alien petitioners
Qualitative: or verify the accuracy or
The increase in biometrics completeness of the disclosed
likely will require more contract- criminal history information.
based labor or other inputs.
DHS is removing the age Individuals Submitting Biometrics-- Government--
restrictions for biometrics Quantitative: Qualitative:
collection before issuing an None; there will be no The collection of biometrics
NTA. (Analysis only considers opportunity or travel-related costs on all individuals under the age of
impacts related to USCIS- associated with biometrics collection 14 before issuing NTAs will
administered provisions and before issuing an NTA to aliens in significantly assist DHS in its
does not address impacts custodial settings. mission to combat human trafficking,
related to CBP and ICE Government-- child sex trafficking, forced labor
enforcement activities.) Quantitative: exploitation, and alien smuggling.
There will be annual costs of
$55,040 accruing to fees the FBI will
collect for providing fingerprint-
based and name-based CHRI checks.
For primary evidence of the age Petitioners-- Petitioners--
and birth parentage for a Quantitative: Qualitative: Clarifying evidentiary
prospective adopted child, DHS None. requirements for petitioners applying
proposes to require a copy of for immigration benefits for
the adopted child's birth prospective adopted child.
certificate to establish the
child's identity and age, and
the identities of the child's
birth parents (if known).
Familiarization costs. Individuals Submitting Biometrics--
Qualitative:
For the population impacted by
the proposed rule, there may be costs
associated with reading and
understanding the proposed rule. The
cost of time will depend on the time
spent and the hourly wage of the
reviewer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the impacts summarized above and as required by OMB
Circular A-4, Table 2 presents the prepared accounting statement
showing the costs and benefits associated with this regulation.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\116\ Calculation: 38,895 additional individuals x $206.90
filing cost = $8.05 million (rounded).
\117\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Circular A-4'' (Sept.
13, 2003), https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. The primary estimate
reported here reflects the average of the highest DNA submission
rate (100 percent) and the lowest (0 percent). It also corresponds
to the 50 percent midrange along the spectrum 10-90 percent that we
utilize on grounds that realistically, there will be some collection
(a positive rate) but not complete (100 percent) collection.

Table 2--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement
[$ millions, 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Period: FY 2026 through FY 2035
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source citation
(regulatory impact
Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate Maximum estimate analysis (RIA),
preamble, etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized benefits................. Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but un- 0 0 0 .....................
monetized, benefits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified benefits.............. The proposed rule provides the U.S. Government with RIA.
tools to tackle and limit identity fraud and improve
USCIS identity management systems. Additionally, the
proposed rule will enhance the U.S. Government's
capability to identify criminal activities and
protect vulnerable populations. The removal of age
restrictions and the collection of biometrics on all
individuals under the age of 14 will assist DHS in
its mission to combat human trafficking, child sex
trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien
smuggling.

[[Page 49097]]

The proposed rule provides individuals requesting
or associated with immigration and naturalization
benefits with a more reliable system for verifying
their identity. It will also limit the potential for
identity theft and reduce the likelihood of DHS
being unable to verify an individual's identity and
denying those requests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs for 10- (3% and 7%) $288.7. RIA.
year period starting in FY 2026
through FY 2035 (discount rates in
parentheses).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but un- For the government, there will be costs germane to RIA.
monetized, costs. the procurement of equipment, information technology
and typology, and systems possibly needed to support
the increased biometrics modalities. There will also
be a cost involving biometric information before the
NTAs are issued to individuals under age 14.
For individuals requesting or associated with
immigration and naturalization benefits, there are
travel and time related opportunity costs related to
the DNA testing abroad. DHS also expects
familiarization costs associated with the proposed
rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified) costs... N/A. .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers: N/A N/A N/A .....................
``on budget''.
From whom to whom?................. N/A N/A N/A .....................
Annualized monetized transfers: N/A N/A N/A .....................
``off-budget''.
From whom to whom?................. N/A N/A N/A .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Analyses/Category.... Effects. Source Citation (RIA,
preamble, etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on State, local, and/or None.
Tribal governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on small businesses........ There may be small entity impacts to EB-5 regional Regulatory
centers, new commercial enterprises, or job-creating Flexibility Act of
entities for biometrics collection germane to the 1980 (RFA) analysis.
potential persons involved with regional centers as
part of their determination of whether such persons
and entities are eligible to participate in the
regional center program. However, costs to small
entities would be indirect since they accrue to the
persons involved with a regional center, new
commercial enterprise, or job-creating entity rather
than directly to these entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on wages................... None. .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on growth.................. None. .....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As detailed in the analysis, in order to estimate the population of
future biometrics submissions, it was necessary to extrapolate certain
metrics and conditions to the future populations. Notably, DHS assumes
that the demand for immigration benefits is inelastic and that the
additional burden (cost) associated with submitting biometrics will not
have a negative impact on the willingness of an individual to submit an
application. Thus, DHS assumes that application submissions will stay
the same, as compared to the baseline. Although DHS believes the
methodology employed is appropriate, because the future actual
generalized and form-specific collection rates of biometrics are
unknown, the actual populations and costs could vary. In addition, the
costs rely on a lower-end average wage to account for opportunity costs
associated with biometrics submissions. If, on average, the wage is
higher than that relied upon, the costs could vary as well. Actual
results will depend on a number of factors, including policy,
programmatic, operational, and practical considerations in the
implementation of the collection of biometrics requirements under this
proposed rule.
In summary, the proposed rule will enable USCIS to administer and
adjudicate immigration benefit requests, other requests, or other
collections of information with increased fidelity. This is conducive
to the evolution to a person-centric model for organizing and managing
records, enhanced and continuous vetting, and reduced dependence on
paper documents, as is described more fully in the preamble.

[[Page 49098]]

2. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule
Statutes and regulations provide USCIS the authority to collect
biometric information with immigration and naturalization benefit
requests.\118\ USCIS has the authority to collect biometrics and any
associated biometric services fee from an applicant, petitioner,
sponsor, beneficiary, requestor, or individual filing a benefit request
on a case-by-case basis, through form instructions, or through a
Federal Register notice. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). Based on the relevant
statutory and regulatory authorities, USCIS collects, stores, and
utilizes biometrics to conduct background checks to determine
eligibility for an immigration benefit or other request; and for
document production associated with certain immigration and
naturalization benefits or actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\118\ See generally INA sec. 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103; INA sec.
235(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(3); and INA sec. 287(b), 8 U.S.C.
1357(b). For a list of specific authorities, refer to the preamble,
Section III.A. Legal Authority and Guidance for USCIS Collection and
Use of Biometrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The USCIS biometrics process begins with the collection of an
individual's biometric information at an authorized location, including
USCIS offices, ASCs, military installations, and U.S. consular offices
abroad. Currently, the types of biometric information that USCIS
collects generally consist of a photograph, fingerprints, and
signature. For certain refugee or asylum family-based petitions, USCIS
also allows the submission of DNA test results obtained from approved
laboratories, as either primary or secondary evidence to assist in
establishing the existence of claimed genetic relationships.
Although DHS has broad authority to collect biometrics from
populations associated with immigration benefit requests, collection is
only mandatory and routine for certain age groups and forms.\119\ As a
result, substantial populations associated with immigration benefit
requests do not routinely submit biometrics. For the 5-year time span
FY 2020 through FY 2024, an annual average of 2.07 million people
submitted biometrics across 9.73 million immigration applications,
petitions, and requests, yielding a generalized biometrics collection
rate of 21 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\119\ USCIS routine biometrics collection and the collection of
the $85 biometric services fee has been for individuals between the
ages of 14 and 79. The biometric services fee is included in form
filing fee as of April 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For individuals who do not provide biometric information in support
of an immigration benefit request, USCIS has mainly relied on
biographical information for identity management in the immigration
lifecycle. Such biographical information is provided as part of the
benefit request package.\120\ However, biographical information
provided by individuals is generally not constant, consistent, or
inherently unique. For example, biographical information can include an
individual's height, weight, hair color, or other physical
characteristics that are very likely to change over time and can be
similar to the physical characteristics of others. Additionally,
biographical information utilized for identity management in the
immigration lifecycle imposes an administrative burden for USCIS
adjudicators, as the document management and review associated with
maintaining immigration files and verifying identities involve
intensive manual processes. Finally, some biographical information is
not inherently unique, as there are numerous individuals around the
world who share names and dates of birth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\120\ Biographical information provided by individuals can
include birth certificates and marriage licenses, among other
physical types of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The lack of biometrics collection may pose risks to vulnerable
populations. For example, U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident
petitioners are not required to routinely submit biometrics information
in support of family-based immigrant and nonimmigrant fianc[eacute](e)
petitions, except for orphan and Hague Adoption Convention-related
applications and petitions. Accordingly, DHS has limited capabilities
to determine if a petitioner had been convicted of criminal conduct
associated with the AWA and the IMBRA.\121\ Moreover, if DHS does not
collect biometric information from individuals under the age of 14, it
has limited capabilities to determine the identity of a child who may
be vulnerable to human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor
exploitation, alien smuggling, or other exploitative transgressions.
For example, a vulnerable child with similar characteristics to a child
who has lawful immigration status may be moved across U.S. State and
international borders under the assumed identity of that other child.
Collecting biometrics from individuals who did submit such information
provides DHS with further data, information, and tools to more
effectively protect such vulnerable populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\121\ USCIS currently uses name-based checks to determine if a
petitioner has been convicted of a criminal activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Population
DHS identified the baseline population as the annual average volume
of biometrics submissions, which has been heavily concentrated within a
small subset of specific USCIS forms. It is necessary to identify this
``baseline'' because it will be impacted by the proposed rule, even
though DHS does not expect the proposed rule to incur additional
monetized costs. Relative to this baseline, the proposed rule's impacts
will accrue due to the removal of age restrictions, as well as a
broadening of biometrics collection from people and to forms whereby
biometrics have not been routinely collected. To estimate these
populations who will be newly subject to biometric submission, DHS's
estimates utilize recent average volume data for specific forms,
grouping of forms, or biometrics collection in general.
For the 5-year span from FY 2020 through FY 2024, an annual average
of 2.07 million individuals who filed for an immigration benefit or
request submitted biometrics.\122\ The figures ranged from a low of
1.07 million in FY 2020 to a high of 2.67 million in FY 2024. DHS
assumes that this population will continue to submit biometrics,
although the modalities are expanded. Under the proposed rule, DHS will
collect biometrics from certain populations from which DHS already has
the authority to collect biometrics, but does not do so routinely,
resulting in a broadening of the biometrics-submitting population
across these form types. Additionally, the elimination of the current
age restrictions for submitting biometrics will expand the biometrics
submissions within the form types embedded in the baseline population
(and applies to the new populations appropriate to the expanded form
types). Finally, DHS may require, request, or accept DNA submissions
from certain populations to prove or disprove the existence of a
claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship or as evidence of biological
sex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\122\ See Table 3: Biometrics Submissions by Form/Grouping (FY
2020 through FY 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS estimates the different populations that will be impacted by
this proposed rule through two analytical phases. The first phase
(Phase I) involves identifying the number of individuals who would
continue to submit biometrics in the absence of this proposed rule.
This group is the baseline (or ``past'') population and is

[[Page 49099]]

derived by using historical biometric submissions data. This group may
face minor additional time requirements to submit biometrics
information due to the increased modalities, including palm prints,
facial and ocular images, or voice prints, but DHS does not quantify
this cost because the time increase for this group is expected to be
very small. This phase also provides the baseline populations for DNA
submissions.
In the second phase (Phase II), DHS estimates the affected (new)
populations under this proposed rule. In order to do so, it is
necessary to develop metrics that can be extrapolated to the additional
populations. The underlying logic and formulas that are used to
estimate the new populations will be introduced as they are first
needed. The resultant formulas will be applied to develop the
biometrics, fee-paying, and DNA populations, in order.
a. Baseline Data--Populations Prior to the Proposed Rule
To derive the baseline population, we first present the number of
biometric submissions by form. Second, DHS identifies the number of
current DNA tests that are used to demonstrate a claimed genetic
relationship in support of a family-based benefit request. Third, we
discuss the individual costs of submitting biometrics and DNA tests and
USCIS current policy on reuse of biometrics. Fourth, we present data on
denials of immigration benefits due to nonappearance at a biometric
services appointment.
1. Baseline Biometric Submissions
In Phase I of this analysis, DHS develops the baseline as the set
of biometrics submitted in the past. It is the population who would
continue to submit biometrics in the absence of the proposed rule,
including all eligible applicants, petitioners, sponsors,
beneficiaries, requestors, or individuals who currently submit
biometrics information at an ASC in support of an immigration or
naturalization benefit request. Because specific USCIS forms are used
to request immigration benefits, and biometrics are submitted under
certain USCIS form types, DHS uses the form type to group data and then
formulate baseline population estimates.
Based on current practice, when an individual appears at an ASC for
a biometric services appointment, his or her photograph, signature, and
right index fingerprint is digitally collected and stored in the
Customer Profile Management System (CPMS) database, which is the USCIS
data repository for biometrics information. For eligible populations
between the ages of 14 and 79, a full set of fingerprints are also
collected and stored in CPMS. For this baseline analysis, the
biometrics collection volume data originate from the CPMS database.
The baseline population consists of individuals who submitted
biometrics in association with one immigration benefit request. For
certain forms, as well as for certain biometric services appointments,
an individual may submit biometrics in support of each individual
immigration benefit request. Under these circumstances, there is a one-
to-one match between the biometrics information submitted and the
benefit request. However, there are instances where it is possible for
an individual to have a single biometric services appointment in
support of multiple forms, meaning the individual will only submit
biometric information once, and not separately, for each individual
immigration benefit request. In this situation, there will not be a
one-to-one match between the number of receipts for forms that require
biometrics and number of biometric submissions catalogued under those
forms. Although this scenario represents a one-to-multiple match
between the biometric information submitted and the immigration
benefits requested, the physical act of submitting biometric
information can be tracked under a primary form type in the CPMS
database. A form may be logged as the primary form based upon the type
of biometric data being submitted, the type of benefit being requested,
or the order in which an individual's paperwork is received.
Conversely, there are also instances where it is possible for multiple
individuals to have biometric services appointments in support of a
single form, meaning one immigration benefit request will yield
multiple biometrics appointments and collections (e.g., Form I-589 and
Form I-590 require biometrics for primary applicant and any
derivatives/family members, Application for Advance Processing of an
Orphan Petition (Form I-600A) requires biometrics for all adult
household members, etc.).
It is important to emphasize that because the costs developed in
this analysis focus on the physical act of an individual submitting
biometrics at an ASC, we have queried CPMS to account to the baseline
population a single physical biometric transaction under one primary
form type. We queried CPMS for biometric submissions for the past five
fiscal years which invariably included COVID-19 public health emergency
period starting from January 31, 2020, and ending on May 11, 2023. ASC
services were temporarily suspended to the public and/or operations
were at reduced capacity because of the COVID-19 pandemic. To mitigate
the impact of ASC closures, USCIS initiated temporary changes to
biometric reuse policy from May 2020 to January 2021.\123\ Actions
taken by USCIS during the COVID-19 public health emergency had a
dampening effect on the number of people coming into ASC to submit
biometrics. Data captured in CPMS reveal that for the 5-year span of FY
2020 through FY 2024, an average of 2.07 million individuals submitted
biometric information annually to USCIS in support of immigration and
naturalization benefit requests (Table 3). USCIS notes that this
estimate is significantly lower than the annual average of biometric
submitting individuals in the 5-years span of FY 2013 through FY 2017
calculated in the previously published Biometrics NPRM due to the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.^{124 125} Our analysis reveals
that about 94 percent of biometric submissions have been heavily
concentrated in a small group of ten forms, which we will designate the
``Prevalent'' set henceforth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\123\ USCIS, ``Management Directive Biometric Policy Changes to
Mitigate Application Support Center (ASC) Closures during the Covid-
19 Pandemic'' (May 6, 2020), https://cisgov.sharepoint.com/sites/connect/org/EXSO/Management%20Directives/MD%20119-011.pdf; USCIS,
``Management Directive Updated Biometric Policy Changes to Mitigate
Application Support Center (ASC) Closures or Reduced Capacity during
the Covid-19 Pandemic'' (Dec. 1, 2020), https://cisgov.sharepoint.com/sites/connect/org/EXSO/Management%20Directives/MD%20119-011.4.pdf.
\124\ Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 85 FR 56338
(Sept. 11, 2020), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09-11/pdf/2020-19145.pdf.
\125\ Biometric data can be processed and stored on other USCIS
systems, but CPMS is the database that represents the aggregated
collection of biometrics by primary form type. We note that not all
biometric modalities were covered in every data point we count as a
biometric submission. The figures in the baseline represent at least
one type of biometric collected with an associated benefit request.
In this sense, we treat ``biometric'' as essentially a binary
action--either it was collected or it was not without parsing out
the individual modalities.

[[Page 49100]]

Table 3--Biometric Submissions by Form/Grouping
[FY 2020 through FY 2024]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-yr.
Form 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Annual Share of Cumulative
average Total (%) Total (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-485........................................... 292,963 562,686 547,423 489,181 606,197 499,690 24.11 24.11
I-589........................................... 112,895 190,868 282,625 783,732 812,276 436,479 21.06 45.16
N-400........................................... 168,683 352,174 299,882 272,509 268,600 272,370 13.14 58.30
I-90............................................ 131,739 362,420 324,503 215,188 237,250 254,220 12.26 70.56
I-539........................................... 216,778 283,499 151,564 137,552 19,343 161,747 7.80 78.37
I-821........................................... 1,883 27,892 139,564 94,913 307,515 114,353 5.52 83.88
I-765........................................... 7,771 45,875 50,143 321,549 71,547 99,377 4.79 88.68
I-590........................................... 1,050 6,992 29,788 62,961 113,618 42,882 2.07 90.75
I-751........................................... 56,878 54,575 35,146 23,584 20,642 38,165 1.84 92.59
I-601A.......................................... 19,082 54,125 34,616 22,852 21,280 30,391 1.47 94.05
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevalent Group Subtotal.................... 1,009,722 1,941,106 1,895,254 2,424,021 2,478,268 1,949,674 ........... ...........
Expansion Group................................. 15,803 36,859 33,379 49,959 74,182 42,036 2.03 96.08
Other Forms..................................... 41,482 116,669 70,651 62,027 115,405 81,247 3.92 100.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 1,067,007 2,094,634 1,999,284 2,536,007 2,667,855 2,072,957 ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS, Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate (IRIS), CPMS databases received in February 2025.
Note: The Prevalent group includes the 10 listed forms in this table: I-485, I-589, N-400, I-90, I-539, I-821, I-765, I-590, I-751, and I-601A.

Over the 5-year period, 94.05 percent \126\ of biometric
submissions were associated with the following ten forms:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\126\ Calculation: 1,949,674 average biometric submissions by
prevalent set form-types/2,072,957 total biometric submissions =
94.05 percent (rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
(Form I-485);
b. Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I-
589);
c. Application for Naturalization (Form N-400);
d. Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Form I-90);
e. Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539);
f. Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821);
g. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765);
h. Registration for Classification as a Refugee (Form I-590);
i. Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence (Form I-751); and
j. Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (Form I-
601A).
The remaining forms not broken out by specific type in Table 3 are
described as the ``Expansion'' group, which includes a set of forms
under which DHS currently does not routinely collect biometrics, but
instead has collected biometrics on a limited, case-by-case basis.\127\
Under the proposed rule, DHS is broadening routine biometrics
collection to these forms. Table 3 shows this group accounted for 2.03
percent of total biometric submissions.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\127\ DHS may request biometrics on a case-by-case basis when
the adjudicating officer requests additional information to
adjudicate a request. This could occur when there are any potential
identity or fraud issues. DHS may also request biometrics
information in compliance with the AWA or IMBRA.
\128\ Calculation: 42,036 average biometric submissions by
Expansion set forms/2,072,957 total biometric submissions = 2.03
percent (rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The remaining ``Other'' group captures forms where DHS occasionally
collects biometric information. While this group contains the largest
number of forms, they tend to be characterized by very low filing
volumes and biometrics collection comprising 3.92 percent of biometrics
collections.\129\ Many of the forms in this group are supplements, co-
filed with the Prevalent or Expansion forms, consequently biometric
submission of applicants of ``Other'' form group are sometimes
catalogued under the Prevalent or Expansion form groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\129\ It is noted that the ``Other'' grouping includes those in
which a particular form is not identified, which could occur for a
variety of reasons. This may happen when biometric information has
not been assigned to a primary form in the CPMS database or these
individuals need to concurrently file with other forms where
biometric information is currently required. Relevant calculation:
81,247 average biometric submission for other forms/2,072,957 total
biometric submissions = 3.92 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. DNA Testing Volume
The proposed rule provides USCIS with the authority to require,
request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results to prove or disprove the
existence of a claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship, or as
evidence of biological sex when relevant for certain immigration
benefit requests, including but not limited to the following: \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\130\ As mentioned earlier in the preamble, DHS recognizes that
there are qualifying family members, such as adopted children, who
do not have a genetic relationship to the individual who files an
immigration benefit request on their behalf. To the extent the
proposed rule discusses using DNA evidence to establish qualifying
relationships in support of certain immigration benefit requests, it
is referring only to genetic relationships that can be demonstrated
through DNA testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130);
Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative (Form
I-600);
Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition (Form I-730);
Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate
Relative (Form I-800);
Application of T Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-914A);
Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-918A);
Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1
Nonimmigrant (Form I-929);
Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600);
Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate
Under Section 322 (Form N-600K); and
Any other form where the existence of a claimed genetic
relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, derivative, rider, or
qualifying family member.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\131\ This includes requiring, requesting, or accepting DNA
testing to establish a genetic relationship with a birth parent in
the context of a petition to classify a beneficiary as an orphan
under INA section 101(b)(1)(F) or as a Convention adoptee under INA
section 101(b)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(F) or (G), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These family-based applications and petitions are included because
DNA

[[Page 49101]]

testing is a technology that can be used to establish a claimed or
unclaimed genetic relationship where one is required for these benefit
requests. Additionally, DNA testing, by verifying or not verifying
genetic relationships, will help DHS to identify criminal activity
(i.e., immigration fraud, visa fraud, etc.) and protect vulnerable
populations associated with human trafficking, child sex trafficking,
forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling.
Certain immigration benefit requestors are unable to establish the
existence of a genetic relationship with family who wish to immigrate
to the United States. Currently, the petitioner may submit, on a
voluntary basis, DNA test results as evidence to establish authenticity
of the claimed genetic relationship.
Traditional DNA test results are currently accepted by USCIS from
laboratories accredited by the AABB. However, testing occurs between
the petitioner and his or her claimed biological relative, the latter
of whom may be located domestically or abroad. In general, the
petitioner submits his or her DNA at a U.S.-accredited AABB lab, while
the beneficiary/qualifying family member submits his or her DNA
evidence at a government office outside the United States.\132\ For DNA
evidence submitted at an international U.S. Government facility, DHS
historically facilitated the collection through USCIS Refugee, Asylum,
and International Operations (RAIO) Directorate's international
offices, and it has a memorandum of understanding with DOS to
facilitate the collection in countries where USCIS does not have a
presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\132\ DNA can be submitted in the United States to an accredited
AABB lab if the principal and biological family members are all in
the country. Alternatively, DNA can be submitted at an official
overseas government facility. DHS is only able to quantify the exact
number of DNA tests where at least one of the individuals is
submitting his or her DNA evidence overseas. Although DHS does not
track the location of the petitioner or biological family members
giving his or her DNA evidence, based on the experience of USCIS
RAIO, DHS expects that most DNA submissions at overseas facilities
are from eligible biological family members and most principal
applicants or petitioners submitting DNA would submit their DNA
evidence within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4 summarizes the total number of DNA tests that were
submitted to USCIS and DOS at international facilities in support of
immigration benefit requests for Forms I-130, I-730, and the Haitian
Family Reunification Parole Program.\133\ From FY 2020 through FY 2024,
a total of 37,999 DNA tests were submitted at international facilities
to USCIS, comprising 597 tests collected by USCIS and 37,402 tests
collected by DOS. During this period, an annual average of 7,600 tests
were submitted to USCIS, including an average of 119 tests collected by
USCIS and 7,480 DNA tests collected by DOS. In FY 2022 and FY 2023, DOS
was solely responsible for collecting DNA. To the annual average of
7,600 DNA test collection at international facilities, we add 340 DNA
tests collected by USCIS at domestic facilities annually.\134\ DHS uses
7,940 as the annual average volumes to account for the current
collection of DNA tests in support of an immigration benefit request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\133\ Only certain family-based benefit requests would be
impacted by the provision to request, require, or accept DNA
evidence to establish a biological relationship. The DNA tests
associated with Form I-130 and Form I-730 are the only family-based
benefit requests that would be impacted by the proposed rule that
currently use DNA evidence to establish a biological relationship.
Additionally, DHS is unable to identify separately the specific
number of DNA tests associated with each form, the HFRP Program, the
CFRP Program, and the FWVP Program. Therefore, DHS is using the
aggregate number of DNA submissions to estimate the baseline
population.
\134\ USCIS analysis of data from USCIS Office of Performance
and Quality (OPQ), CLAIMS 3 and Electronic Immigration System (ELIS)
database, data queried in March 2025.

Table 4--DNA Test Submissions at International Facilities for Form I-130, Form I-730, the Haitian Family
Reunification Parole Program, the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, and the Filipino WWII Veterans
Parole Program
[FY 2020 through FY 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of DNA Number of DNA
Fiscal year collections collections Total
(USCIS) (DOS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020........................................................ 416 8,076 8,492
2021........................................................ 1 4,563 4,564
2022........................................................ 0 11,357 11,357
2023........................................................ 0 9,238 9,238
2024........................................................ 180 4,168 4,348
---------------------------------------------------
5-Year Total............................................ 597 37,402 37,999
5-Year Annual Average................................... 119 7,480 7,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS RAIO analysis, with data provided by DOS) on March 5, 2025.
Note: Annual averages may not sum due to rounding.

3. Costs of Submitting Biometrics and DNA Test
DHS currently incorporates the fee for biometric services into the
underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric
services are applicable to simplify the fee structure, reduce
rejections of benefit requests for failure to include the biometric
services fee, and better reflect how USCIS uses biometric information.
Pre-April 2024, the biometric services fee was separate from form
filing fees. It led to a four-tier fee structure depending on an
applicant's exemption to (a) pay filing fees and (b) submission of
biometrics. DHS collected the biometric services fee from individuals
submitting biometrics associated with a benefit request unless there
were specific age restrictions for submitting the biometric services
fee associated with each benefit request or there was an approved fee
waiver. Starting from April 2024, the population that is paying the
filing fees is also paying the biometric fees by default, except for
Temporary Protected Status applicant/re-registrant and individuals in
Executive Office of Immigration Review proceedings who continue to pay
the $30 biometric services fee. The filing fee paying population has
always remained smaller than the population that is eligible to submit
biometrics as some forms such as I-590 have a $0 filing fee but require
submission of biometrics from individuals aged 14 years to 79 years.

[[Page 49102]]

In addition, individuals may apply for and be granted a fee waiver
for certain immigration benefits and services.\135\ In general, fee-
waiver requests are reviewed by considering whether the applicant is
receiving a means-tested benefit, whether the applicant's household
income level renders him or her unable to pay, or whether recent
financial hardship renders an inability to pay. Under this proposed
rule, DHS assumes that the same portions of the biometrics submitting
population will continue to receive fee waivers for filing fees. In
other words, the proposed rulemaking does not alter or impact the fee
waiver protocol currently in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\135\ See 8 CFR 106.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS also grants fee exemptions that are required by statute,\136\
provides other fee exemptions via regulations,\137\ and others by
policy.\138\ Under this proposed rule, the appropriate portions of the
biometrics fee-paying population will continue to receive available fee
exemptions for biometric services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\136\ USCIS is precluded by law from collecting a fee from
members of the military for an Application for Naturalization under
sections 328 and 329 of the INA. INA secs. 328(b) & 329(b), 8 U.S.C.
1439(b) & 1440(b).
\137\ DHS provides fee exemptions based on humanitarian grounds.
See, e.g., 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(UU), (VV).
\138\ See 8 CFR 106.3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any individual who submits biometrics at an ASC endures cost of
time to (a) travel to an ASC and (b) submit biometrics. DHS estimates
that it takes 1 hour and 10 minutes to submit fingerprints, be
photographed, and provide a signature. Individuals will need to travel
to an ASC for their appointment. DHS estimates that the average round-
trip distance to an ASC is 50 miles, and that the average travel time
for the trip is 2.5 hours. The cost of travel also includes a mileage
charge based on the estimated 50-mile round trip at the 2025 General
Services Administration rate of $0.70 per mile.\139\ USCIS may conduct
mobile biometric collection through authorized entities to accommodate
persons with a disability or a health reason that precludes the
individual from travelling to and appearing for a biometric services
appointment at an ASC. Providing domestic mobile biometric services to
benefit requestors is at the sole discretion of USCIS.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ General Services Administration (GSA), ``Privately owned
vehicle (POV) mileage reimbursement rates,'' https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates (last updated Dec. 30,
2024).
\140\ See generally USCIS, ``Policy Manual, Volume 1, Part C,
Chapter 2--Biometrics Collection, B. Mobile Biometrics Collection,''
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-c-chapter-2 (last
updated Aug. 21, 2025); ``Preparing for Your Biometric Services
Appointment,'' https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/preparing-for-your-biometric-services-appointment (last updated Jul.
24, 2025); ``Disability Access at the Department of Homeland
Security,'' https://www.dhs.gov/disability-access-department-homeland-security (last updated Feb. 05, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In certain circumstances, USCIS may decide to reuse biometrics of
an applicant, petitioner, requestor, or beneficiary submitted at a
previous biometric services appointment. USCIS capability to reuse
previously collected biometrics falls into two general categories: (a)
reuse of previously collected fingerprints initiated by verifying the
identity in-person at an ASC and (b) reuse of previously collected
photographs initiated by biometric verification. In case of photograph
reuse, USCIS will collect a new photograph at a biometric services
appointment or reuse a photograph that has gone through biometric
verification by a DHS-approved facial verification service.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\141\ Along with biometric verification, USCIS also relies on a
comparison of biographic data between the pending filing and the
previous filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

USCIS initiated temporary changes to biometric policy during the
COVID-19 pandemic from May 2020 to January 2021 to mitigate the impact
of ASC closures. USCIS allowed, under certain situations, fingerprint
and photograph reuse without the need for an in-person identity
verification at the ASCs while ASC services were temporarily suspended
to the public and/or operations were at reduced capacity because of the
COVID-19 pandemic.\142\ In Table 5, DHS presents data on volume of
biometric services appointments where a photograph was reused \143\ for
FY 2020 through FY 2024 by form groupings described in Table 3.
Approximately 40 percent of scheduled biometric services appointments
did not require in-person appearance as the photograph submitted in a
previous biometric services appointment met the current criteria of
photograph reuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ USCIS, ``Management Directive Biometric Policy Changes to
Mitigate Application Support Center (ASC) Closures during the Covid-
19 Pandemic'' (May 6, 2020), https://cisgov.sharepoint.com/sites/connect/org/EXSO/Management%20Directives/MD%20119-011.pdf; USCIS,
``Management Directive Updated Biometric Policy Changes to Mitigate
Application Support Center (ASC) Closures or Reduced Capacity during
the Covid-19 Pandemic'' (Dec. 1, 2020), https://cisgov.sharepoint.com/sites/connect/org/EXSO/Management%20Directives/MD%20119-011.4.pdf.
\143\ DHS is presenting data on photograph reuse biometric
services appointments only as data on fingerprint reuse biometric
services appointments are currently unavailable.

Table 5--Volume of Reuse of Photographs From Previous Biometric Services Appointments by Form Grouping
[FY 2020 through FY 2024 total]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled biometric
Form grouping services appointment Reuse of photograph Reuse %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevalent Group.................................... 27,993,124 10,519,322 37.58
Expansion Group.................................... 449,583 42,086 9.36
Other Forms........................................ 675,995,907 271,054,344 40.10
------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 704,438,614 281,615,752 39.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS, IRIS, National Appointment Scheduling System (NASS) database, received in March 2025.
Note: The count of scheduled biometric services appointments includes count of biometric services appointments
rescheduled by USCIS or applicant.
Reuse of photographs refers to prior biometrics collection satisfying the biometrics classification. The
applicant and any attorney representing the applicant receive a biometric services appointment notice, but no
in-person appointment is required.

Even though Table 5 shows the prevalence of reuse of photographs by
USCIS among scheduled biometric services appointments leading to
nonrequirement of in-person biometric services appointments, our
benefit cost analysis is oriented towards determining the burden
imposed or burden reduced at an individual level. DHS presents data on
the number of individuals whose photograph was taken at a biometric
services

[[Page 49103]]

appointment for a previous application, petition, or request was reused
in Table 6. DHS estimates that a total of 13,577,982 individuals over
the last 5 fiscal years did not go to an ASC for an in-person biometric
services appointment, leading to opportunity cost of time savings of 1
hour 10 minutes per individual.

Table 6--Number of Individuals Where USCIS Reused Biometrics
(Photographs), FY 2020 Through FY 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Number of individuals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020......................................... 1,725,420
2021......................................... 2,279,828
2022......................................... 2,392,222
2023......................................... 2,944,351
2024......................................... 4,236,161
--------------------------
5-Year Total............................. 13,577,982
5-Year Annual Average.................... 2,715,596
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), National
Production Dataset (NPD), CPMS databases. Data queried in August 2025.

The current process for submitting DNA test results begins when the
principal applicant or petitioner submits raw DNA at an accredited AABB
laboratory. The current estimated fees include a fee of approximately
$230 to test the first genetic relationship, and $200 for each
additional test.\144\ The principal applicant or petitioner will pay
the fee directly to the accredited AABB laboratory. For beneficiaries/
qualifying family members outside of the United States, a traditional
DNA testing kit is sent from the AABB lab to a USCIS or DOS facility
located overseas. For all DNA tests conducted outside of the United
States, the beneficiaries/qualifying family members will be responsible
for paying a trained professional who swabs his or her cheek to collect
the DNA sample. DHS estimates this DNA swab test will cost the
beneficiary between $400 and $800 per DNA collection outside of the
United States.\145\ DHS does not currently track the time burden
estimates for submitting traditional DNA at an AABB accredited lab or
to a trained professional at a U.S. Government/DOS international
facility and the travel cost or time burden for traveling to an AABB
lab. However, most AABB labs have affiliates throughout the country
where applicants and petitioners can submit DNA or DNA test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\144\ Genetrack Biolabs, ``The Cost of US Immigration DNA
Testing,'' https://www.genetrackus.com/blog/immigration/how-much-does-a-dna-test-cost-for-us-immigration-a-comprehensive-pricing-guide-from-genetrack/ (last visited May 5, 2025).
\145\ USCIS RAIO, data obtained March 4, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Denial of Immigration Benefit Due to Biometric Services Appointment
Non-Appearance
USCIS considers a person to have abandoned an application,
petition, or request if the person fails to appear for the biometric
services appointment unless, by the appointment time, USCIS receives a
change of address or rescheduling request that it concludes warrants
excusing the failure to appear. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(13). In Table 7, DHS
presents data on the volume of denied immigration benefit requests due
to failure to appear for biometric services appointments for FY 2020
through FY 2024. 1.2 percent of total denials across all USCIS forms
was due to the applicant not showing up for the biometric services
appointment.

Table 7--Number of Applications Denied Due to No Show for Biometric Services Appointment, FY 2020 through FY
2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denials due to no Percent of denial due to
Fiscal year Total Total denials show for biometric no show for biometric
completions services appointment services appointment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................ 7,064,939 779,433 3,067 0.4
2021............................ 6,882,371 707,010 13,966 2.0
2022............................ 8,047,613 971,922 27,201 2.8
2023............................ 10,379,262 1,071,936 10,550 1.0
2024............................ 12,809,440 1,214,717 1,562 0.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Total................ 45,183,625 4,745,018 56,346 1.2
5-Year Annual Average....... 9,036,725 949,004 11,269 ........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS OPQ, NPD, Enterprise Correspondence Handling Online database (ECHO). Data queried in August 2025.

Currently, any person required to appear for a biometric services
appointment can request that USCIS reschedule their biometric services
appointment for good cause, before the scheduled appointment date and
time. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). Good cause refers to a benefit requestor
providing a sufficient reason for their inability to appear for their
biometric services appointment on the scheduled date. Sufficient
reasons may include, but are not limited to:
Illness, medical appointment, or hospitalization;
Previously planned travel;
Significant life events such as a wedding, funeral, or
graduation ceremony;
Inability to obtain transportation to the appointment
location;
Inability to obtain leave from employment or caregiver
responsibilities; and

[[Page 49104]]

Late delivered or undelivered biometric services
appointment notice.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ USCIS, ``Policy Manual, Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 2--
Biometrics Collection'' https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-c-chapter-2#footnote-3 (last updated Apr. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to DHS's internal calculations, 21.91 percent of
scheduled in-person biometric services appointments were rescheduled at
least once in the last 5 fiscal years.\147\ DHS recently started
tracking USCIS-rescheduled and immigrant benefit requestor-rescheduled
in-person biometric services appointments, including the reasons
provided by the benefit requestor when they place a request for
biometric services appointment reschedule. From a sample of 2,592
biometric services appointment reschedule requests initiated by the
immigrant benefit requestor, the top three reasons were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\147\ USCIS, IRIS, NASS database, data received in March 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change of address;
Wrong address where the biometric services appointment
notice was sent; and
Previously planned travel.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\148\ USCIS, IRIS, NASS database, data received in March 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Supplemental Populations
a. Notice To Appear
DHS relies on Form I-862, Notice to Appear, to initiate removal
proceedings under section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, and instruct
an alien to appear before an immigration judge for those removal
proceedings. An NTA is a charging document, not an identity document,
nor is it evidence of having an immigration status or category.\149\
Table 8 provides the numbers of NTAs issued by DHS components for FY
2020 through FY 2024 to aliens under age 14. As Table 8 shows, there
was a substantial increase in the number of relevant NTAs reported
under non-USCIS DHS components starting from FY 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\149\ USCIS, ``Form I-862, Notice to Appear,'' https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention/checkin/NTA_I_862.pdf (last visited May
8, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

USCIS received a total of 872 biometric submissions prior to
issuance of Form I-862 for FY 2020 through FY 2024.\150\ Being a
charging document, its issuance does not routinely involve biometric
collection and Form I-862 falls in the ``Other'' category described in
the Baseline Biometric Submissions section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\150\ USCIS, IRIS, CPMS databases received in February 2025.

Table 8--DHS NTAs for Under 14 Years Old by Issuing Component or Agency, FY 2020 Through FY 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year
Issuing agency 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5-Year annual
total average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP.......................................................... 19,730 115,670 116,510 300,630 342,350 894,890 178,978
ICE.......................................................... 1,170 12,820 62,480 27,550 9,330 113,350 22,670
USCIS........................................................ 4,660 2,850 6,350 4,450 9,210 27,520 5,504
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency-wise Total........................................ 25,560 131,340 185,330 332,630 360,890 1,035,750 207,152
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Homeland Security Statistics analysis of February 2025 Persist Dataset.
Note: USCIS NTAs are estimated based on EOIR Form I-862 cases not originating with CBP or ICE NTAs.

b. Prospective Adopted Children
The INA allows certain children born in other countries to obtain
citizenship or lawful immigration status in the United States based on
adoption. A U.S. citizen or LPR adoptive parent can file Form I-130,
Petition for Alien Relative, to petition for their adopted child under
the family-based provision. A U.S. citizen adoptive parent has the
option of filing Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an
Immediate Relative, under the Orphan provision \151\ or Form I-800,
Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative, to
petition for a child under the Convention provision.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\151\ U.S. citizens who plan to adopt an orphan from a non-Hague
Convention country use Form I-600A, Application for Advance
Processing of an Orphan Petition to request that USCIS determine
their suitability and eligibility as prospective adoptive parents.
\152\ USCIS uses Form I-800A, Application for Determination of
Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country to adjudicate
the eligibility and suitability of the applicant(s) who want to
adopt a child who is habitually resident in a Hague Adoption
Convention country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Table 9, we present data on USCIS adoption petitions by form for
5 fiscal years, FY 2020 through FY 2024. USCIS received an annual
average of 179 Form I-130 adoption petitions, 1,044 Form I-600 and Form
I-600A orphan petitions, and 2,588 Form I-800 and Form I-800A Hague
Convention adoption petitions.

Table 9--Adoption Petitions by Form, FY 2020 through FY 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form I-800, petition to classify
Form I-600, petition to classify convention adoptee as an immediate
Form I-130, orphan as an immediate relative relative and form I-800A,
Fiscal year petition for and form I-600A, application for application for determination of
alien relative advance processing of an orphan suitability to adopt a child from
petition a convention country
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................................ 561 1,315 3,440
2021............................................................ 277 1,131 2,369
2022............................................................ 35 1,086 2,571
2023............................................................ 10 996 2,248
2024............................................................ 14 690 2,310
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Total................................................ 897 5,218 12,938
5-Year Annual Average....................................... 179 1,044 2,588
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS OPQ, Performance Reporting Tool, ELIS and CLAIMS 3 Consolidated databases, data queried in March 2025.

[[Page 49105]]

b. New Populations Under the Proposed Rule
New impacted populations will be created via broadened collection
across an expanded set of forms, removal of age restrictions, and more
frequent DNA submissions. Since the populations are not yet existent in
context, DHS must develop appropriate tools to extrapolate certain
conditions forward. DHS estimates that the proposed rule could result
in a total annual average increase of 1.12 million biometric
submissions. This estimate includes 835,784 submissions from broadened
collection across an expanded set of forms (see Table 10); 166,414
submissions from the removal of age restrictions (see Table 10); and
115,645 submissions in forms with historically low biometric submission
volumes (see Table 10). DHS estimates that the proposed rule could also
add an additional 882,789 to the DNA testing population. The proceeding
analysis discusses the newly impacted populations under the proposed
rule.
1. New Biometrics Submission Population
Under proposed 8 CFR 264.2(d), this NPRM eliminates the upper and
lower age limits for fingerprint collection and under proposed 8 CFR
103.16 the NPRM requires that biometrics be collected on any
individual, including, but not limited to, applicants, petitioners,
sponsors, supporters, derivatives, dependents, and beneficiaries, and
may include U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and lawful permanent
residents, unless exempted. As previously conveyed in Table 3,
biometrics collection has already been intense within the Prevalent set
of forms. Nevertheless, the removal of age restrictions will generate
additional submissions for this group. For Form N-400, Form I-539,\153\
and Form I-601A there are no age restrictions regarding biometric
submissions. Hence, the entire filing population for these three forms
submits biometrics. Similarly, for Form I-765 there is no additional
biometric submission as all applicants submit photograph and signature,
and applicants aged 14 to 79 years additionally submit fingerprints.
For Forms I-589, I-90, I-821, and I-751 there will be additional
biometric submission from the population below 14 years age only, as
biometric submission is currently required for these four forms'
benefit requestors aged 14 years and above. For Forms I-485 and I-590,
the additional biometric submission population will be drawn from
applicants aged below 14 years and from applicants aged above 79 years.
For the Prevalent forms, DHS obtained data on the age profiles of
applicants and broke them out into two populations: (a) the population
eligible in the baseline and (b) the new age-eligible population under
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\153\ USCIS temporarily suspended biometrics submission for
certain Form I-539 applicants in FY 2023. See https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-extends-temporary-suspension-of-biometrics-submission-for-certain-form-i-539-applicants (Apr. 19, 2023). An
annual average of 161,747 (Table 3) Form I-539 applicants submitted
biometrics. FY 2023 and FY 2024 witnessed substantial drops in
volume of biometric collection relative to previous years due to
temporary suspension of biometric submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We introduce conceptually a Biometrics Collection Rate (BCR), which
is the proportion of biometric submissions out of the total age-
eligible population within a form type.
Formula 1: Biometrics Collection Rate (BCR)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO25.000

Where BCR represents the Biometrics Collection Rate for a specific
form type, BI represents ``intensity,'' as the average number of
individuals who currently submit biometrics information by form type in
a fiscal year and P represents the volume of age-eligible benefit
requests associated with a form type by fiscal year.
Ideally, an average BCR would be obtained across a number of forms
to extrapolate to the new age-eligible population. For example, a BCR
less than unity but relatively high would reflect the broadened
collection but still account for non-complete collection. In our
analysis we consider a BCR of unity. This essentially means that we
assume that all filers in the newly eligible populations will submit
biometrics. In reality, this BCR will overstate the new populations as
it does not account for exemptions. Beginning with the Prevalent set of
forms, those forms that we expect to involve the now eligible
populations are presented in Table 10. The second column reports the
now eligible populations, for illustration purposes the BCR is shown in
the third column and ensuing new biometrics populations are reported in
the fourth column. As Table 10 below shows, with no eligible new
populations under Forms N-400, I-539, and I-601A, and under the
assumption of a BCR of unity, about 166,414 new biometrics submissions
are expected to accrue to the Prevalent set of forms annually.
The Expansion group of forms will accrue new biometrics from the
dual forces of expanded collection and the removal of age restrictions.
Therefore, it is not sufficient to solely focus on the population under
age 14 and over age 79. Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition,
eligible to submit biometric population is an example of one form in
this Expansion group. USCIS routinely collects biometrics from Form I-
730 beneficiaries aged 14 to 79 years. Under the proposed rulemaking,
USCIS will start collecting biometrics from Form I-730 petitioners and
beneficiaries without age restrictions. To determine the new annual
biometrics population for the Expansion group of forms, we calculate
the difference between total average annual filing volume and the total
average annual biometrics collected. The total average annual filing
volume captured the maximum population potentially impacted by the
proposed rulemaking and the total average annual biometrics collected
captured the baseline biometrics submitting population. For this group
of forms, the total average annual filing volume is 877,820.
Subtracting the current biometrics for this group (42,036 from Table
3), we arrive at 835,784. Again, under the assumption of a BCR of
unity, this is the new annual biometrics population for the Expansion
group.
From FY 2020 through FY 2024, an average of 81,247 biometric
submissions (just under 4 percent of the total, Table 3) annually were
included in the Other group. Two forms, Form I-131, Application for
Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records; and
Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,
fall within this classification and make up 65.91 percent of total
volume of biometrics submitted in the Other group of forms. USCIS
routinely collects biometrics from Form I-131 and Form I-821D
applicants aged 14 to 79 years. These two forms are impacted by the
elimination of the age restrictions for collecting biometrics and their
new biometric submission population was estimated using the same
methodology as the Prevalent forms group. For the rest of the forms in
the Other group, we relied on the Expansion group's approach, as USCIS
plans to expand collection and remove age restrictions. In Table 10,
DHS estimates an average annual increase of 1.12 million biometrics
submissions.

[[Page 49106]]

Table 10--New Biometrics Collection Population by Form/Form Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual average new
Form New age-eligible Applied BCR biometrics- submitting
population population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-485............................................. 52,007 1 52,007
I-589............................................. 97,748 1 97,748
N-400............................................. 0 N/A N/A
I-90.............................................. 6,427 1 6,427
I-539............................................. 0 N/A N/A
I-821............................................. 7,798 1 7,798
I-765............................................. 0 N/A N/A
I-590............................................. 1,293 1 1,293
I-751............................................. 1,141 1 1,141
I-601A............................................ 0 1 0
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prevalent Form Group Subtotal................. .................. .............. 166,414
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New routine
collection and age- Volume of New biometrics-
Form group eligible biometrics submitting population
population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expansion......................................... 877,820 42,036 835,784
Other............................................. 143,344 27,699 115,645
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... .................. .............. 1,117,843
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS OPQ and IRIS, CPMS and NPD databases, volume of biometrics data queried on March 28, 2025, new
biometrics collection population by form queried in September 2025.

We delve into the nuances of subpopulations of five forms that are
in the Expansion or Other classification in the following paragraphs.
DHS proposes to amend the regulations governing the requirements for
Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fianc[eacute](e), and Form I-130,
Petition for Alien Relative, to require those petitioners to routinely
submit biometrics as required by proposed 8 CFR 103.16. See proposed 8
CFR 204.2(a)(2)(i) and 8 CFR 214.2(k)(1). USCIS needs to review the
criminal histories of petitioners before approving a family-based
immigration benefit and therefore needs to utilize biometrics to
conduct criminal history background checks to identify individuals
convicted of any ``specified offense against a minor'' or ``specified
crime'' and prevent the approval of a petition in violation of AWA or
without the proper disclosure required by IMBRA.
Table 11 presents the number of family-based immigration benefit
requests by form and for 5 fiscal years, FY 2020 through FY 2024. Table
11 also provides information on the counts of receipts filed by U.S.
citizen petitioners who petitioned for immigration benefits for their
alien fianc[eacute](e) or alien spouse via Form I-129F or for their
family member via Form I-130. USCIS did not routinely collect
biometrics from Form I-129F and Form I-130 U.S. citizen petitioners,
which is reflected in the low volume of biometrics submitted for these
two forms, an average of 91 and 1,027 biometrics respectively,
submitted annually in the past 5 fiscal years. As per the changes
proposed in 8 CFR 204.2(a)(2)(i) and 8 CFR 214.2(k)(1), these two forms
are placed in the Expansion group. The new annual biometrics-submitting
population for these two forms is part of the 835,784 (see Table 10)
for Expansion Form group.

Table 11--Filing Volume, Count of U.S. Citizen Petitioners and Volume of Biometric Collection of Family-Based Receipts (Form I-129F, Form I-130), FY
2020 Through FY 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form I-129F, petition for alien Form I-130, petition for alien relative
fianc[eacute](e) ----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Receipts filed Receipts filed Volume of
Receipts by U.S. citizen Volume of Receipts by U.S. citizen biometrics
petitioner biometrics petitioner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..................................................... 38,209 35,010 7 724,492 599,555 222
2021..................................................... 37,507 31,580 18 745,496 622,581 475
2022..................................................... 48,194 39,574 107 910,997 783,343 861
2023..................................................... 44,222 36,748 117 959,623 822,931 1,818
2024..................................................... 43,459 37,727 205 989,649 837,326 1,758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Total......................................... 211,591 180,639 454 4,330,257 3,665,736 5,134
5-Year Annual Average................................ 42,318 36,128 91 866,051 733,147 1,027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS, OPQ and IRIS, CLAIMS3, ELIS and CPMS databases, data queried in August 2025.

VAWA self-petitioners must establish good moral character as
required under 8 CFR 204.2(c)(1)(vii), 204.2(e)(1)(vii), and
204.2(j)(1)(vii). Currently, VAWA self-petitioners may establish good
moral character through primary evidence, such as the self-petitioner's
affidavit and local police clearances, or State-issued criminal
background checks from each locality or State in the United States
where the self-petitioner has resided for 6 or more months during

[[Page 49107]]

the 3 years before filing. As VAWA self-petitioners are currently not
subject to a categorical biometric collection, USCIS is not able to
categorically use biometrics to verify the accuracy or completeness of
the disclosed criminal history information. DHS is proposing revisions
to 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v), 204.2(e)(2)(v), and 204.2(j)(2)(v) to
categorically require biometrics from VAWA self-petitioners. DHS
further proposes to remove the automatic presumption of good moral
character for VAWA self-petitioners under 14 years of age. Therefore,
VAWA self-petitioners under 14 years of age will submit biometrics like
any other VAWA self-petitioner, which USCIS will use in the
determination of good moral character. See proposed 8 CFR
204.2(c)(2)(v), 204.2(e)(2)(v), and 204.2(j)(2)(v). USCIS retains
discretionary authority to require that VAWA self-petitioners provide
additional evidence of good moral character on a case-by-case basis if
additional evidence is necessary to make a good moral character
determination. See proposed 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v), 204.2(e)(2)(v), and
204.2(j)(2)(v).
As per the changes in the proposed rulemaking, DHS has placed VAWA
self-petitioners in the Expansion form group. In Table 12, DHS
calculates the average annual filing volumes for Form I-360 VAWA self-
petitioners to account for the population who will begin to routinely
submit biometrics information under this proposed rulemaking.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\154\ DHS expects less than 100 percent of Form I-360 VAWA self-
petitioners to submit biometrics due to the existence of exemptions
and waivers. However, DHS is not able to identify Form I-360 VAWA
filers that file concurrently with other forms from current existing
data sources. Therefore, DHS assumes that 100 percent of Form I-360
VAWA self-petitioners will submit biometrics for the purposes of
this analysis.

Table 12--Form I-360 VAWA Self-Petitioners
[FY 2020 through FY 2024]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year annual
Fiscal year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5-Year total average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form I-360 VAWA self-petitioners................. 15,264 23,417 33,491 51,233 70,238 193,643 38,729
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS OPQ, CLAIMS 3 database, data queried in August 2025. The 5-year total for Form I-360 is 193,643.

The proposed revision to 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v), 204.2(e)(2)(v), and
204.2(j)(2)(v) to require biometrics from VAWA self-petitioners will
eliminate the need for self-petitioners who resided in the United
States 3 years before filing to obtain multiple police or law
enforcement clearance letters. The majority of self-petitioners would
only need to travel to one DHS-authorized facility to submit
biometrics. Further, USCIS adjudicators would no longer need to verify
past addresses against police clearance letters, as the information
discovered by collecting biometrics for criminal history and national
security background checks will be credible and relevant evidence when
considering the good moral character requirement.
Similar to the VAWA self-petitioners discussed above, applicants
applying to adjust status based on underlying T nonimmigrant status
also have a good moral character requirement. Presently, USCIS requires
biometrics for T adjustment of status applicants; however, the
regulations also require applicants to submit police clearance letters,
if available, which adjudicators consider in addition to other credible
evidence when determining good moral character. DHS is proposing
revision of 8 CFR 245.23(g) to codify the current USCIS policy and
practice of collecting biometrics and to eliminate the need for USCIS
adjudicators to verify past addresses against police clearance letters,
because the information in the applicant's criminal history and
national security background check result will be the most relevant and
reliable evidence for assessing good moral character. On average, 4,017
victims of human trafficking applied for T nonimmigrant status annually
in the last 5 fiscal years via Form I-914, Application for T
Nonimmigrant Status.\155\ To account for the impacts of this proposed
rule, we have placed Form I-914 in the ``Other'' classification. As
USCIS already requires biometrics from Form I-914 applicants, the
estimated additional annual biometric submitting population is below
1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\155\ USCIS OPQ, CPMS and NPD databases, data queried in
September 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As explained in the proposed rule, DHS will continue collecting
biometrics on all persons involved with a regional center, new
commercial enterprise, or job-creating entity, which may include U.S.
citizens, U.S. nationals, and lawful permanent residents, as part of
its determination of whether such individuals and organizations are
eligible to participate in the regional center program. See proposed 8
CFR 103.16(c)(2); see also INA sec. 203(b)(5)(H)(iii), 8 U.S.C.
1153(b)(5)(H)(iii). For organizations, this may also include those
persons having any direct or indirect ownership, control, or other
beneficial interest in such organization. See INA sec. 203(b)(5)(H)(v);
8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(H)(v). Further, DHS proposes that the biometrics
requirement may also include additional collections or checks for
purposes of continuous vetting. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(c)(2).
Section 203(b)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), authorizes the EB-5
program generally as well as the related EB-5 regional center program.
DHS pulled data from Form I-956, Application for Regional Center
Designation; Form I-956F, Application for Approval of an Investment in
a Commercial Enterprise; and Form I-956H, Bona Fides of Persons
Involved with Regional Center Program. Each person involved with a
regional center must fill out and submit supplement Form I-956H with
the regional center's submission of Form I-956 and each person involved
with a new commercial enterprise and affiliated job-creating entity
must fill out and submit supplement Form I-956H with the regional
center's submission of Form I-956F. In the past 3 fiscal years,\156\
USCIS received a total of 1,078 Forms I-956H attached with Forms I-
956F.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\156\ Congress repealed the legacy Regional Center Program
authorized under Sec. 610 of PL 102-395 through the EB-5 Reform and
Integrity Act of 2022. USCIS published Form I-956 and Form I-956
instructions in May 2022.
\157\ USCIS OPQ, CPMS and NPD databases. Data queried in
September 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aliens seeking classification under the EB-5 program through
investment in a new commercial enterprise associated with a regional
center must submit Form I-526E, Immigrant Petition by Regional Center
Investor. If they are already in the United States with valid
nonimmigrant status, they may also file Form I-485, Application to
Register Permanent Resident Status, if an immigrant visa is or would be

[[Page 49108]]

immediately available to them upon the approval of their Form I-526E
petition. The volume of biometrics collected in connection with Form I-
526E in the last 3 fiscal years is less than ten, reflective of the
challenges in scheduling overseas biometric services appointments with
Department of State for Form I-526E petitioners who are abroad \158\ as
well as the lack of need for collection of biometrics in connection
with adjudication of the Form I-526E for Form I-526E petitioners who
are currently in the United States because biometrics will be collected
from such aliens in connection with adjudication of the Form I-485. For
Form I-956H applicants, biometrics are scheduled at the ASC closest to
the applicant's address on Form I-956H in the United States or
territories, but the volume of biometric collection is less than ten in
the last 5 fiscal years. As alien Form I-526E petitioners who are
already in the United States generally also file Form I-485, they do
eventually get captured in the volume of biometric collection under
Form I-485. And for all alien EB-5 petitioners, regardless of whether
they apply for a visa from Department of State or adjust status
domestically through adjudication of Form I-485, biometrics are also
routinely collected in connection with Form I-829, Petition by Investor
to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status, which they file
shortly before the second anniversary of obtaining status in order to
remove conditions on their status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\158\ The Form I-526E petition must be approved by USCIS before
the alien can apply for an immigrant visa DS-260 at a U.S. Embassy
or Consulate outside the United States. Biometrics are collected by
DOS when the alien comes in for their visa interview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For persons involved with a regional center, new commercial
enterprise, or affiliated job-creating entity who submit a Form I-956H
in connection with the filing of a Form I-956 or Form I-956F, the data
were not salient to determine how many of 1,078 individuals (annual
average of 359) are U.S. citizens or have LPR status. We placed Form I-
956H in the Expansion form group and relied on information from Form I-
956 and its supplements to ensure that we cover the maximum population
potentially affected by the proposed rulemaking.
DHS estimates that the biometrics-submitting population will grow
by 1.12 million due to the removal of age restrictions and the
expansion of routine collection across a broader span of forms. DHS is
proposing changes to biometric reuse policy and biometric reschedule
standards that will determine the lower bound of the new biometrics-
submitting population. DHS is proposing to define instances that
justify USCIS biometric reuse for an individual who may have a pending
benefit or other request or collection of information that requires
biometric submission and has previously submitted biometrics for
another benefit or other request or collection of information. In those
situations, USCIS must obtain a positive biometric-based identity
verification (e.g., a fingerprint match or 1:1 facial verification)
before reusing an individual's previously submitted biometrics in
connection with a benefit request, other request, or collection of
information. Identity verification based solely upon a comparison of
the individual's name or other nonunique biographic identification
characteristics or data, or combinations thereof, does not constitute
positive identity verification and will not be permitted to justify
biometric reuse. In Tables 5 and 6, we presented data on volume of
reused biometrics (photographs) and number of beneficiaries whose
photographs were reused from a previous biometric services appointment
respectively. Following collection of initial biometrics, USCIS has the
capability to verify an individual's identity using 2 or 4 fingerprints
to match against the previously collected 10 fingerprints. Currently,
DHS does not have the capability to broadly implement remote biometric
identity verification (e.g., a mobile application). Under the proposed
rule, DHS cannot quantify the population whose biometric-based identity
verification will be positive and hence cannot provide an accurate
estimate of cost savings. At an individual level, any applicant,
petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, requestor, or an alien applying for
immigration benefit who went into a USCIS or USCIS authorized facility
to submit biometrics and USCIS was able to establish a positive
biometric-based identity verification, will witness unquantified time
savings.
Currently 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) governs the required standard and the
frequency with which one may reschedule an appearance for an interview
or a biometric services appointment. DHS is proposing to amend 8 CFR
103.2(b)(9) by retaining the requirements to reschedule an appearance
for an interview, removing any reference to biometric services
appointments, and establishing the requirements to reschedule a
biometric services appointment in 8 CFR 103.16. Both proposed 8 CFR
103.2(b)(9) and 103.16 provide that failure to appear for a scheduled
interview or biometric services appointment without prior authorization
may result in a variety of consequences, including denial of the
immigration benefit request or termination of conditional permanent
resident status.
DHS proposes that an individual may reschedule their biometric
services appointment one time prior to the date of the scheduled
biometric services appointment for any reason. However, DHS is
proposing a new ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard that must be
met to reschedule an interview or a biometric services appointment. DHS
proposes that the petitioners may, before the date of the scheduled
interview, in the presence of extraordinary circumstances, request that
the interview be rescheduled. DHS also proposes that applicants may
reschedule the date of their biometric services appointment one time
for any cause. Any additional requests to reschedule by an individual
before the date of the biometric services appointment must be justified
by extraordinary circumstances that prevent the individual from
attending. Incorporating the possibilities of exemptions, proposed
biometric reuse policy, and proposed biometric services appointment
reschedule standards, the number of individuals who will go to an USCIS
authorized facility to submit their biometrics will be less than 1.10
million.
2. New DNA Submission Population
DHS proposes to revise its regulations to provide that raw DNA or
DNA test results can be required, requested, or accepted as evidence,
either primary or secondary, to prove or disprove the existence of a
claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship where necessary.\159\ See
proposed 8 CFR 103.16(d)(2). The proposed rule allows certain benefit
requestors to use, and authorizes USCIS to request, require, or accept,
raw DNA or DNA test result submissions to verify a claimed or unclaimed
genetic relationship in support of certain immigration benefit
requests, including,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\159\ This includes requiring, requesting, or accepting DNA
testing to establish a genetic relationship with a birth parent in
the context of a petition to classify a beneficiary as an orphan
under INA sec. 101(b)(1)(F) or as a Convention adoptee under INA
sec. 101(b)(1)(G).

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

[[Page 49109]]

but not limited to: Form I-130; Form I-590; Form I-589; Form I-600;
Form N-600; Form N-600K; Form I-730; Form I-800; Form I-914A; Form I-
918A; Form I-929; and any other form where the existence of a claimed
or unclaimed genetic relationship is at issue for a beneficiary,
derivative, rider, or qualifying family member.\160\ In past practice
and under the proposed rule, each individual DNA test will incur a
separate cost. For instance, a principal seeking a benefit request for
3 eligible beneficiaries or qualifying family members will incur 3
separate costs for the DNA testing.\161\
DHS is estimating the population for certain benefit requests where
an individual may submit raw DNA or DNA test results in support of a
claimed genetic relationship. DNA test results can be used to verify
the existence or nonexistence of a claimed genetic relationship.\162\
DHS estimates the number of individuals who may submit raw DNA or DNA
test results due to the proposed rule by first identifying the total
number of applicants or petitioners and beneficiaries/qualifying family
members who could submit raw DNA or DNA test results from the total
annual volume of receipts for the form types, including Forms I-130, I-
730, I-914, I-918, and I-929. For the purposes of this analysis, DHS
assumes that any applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary associated with
a benefit request would only submit his or her DNA evidence once
annually regardless of the number of benefit requests with which they
may be associated. These estimates are calculated using a unique ID for
each eligible applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary.\163\ Table 13
provides a list of qualifying alien relatives on whose behalf a Form I-
130 petitioner may be filed. To be eligible for approval of the
petition, a Form I-130 petitioner must establish the existence of a
qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the alien relative.
From the list of qualifying alien relative types in Table 13, seven
could be verified through DNA evidence. For instance, a birth parent
files a Form I-130 petition on behalf of their 17-year-old child under
the eligibility category 203(a)(2)(A), which covers an unmarried child
under 21 of a permanent resident. This represents one claimed genetic
relationship that could be verified through DNA testing. To estimate
the number of Form I-130 petitioners and beneficiaries who could submit
raw DNA or DNA test results, DHS quantifies the number of unique
petitioners and beneficiaries who submit a Form I-130 based on one of
the seven qualifying relative types that can be verified through DNA
evidence.\164\

Table 13--Relative Types by Genetic Relation Considered for DNA Testing
for Form I-130 Beneficiaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmarried child (under age 21) of U.S. Citizen, 201(b) INA.
Unmarried son or daughter (21 or older) of U.S. Citizen, 203(a)(1) INA.
Married son or daughter of U.S. Citizen, 203(a)(3) INA.
Parent of U.S. Citizen, 201(b) INA.
Brother or sister of U.S. Citizen, 203(a)(4) INA.
Unmarried child under 21 of permanent resident, 203(a)(2)(A) INA.
Unmarried son or daughter (21 or older) of permanent resident,
203(a)(2)(B) INA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS.
Note: Under the proposed rule, DNA submission will not be limited to
claimed genetic relationships. The proposed rule permits USCIS to
require, request, or accept DNA submission in instances where claimed
non-biological relationships are suspected to be fraudulent.

DHS is able to estimate the number of eligible genetic
relationships within the total annual volume of receipts for Forms I-
130, I-730, I-929, I-914A, and I-918A. This grouping of forms is non-
exhaustive, because USCIS may require, request, or accept DNA
submissions to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or
unclaimed genetic relationship for other forms where the existence of a
genetic relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, derivative, rider,
or qualifying family member. As is shown in Table 14, from FY 2020 to
FY 2024 an annual average of 362,705 Form I-130 petitioners filed on
behalf of 492,390 Form I-130 beneficiaries with a claimed genetic
relationship. Over the same time period, an annual average of 5,186
Form I-730 petitioners filed on behalf of 10,175 Form I-730 qualifying
family members with a claimed genetic relationship. Taking into account
all five forms in Table 14, an annual average of 375,650 petitioners
filed on behalf of 515,078 beneficiaries with a claimed genetic
relationship. Deducting the baseline DNA testing population of 7,940
(see Table 4) from the new DNA testing population of 890,729 provides
us the total increase of 882,789 from the baseline population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\160\ DHS currently does not have regulatory provisions in place
to require DNA testing results to prove or disprove an individual's
biological sex as it pertains to eligibility for certain immigration
benefits when documentary evidence may be unreliable or unavailable.
USCIS data on submitted DNA tests do not have pertinent details to
make the determination whether the DNA test results were submitted
as evidence of biological sex. Hence, we were not able to analyze
the impact of the proposed provision allowing DHS to require DNA
test results as evidence of biological sex.
\161\ The principal would need to pay three separate fees. The
first fee would cover the cost of the DNA test with the first
dependent, while the second and third fee would cover the additional
costs for the remaining family members. However, the principal
petitioner and the dependents would each incur separate travel and
time burden costs.
\162\ DNA test results from an AABB-accredited lab or using
Rapid DNA can be used to validate a biological relationship.
Although there is no expiration date for DNA test results examining
a specific biological relationship, some AABB labs only keep the DNA
test results for around 30 days. This means the test result
documentation would either need to be maintained in the applicant,
petitioner or beneficiary's USCIS file or the documentation would
need to be maintained by the applicant or petitioner paying for the
DNA test.
\163\ DHS proposes that it may require, request, or accept DNA
evidence in support of these family-based benefit requests because
DNA testing is an established technology that can help determine if
there is a biological relationship between two individuals.
Additionally, DNA testing for these family-based benefit requests
will help DHS to identify criminals and protect vulnerable
populations under AWA and IMBRA.
\164\ The petitioner may file on behalf of multiple family
members, and though this includes individuals to whom the petitioner
is not biologically related, such as stepchildren and adopted
children, most of these claimed relationships are relationships that
could be verified through DNA testing. The petitioner and his or her
genetic relative(s) will only need to submit DNA evidence on one
occasion to establish the claimed relationship with the relative in
question. In addition, the DNA test results establishing the claimed
relationship with a particular relative are valid indefinitely,
meaning the test results could be used in subsequent benefit
requests if the results are retained in USCIS files or the
petitioner has an official copy of the test results. Therefore, DHS
has used the fiscal year time stamp, full name and date of birth of
the applicant, petitioner, and beneficiary to count the number of
unique identities within a given fiscal year. This is done to avoid
instances where one filer may be filing on behalf of multiple
relatives, or the same individuals could be filing multiple benefit
requests in a given year for which previous DNA test results will be
valid.

[[Page 49110]]

Table 14--Populations With Claimed Genetic Relationships, Form I-130, Form I-730, Form I-929, Form I-914A, and
Form I-918A
[FY 2020 through FY 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principal petitioner/ Eligible dependent
Form applicant (genetic relationship) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-130............................................... 362,705 492,390 855,095
I-730............................................... 5,186 10,175 15,360
I-929............................................... 72 84 156
I-914A.............................................. 959 1,686 2,645
I-918A.............................................. 6,728 10,745 17,473
-----------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Annual Average Total..................... 375,650 515,078 890,729
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS OPQ, CLAIMS 3 and ELIS databases, data queried in March 2025.

4. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The cost-benefit analysis is separated into six sections. The first
section focuses on the total costs of submitting biometrics for the
public (applicants, petitioners, sponsors, beneficiaries, requestors,
or individuals filing a benefit request, other request or collection of
information), including the use of new modalities to collect biometric
information. The second section is concerned with the costs to
individuals associated with the provision that allows DHS to require,
request, or accept DNA submissions to prove or disprove the existence
of a claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship. The third section
discusses the familiarization costs of the rule, and the fourth section
discusses the costs of the proposed rule to the Federal Government. In
the fifth section, DHS presents the total annual monetized costs
projected over a 10-year implementation period (FY 2026 through FY
2035). Finally, DHS concludes with a discussion of the benefits of the
proposed rule to both the Federal Government and the public.
a. Costs to the New Biometric-Submitting Population
The proposed rule increases the types of biometric modalities
required to establish and verify an identity, including the potential
use of ocular and facial image, palm print, and voice print. DHS does
not expect a considerable increase in the time burden for an individual
to submit biometric information to USCIS. Under this proposed rule,
USCIS will collect an individual's ocular and facial images by using
the same process to take a photograph.\165\ Similarly, during a
biometrics appointment an individual currently submits an index finger
press print, an 8-fingerprint set, or a full ``10-roll'' fingerprint
set. DHS may also collect an individual's palm print by using the same
procedure and equipment, which may take a few additional seconds, as
will be the case for an individual's voice print. For these reasons,
DHS does not expect the time burden to increase substantially beyond
the time frame of 1 hour and 10 minutes. In situations of biometric
reuse where a positive biometric-based identity verification (e.g., a
fingerprint or facial image match) is established remotely, the time
frame will be shorter than 1 hour and 10 minutes. Current use of facial
matching and remote biometric-based verification is limited to
photographs for employment authorization document production.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\165\ The photograph will be taken with a camera that has the
capacity to collect ocular image or facial recognition.
\166\ DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for the Customer Profile
Management System,'' DHS Reference No. DHS/USCIS/PIA-060(d), (Sept.
27, 2024), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/24_0930_priv_pia-dhs-uscis-cpms-060d.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that process, applicants are not required to attend a biometrics
appointment where DHS systems confirm an identity match between the
photograph submitted with the application and existing photos of the
applicant in DHS holdings. However, DHS has not conducted pilot
programs or field tests in contexts beyond the use of applicant-
submitted photos for Form I-765 or for benefit requests without an
existing photo submission requirement to validate this expectation.
Therefore, the population that we have described throughout this
analysis as the baseline is not expected to incur a quantified impact
from this proposed rule in terms of costs.
New populations that will submit biometrics will incur the
opportunity costs of time to submit biometric information at an ASC. To
estimate the opportunity cost of time associated with new biometric
submitting population, this analysis uses $46.84 per hour, the total
compensation amount, including costs for wages and salaries and
benefits from the Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) report on Employer Costs for Employee Compensation detailing the
average employer costs for employee compensation for all civilian
workers in major occupational groups and industries.\167\ DHS accounts
for worker benefits when estimating the opportunity cost of time by
calculating a benefits-to-wage multiplier using the most recent BLS
report detailing the average employer costs for employee compensation
for all civilian workers in major occupational groups and industries.
DHS estimates that the benefits-to-wage multiplier is 1.45, which
incorporates employee wages and salaries and the full cost of benefits,
such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\167\ See BLS, Economic News Release, ``Employer Cost for
Employee Compensation--September 2024,'' Table 1. Employer costs per
hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of
total compensation: civilian workers, by major occupational and
industry group, (Dec. 17, 2024), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12172024.pdf.
\168\ The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows:
(Total Employee Compensation per hour)/(Wages and Salaries per hour)
= $46.84/$32.25 = 1.452 = 1.45 (rounded). See BLS, Economic News
Release, ``Employer Cost for Employee Compensation--September
2024,'' Table 1. Employer costs per hour worked for employee
compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: civilian
workers, by major occupational and industry group, (Dec. 17, 2024),
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12172024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS is aware that some forms, such as Form I-526E and Form I-956,
are linked to investment authorization and that the effective minimum
wage may not be realistic for these forms. However, the populations
associated with these forms are relatively very small, and therefore
insensitive to wage assumptions. While DHS does not rule out the
possibility that some portion of the population might earn wages higher
than the average level for all occupations, without solid information,
relying on the average employer costs

[[Page 49111]]

for employee compensation for all civilian workers in major
occupational groups and industries is justifiable.
Individuals will need to travel to an ASC for their biometric
services appointment.\169\ Consistent with past rulemakings, DHS
estimates that the average round-trip distance to an ASC is 50 miles,
and that the average travel time for the trip is 2.5 hours. 85 FR
56338, 56381 (Sept. 11, 2020); 78 FR 536, 572 (Jan. 3, 2013). The cost
of travel also includes a mileage charge based on the estimated 50 mile
round trip at the 2025 GSA rate of $0.70 per mile for use of a
privately owned automobile.\170\ Because an individual alien would
spend 1 hour and 10 minutes (1.17 hours) at an ASC to submit
biometrics, summing the ASC time and travel time yields 3.67
hours.\171\ The opportunity costs of time to submit biometrics is
$171.90.\172\ The travel cost is $35, which is the per mileage
reimbursement rate of $0.70 multiplied by 50-mile travel distance.
Summing up, the time-related and travel costs generate a per-person
biometric submission cost of $206.90.\173\ DHS notes that the impacts
of the proposed revisions to biometrics reuse policy, including pooling
of biometrics appointments for family units, co-filing of forms, and
the costs that would accrue to travel to an ASC, may be overstated. It
is logical that children and families could travel together, reducing
the number of individuals separately incurring travel costs. DHS does
not have salient information to quantify this possibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\169\ DHS expects the majority of biometrics appointments to
occur in the United States at an ASC. However, in certain instances
individuals may submit biometrics at an overseas USCIS or Department
of State facility. However, because DHS does not currently have data
tracking the specific number of biometric appointments that occur
overseas, it uses the cost and travel time estimates for submitting
biometrics at an ASC as an approximate estimate for all populations
submitting biometrics in support of a benefit request.
\170\ GSA, ``Privately owned vehicle (POV)mileage reimbursement
rates,'' https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates (last updated Dec. 30, 2024).
\171\ Source for biometric time burden estimate: See PRA
analysis.
\172\ Calculations: 3.67 (total time in hours to submit
biometrics) x $46.84 (average wage for 1 hour of work) = $171.90.
\173\ Calculations: $35 (cost of travel) + $171.90 (time-related
costs) = $206.90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To determine the annual cost of submitting biometrics, DHS applies
the previously discussed new biometrics submitting populations
estimated for three separate form groups. DHS estimated that 1,117,843
(see Table 10) additional individuals will submit biometrics under the
proposed rule. At a per-filer cost of $206.90, derived above,
biometrics submission costs are estimated at $231,281,786 from the
1,117,843 additional individuals who will submit biometrics under the
proposed rule.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\174\ Calculation: 1,117,843 additional individuals x $206.90
filing cost = $231,281,785.67 = $231,281,786 (rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While not all individuals will pay the $30 biometric services fee,
we apply the fee to the Form I-821, Application for TPS, and EOIR
proceedings' new biometrics submitting populations to account for costs
incurred by the new biometric services fee-paying population. Not all
EOIR forms require a biometric services fee. EOIR forms Form EOIR 40,
Application for Suspension of Deportation, Form EOIR 42A, Application
for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents, and Form
EOIR 42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of
Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents, require a $30 biometric
services fee.\175\ DHS estimated the TPS and three EOIR forms' new
biometric services fee submitting populations to be 7,895 (rounded)
annually.^{176 177} Considering the biometric services fee,
$236,838 in costs will be incurred by the biometric services fee-paying
population annually.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\175\ EOIR, ``EOIR Forms,'' https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-forms, (last updated Aug. 7, 2025).
\176\ The time and travel costs of submitting biometrics at an
ASC for TPS and three EOIR forms' new biometrics submitting
population is part of the total costs to the new biometric
submitting population.
\177\ As a reminder, the population for Form I-821 (TPS), Form
EOIR 40, Form EOIR 42A, and Form EOIR 42B presented in 7,894.6
biometric services fee-paying population of this analysis are
filings by aliens under 14 years of age.
\178\ Calculation: 7,894.6 biometric services fee-paying
population x $30 biometric services fee = $236,838 Annual Costs to
biometric services fee-paying population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS proposes to remove the age restrictions for biometrics
submission prior to issuing an NTA. See proposed 8 CFR 236.5. Under
this proposed rule DHS will authorize biometric submission from aliens
regardless of age during enforcement actions requiring identity
verification. In terms of biometric submission from individuals
detained by DHS for law enforcement purposes (e.g., upon apprehension
for removal from the United States), there is not likely to be a cost
to these individuals whose biometrics are collected for purposes of NTA
issuance. With respect to other DHS components (i.e., ICE Enforcement
and Removal Operations, CBP Office of Field Operations, and Border
Patrol), individuals who fall into this category will generally be in
custody when biometrics are collected, so there will be no opportunity
costs or travel-related costs to the individual. USCIS does not take
individuals into custody, so the biometric submissions for USCIS will
not be in a custodial setting, so it may result in cost to the
individuals.\179\ USCIS NTA issuance is currently and historically
predicated on the denial of an immigration benefit request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\179\ The costs associated with aliens who have NTAs issued by
USCIS and submitting biometrics to USCIS is accounted for in the
total biometric costs incurred by biometric-submitting new
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding together the cost associated with the biometric services
fee-paying population to the sum of the biometrics costs yields
$231,518,624 annually in undiscounted terms. Over the course of 10
years the undiscounted costs associated with biometrics are projected
at $2.31 billion.
Expanded biometrics submissions may also result in additional
processing time among the impacted populations, but DHS has not been
able to quantify the costs of this additional time. DHS believes that
the additional time associated with biometrics submissions will be
relatively small.
DHS recognizes that some individuals who submit biometrics/DNA have
concerns germane to privacy, intrusiveness, and security. Data security
can be considered a cost. For example, companies insure against data
breaches, as the insurance payment can be a valuation proxy for
security. In terms of this proposed rule, data security is an
intangible cost, and DHS does not rule out the possibility that there
are costs that cannot be monetized that accrue to aspects of privacy
and data security. Finally, DHS notes that based on the discussion
above, a salient estimate of future DHS component-wise biometrics
collections for individuals below the age of 14 prior to issuance of
NTAs cannot be determined. However, DHS cannot rule out the possibility
that there could be costs that cannot be presently quantified.
b. Costs Associated With New DNA Submissions
This section evaluates the costs associated with submitting raw DNA
or DNA test results in support of a benefit request by first
considering the fees associated with submitting evidence for DNA
testing. Next, DHS considers the time burden for submitting raw DNA or
DNA test results before addressing time burden costs of traveling to an
accredited AABB lab and an overseas USCIS or DOS facility. The
compilation of these costs segments comprises the

[[Page 49112]]

total costs involving new DNA submissions.
The process for submitting raw DNA or DNA test results begins when
the principal applicant or petitioner submits raw DNA at an accredited
AABB laboratory, including a fee of approximately $230 to test the
first genetic relationship, and $200 for each additional test.\180\ DHS
does not currently track the time burden estimates for submitting
traditional DNA at an AABB accredited lab or to a trained professional
at a U.S. Government/DOS international facility. Therefore, DHS does
not attempt to quantify these specific costs in the proposed rule.
Similarly, DHS does not track the travel cost or time burden for
traveling to an AABB lab. However, most AABB labs have affiliates
throughout the country where applicants and petitioners can submit raw
DNA for testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\180\ Genetrack Biolabs, ``The Cost of US Immigration DNA
Testing,'' https://www.genetrackus.com/blog/immigration/how-much-does-a-dna-test-cost-for-us-immigration-a-comprehensive-pricing-guide-from-genetrack/ (last visited May 5, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some petitioners and beneficiaries/qualifying family members who
submit DNA evidence to establish a genetic relationship in support of a
benefit request will have to travel to an international USCIS or DOS
U.S. Government office. Once again, DHS does not have specific
information regarding the distance needed to travel to an approved
international facility. Furthermore, DHS expects the travel distance to
visit an overseas U.S. Government office to be higher due to a limited
presence in most foreign countries.
In the first year this proposed rule is effective, DHS estimates a
maximum of 375,650 principal applicants or petitioners filing on behalf
of 515,078 (see Table 14) beneficiaries/qualifying family members based
upon a claimed genetic relationship. Because the DNA testing costs
decline once the first genetic relationship has been tested, DHS
estimates there will be 375,650 DNA tests affiliated with the first DNA
test and 139,428 DNA tests affiliated with additional family
members.\181\ Based on these possibilities the total DNA testing fees
will be $114,285,100 ($114.3 million), which comprise $86,399,500 to
test a first genetic relationship and $27,885,600 to test additional
family members with a claimed genetic relationship (Table 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\181\ Calculation: 515,078 beneficiaries/qualifying family
members with a claimed biological relationship-375,650 principal
applicants or petitioners = 139,428 DNA tests for additional family
members.

Table 15--DNA Tests and Associated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principal petitioner/ Eligible beneficiaries/
Population/fee applicant (genetic qualifying family members Total
relationship) (genetic relationship)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA Fees:
Population.......................... 375,650 139,428 515,078
Test Fees........................... $230 $200 ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost...................... $86,399,500 $27,885,600 $114,285,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis using data from USCIS OPQ, CLAIMS 3 and ELIS databases, data queried in March 2025.

Because DHS is uncertain about how many individuals will be
requested or required (or will elect) to submit raw DNA or DNA test
results to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or unclaimed
genetic relationship, we present the following sensitivity analysis
demonstrating a potential range of costs. Table 16 shows the range of
values for the percentage of principal applicants or petitioners and
the percentage of beneficiaries/qualifying family members who may
submit raw DNA or DNA test results in support of a benefit request
under this proposed rule.

Table 16--Total Range of Costs for Submitting DNA Evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of principal petitioners/applicants and dependents Number of principal Number of Number of additional Total cost [(B*$230) +
submitting DNA evidence petitioners dependents DNA tests (D*$200)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10............................................................. 37,565 51,508 13,943 $11,428,510
20............................................................. 75,130 103,016 27,886 22,857,020
30............................................................. 112,695 154,523 41,828 34,285,530
40............................................................. 150,260 206,031 55,771 45,714,040
50............................................................. 187,825 257,539 69,714 57,142,550
60............................................................. 225,390 309,047 83,657 68,571,060
70............................................................. 262,955 360,555 97,600 79,999,570
80............................................................. 300,520 412,062 111,542 91,428,080
90............................................................. 338,085 463,570 125,485 102,856,590
100............................................................ 375,650 515,078 139,428 114,285,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis using data from USCIS OPQ, CLAIMS 3 and ELIS databases, data queried in March 2025.
Note: Please note that totals may not sum due to rounding.

While Table 16 contemplates a maximum 100 percent collection level,
it is reasonable to posit that less than complete collection will
occur. Hence, we provide a varying estimate, corresponding to deciles
of 10, 50, and 90. To attain a primary estimate of $57,142,550 for DNA
submission costs, DHS uses the average of the low cost-10 percent
($11,428,510 or $11.43 million) and the high cost-90 percent
($102,856,590 or $102.86 million) estimates.

[[Page 49113]]

c. Familiarization Costs
There could be familiarization costs associated with this proposed
rule. Familiarization costs comprise the opportunity cost of the time
spent reading and understanding the details of a proposed rule in order
to fully comply with the new regulation(s) and are incurred in the
first year of the implementation of proposed rule. Since a wide range
of forms is covered in this proposed rule, it is possible that
attorneys or human resource specialists could choose to review the
proposed rule. The mean wages for attorneys and human resource
specialists are, in order, $84.84 and $36.57.\182\ While DHS assumes
much of this burden is already captured in the forms' estimated
burdens, additional costs associated with familiarization would equate
to the time spent reviewing this proposed rule (in hours) multiplied by
the average wages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\182\ Data obtained from BLS, Occupational Employment
Statistics, ``May 2023 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates, United States,'' https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes_nat.htm#23-0000 (last updated Apr. 3, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Costs to the Federal Government
Under the proposed rule, there are several types of cost modules
that may impact the Federal Government. The first cost module is
attendant with the capacity of DHS to process biometrics for additional
populations. As previously stated, the population that will submit
biometrics at an ASC will increase due to elimination of the age
restrictions and the expansion of collection across a broadened set of
form types. In annual terms, the population that will submit biometrics
will increase from a baseline volume of 2.07 million to an estimated
volume of 3.19 million.
The DHS ASC contract was designed to be flexible in order to
process varying benefit request volumes. The pricing mechanism within
this contract embodies such flexibility. Specifically, the ASC contract
is aggregated by USCIS district, and each district has five volume
bands with its own pricing mechanism. As a general principle, the
pricing strategy takes advantage of economies of scale in that larger
biometric processing volumes have smaller corresponding biometric
processing prices.\183\ Based on the current ASC contract, DHS expects
that an additional 1.12 million biometric submissions per year will not
impact DHS's ability to process these additional populations. In
addition, DHS does not expect the Federal Government to incur
additional costs as a result of the additional volumes that may submit
biometrics under the proposed rule due to the diminishing cost
structure. It is possible that for any individual district, the volume
of new biometrics submissions might pull the totals to a level that
will surpass current budget allocations for that district. If this
occurs, costs could conceivably rise or budgets may need to be
increased. Furthermore, although there are not expected to be direct
costs from a budgetary perspective, because the increase in biometrics
likely will require more contract-based labor or other inputs, these
added resource-requirements constitute an additional unquantified cost
of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\183\ Economies of scale is a technical term that is used to
describe the process whereby the greater the quantity of output
produced (in this case more biometric services appointments) the
lower the per-unit fixed cost or per-unit variable costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second cost module accrues to the ability to use and implement
the new modalities, such as ocular and facial images, palm print, and
voice print, to collect biometrics in support of a benefit request. DHS
has not quantified the aggregate cost for implementing the new
modalities. Under the proposed rule, palm print may also be used for
identity management in the immigration lifecycle. While DHS currently
has equipment that could collect the palm print of an individual,
additional updates may be necessary to accommodate the appropriate
collection of this biometric evidence, and DHS may not yet be ready to
implement collection of palm prints at the time of final rule
publication. Although DHS does not present cost estimates for such
software or any associated information technology typology in this
rule, it has no reason to expect that such software updates will impose
significant costs. Systems development personnel who will perform the
enhancements to deploy palm collection and (if necessary) transmission
are on existing contracts utilized for many purposes and are a sunk
cost. Another modality that may be used to collect biometrics is
related to an individual's voice print. It is possible to collect a
voice print using standard electronic equipment such as microphones
installed in cell phones, desk phones, computers, and laptops.
The third cost module involves the costs of facilitating DNA
submission to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed or unclaimed
genetic relationship or as evidence of biological sex. As previously
stated, individuals submitting DNA in the United States will be
responsible for paying the associated DNA testing fees. However, when
the applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary/qualifying family member
submits DNA outside of the United States, DHS facilitates DNA
collection at USCIS Government offices or, if USCIS does not have an
office in that country, DOS has agreed to facilitate collection of DNA.
DHS does not currently charge a fee for facilitating the collection of
DNA. At this time, DHS plans to incur all future costs for facilitating
the collection of DNA. DOS facilitates the collection of DNA and USCIS
reimburses DOS on a per case basis, determined by the DOS Cost of
Service Model on an annual basis. DHS is unable to project how many new
DNA tests facilitated by DOS will take place annually.
DHS will not request DNA testing for all applications or petitions
where a genetic relationship or biological sex is relevant or claimed.
Instead, DHS may require or request raw DNA or DNA testing when
evidence of a genetic relationship, or biological sex cannot be
obtained through other/documentary means. In addition, applicants can
volunteer to submit DNA, but DHS has no method to project the number of
people who will submit it. Additionally, a percentage of people will
receive a request from USCIS to appear for DNA collection but will fail
to appear (resulting in no collection). For these reasons, projecting a
number is difficult.
As a result of this proposed rule, all DHS components will be able
to collect biometrics from all minors during their initial immigration
enforcement processing, which will require some operational changes for
agents in the field. The costs of the proposed rule to DHS will stem
from new guidance that will inform the staff of the change in
operational procedures for biometric submission. The annual refresher
training required of DHS staff will also need to be updated to reflect
the elimination of age restrictions for biometrics. After the first
year there will only be the reoccurring cost of the annual refresher.
No new resources and no new system changes will be required as a result
of this proposed rule. DHS's equipment used for collecting biometrics
and the systems that house the information will not be impacted. The
current equipment, including the mobile biometrics units and the
databases used to record the case files of aliens in custody, have the
capabilities and capacity to include biometrics for the new population
cohorts of individuals under 14 years old. The most significant impact
will be informing and retraining DHS staff of the change.
The current USCIS practice before issuing NTAs requires USCIS to

[[Page 49114]]

resubmit any previously collected biometrics associated with the
underlying denied benefit request to the FBI for updated criminal
history information. We expect some monetized costs will accrue to
USCIS as part of the fees it pays to the FBI for CHRI checks submitted
by authorized users (it is noted that law enforcement agencies within
DHS do not pay the fee, but USCIS is not considered a law enforcement
agency by the FBI). There could be relatively minor costs to USCIS
associated with transferring background check data. The fee that the
FBI charges to USCIS is $10.\184\ Based on the USCIS-issued NTA below
the age of 14 population of 5,504 (Table 8), the costs annually will be
$55,040.\185\ To the extent that any costs described, including those
not quantified for purposes of this analysis, deviate from these
quantified estimates, evidence of such deviation will be considered in
a future USCIS Fee Rule proposing adjusted fees calibrated to recover
expected future costs for all USCIS workloads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\184\ See 88 FR at 485 (Jan. 4, 2023) (reflecting $11.25 for
fingerprint-based Centralized Billing Service Provider (CBSP)
checks). Since the publication of the NPRM, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Justice, has revised its fee
scheduled, effective January 1, 2025, and lowered the fee for CBSPs
to $10.00. See 89 FR 68930 (Aug. 28, 2024).
\185\ Calculation: $10 FBI fee to USCISx5,504 USCIS Component
NTAs Under age 14=$55,040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Total Quantified Estimated Costs of Regulatory Changes
In this section, DHS presents the total annual monetized costs
projected over a 10-year implementation period. Having parsed out the
costs to the additional biometrics submitting population (which
includes the service fees), the DNA-related costs to the three ranges
of populations submitting DNA or DNA test results, and the costs to the
Federal Government, the three bins can be collated to estimate the
total annualized quantifiable costs of the proposed rule. For this we
present Table 17, which shows the undiscounted costs based on the three
DNA data-range points suggested above.

Table 17--Total Monetized Costs of the Biometrics Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
[Undiscounted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Individuals:
Annual Biometric Submission Cost...... $231,281,786
Annual Biometric Services Fee Cost.... 236,838
-------------------
Total Annual Biometrics Cost...... 231,518,624
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA-low DNA-midrange DNA-high
(10%) (50%) (90%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual DNA Submission Cost.......... * 57,142,550 $11,428,510 $57,142,550 $102,856,590
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Costs to Individuals.. 288,661,174 ............... ............... ...............
Costs to Federal Government:
Total Monetized Costs to Federal 55,040 ............... ............... ...............
Government...........................
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Costs of the 288,716,214 ............... ............... ...............
Proposed Rule....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis.
* Calculation: Average of the low and high estimates from Table 16.

Table 18 below shows costs over the 10-year implementation period
of this proposed rule.

Table 18--Discounted Total Monetized Costs Over a 10-Year Period of
Analysis
[$288,716,214 (Undiscounted)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 3-Percent 7-Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026.............................. $280,307,004 $269,828,237
2027.............................. 272,142,722 252,175,922
2028.............................. 264,216,235 235,678,432
2029.............................. 256,520,616 220,260,217
2030.............................. 249,049,142 205,850,670
2031.............................. 241,795,284 192,383,804
2032.............................. 234,752,703 179,797,948
2033.............................. 227,915,245 168,035,465
2034.............................. 221,276,937 157,042,491
2035.............................. 214,831,978 146,768,683
-------------------------------------
10-Year Total................. 2,462,807,865 2,027,821,869
Annualized Monetized Costs.... 288,716,214 288,716,214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis.

[[Page 49115]]

f. Benefits to the Federal Government, Applicants, Petitioners,
Sponsors, Beneficiaries, Requestors, or Individuals Filing an
Immigration Request
The proposed rule provides individuals requesting or associated
with immigration and naturalization benefits a more reliable system for
verifying their identity when submitting a benefit request. This stands
to limit the potential for identity theft and reduce the likelihood of
DHS being unable to verify an individual's identity and consequently
denying an approvable benefit or request. In addition, the proposed
rule results in increased use of DNA test results with an initial
filing as primary evidence without waiting for a determination of
whether or not the documents submitted are sufficient to prove or
disprove the existence of a claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship
or to support a finding of biological sex.\186\ According to AABB, DNA
testing provides the most reliable scientific test currently available
to establish a genetic relationship.\187\ Therefore, DNA testing gives
individuals the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship using
a more expedient, less intrusive, and more effective technology than
the blood tests currently provided for in the regulations, and without
laboring to gather documentation of the relationship.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\186\ Currently, DNA evidence is only used as secondary
evidence, after primary evidence (e.g., medical records; school
records) have proved inconclusive.
\187\ AABB, ``Standards for Relationship Testing Laboratories,
App. 9--Immigration Testing,'' 13th ed. (Jan. 1, 2018), http://www.aabb.org/sa/Pages/Standards-Portal.aspx.
\188\ See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule enables the U.S. government to know with greater
certainty the identity of individuals requesting certain immigration
and naturalization benefits. The expanded use of biometrics provides
DHS with the ability to limit identity fraud because biometrics are
unique physical characteristics and more difficult to falsify. In
addition, using biometrics for identity verification is expected to
reduce the administrative burden of manual paper review involved in
verifying identities and performing criminal history checks.
The proposed rule also enhances the U.S. government's capability to
identify criminal activity and protect vulnerable populations. For
example, the provision to collect biometrics of U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent resident petitioners of family-based immigrant and
nonimmigrant fianc[eacute](e) petitions will better enable DHS to
determine if a petitioner has been convicted of certain crimes under
the AWA and IMBRA. The proposed rule also improves the capability of
the U.S. government to combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking,
forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. Prior to this proposed
rule, individuals under the age of 14 did not routinely submit
biometrics in support of a benefit request. As a result, DHS's system
for verifying the identity of vulnerable children was not as robust.
For example, a vulnerable child with similar biographical
characteristics to a child who has lawful immigration status in the
United States could have been moved across the border under the assumed
identity of that other child, although DHS does not have specific data
to identify the entire scope of this problem.\189\ Under this proposed
rule, DHS can utilize biometrics to verify a child's identity, which
will be particularly useful in instances where biometrics are used to
verify the identities of UAC and AAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\189\ ICE, DHS, ``1,004 victims of child sexual exploitation
identified, rescued by ICE in 2015'' (Nov. 9, 2015), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1004-victims-child-sexual-exploitation-identified-rescued-ice-2015; ICE, DHS, ``ICE HSI El Paso, USBP
identify more than 200 `fraudulent families' in last 6 months''
(Oct. 17, 2019), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-hsi-el-paso-usbp-identify-more-200-fraudulent-families-last-6-months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There may be some general privacy concerns and/or risks associated
with the collection and retention of biometric information. DHS
identifies and mitigates any potential risks in various DHS privacy
compliance documentation.\190\ However, this proposed rule does not
create new impacts in this regard but expands the population that could
have privacy concerns. DHS does not believe that merely adding
additional populations subject to biometrics and authorizing additional
biometric modalities increases vulnerability for breach or misuse
appreciably. DHS currently employs technical, physical, and
administrative controls to mitigate privacy risks during the biometric
collection and management process. DHS continues to evaluate additional
recommendations for improving internal processes to mitigate any
emerging privacy and data security risks. DHS components, including
USCIS, are in the process of updating Privacy Impact Assessments
(PIAs).\191\ This renewal initiative will document DHS's enhanced
security vetting of individuals seeking and/or associated with
immigration benefits. This proposed rule is conducive to and compatible
with USCIS' evolution towards a person-centric model for organizing and
managing its records, enhanced and continuous vetting, and a reduced
dependence on paper documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\190\ Several public DHS compliance documents discuss impacts
related to privacy concerns for risks associated with the collection
and retention of biometric information. See generally, DHS,
``Privacy Compliance Process'' (last updated Mar. 28, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/compliance. See also, DHS, ``DHS/USCIS-002 Immigration
Biometric and Background Check System of Records,'' 83 FR 36950
(Jul. 31, 2018), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DHS-2018-0003-0001; DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment for the Fraud
Detection and National Security Directorate,'' DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-
01(a) (Mar. 03, 2020), available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis013-01fdnsprogram-appendixgupdate-march2020.pdf; DHS, ``Privacy Impact Assessment
Update for the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate,''
DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01(a) (Aug. 30, 2019), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-uscis-013-01-fdns-august2019.pdf.
\191\ For current Privacy Impact Assessments, See DHS, ``Privacy
Impact Assessments,'' (last updated Aug. 27, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-impact-assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, DHS is proposing evidentiary requirements for identity
verification purposes of prospective adopted child beneficiaries. DHS
proposes to require a copy of a prospective adopted child beneficiary's
birth certificate to establish the child's identity and age, and the
identities of the child's birth parents (if known). See proposed 8 CFR
204.2(d)(2)(vii). DHS additionally proposes to update the regulation to
align with INA sec. 101(b)(1)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E)(ii), which
provides that a beneficiary adopted while under age 18 (rather than age
16) may qualify as an adopted child under that provision if he or she
is the birth sibling of a child described in section 101(b)(1)(E)(i) or
(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E)(i), (F)(i), was adopted by
the same adoptive parent(s), and otherwise meet the requirements of INA
sec. 101(b)(1)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E). In Table 19, DHS presents
data on prospective adopted child beneficiaries by age groups (15 years
and below, 16, and 17 years). As a birth certificate of a prospective
adopted child beneficiary is already listed as an example of primary
evidence for Form I-130, Form I-600, and Form I-800,\192\ there are no
changes to the public reporting burden of these three forms. Requiring
a birth certificate in addition

[[Page 49116]]

to an adoption decree clarifies which evidence needs to be collected by
petitioners requesting immigration benefits for adopted child
beneficiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\192\ Form I-130 instructions, see https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-130instr.pdf; Form I-600
instructions, see https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-600instr.pdf; Form I-800 instructions, see https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-800instr.pdf
(last visited May 5, 2025).

Table 19--Prospective Adopted Child Beneficiaries by Form and Age Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form I-130, Petition for Form I-600, Petition to classify Form I-800, Petition to classify
alien relative orphan as an immediate relative convention adoptee as an immediate
FY 2020 through FY 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- relative
-----------------------------------------
<=15 Years 16 or 17 Years <=15 Years 16 or 17 Years <=15 Years 16 or 17 Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Total............................... 363 255 1,792 238 4,788 186
5-Year Annual Average...................... 73 51 358 48 958 37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis using Form I-130 beneficiary data from USCIS OPQ, CLAIMS 3 and ELIS databases, data received in March 2025.
Form I-1600 and Form I-800 beneficiary data from USCIS OPQ, Adoption Case Management System database, data queried on April 8, 2025.

This proposed rule does not impact the national labor force or that
of individual States and does not result in any tax or distributional
impacts.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The 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 entities during the development of their rules
to determine whether there will be a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. An ``individual'' is not considered a
small entity and costs to an individual are not considered a small
entity impact for RFA purposes. In addition, the courts have held that
the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis
of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates small
entities.\193\ Consequently, indirect impacts from a rule on a small
entity are not considered as costs for RFA purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\193\ See Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration, ``A
Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act,'' (Aug. 2017) https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf; See supra Section
V.A.(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS has reviewed this regulation in accordance with the RFA and
believes that most of the population impacted by this proposed rule
will be individuals and not entities. DHS estimates that about 1.12
million more individuals could be impacted by this proposed rule
annually in terms of incurring monetized costs.\194\ However, most of
this impacted population involves individuals who would submit
biometrics in support of individual benefits or other requests or
collections of information, which are not covered by the RFA. The few
entities that may be impacted include EB-5 regional centers, new
commercial enterprises, or job-creating entities, because for purposes
of identity verification DHS intends to continue its existing practice
of requiring biometrics collection and performing biometric-based
criminal history and national security background checks on all persons
involved with these entities. If there are costs to small entities, the
costs would be indirect since they accrue to the persons involved with
a regional center, new commercial enterprise, or job-creating entity
rather than directly to these entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\194\ See supra Section V.A.(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed rule does not mandate any actions or requirements for
small entities. Individuals, rather than small entities, submit
biometrics. Based on the information presented in this analysis and
throughout the preamble, DHS certifies that this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(Congressional Review Act)

The Congressional Review Act was included as part of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) by
section 804 of SBREFA, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868, et seq.
This proposed rule, if finalized, would be a major rule as defined by
section 804 of SBREFA, because it would result in an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. See 5 U.S.C. 804(2)(A).
Accordingly, absent exceptional circumstances, this proposed rule if
enacted as a final rule would be effective at least 60 days after the
date on which Congress receives a report submitted by DHS as required
by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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.\195\ Title II of UMRA
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule
for which the agency published a proposed rule, which includes any
Federal mandate 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. See 2
U.S.C. 1532(a). The inflation adjusted value of $100 million in 1995 is
approximately $206 million in 2024 based on the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumer (CPI-U).\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\195\ The term ``Federal mandate'' means a Federal
intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2
U.S.C. 1502(1), 658(5), and (6).
\196\ See BLS, ``Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, all items, by month,'' https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202412.pdf (last visited May 5, 2025). Calculation of inflation: (1)
Calculate the average monthly CPI-U for the reference year (1995)
and the current year (2024); (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 2024-Average monthly
CPI-U for 1995) / (Average monthly CPI-U for 1995)] x 100 =
[(313.689-152.383) / 152.383] = (161.306/152.383) = 1.059 x 100 =
105.86 percent = 106 percent (rounded). Calculation of inflation-
adjusted value: $100 million in 1995 dollars x 2.06 = $206 million
in 2024 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate, because it
would not impose any enforceable duty upon any other level of
government or private sector entity. Requiring individuals to provide
biometrics information would not result in any expenditures by the
State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector. The
requirements of title II of UMRA; therefore, do not

[[Page 49117]]

apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA. DHS has,
however, analyzed many of the potential effects of this proposed action
in the RIA above.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\197\ See supra Section V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This proposed rule will 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 accordance with section 6
of E.O. 13132, Federalism, it is determined that this proposed 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 proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O.
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule was written to provide
a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was reviewed carefully
to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize
litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has
determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards
provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, DHS must submit to OMB, for
review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule,
unless they are exempt. In accordance with the PRA, the information
collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain
comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection
instruments. Please see the accompanying PRA documentation for the full
analysis. Table 20 provides a summary of the PRA action being taken on
the listed information collections as a result of this rulemaking.

Table 20--USCIS Information Collections PRA Action Summary
[Information Collections for PRA action: revision of a currently
approved collection]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control No. Form No. Form title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1615-0008............. G-325A............... Biographic Information
(for Deferred Action).
1615-0166............. G-325R............... Biographic Information
(Registration).
1615-0082............. I-90................. Application to Replace
Permanent Resident Card.
1615-0079............. I-102................ Application for
Replacement/Initial
Nonimmigrant Arrival-
Departure Document.
1615-0009............. I-129................ Petition for Nonimmigrant
Worker.
1615-0111............. I-129CW.............. Petition for CNMI-Only
Nonimmigrant Transition
Worker.
1615-0001............. I-129F............... Petition for Alien
Fianc[eacute](e).
1615-0010............. I-129S............... Nonimmigrant Petition
Based on Blanket L
Petition.
1615-0012............. I-130................ Petition for Alien
Relative.
I-130A............... Supplemental Information
for Spouse Beneficiary.
1615-0013............. I-131................ Application for Travel
Document, Parole
Documents, and Arrival/
Departure Records.
1615-0135............. I-131A............... Application for Travel
Document (Carrier
Documentation).
1615-0014............. I-134................ Affidavit of Support.
1615-0015............. I-140................ Immigrant Petition for
Alien Workers.
1615-0016............. I-191................ Application for Relief
under Former Section
212(c) of the
Immigration and
Nationality Act.
1615-0017............. I-192................ Application for Advance
Permission to Enter as
Nonimmigrant Pursuant to
Section 212(d)(3)(A)(ii)
of the INA, Section
212(d)(13) of the INA,
or Section 212(d)(14) of
the INA.
1615-0018............. I-212................ Application for
Permission to Reapply
for Admission into the
United States after
Deportation or Removal.
1615-0095............. I-290B............... Notice of Appeal or
Motion.
1615-0020............. I-360................ Petition for Amerasian,
Widow(er), or Special
Immigrant.
1615-0023............. I-485................ Application to Register
Permanent Residence or
Adjust Status.
I-485 Sup A.......... 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
Alien Entrepreneur.
I-526E............... Immigration Petition by
Regional Center
Investor.
1615-0003............. I-539................ Application to Extend/
Change Nonimmigrant
Status.
I-539A............... Supplemental Information
for Application to
Extend/Change
Nonimmigrant Status.
1615-0027............. I-566................ Inter-Agency Record of
Request--A, G or NATO
Dependent Employment
Authorization or Change/
Adjustment To/From A, G,
NATO Status.
1615-0067............. I-589................ Application for Asylum
and for Withholding of
Removal.
1615-0068............. I-590................ Registration for
Classification as a
Refugee.
1615-0028............. I-600................ Petition to Classify
Orphan as an Immediate
Relative and Application
for Advance Processing
of Orphan Petition.
I-600A............... Application for Advance
Processing of an Orphan
Petition.
I-600A Supplement 1.. Listing of Adult Member
of the Household.
I-600A Supplement 2.. Consent to Disclose
Information.
I-600A Supplement 3.. Application for Advance
Processing of an Orphan
Petition.
1615-0029............. I-601................ Application for Waiver of
Ground of
Inadmissibility.
1615-0123............. I-601A............... Application for
Provisional Unlawful
Presence Waiver.
1615-0069............. I-602................ Application by Refugee
for Waiver of Grounds of
Inadmissibility.
1615-0030............. I-612................ Application for Waiver of
the Foreign Residence
Requirement of Section
212(e) of the
Immigration and
Nationality Act.
1615-0032............. I-690................ Application for Waiver of
Grounds of
Inadmissibility.
1615-0035............. I-698................ Application to Adjust
Status from Temporary to
Permanent Resident.
1615-0037............. I-730................ Refugee/Asylee Relative
Petition.
1615-0038............. I-751................ Petition to Remove the
Conditions on Residence.

[[Page 49118]]

1615-0040............. I-765................ Application for
Employment
Authorization.
1615-0137............. I-765V............... Application for
Employment Authorization
for Abused Nonimmigrant
Spouse.
1615-0005............. I-817................ Application for Benefits
Under the Family Unity
Program.
1615-0043............. I-821................ Application for Temporary
Protected Status.
1615-0124............. I-821D............... Request for Deferred
Action for Childhood
Arrival.
1615-0044............. I-824................ Application for Action on
an Approved Application.
1615-0045............. I-829................ Petition by Entrepreneur
to Remove Conditions.
1615-0075............. I-864................ Affidavit of Support
Under Section 213A of
the Act.
I-864A............... Contract Between Sponsor
and Household Member.
I-864EZ.............. Affidavit of Support
Under Section 213A of
the Act.
1615-0072............. I-881................ Application for
Suspension of
Deportation or Special
Rule Cancellation of
Removal (Pursuant to
Sec. 203 of Pub. L. 105-
100).
1615-0099............. I-914................ Application for T
Nonimmigrant Status.
I-914A............... Supplement A to Form I-
914, Application for
Derivative T
Nonimmigrant Status.
I-914B............... Supplement B, Declaration
for Trafficking Victim.
1615-0104............. I-918................ Petition for U
Nonimmigrant Status.
I-918A............... Form I-918, Supplement A,
Petition for Qualifying
Family Member of U-1
Recipient.
I-918B............... Form I-918, Supplement B,
U Nonimmigrant Status
Certification.
1615-0106............. I-929................ Petition for Qualifying
Family Member of a U-1
Nonimmigrant.
1615-0159............. I-956................ Application for Regional
Center Designation.
I-956F............... Application for Approval
of an Investment in a
Commercial Enterprise.
I-956G............... Regional Center Annual
Report.
I-956H............... Bona fides of Persons
Involved with Regional
Center Program.
I-956K............... Registration for Direct
and Third-Party
Promoters.
1615-0050............. N-336................ Request for Hearing on a
Decision in
Naturalization
Proceedings Under
Section 336.
1615-0052............. N-400................ Application for
Naturalization.
1615-0056............. N-470................ Application to Preserve
Residence for
Naturalization.
1615-0091............. N-565................ Application for
Replacement
Naturalization/
Citizenship Document.
1615-0057............. N-600................ Application for
Certificate of
Citizenship.
1615-0087............. N-600K............... Application for
Citizenship and Issuance
of Certificate Under
Section 322.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS invites the public and other federal agencies to comment on the
impact to the proposed collections of information. In accordance with
the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal
Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the
information collection instruments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must
include the OMB Control Number in the body of the letter and the agency
name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the
methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this
rule to submit comments. Comments on each information collection should
address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
USCIS Form G-325A (OMB Control Number 1615-0008)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Biographic Information (for
Deferred Action).
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: G-325A; 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 G-325A to collect biographic information from individuals
requesting deferred action for certain military service members and
their family members, or for nonmilitary deferred action (other than
deferred action based on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),
Violence Against Women Act, A-3, G-5 nonimmigrants, and T and U
nonimmigrant visas).
(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 G-325A is
7,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.39 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 7,500 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 26,700 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 $187,500.

[[Page 49119]]

USCIS Form G-325R (OMB Control Number 1615-0166)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Biographic Information
(Registration).
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: G-325R; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Aliens
who are subject to alien registration requirements of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as amended, who have not yet registered.
(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 G-325R is
1,400,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.67 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 1,400,000 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 2,576,000 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 $0.
USCIS Form I-90 (OMB Control Number 1615-0082)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Replace Permanent
Resident Card.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-90; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-90
is used by USCIS to determine eligibility to replace a Permanent
Resident Card.
(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-90
(paper) is 444,601 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.817
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-90 (electronic) is 296,400 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 1.59 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 741,001 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 2,146,087 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 $254,163,343.
USCIS Form I-102 (OMB Control Number 1615-0079)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Replacement/
Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-102; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households.
Nonimmigrants temporarily residing in the United States can use this
form to request a replacement of a lost, stolen, or mutilated arrival-
departure document, or to request a new arrival-departure document if
one was not issued when the nonimmigrant was last admitted but is now
in need of such a document. USCIS uses the information provided by the
requester to verify eligibility, as well as his or her status; process
the request; and issue a new or replacement arrival-departure document.
If the application is approved, USCIS will issue an arrival-departure
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 I-102 is
3,907 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.4 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 3,907 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 6,267 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 $1,126,779.
USCIS Form I-129 (OMB Control Number 1615-0009)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of DHS
sponsoring the collection: Form I-129, E-1/E-2 Classification
Supplement, Trade Agreement Supplement, H Classification Supplement, H-
1B and H-1B1 Data Collection and Filing Exemption Supplement, L
Classification Supplement, O and P Classification Supplement, Q-1
Classification Supplement, and R-1 Classification Supplement; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Businesses or other for-profits;
Not-for-profit institutions. USCIS uses Form I-129 and accompanying
supplements to determine whether the petitioner and beneficiary(ies) is
(are) eligible for the nonimmigrant classification. A U.S. employer, or
agent in some instances, may file a petition for nonimmigrant worker to
employ foreign nationals under the following nonimmigrant
classifications: H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3,
P-1S, P-2S, P-3S, Q-1, or R-1 nonimmigrant worker. The collection of
this information is also required from a U.S. employer on a petition
for an extension of stay or change of status for E-1, E-2, E-3, Free
Trade H-1B1 Chile/Singapore nonimmigrants and TN (United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement workers) who are 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 respondents for the information collection Form I-129
(paper filing) is 527,606 and the estimated hour burden per response is
2.55 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form I-129 (online electronic filing) is 45,000
and the estimated hour burden per

[[Page 49120]]

response is 2.333 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection E-1/E-1 Classification Supplement is 12,050
and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.67 hours. The estimated
total number of respondents for the information collection Trade
Agreement Supplement (paper filing) is 10,945 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 0.67 hours. The estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection Trade Agreement Supplement
(online electronic filing) is 2,000 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 0.5833 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection H Classification (paper filing) is 426,983
and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.3 hours. The estimated
total number of respondents for the information collection H
Classification (online electronic filing) is 45,000 and the estimated
hour burden per response is 2 hours. The estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection H-1B and H-1B1 Data
Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement (paper filing) is
353,936 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour. The
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection H-
1B and H-1B1 Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement
(online electronic filing) is 45,000 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 0.9167 hour. The estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection L Classification Supplement is 40,358 and
the estimated hour burden per response is 1.34 hour. The estimated
total number of respondents for the information collection O and P
Classification Supplement is 28,434 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 1 hour. The estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Q-1 Classification Supplement is 54 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 0.34 hours. The estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection R-1 Classification
Supplement is 6,782 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.34
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection biometrics is 572,606 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 of information is 3,702,553 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 $294,892,090.
USCIS Form I-129CW (OMB Control Number 1615-0111)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for CNMI-Only
Nonimmigrant Transition Worker.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-129CW; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Businesses or other for-profits. An
employer uses this form to petition USCIS for an alien to temporarily
enter as a nonimmigrant into the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI) to perform services or labor as a CNMI-Only Transitional
Worker (CW-1). An employer also uses this form to request an extension
of stay or change of status on behalf of the alien worker.
(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-129CW
is 5,975 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.567 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-129CWR is 5,975 and the estimated hour burden per response is
2.50 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection biometrics is 5,975 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 of information is 43,242 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 $3,806,063.
USCIS Form I-129F (OMB Control Number 1615-0001)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Alien
Fianc[eacute](e).
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-129F; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. To date,
through the filing of this form a U.S. citizen may facilitate the entry
of his/her alien spouse or fianc[eacute](e) into the United States so
that a bona fide marriage may be concluded within 90 days of admission
of the K-1 nonimmigrant beneficiary of the petition and the U.S.
citizen petitioner.\198\ This form must be used to cover the provisions
of section 1103 of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000,
which allows the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen to enter the United
States as a nonimmigrant to await adjudication of a pending Form I-130.
The Form I-129F is the only existing form that collects the requisite
information so that an adjudicator can make the appropriate decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\198\ The 90-day requirement is only applicable if admission is
as a K nonimmigrant. See INA sec. 101(a)(15)(K).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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-129F
is 47,700 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.937 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection biometrics is 47,700 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 195,904 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 $5,412,004.
USCIS Form I-129S (OMB Control Number 1615-0010)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently
approved collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Nonimmigrant Petition Based on
Blanket L Petition.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-129S; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief

[[Page 49121]]

abstract: Primary: Businesses or other for-profits. Employers seeking
to classify employees outside the United States as executives,
managers, or specialized knowledge professionals, or as nonimmigrant
intra-company transferees pursuant to a previously approved blanket
petition under sections 214(c)(2) and 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, may
file this form. USCIS uses the information provided through this form
to assess whether the employee meets the requirements for L-1
classification under blanket L petition approval. Submitting this
information to USCIS is voluntary. USCIS may provide the information
collected through this form to other Federal, State, local, and foreign
government agencies and authorized organizations, and may also make it
available, as appropriate, for law enforcement purposes or in the
interest of national security.
(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-129S
is 75,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.687 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection biometrics is 75,000 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 289,275 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 $36,750,000.
USCIS Form I-130 (I-130A) (OMB Control Number 1615-0012)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Alien Relative.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-130/I-130A; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The
information collected on this form is used to establish the existence
of a relationship between the U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or lawful
permanent resident petitioner and certain alien relative beneficiaries
who wish to immigrate to 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 respondents for the information collection Form I-130
(paper filings) is 437,500 and the estimated hour burden per response
is 1.817 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form I-130 (online filings) is 437,500 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours; the estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection Form I-130A is
40,775 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.833 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 915,775 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 of information is 2,556,610 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 $350,000,000.
USCIS Form I-131 (OMB Control Number 1615-0013)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Documents,
Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form 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 TPS, and aliens
abroad seeking humanitarian parole--must apply for a travel document to
lawfully enter or reenter the United States. Eligible recipients of
DACA may request an advance parole document based on humanitarian,
educational, and employment reasons. Lawful permanent residents may
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 Form I-131
(paper filings) is 976,639 and the estimated hour burden per response
is 3.1 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form I-131 (online filings) is 30,205 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is
49,615 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 of information is 3,146,040 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 $296,012,136.
USCIS Form I-131A (OMB Control Number 1615-0135)
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
(Carrier Documentation).
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form 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 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 0.837 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics 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 of information is 10,236 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated
with the collection: The estimated total annual

[[Page 49122]]

cost burden associated with this collection of information is $919,275.
USCIS Form I-134 (OMB Control Number 1615-0014)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-134; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS and
DOS consular officers use this form to determine whether an applicant
for a visa, adjustment of status, or entry to the United States may
possibly be excludable on the ground that he or she is likely to become
a public charge.
(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-134
is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.65 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 2,500 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 of information is 7,050 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 $10,625.
USCIS Form I-140 (OMB Control Number 1615-0015)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition for Alien
Workers.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-140; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit U.S.
employers may file this petition for certain alien beneficiaries to
receive an employment-based immigrant visa.
(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-140
is 143,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.981 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection biometrics is 143,000 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 of information is 307,593 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 $73,645,000.
USCIS Form I-191 (OMB Control Number 1615-0016)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Relief under
Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-191; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS and
EOIR use the information on the form to properly assess and determine
whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver under former section
212(c) of INA.
(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-191
is 118 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.197 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 118 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 of information is 279 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 $60,770.
USCIS Form I-192 (OMB Control Number 1615-0017)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Advance
Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-192; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data
collected will be used by CBP and USCIS to determine whether the
applicant is eligible to enter the United States temporarily under the
provisions of section 212(d)(3), 212(d)(13), and 212(d)(14) of the INA.
The respondents for this information collection are certain
inadmissible nonimmigrant aliens who wish to apply for permission to
enter the United States and applicants for T or petitioners for U
nonimmigrant status.
(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-192
(paper filings) is 61,050 and the estimated hour burden per response is
0.997 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form I-192 (online filings) is 7,000 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 0.93 hours; the estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is
68,050 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 of information is 146,995 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 $17,522,875.
USCIS Form I-212 (OMB Control Number 1615-0018)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Permission to
Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or
Removal.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS

[[Page 49123]]

sponsoring the collection: Form I-212; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Sections
212(a)(9)(A) and 212(a)(9)(C) of the INA render an alien inadmissible
to the United States unless he or she obtains the consent to reapply
(also known as permission to reapply) for admission to the United
States. An alien who is inadmissible under these provisions has either
been removed (deported or excluded) from the United States, illegally
reentered after having been removed (deported or excluded), or
illegally reentered after having accrued more than 1 year of unlawful
presence in the United States. The information collection required on
Form I-212 is necessary for USCIS to determine whether the applicant is
eligible to file the waiver. If the application is approved, the alien
will be permitted to apply for admission to the United States, after
being granted a visa by DOS as either an immigrant or a nonimmigrant.
(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-212
is 6,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.687 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-212, CBP e-SAFE Filing, is 1,200 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection biometrics is 350 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 of information is 14,282 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 $364,260.
USCIS Form 1-290B (OMB Control Number 1615-0095)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Notice of Appeal or Motion.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-290B; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
290B standardizes requests for appeals and motions and ensures that the
basic information required to adjudicate appeals and motions is
provided by applicants and petitioners, or their attorneys or
representatives. USCIS uses the data collected on Form I-290B to
determine whether an applicant or petitioner is eligible to file an
appeal or motion, whether the requirements of an appeal or motion have
been met, and whether the applicant or petitioner is eligible for the
requested immigration benefit. Form I-290B can also be filed with ICE
by schools appealing decisions on Form I-17, Petition for Approval of
School for Attendance by a Nonimmigrant Student, or on filings for
certification to ICE's SEVP.
(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-290B
is 25,431 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.184 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection biometrics is 25,431 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 59,865 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 $7,858,179.
USCIS Form I-360 (OMB Control Number 1615-0020)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Amerasian,
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-360; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
360 may be used by an Amerasian; a widow or widower of a U.S. citizen;
a battered or abused spouse or child of a U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident; a battered or abused parent of a U.S. citizen son
or daughter; or a special immigrant (religious worker; Panama Canal
company employee; Canal Zone government employee; U.S. Government
employee in the Canal Zone; physician; international organization
employee or family member of such employee; juvenile court dependent;
armed forces member; Afghanistan or Iraq national who supported the
U.S. Armed Forces as a translator; Iraq national who worked for or on
behalf of the U.S. Government in Iraq; or Afghan national who worked
for or on behalf of the U.S. Government or the International Security
Assistance Force in Afghanistan) who intend to establish their
eligibility to immigrate to the United States. The data collected on
this form are reviewed by USCIS to determine if the petitioner may be
qualified to obtain the benefit. The data collected on this form will
also be used to issue an EAD upon approval of the petition for battered
or abused spouses, children, and parents, if requested.
(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-360
(Iraqi and Afghan Petitioners) is 1,916 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 2.917 hours; the estimated total number of respondents
for the information collection Form I-360 (Religious Worker) is 2,393
and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.167 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-360 (All Others) is 14,362 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 1.917 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection is 17,000 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 of information is 58,197 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 $2,287,198.
USCIS Form I-485 (OMB Control Number 1615-0023)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS

[[Page 49124]]

sponsoring the collection: Form I-485; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The
information on Form I-485 will be used to request and determine
eligibility for lawful permanent resident status. Supplement A is used
to adjust status under section 245(i) of the INA.
(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-485
is 1,060,585 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6.86 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-485A is 44,848 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 0.88 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection Form I-485 Supplement J is 57,353 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 0.60 hour; the estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is
1,060,585 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 of information is 8,590,376 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 $363,780,655.
USCIS Form I-526 (OMB Control Number 1615-0026)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition by Alien
Entrepreneur.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-526; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form
is used to petition for classification as an alien entrepreneur as
provided by sections 121(b) and 162(b) of the Immigration Act of 1990.
The data collected on this form will be used by USCIS to determine
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.
(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-526
is 504 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.65 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-526E is 4,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.65
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection of biometrics is 4,504 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 of information is 12,701 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 $4,954,400.
USCIS Form I-539 (OMB Control Number 1615-0003)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Extend/Change
Nonimmigrant Status.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-539; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form
will be used for nonimmigrants to apply for an extension of stay, for a
change to another nonimmigrant classification, or for obtaining V
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-539
(paper) is 217,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.667
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-539 (e-file) is 93,000 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection Supplement A is 114,044 and the estimated
hour burden per response is 0.35 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for biometrics processing is 424,044 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 of information is 990,786 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 $69,874,000.
USCIS Form I-566 (OMB Control Number 1615-0027)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Interagency Record of Request A,
G, or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/
From A, G, or NATO Status.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-566; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data
on this form are used by DOS to certify to USCIS the eligibility of
dependents of A or G principals requesting employment authorization, as
well as for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)/Headquarters,
Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (NATO/HQ SACT), to certify to
USCIS similar eligibility for dependents of NATO principals. DOS also
uses this form to certify to USCIS that certain A, G, or NATO
nonimmigrants may change their status to another nonimmigrant status.
USCIS uses data collected on this form in the adjudication of change or
adjustment of status applications from aliens in A, G, or NATO
classifications. USCIS also uses Form I-566 to notify DOS of the
results of these adjudications.
(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-566
is 5,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.2 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 of information is 6,960 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated
with the collection: The estimated total annual

[[Page 49125]]

cost burden associated with this collection of information is
$746,750.00.
USCIS Form I-589 (OMB Control Number 1615-0067)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without
Change, 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: Form 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 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 respondents for the information collection Form I-589
(paper filings) is approximately 152,542 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 12 hours per response; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection Form I-589 (online filings)
is approximately 50,837 and the estimated hour burden per response is
11 hours per response; the estimated number of respondents providing
biometrics is 197,278 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 2,620,526 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 $83,792,148.
USCIS Form I-590 (OMB Control Number 1615-0068)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Registration for Classification
as a Refugee.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-590; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The Form
I-590 is the primary document in all refugee case files and becomes
part of the applicant's A-file. It is the application form by which a
person seeks refugee classification and resettlement in the United
States. It documents an applicant's legal testimony (under oath) as to
his or her identity and claim to refugee status, as well as other
pertinent information, including marital status, number of children,
military service, organizational memberships, and violations of law. In
addition to being the application form submitted by a person seeking
refugee classification, Form I-590 is used to document that an
applicant was interviewed by USCIS and record the decision by the USCIS
officer to approve or deny the applicant for classification as a
refugee. Regardless of age, each person included in the case as a
derivative (spouse or unmarried child(ren)) of a principal applicant
must have his or her own Form I-590. Refugees apply to CBP for
admission with evidence of their approved Form I-590 in order to gain
admission as a refugee. They do not have refugee status until they are
admitted by CBP.
(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-590
is 50,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.25 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-590 Request for Review is 3,000 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection Form I-590 DNA evidence is 100 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is
53,000 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 of information is 227,827 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 $12,000.
USCIS Forms I-600, I-600A, I-600A/I-600 Supplement 1, I-600A/I-600
Supplement 2, I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3 (OMB Control Number 1615-0028)
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 Orphan
Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household;
Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose Information; and 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; Supplement 1;
Supplement 2; 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.
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. 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
their suitability and eligibility to properly parent an orphan. A U.S.
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. If a U.S. prospective/adoptive parent has an adult member of his
or her household, as defined at 8 CFR 204.301, the prospective/adoptive
parent must include the Supplement 1 when filing both Form I-600A and
Form I-600. Form I-600/I-600A Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose
Information, is an optional form that may be filed 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. Authorized disclosures will assist USCIS in the
adjudication of Forms I-600A and I-600. 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

[[Page 49126]]

approved Form I-600A suitability determination. Form I-600A/I-600
Supplement 3 provides a uniform and efficient method to facilitate this
process for applicants and petitioners while capturing necessary fees
and updates for USCIS adjudicators.
(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 0.82 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-600A is 2,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.82
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-600A Supplement 1 is 301 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 0.82 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection Form 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-600A Supplement 3 is 1,286 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 0.82 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 69,701 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 $7,759,932.
USCIS Form I-601 (OMB Control Number 1615-0029)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Waiver of Grounds
of Inadmissibility.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-601; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
601 is necessary for USCIS to determine whether the applicant is
eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212 of the INA.
Furthermore, this information collection is used by individuals who are
seeking TPS.
(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-601
is 15,700 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.467 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the biometrics
information collection is 15,700 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 of information is 41,401 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 $6,064,125.
USCIS Form I-601A (OMB Control Number 1615-0123)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Provisional
Unlawful Presence Waiver of Inadmissibility.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-601A; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households.
Individuals who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and who are
applying from within the United States for a waiver of inadmissibility
under INA sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(v) prior to obtaining an immigrant visa
abroad.
(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-601A
is 63,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.317 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents to the information collection
biometrics is 63,000 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 of information is 156,681 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 $3,212,390.
USCIS Form I-602 (OMB Control Number 1615-0069)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application by Refugee for Waiver
of Inadmissibility Grounds.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-602; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data
collected on Form I-602, Application by Refugee for Waiver of
Inadmissibility Grounds, will be used by USCIS to determine eligibility
for waivers, and to report to Congress the reasons for granting
waivers.
(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-602
is 240 and the estimated hour burden per response is 7.036 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents to the information collection
biometrics is 240 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 1,969 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 $30,900.
USCIS Form I-612 (OMB Control Number 1615-0030)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Waiver of the
Foreign Residence Requirement of Section

[[Page 49127]]

212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-612; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This
information collection is necessary and may be submitted only by an
alien who believes that compliance with foreign residence requirements
would impose exceptional hardship on his or her spouse or child who is
a citizen of the United States, or a lawful permanent resident; or that
returning to the country of his or her nationality or last permanent
residence would subject him or her to persecution on account of race,
religion, or political opinion. Certain aliens admitted to the United
States as exchange visitors are subject to the foreign residence
requirements of section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(the Act). Section 212(e) of the Act also provides for a waiver of the
foreign residence requirements in certain instances.
(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-612
is 7,200 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents to the information collection
biometrics is 7,200 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 9,504 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 $882,000.
USCIS Form I-690 (OMB Control Number 1615-0032)
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Waiver of Grounds
of Inadmissibility Under Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-690; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households.
Applicants for lawful permanent residence under INA sec. 210 or 245A
who are inadmissible under certain grounds of inadmissibility at INA
sec. 212(a) would use Form I-690 to seek a waiver of inadmissibility.
USCIS uses the information provided through Form I-690 to adjudicate
waiver requests from individuals who are inadmissible to the United
States. Based upon the instructions provided, a respondent can gather
and submit the required documentation to USCIS for consideration of an
inadmissibility waiver.
(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-690
is 30 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.697 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-690 Supplement 1, Applicants With a Class A Tuberculosis
Condition, is 11 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents to the information collection
biometrics is 41 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 151 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 $4,523.00.
USCIS Form I-698 (OMB Control Number 1615-0035)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Adjust Status from
Temporary to Permanent Resident.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-698; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals and households. The data
collected on Form I-698 are used by USCIS to determine the eligibility
to adjust an applicant's residence status. The form serves the purpose
of standardizing requests for the benefit and ensuring that basic
information required to assess eligibility is provided by applicants. A
person who has been granted temporary residence under Section 245A of
the INA is eligible to apply to USCIS to adjust to permanent resident
status no later than 43 months after their approval for temporary
residence.
(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-698
is 18 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.927 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 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 of information is 134 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 $8,820.
USCIS Form I-730 (OMB Control Number 1615-0037)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-730; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
730 is used by a refugee or asylee to file on behalf of his or her
spouse and/or children for following-to-join benefits (i.e. refugee or
asylee status) provided that the relationship to the principal refugee/
asylee existed prior to their admission to 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 respondents for the information collection Form I-730
is 13,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.667 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection biometrics is 13,000 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

[[Page 49128]]

collection of information is 23,881 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 $1,592,500.
USCIS Form I-751 (OMB Control Number 1615-0038)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection; Extension.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition to Remove the Conditions
on Residence.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-751; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The
information collected on Form I-751 is used by USCIS to verify the
alien's status and determine whether he or she is eligible to have the
conditions on his or her status removed. Form I-751 serves the purpose
of standardizing requests for benefits and ensuring that basic
information required to assess eligibility is provided by petitioners.
USCIS also collects biometric information from the alien to verify
their identity and check or update their background information.
(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-751
is 153,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.387 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection biometrics is 306,000 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 1,029,231 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 $19,698,750.
USCIS Form I-765 (OMB Control Number 1615-0040)
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: Form 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 the information that is necessary 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. To be
authorized for employment, an alien must be lawfully admitted for
permanent residence or authorized to be so employed by the INA or under
regulations issued by DHS. Pursuant to statutory or regulatory
authorization, certain classes of aliens are authorized to be employed
in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of
employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to
one of the indicated classes. USCIS may determine the validity period
assigned to any document issued evidencing an alien's authorization to
work in the United States. These classes are listed in 8 CFR 274a.12.
(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-765
(paper filings) is 1,682,157 and the estimated hour burden per response
is 4.38 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form I-765 (online filings) is 455,653 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 4 hours; the estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection Form I-765 (PDFi
filings) is 148,190 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.12
hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-765 Worksheet is 302,000 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 0.50 hours. The estimated total number of
respondents for the information biometrics collection is 2,286,000 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 of information is 12,626,622 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 $378,035,820.
USCIS Form I-765V (OMB Control Number 1615-0137)
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 for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-765V; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS
will use Form I-765V to collect the information that is necessary to
determine if the applicant is eligible for an initial EAD or renewal
EAD as a qualifying abused nonimmigrant spouse. Aliens are required to
possess an EAD as evidence of work authorization. To be authorized for
employment, an alien must be lawfully admitted for permanent residence
or authorized to be so employed by the INA or under regulations issued
by DHS. Pursuant to statutory or regulatory authorization, certain
classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States
without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a
condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the
indicated classes. USCIS may determine the validity period assigned to
any document issued evidencing an alien's authorization to work 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 respondents for the information collection Form I-765V
is 350 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.567 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 350 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 of information is 1,658 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 $87,500.

[[Page 49129]]

USCIS Form I-817 (OMB Control Number 1615-0005)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Family Unity
Benefits.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-817; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households: This
information collected will be used to determine whether the applicant
meets the eligibility requirements for benefits under 8 CFR 236.14 and
245a.33. Per 8 CFR 236.15(d), an alien under Family Unity Program is
authorized to be employed in the United States and will receive an EAD
after USCIS grants the benefits. Therefore, USCIS will issue an EAD and
approval notice to the applicant. The respondents for this information
collection are foreign nationals who apply for Family Unity Benefits 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 respondents for the information collection Form I-817
is 346 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.717 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 346 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 of information is 999 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 $42,385.
USCIS Form I-821 (OMB Control Number 1615-0043)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Temporary
Protected Status.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-821; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The
information provided will be used by the USCIS to determine whether an
applicant for TPS meets eligibility requirements.
(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-821
(paper filings) is 453,600 and the estimated hour burden per response
is 2.227 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form I-821 (online filings) is 113,400 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 1.92 hours; the estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is
567,000 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 of information is 1,891,285 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 $56,958,836.
USCIS Form I-821D (OMB Control Number 1615-0124)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Consideration of Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of DHS
sponsoring the collection: Form I-821D; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. As part
of the administration of its programs, certain aliens may use this form
to request that USCIS exercise its prosecutorial discretion on a case-
by-case basis to defer action in their case.
(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-821D
Initial Request (paper) is 112,254 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 2.817 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection Form I-821D Renewal Request (paper) is
221,167 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.817 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-821D Renewal Request (Online) is 55,292 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 2.5 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 388,713 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 1,532,271 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 $42,758,430.
USCIS Form I-824 (OMB Control Number 1615-0044)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Action on an
Approved Application.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of DHS
sponsoring the collection: Form I-824; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals and households. This
information collection is used to request a duplicate approval notice,
as well as to notify and to verify with the U.S. Consulate that a
petition has been approved or that a person has been adjusted to
permanent resident status.
(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-824
is 10,571 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.237 hours;
the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection biometrics is 10,571 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 14,873 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 $1,361,016.

[[Page 49130]]

USCIS Form I-829 (OMB Control Number 1615-0045)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition by Entrepreneur to
Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-829; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form
is used by a conditional resident alien entrepreneur who obtained such
status through a qualifying investment, to apply to remove conditions
on his or her conditional residence.
(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-829
is 1,010 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.62 hour; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 1,010 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 of information is 4,838 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 $434,330.
USCIS Form I-864, I-864A, I-864EZ (OMB Control Number 1615-0075)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support under
Section 213A of the INA and Notification of Reimbursement of Means-
Tested Benefits.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-864; Form I-864A; Form I-864EZ;
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 data collected on Form I-864 to determine whether the sponsor
has the ability to support the sponsored alien under section 213A of
the INA. This form standardizes evaluation of a sponsor's ability to
support the sponsored alien and ensures that basic information required
to assess eligibility is provided by petitioners. Form I-864A is a
contract between the sponsor and the sponsor's household members. It is
only required if the sponsor used the income of his or her household
members to reach the required 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines. The contract holds these household members jointly and
severally liable for the support of the sponsored immigrant. The
information collection required on Form I-864A is necessary for public
benefit agencies to enforce the Affidavit of Support in the event the
sponsor used income of his or her household members to reach the
required income level and the public benefit agencies are requesting
reimbursement from the sponsor. USCIS uses Form I-864EZ in exactly the
same way as Form I-864; however, less information is collected from the
sponsors as less information is needed from those who qualify in order
to make a thorough adjudication.
(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 Form I-864 is 453,345 and the estimated
hour burden per response is 5.81 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for Form I-864A is 215,800 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 1.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents
for Form I-864EZ is 100,000 and the estimated hour burden per response
is 2.25 hours; the information collection biometrics is 543,345 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 information collection of information is 3,764,398 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated
with this information collection is $135,569,525.
USCIS Form I-881 (OMB Control Number 1615-0072)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Suspension of
Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-881; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
881 is used by USCIS asylum officers, EOIR immigration judges, and BIA
board members to determine eligibility for suspension of deportation or
special rule cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act.
(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-881
is 202 and the estimated hour burden per response is 11.817 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 333 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 of information is 2,777 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 $100,419.
USCIS Form I-914, Supplement A and Supplement B (OMB Control Number
1615-0099)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for T Nonimmigrant
Status; Form I-914, Supplement A, Application for Derivative T
Nonimmigrant Status; Form I-914, Supplement B, Declaration for
Trafficking Victim.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-914, Supplement A and Supplement
B; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The
information on all three parts of the form will be used to determine
whether applicants meet the eligibility requirements for benefits. This
application incorporates information pertinent to eligibility under the
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, Public Law 106-386,
and a request for employment.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount
of time

[[Page 49131]]

estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection Form I-914 is
1,310 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.63 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-914A is 1,120 and the estimated hour burden per response is
1.083 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form I-914B law enforcement officer completion
activity is 459 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.58
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-914B contact by respondent to law enforcement is 459
and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; the estimated
total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics
is 2,430 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 of information is 9,259 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 $2,532,300.
USCIS Form I-918, Supplement A, and Supplement B (OMB Control Number
1615-0104)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for U Nonimmigrant
Status; Supplement A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1
Recipient; Supplement B, U Nonimmigrant Status Certification.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-918, Supplement A and Supplement
B; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households; Federal,
State, and local governments. This petition permits victims of certain
qualifying criminal activity and their immediate family members to
apply for temporary nonimmigrant classification. This nonimmigrant
classification provides temporary immigration benefits, potentially
leading to permanent resident status, to certain victims of criminal
activity who: suffered substantial mental or physical abuse as a result
of having been a victim of criminal activity; have information
regarding the criminal activity; and assist government officials in
investigating and prosecuting such criminal activity.
(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-918
is 28,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.92 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-918A is 19,900 and the estimated hour burden per response is
1.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form I-918B is 28,500 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 1.42 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 48,400 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 of information is 262,193 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 $1,546,380.
USCIS Form I-929 (OMB Control Number 1615-0106)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Qualifying Family
Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-929; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Section
245(m) of the INA allows certain qualifying family members who have
never held U nonimmigrant status to seek lawful permanent residence or
apply for immigrant visas. Before such family members may apply for
adjustment of status or seek immigrant visas, the U-1 nonimmigrant who
has been granted adjustment of status must file an immigrant petition
on behalf of the qualifying family member using Form I-929. Form I-929
is necessary for USCIS to make a determination that the eligibility
requirements and conditions are met regarding the qualifying family
member.
(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-929
is 1,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.817 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
biometrics is 1,500 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 of information is 2,981 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 $183,750.
USCIS Form I-956; I-956F; I-956G; I-956H; I-956K (OMB Control Number
1615-0159)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Regional Center
Designation; Application for Approval of an Investment in a Commercial
Enterprise; Regional Center Annual Statement; Bona Fides of Persons
Involved with Regional Center Program; Registration for Direct and
Third-Party Promoters.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-956; Form I-956F; Form I-956G;
Form I-956H; Form I-956K; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The Form
I-956 is used to request USCIS designation as a regional center under
INA sec. 203(b)(5)(E), or to request an amendment to an approved
regional center designated under INA sec. 203(b)(5)(E). The Form I-956F
is used by a designated regional center to request approval of each
particular investment offering through an associated new commercial
enterprise. The Form I-956G is used by regional centers to provide
required information, certifications, and evidence to support their
continued eligibility for regional center designation. Each approved
regional center must file Form I-956G for each Federal fiscal year
(October 1 through September 30) on or before December 29 of the
calendar year in which the Federal fiscal year ended.

[[Page 49132]]

The Form I-956H must be completed by each person involved with a
regional center, new commercial enterprise, or affiliated job-creating
entity and submitted as a supplement to Form I-956, Application for
Regional Center Designation, or other forms where persons are required
to attest to their eligibility to be involved with the EB-5 entity and
compliance with INA sec. 203(b)(5)(H). The Form I-956K must be
completed by each person acting as a direct or third-party promoter
(including migration agents) of a regional center, any new commercial
enterprise, an affiliated job-creating entity, or an issuer of
securities intended to be offered to alien investors in connection with
a particular capital investment project.
(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-956
is 400 and the estimated hour burden per response is 23 hours; the
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection
Form I-956F is 1,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 25
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-956G is 643 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 16.03 hours; for the audit requirement associated with the
Form I-956G, the estimated total number of respondents for Compliance
Review is 40 and the estimated hour burden per response is 24 hours,
while the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection during the Site Visit is 40 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 16 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for
the information collection Form I-956H is 3,643 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 1.65 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection of Biometrics Processing for
Form I-956H is 3,643 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form I-956K is 632 and the estimated hour burden per
response is 2.04 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 57,657 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 $2,907,788.
USCIS Form N-336 (OMB Control Number 1615-0050)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Hearing on a Decision
in Naturalization Proceedings under Section 336.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-336; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form
provides a method for applicants whose applications for naturalization
are denied to request a new hearing by an Immigration Officer of the
same or higher rank as the denying officer, within 30 days of the
original decision.
(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 N-336
(paper) is 3,788 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.567
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form N-336 (e-filing) is 1,263 and the estimated hour burden
per response is 2.5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents
for the information collection biometrics is 5,051 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 of information is 18,791 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 $2,601,265.
USCIS Form N-400 (OMB Control Number 1615-0052)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Naturalization.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-400; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N-
400 allows USCIS to fulfill its mission of fairly adjudicating
naturalization applications and only naturalizing statutorily eligible
individuals. Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is
granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the
requirements established by Congress in the INA. USCIS uses Form N-400
to verify that the applicant has met the requirements for
naturalization.
(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 N-400
(paper) is 454,850 and the estimated hour burden per response is 8.547
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form N-400 (e-filing) is 454,850 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 3.92 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 909,700 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 of information is 6,734,964 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 $423,351,638.
USCIS Form N-470 (OMB Control Number 1615-0056)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Preserve Residence
for Naturalization.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-470; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary Individuals or households. The
information collected on Form N-470 will be used to determine whether
an alien who intends to be absent from the United States for a period
of 1 year or more is eligible to preserve residence for naturalization
purposes.
(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

[[Page 49133]]

collection Form N-470 is 120 and the estimated hour burden per response
is 0.417 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection biometrics processing is 120 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 of information is 190 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 $14,700.
USCIS Form N-565 (OMB Control Number 1615-0091)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Replacement
Naturalization/Citizenship Document.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-565; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form
is provided by USCIS to determine the applicant's eligibility for a
replacement document. An applicant may file for a replacement if he or
she was issued one of the documents described above and it was lost,
mutilated, or destroyed, or if the applicant's name was changed by a
marriage or by court order after the document was issued and now seeks
a document in the new name. If the applicant is a naturalized citizen
who desires to obtain recognition as a citizen of the United States by
a foreign country, he or she may apply for a special certificate for
that purpose.
(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 N-565
(paper filing) is 15,150 and the estimated hour burden per response is
0.967 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the
information collection Form N-565 (online filing) is 15,150 and the
estimated hour burden per response is 0.737 hours; the estimated total
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is
30,300 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 of information is 61,267 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 $3,901,124.
USCIS Form N-600 (OMB Control Number 1615-0057)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Certificate of
Citizenship.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-600; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N-
600 collects information from respondents who are requesting a
Certificate of Citizenship because they acquired U.S. citizenship
either by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s), adoption by a U. S.
citizen parent(s), or after meeting eligibility requirements after the
naturalization of a foreign-born parent. This form is also used by
applicants requesting a Certificate of Citizenship because they
automatically became a citizen of the United States after meeting
eligibility requirements for acquisition of citizenship by foreign-born
children. USCIS uses the information collected on Form N-600 to
determine if a Certificate of Citizenship can be issued to the
applicant.
(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 N-600
(paper) is 26,810 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.317
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form N-600 (e-filing) is 28,190 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 0.75 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 55,000 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 of information is 120,801 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 $7,081,250.
USCIS Form N-600K (OMB Control Number 1615-0087)
Overview of information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Citizenship and
Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-600K; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N-
600K is used by children who regularly reside in a foreign country to
claim U.S. citizenship based on eligibility criteria met by their U.S.
citizen parent(s) or grandparent(s). The form may be used by both
biological and adopted children under age 18. USCIS uses information
collected on this form to determine that the child has met all of the
eligibility requirements for naturalization under section 322 of the
INA. If determined eligible, USCIS will naturalize and issue the child
a Certificate of Citizenship before the child reaches age 18.
(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 N-600K
(paper) is 2,187 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.53
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information
collection Form N-600K (e-filing) is 2,860 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 1.14 hours; the estimated total number of
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 5,047 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 of information is 12,512 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 $649,801.

H. Family Assessment

DHS has reviewed this rule in line with the requirements of section
654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-
277, 112

[[Page 49134]]

Stat. 2681 (1998). DHS has systematically reviewed the criteria
specified in section 654(c)(1), by evaluating whether this 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) only financially impacts
families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are justified; (6) may
be carried out by State or local government or by the family; or (7)
establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior
and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the
agency determines a regulation may negatively affect family well-being,
then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its
implementation.
DHS has no data that indicates that this proposed rule will have
any impacts on family well-being. DHS has determined that the
implementation of this regulation will not negatively affect family
well-being and will not have any impact on the autonomy and integrity
of the family as an institution. DHS acknowledges that this proposal
could increase the burden placed on some families applying for or
petitioning for immigration benefits, such as time spent attending a
biometric services appointment. However, as discussed in detail
throughout this preamble, DHS believes the benefits of this proposal,
such as enhanced vetting, identity verification, and a greater ability
to detect fraud justify any increased burden that may impact families,
this proposed rule's impact is justified, and no further actions are
required.

I. National Environmental Policy Act

DHS and its components analyze proposed regulatory actions to
determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq., applies and, if so, what degree of analysis is
required. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 ``Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act'' (Dir. 023- 01 Rev. 01) and Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual) \199\ establish the
policies and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with
NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\199\ The Instruction Manual contains DHS's procedures for
implementing NEPA and was issued November 6, 2014, https://www.dhs.gov/ocrso/eed/epb/nepa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA
implementing procedures, categories of actions (``categorical
exclusions'') that 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).\200\ The Instruction Manual,
Appendix A lists the DHS Categorical Exclusions.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\200\ See 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2) and 4336(e)(1).
\201\ See Instruction Manual, Appendix A, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be
categorically excluded, it must 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.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\202\ See Instruction Manual at V.B(2)(a) through (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposed rule is limited to amending DHS regulations
concerning the submission and collection of biometrics and their use in
the enforcement and administration of immigration laws by USCIS, CBP,
and ICE and is not part of a larger DHS rulemaking action. DHS has
reviewed this proposed rule and finds that no significant impact on the
environment, or any change in environmental effect will result from the
amendments being promulgated in this proposed rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this proposed
rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fits within
categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing
procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental
effect, is not part of a larger federal action, and does not present
extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant
environmental effect.

J. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect 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.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of
materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. This rule
does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the
use of voluntary consensus standards.

L. Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)

This rule would not cause the taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

M. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks)

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires agencies to consider the
impacts of environmental health risk or safety risk that may
disproportionately affect children. DHS has reviewed this rule and
determined that this rule is not a covered regulatory action under
Executive Order 13045. Although the rule is economically significant,
it would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety
that might disproportionately affect children. Therefore, DHS has not
prepared a statement under this executive order.

N. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires
agencies to consider the impact of rules that significantly impact the
supply, distribution, and use of energy. DHS has reviewed this rule and
determined that this rule would not have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore,

[[Page 49135]]

this rule does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under
Executive Order 13211.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration.

8 CFR Part 103

Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Fees, Freedom of information, Immigration,
Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

8 CFR Part 204

Administrative practice and procedure, Adoption and foster care,
Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 207

Immigration, Refugees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 208

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

8 CFR Part 209

Aliens, Immigration, Refugees.

8 CFR Part 210

Aliens, Migrant labor, 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, Employment, Foreign
officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Students.

8 CFR Part 215

Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Travel restrictions.

8 CFR Part 216

Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens.

8 CFR Part 235

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

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 Part 245

Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 245a

Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 264

Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 287

Immigration, Law enforcement officers.

8 CFR Part 333

Citizenship and naturalization.

8 CFR Part 335

Administrative practice and procedure, Citizenship and
naturalization, Education.
Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS

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

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

0
2. Section 1.2 is amended by adding definitions for ``Biometrics'' and
``DNA'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 1.2. Definitions.

* * * * *
Biometrics means the measurable biological (anatomical,
physiological and molecular structure) or behavioral characteristics of
an individual. Modalities meeting this definition of biometrics include
but are not limited to DHS-approved: facial imagery (digital image,
specifically for facial recognition and facial comparison), prints
(including fingerprints and palm prints), signature (handwritten),
ocular imagery (to include iris, retina, and sclera), voice (including
voice print, vocal signature, and voice recognition), and DNA (partial
DNA profile).
* * * * *
DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the genetic
instructions used in the growth, development, functioning, and
reproduction of all known living organisms.
* * * * *

PART 103--IMMIGRATION BENEFITS; BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS;
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS

0
3. 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, 1372; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Pub. L 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C.
1 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; 31 CFR part 223.

0
4. Section 103.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(9),
and (b)(13) to read as follows:

Sec. 103.2 Submission and adjudication of benefit requests.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) General. The non-existence or other unavailability of required
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or
cannot be obtained, an applicant, petitioner, or requestor must
demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as church or
school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence
also does not exist or cannot be obtained, the individual filing or
associated with a benefit request, other request, or collection of
information as described in this chapter must demonstrate the
unavailability of both the required document and relevant secondary
evidence, and submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by
persons who are not parties to the petition, other benefit request,
other request, or collection of information as described in this
chapter who have direct personal knowledge of the event and
circumstances. Secondary evidence must overcome the unavailability of
primary evidence, and affidavits must overcome the unavailability of
both primary and secondary evidence. Notwithstanding any other
paragraph under this section, if DHS requires the submission of
biometrics under Sec. 103.16, neither secondary evidence nor
affidavits will overcome the unavailability of the requested
biometrics.
* * * * *
(9) Appearance for interview. (i) DHS may at any time require any
individual filing or associated with a benefit request, other request,
or collection of information as described in this chapter

[[Page 49136]]

to appear for an interview. Such appearance may also be required by
law, regulation, form instructions, or Federal Register notice
applicable to the request type.
(ii) An interview may be waived by DHS, for an entire population or
on a case-by-case basis, solely at its discretion.
(iii) Each individual required to appear under this paragraph
(b)(9) will be provided notice of the date, time, and location of an
interview.
(iv) Any individual required to appear under this paragraph (b)(9),
or any individual authorized to file a benefit request, other request,
or collection of information as described in this chapter on behalf of
an individual who may be required to appear under this paragraph
(b)(9), may, before the scheduled date of the appearance, either:
(A) For extraordinary circumstances, submit a request that the
interview be rescheduled; or
(B) If applicable, withdraw the benefit request, other request, or
collection of information as provided under paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(v) Failure to appear for a scheduled interview without prior
authorization from USCIS may result in denial, administrative closure,
or dismissal of the applicable immigration benefit request, other
request, or collection of information as described in this chapter; or
termination of status, if applicable. USCIS may reschedule the
interview at its sole discretion.
(vi) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(9)(v) of this section, for an
asylum application or asylum-related benefit, see Sec. 208.10 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
(13) Effect of failure to respond to a request for evidence or
failure to submit evidence or respond to a notice of intent to deny. If
the applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or any other
individual filing or associated with a benefit request, other request,
or collection of information as described in this chapter fails to
respond to a request for evidence or to a notice of intent to deny by
the required date, the benefit request, other request, or collection of
information as described in this chapter may be summarily denied as
abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both reasons. If
other requested evidence or information necessary to the processing and
approval of a case is not submitted by the required date, the benefit
request, other request, or collection of information as described in
this chapter may be summarily denied as abandoned.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 103.16 to read as follows:

Sec. 103.16 Biometric services.

(a) Submission--
(1) Required. Any individual filing or associated with a benefit
request, other request, or collection of information as described in
this chapter must submit biometrics to DHS unless exempted. Individuals
subject to this requirement include, but are not limited to,
applicants, petitioners, sponsors, supporters, derivatives, dependents,
and beneficiaries of a request, and may include U.S. citizens, U.S.
nationals, and lawful permanent residents. USCIS may require the
payment of any biometric services fee in Sec. 106.2 of this chapter
for initial submission, resubmission, or reuse after biometric-based
identity verification, unless that fee is otherwise waived or exempted.
Such submission and fee may also be required by law, regulation, form
instructions, or Federal Register notice applicable to the request
type.
(2) Method of submission. When not exempted, DHS will prescribe the
method by which submission of biometrics is to be conducted in a notice
to the individual. In general, this will occur by scheduling the
individual for a biometric services appointment at a DHS or DHS-
authorized facility. Each individual will be provided notice of the
date, time, and location of his or her appointment to submit
biometrics. DHS will schedule the biometric services appointment at the
nearest appropriate location to the individual's physical address,
unless DHS determines, in its discretion, that scheduling at another
location is appropriate.
(3) Frequency of submission. DHS may require an individual to
submit biometrics more than once or, at its discretion, reuse
previously submitted biometrics.
(4) Reuse. DHS will not reuse an individual's biometrics without a
positive biometric-based identity verification. Identity verification
based solely upon a comparison of the individual's name or other non-
unique biographic identification characteristics or data, or
combinations thereof, does not constitute positive identity
verification for purposes of this paragraph (a)(4) and is not adequate
for biometric reuse.
(5) Removal of exemption. DHS may change its decision to exempt
biometrics for a form, program, or group at any time and will provide
public notification of the change.
(6) Intercountry adoption biometrics. For intercountry adoption-
related applications and petitions under Sec. 204.3 of this chapter,
or Sec. Sec. 204.300 to 204.314 of this chapter, USCIS will require
submission of biometrics from the applicant or petitioner, the
applicant or petitioner's spouse, and any adult member of the
household, as defined at Sec. 204.301 of this chapter, in addition to
the individuals identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The
particular intercountry adoption-related form, application, or petition
will state this requirement, where it applies, in the form
instructions.
(7) Reschedule by DHS. DHS or its designee may reschedule a
biometric services appointment at its discretion. However, DHS or its
designee will reschedule a biometric services appointment if:
(i) Before issuing the biometric services appointment notice, DHS
or its designee received a valid change of address request; and
(ii) Such request for change of address request was timely, but
service of the biometric services appointment notice was not properly
completed under Sec. 103.8.
(8) Reschedule by individual. An individual may reschedule their
biometric services appointment one time prior to the date of the
scheduled biometric services appointment for any reason. An individual,
prior to the date of their scheduled biometric services appointment,
may reschedule their biometric services appointment one additional time
if the individual can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
preventing the individual from appearing as scheduled. In general, DHS
or its designee will not consider reschedule requests submitted after
the scheduled biometric services appointment.
(b) Failure to appear for biometrics submission. If an individual
fails to appear for a scheduled biometric services appointment absent
extraordinary circumstances:
(1) Adverse actions. DHS will, as appropriate, deem any right to an
interview waived, deny, reopen, refer to the Executive Office for
Immigration Review, dismiss, and/or take any other adverse
administrative action on any associated pending benefit request, other
request, or collection of information as described in this chapter;
(2) Revocation. DHS may terminate, rescind, or revoke the
individual's immigration status, petition, benefit, or relief, where
authorized by law; or
(3) Asylum applicants. For an asylum application or asylum-related
benefit, failure to appear at the biometrics appointment will be
excused if the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result
of exceptional

[[Page 49137]]

circumstances. (see Sec. 208.10 of this chapter).
(c) Updates to biometrics--
(1) During adjudication. Unless exempted, any individual filing or
associated with a benefit request, other request, or collection of
information as described in this chapter, including U.S. citizens, U.S.
nationals, and lawful permanent residents, must appear as requested to
submit biometrics to DHS upon notice while the benefit request, other
request, or collection of information as described in this chapter is
pending with DHS.
(2) After approval. Any individual alien may be required to submit
biometrics again for purposes of continuous vetting, unless and until
he or she is granted or acquires U.S. citizenship. A U.S. citizen, U.S.
national, or lawful permanent resident may be required to submit
biometrics if he or she filed or is associated with a benefit request,
other request, or collection of information as described in this
chapter in the past and either it was reopened or the previous approval
is relevant to a benefit request, other request, or collection of
information as described in this chapter that is currently pending with
DHS. Persons associated with an EB-5 regional center, new commercial
enterprise or job-creating entity under section 203(b)(5)(H) of the
Act, U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and lawful permanent residents may
also be required to submit biometrics again for purposes of continuous
vetting.
(d) Use and retention--
(1) Biometrics other than DNA. DHS may store biometrics submitted
by an individual as required by this section and use or reuse these
biometrics to conduct background and security checks, verify identity,
produce documents, determine eligibility for immigration and
naturalization benefits, or as necessary for administering and
enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. DHS will only reuse
biometrics in accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
Biometrics, other than DNA, may be shared with the following:
appropriate Federal, State, and local law enforcement; intelligence
community entities; and foreign governments, as authorized by law,
international agreements, or other non-binding arrangements.
(2) DNA evidence--
(i) DHS may require, request, or accept the submission of raw DNA
or DNA test results to prove or disprove a claimed, or unclaimed,
genetic relationship or biological sex. DHS may use and store DNA test
results, which include a partial DNA profile, as evidence of a claimed,
or unclaimed, genetic relationship or biological sex:
(A) To determine eligibility for immigration and naturalization
benefits; or
(B) To perform any other functions necessary for administering and
enforcing immigration and naturalization laws.
(ii) DHS may at its discretion consider DNA test results, which
include a partial DNA profile, to prove or disprove the existence of a
claimed or unclaimed genetic relationship, or biological sex, relevant
to any benefit request, other request, or collection of information as
described in this chapter.
(iii) DHS will only use and handle raw DNA as long as necessary to
obtain DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile. DHS will
destroy raw DNA once these test results are obtained, and DHS will not
store or share raw DNA unless required by law. The DNA test results,
which include a partial DNA profile, for any individual obtained as
part of the benefit request, other request, or collection of
information will remain a part of the file and record of proceeding.
DHS will store and may share DNA test results, which include a partial
DNA profile, for immigration adjudication purposes or for law
enforcement purposes to the extent permitted by law.

PART 204--IMMIGRANT PETITIONS

0
6. 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, 1324a, 1641; 8 CFR part 2.

0
7. Section 204.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vii), and (e)(2)(v)
and removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(vi); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (j).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 204.2 Petitions for relatives, widows and widowers, and abused
spouses, children, and parents.

(a) * * *
(2) Evidence for petition for a spouse. In addition to evidence of
United States citizenship or lawful permanent resident status, the
petitioner must also provide evidence of the claimed relationship. A
petition submitted on behalf of a spouse must be accompanied by:
(i) A certificate of marriage issued by civil authorities; and
(ii) Proof of the legal termination of all previous marriages of
both the petitioner and the beneficiary.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Good moral character. USCIS will assess the good moral
character of the self-petitioner for a 3-year period immediately
preceding the filing of the self-petition via criminal history
information obtained through the self-petitioner's biometrics, other
background checks, and any credible evidence submitted by the self-
petitioner. USCIS may consider the self-petitioner's conduct beyond the
3 years preceding the petition filing, if the earlier conduct and acts
directly relate to a determination of the self-petitioner's present
moral character, and the conduct of the self-petitioner during the 3-
year period does not reflect that there has been a reform of character
from an earlier period. Until USCIS has automated data-sharing
capabilities that allow the agency to query a foreign partner country
for a self-petitioner's criminal history record information, and
notifies the public of such capability, self-petitioners who lived
outside the United States during the 3-year period immediately
preceding the filing of the self-petition must generally submit a law
enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report
issued by an appropriate authority. This report must generally be from
any foreign jurisdiction in which the self-petitioner resided or was
physically present for 6 or more months during the 3-year period
immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition, in addition to
biometrics. The self-petitioner must generally submit reports from any
arrests that took place during the preceding 3 years, regardless of
whether they resided or were physically present in that jurisdiction,
whether in the United States or abroad, for 6 or more months. In
limited circumstances, USCIS will consider a valid and credible
explanation for why the above documents are unavailable in determining
whether the self-petitioner has met the burden of proof in establishing
good moral character.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) [Reserved]
(vii) Primary evidence for an adopted child or son or daughter. A
petition may be submitted on behalf of an adopted child or son or
daughter by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident if the adoption
took place before the beneficiary's sixteenth birthday (or eighteenth
birthday if the sibling exception at section 101(b)(1)(E)(ii) of the
Act applies), and if the child has been in the legal custody of the
adopting

[[Page 49138]]

parent or parents and has resided with the adopting parent or parents
for at least 2 years. A copy of the beneficiary's birth certificate
issued by the appropriate civil authority, establishing the
beneficiary's identity, age, and birth parentage (if known), and a
certified copy of the adoption decree, issued by the appropriate civil
authority, must accompany the petition.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Good moral character. USCIS will assess the good moral
character of the self-petitioner for a 3-year period immediately
preceding the filing of the self-petition via criminal history
information obtained through the self-petitioner's biometrics, other
background checks, and any credible evidence submitted by the self-
petitioner. USCIS may consider the self-petitioner's conduct beyond the
3 years preceding the petition filing, if the earlier conduct and acts
directly relate to a determination of the self-petitioner's present
moral character, and the conduct of the self-petitioner during the 3-
year period does not reflect that there has been a reform of character
from an earlier period. Until USCIS has automated data-sharing
capabilities that allow the agency to query a foreign partner country
for a self-petitioner's criminal history record information, and
notifies the public of such capability, self-petitioners who lived
outside the United States during the 3-year period immediately
preceding the filing of the self-petition must generally submit a law
enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report
issued by an appropriate authority. This report must generally be from
any foreign jurisdiction in which the self-petitioner resided or was
physically present for 6 or more months during the 3-year period
immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition, in addition to
biometrics. The self-petitioner must generally submit reports from any
arrests that took place during the preceding 3 years, regardless of
whether they resided or were physically present in that jurisdiction,
whether in the United States or abroad, for 6 or more months. In
limited circumstances, USCIS will consider a valid and credible
explanation for why the above documents are unavailable in determining
whether the self-petitioner has met the burden of proof in establishing
good moral character.
* * * * *
(j) Self-petition by parent of abusive citizen.
(1) Eligibility.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(vii) Good moral character. A self-petitioner will be found to lack
good moral character if he or she is a person described in section
101(f) of the Act. Extenuating circumstances may be taken into account
if the person has not been convicted of an offense or offenses but
admits to the commission of an act or acts that could show a lack of
good moral character under section 101(f) of the Act. A person who was
subjected to abuse in the form of forced prostitution or who can
establish that he or she was forced to engage in other behavior that
could render the person inadmissible under section 212(a) of the Act
would not be precluded from being found to be a person of good moral
character, provided the person has not been convicted for the
commission of the offense or offenses in a court of law. A self-
petitioner will also be found to lack good moral character, unless he
or she establishes extenuating circumstances, if he or she willfully
failed or refused to support dependents; or committed unlawful acts
that adversely reflect upon his or her moral character, or was
convicted or imprisoned for such acts, although the acts do not require
an automatic finding of lack of good moral character. A self-
petitioner's claim of good moral character will be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis, taking into account the provisions of section 101(f) of
the Act and the standards of the average citizen in the community. If
the results of record checks conducted prior to the issuance of an
immigrant visa or approval of an application for adjustment of status
disclose that the self-petitioner is no longer a person of good moral
character or that he or she has not been a person of good moral
character in the past, a pending self-petition will be denied or the
approval of a self-petition will be revoked.
(viii) [Reserved]
(ix) [Reserved]
(2) Evidence for a self-petition for a parent.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) Good moral character. USCIS will assess the good moral
character of the self-petitioner for a 3-year period immediately
preceding the filing of the self-petition via criminal history
information obtained through the self-petitioner's biometrics, other
background checks, and any credible evidence submitted by the self-
petitioner. USCIS may consider the self-petitioner's conduct beyond the
3 years preceding the petition filing, if the earlier conduct and acts
are directly related to a determination of the self-petitioner's
present moral character, and the conduct of the self-petitioner during
the 3-year period does not reflect that there has been a reform of
character from an earlier period. Until USCIS has automated data-
sharing capabilities that allow the agency to query a foreign partner
country for a self-petitioner's criminal history record information and
notifies the public of such capability, self-petitioners who lived
outside the United States during the 3-year period immediately
preceding the filing of the self-petition must generally submit a law
enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report
issued by an appropriate authority. This report must generally be from
any foreign jurisdiction in which the self-petitioner resided or was
physically present for 6 or more months during the 3-year period
immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition, in addition to
biometrics. The self-petitioner must generally submit reports from any
arrests that took place during the preceding 3 years, regardless of
whether they resided or were physically present in that jurisdiction,
whether in the United States or abroad, for 6 or more months. In
limited circumstances, USCIS will consider a valid and credible
explanation for why the above documents are unavailable in determining
whether the self-petition has met the burden of proof in establishing
good moral character.
(vi) [Reserved]
(vii) [Reserved]

Sec. 204.3 [Amended]

0
8. Section 204.3 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(3).
0
9. Section 204.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and
(g)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec. 204.4 Amerasian child of a United States citizen.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Preliminary processing. Upon initial submission of a petition
with the preliminary processing documentary evidence required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, USCIS will adjudicate the petition to
determine whether there is reason to believe the beneficiary was
fathered by a U.S. citizen, and, if so, request that the petitioner
submit the evidence required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section and
any additional evidence required. The petitioner must submit all

[[Page 49139]]

required documents within the deadline provided in the request or the
petition will be considered abandoned. To reactivate an abandoned
petition, the petitioner must submit a new Petition for Amerasian,
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant without the previously submitted
documentation to USCIS.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Failure to meet the sponsorship requirements, including the
completed background check, if USCIS finds that the sponsor is not of
good moral character.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 204.5 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.

* * * * *
(p) * * *
(4) Application for employment authorization. To request employment
authorization, an eligible applicant described in paragraph (p)(1),
(2), or (3) of this section must properly file an application for
employment authorization with USCIS, with the appropriate fee, in
accordance with Sec. 274a.13(a) of this chapter and the form
instructions. Employment authorization under this paragraph (p) may be
granted solely in 1-year increments.
* * * * *

Sec. 204.310 [Amended]

0
11. Section 204.310 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).

PART 207--ADMISSION OF REFUGEES

0
12. The authority citation for part 207 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1157, 1159, 1182; 8 CFR
part 2.

0
13. Section 207.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 207.1 Eligibility.

(a) Filing. Any alien who believes he or she is a refugee as
defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, and is included in a refugee
group identified in section 207(a) of the Act, may apply for admission
to the United States by submitting an application and the required
evidence, including biometrics as described in Sec. 1.2 of this
chapter, and as prescribed in Sec. 103.16(a) of this chapter, and in
accordance with the form instructions.
* * * * *
Section 207.2(a) is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 207.2 Applicant processing.

(a) Interview. Each applicant 14 years old or older shall appear in
person before an immigration officer for inquiry under oath to
determine his or her eligibility for admission as a refugee. USCIS may
require any applicant under 14 years old to appear for interview.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 207.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (e), and
(f)(2) to read as follows:

Sec. 207.7 Derivatives of refugees.

* * * * *
(d) Filing. A principal refugee admitted under section 207(c)(1) of
the Act may request following-to-join benefits for his or her spouse
and unmarried minor child(ren) (whether the spouse and children are
inside or outside the United States) by filing a separate Refugee/
Asylee Relative Petition in accordance with the form instructions for
each qualifying family member. The request may only be filed by the
principal refugee. Family members who derived their refugee status are
not eligible to request derivative benefits on behalf of their spouse
and child(ren). A separate Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition must be
filed for each qualifying family member within 2 years of the refugee's
admission to the United States unless USCIS determines that the filing
period should be extended for humanitarian reasons. There is no time
limit imposed on a family member's travel to the United States once the
Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition has been approved, provided that the
relationship of spouse or child continues to exist, and the approved
Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition has not been subsequently reopened and
denied. There is no fee for this benefit request.
(e) Burden of proof--
(1) Generally. The burden of proof is on the principal refugee
applicant or petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that the accompanying or following-to-join beneficiary is an eligible
spouse or child. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish
by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is an eligible
petitioner.
(2) Evidence. Evidence must be provided as required by form
instructions for the Registration for Classification as Refugee and/or
Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition, as applicable. Where possible,
evidence of the claimed relationship will consist of the documents
specified in Sec. 204.2(a)(1)(i)(B), (a)(1)(iii)(B), (a)(2), (d)(2),
and (d)(5) of this chapter. It may consist of evidence specified in
Sec. 103.16(a) of this chapter, as applicable, and will consist of
such evidence if required by USCIS. Evidence must establish that:
(i) The principal refugee applicant has the claimed relationship to
the derivative where the derivative is accompanying the principal; or
(ii) The petitioner was previously admitted as a principal refugee
and the petitioner has the claimed relationship to the following-to-
join derivative.
(f) * * *
(2) Spouse or child outside the United States. When a spouse or
child of a refugee is outside the United States and the Refugee/Asylee
Relative Petition is approved, USCIS will notify the refugee of such
approval.
* * * * *

PART 208--PROCEDURES FOR ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL

0
15. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; Title
VII of Pub. L. 110-229; 8 CFR part 2; Pub L.115-218.

0
16. Section 208.10 is amended by revising it to read as follows:

Sec. 208.10 Failure to appear at an interview before an asylum
officer or failure to follow requirements for biometrics processing.

Failure to appear for a scheduled interview without prior
authorization may result in dismissal of the application or waiver of
the right to an interview. Failure to comply with biometrics submission
requirements without good cause may result in dismissal of the
application or waiver of the right to an adjudication by an asylum
officer. Failure to appear shall be excused if the notice of the
interview or biometrics appointment was not mailed to the applicant's
current address and such address had been provided to USCIS by the
applicant prior to the date of mailing in accordance with section 265
of the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, unless the asylum
officer determines that the applicant received reasonable notice of the
interview or biometrics appointment. Failure to appear at the interview
or biometrics appointment will be excused if the applicant demonstrates
that such failure was the result of exceptional circumstances.
0
17. Section 208.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to
read as follows:

Sec. 208.21 Admission of the asylee's spouse and children.

* * * * *

[[Page 49140]]

(d) Spouse or child outside the United States. When a spouse or
child of an alien granted asylum is outside the United States, the
asylee may request accompanying or following-to-join benefits for his
or her spouse or child(ren) by filing a separate Refugee/Asylee
Relative Petition for each qualifying family member in accordance with
the form instructions. A separate Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition for
each qualifying family member must be filed within 2 years of the date
on which the asylee was granted asylum, unless USCIS determines that
the filing period should be extended for humanitarian reasons. When the
Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition is approved, USCIS will notify the
asylee of such approval. The approval of the Refugee/Asylee Relative
Petition will remain valid for the duration of the relationship to the
asylee and, in the case of a child, while the child is under 21 years
of age and unmarried, provided also that the principal's status has not
been terminated. However, the approved Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition
will cease to confer immigration benefits after it has been used by the
beneficiary for admission to the United States as a derivative of an
asylee.
* * * * *
(f) Burden of proof--
(1) The burden of proof is on the principal asylum applicant or
petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
accompanying applicant or following-to-join beneficiary is an eligible
spouse or child. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was previously
granted and maintains status as a principal asylee.
(2) Evidence must be provided as required by form instructions for
the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal or Refugee/
Asylee Relative Petition, as applicable. Where possible, evidence of
the claimed relationship will consist of the documents specified in
Sec. 204.2(a)(1)(i)(B), (a)(1)(iii)(B), (a)(2), (d)(2), and (d)(5) of
this chapter. It may consist of evidence specified in Sec. 103.16(a)
of this chapter, as applicable, and will consist of such evidence if
required by USCIS. Evidence must establish that:
(i) The principal asylum applicant has the claimed relationship to
the derivative where the derivative is accompanying the principal; or
(ii) The petitioner was previously granted and maintains status as
a principal asylee and the petitioner has the claimed relationship to
the following-to-join beneficiary.
* * * * *

PART 209--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF REFUGEES AND ALIENS GRANTED
ASYLUM

0
18. The authority citation for part 209 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1228, 1252,
1282; Title VII of Public Law 110-229; 8 CFR part 2; Pub L. 115-218.

0
19. Section 209.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 209.1 Adjustment of status of refugees.

* * * * *
(b) Application. An applicant for adjustment of status under
section 209(a) of the Act must submit an application on the form
designated by USCIS with the fee specified in Sec. 106.2 of this
chapter and in accordance with the form instructions. Applicants must
also submit biometrics in accordance with Sec. 103.16 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
20. Section 209.2 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 209.2 Adjustment of status of alien granted asylum.

* * * * *
(c) Application. An applicant for adjustment of status under
section 209(b) of the Act must submit an application on the form
designated by USCIS with the fee specified in Sec. 106.2 of this
chapter and in accordance with the form instructions. Applicants must
also submit biometrics in accordance with Sec. 103.16 of this chapter.
If the alien has been placed in removal, deportation, or exclusion
proceedings subsequent to his or her grant of asylum, the application
can be filed and considered only in proceedings under section 240 of
the Act.
* * * * *

PART 210--SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

0
21. The authority citation for part 210 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1160, 8 CFR part 2.

Sec. 210.1 [Amended]

0
22. Section 210.1 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
23. Section 210.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i),
(c)(2)(iv), (c)(3)(iv), and (c)(4)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec. 210.2 Application for temporary resident status.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) An Application for Temporary Resident Status as a Special
Agricultural Worker must be filed with the required fee.
* * * * *
(iv) Each applicant, regardless of age, must appear at the
appropriate USCIS office and submit biometrics pursuant to Sec. 103.16
of this chapter. Each applicant will be interviewed by an immigration
officer, except that the interview may be waived on a case-by-case
basis at USCIS discretion.
(3) * * *
(iv) An applicant at an overseas processing office whose
application is recommended for approval will be provided with an entry
document attached to the applicant's file. Upon admission to the United
States, the applicant must contact USCIS for biometric submission,
examination of the applicant's file, and issuance of employment
authorization.
(4) * * *
(iii) Conditions of admission. Aliens who present a preliminary
application will be admitted to the United States for a period of 90
days with authorization to accept employment, if they are determined by
an immigration officer to be admissible to the United States. Such
aliens are required, within that 90-day period, to submit evidence of
eligibility that meets the provisions of Sec. 210.3, appear for
biometric submission, obtain a report of medical examination in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, and submit to USCIS a
complete application as defined in Sec. 210.1(c). USCIS may, for good
cause, extend the 90-day period and grant further authorization to
accept employment in the United States if an alien demonstrates he or
she was unable to perfect an application within the initial period. If
an alien described in this paragraph (c)(4)(iii) fails to submit a
complete application to USCIS within 90 days or within such additional
period as may have been authorized, his or her application may be
denied for lack of prosecution, without prejudice.
* * * * *
0
24. Section 210.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 210.5 Adjustment to permanent resident status.

* * * * *
(b) Biometrics collection. To obtain proof of permanent resident
status, an alien described in paragraph (a) of this section must follow
USCIS instructions

[[Page 49141]]

for obtaining a Permanent Resident Card, including verifying identity
and submitting biometrics pursuant to Sec. 103.16 of this chapter. The
alien may appear before the date of adjustment if requested to do so by
USCIS. The Permanent Resident Card will be issued after the date of
adjustment.
* * * * *

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

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

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 111, 202(4), 236 and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and
note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227,
1255, 1359; section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note);
Title VII of Pub L. 110-229 (8 U.S.C. note); Pub. L. 115-218; 8 CFR
part 2.
Section 212.1(q) and (r) also issued under section 702, Pub. L.
110-229, 122 Stat. 754, 854.

0
26. Section 212.7 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(6)(i) and
(e)(6)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec. 212.7 Waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) Required. All aliens who apply for a provisional unlawful
presence waiver under this section will be required to provide
biometrics in accordance with Sec. 103.16 of this chapter and the form
instructions.
(ii) Failure to appear for biometric services. If an alien fails to
appear for a biometric services appointment or fails to provide
biometrics in the United States as directed by USCIS, a provisional
unlawful presence waiver application will be considered abandoned and
denied absent extraordinary circumstances consistent with the standard
in Sec. 103.16 of this chapter. The alien may not appeal or file a
motion to reopen or reconsider an abandonment denial under Sec. 103.5
of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES

0
27. 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 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; Pub. L. 115-
218, 132 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 1806).

0
28. Section 214.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(23)(viii) and
(k)(1) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(23) * * *
(viii) Information for background checks. An applicant for E-2 CNMI
Investor status or any applicant for derivative status as a spouse or
child of an E-2 CNMI Investor must submit biometrics as required under
Sec. 103.16 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) Petition and supporting documents. To be classified as a
fianc[eacute] or fianc[eacute]e as defined in section 101(a)(15)(K)(i)
of the Act, an alien must be the beneficiary of an approved Petition
for Alien Fianc[eacute](e) or successor form as designated by USCIS.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 214.15 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec. 214.15 Certain spouses and children of lawful permanent
residents.

* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Contents of application. To apply for V nonimmigrant status, an
eligible alien must submit:
(i) An Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status or
successor form, in accordance with the form instructions and with the
appropriate fee;
(ii) Biometrics in accordance with Sec. 103.16 of this chapter;
(iii) A Medical Examination of Aliens Seeking Adjustment of Status,
without the vaccination supplement; and
(iv) Evidence of eligibility as described in the Application to
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Supplement A or successor form, form
instructions, and paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
0
30. Section 214.205 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to
read as follows:

Sec. 214.205 Bona fide determination.

(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The results of initial background checks based on biometrics
submitted pursuant to Sec. 103.2(b)(16) of this chapter are complete,
have been reviewed, and do not present national security concerns.
* * * * *

PART 215--CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES;
ELECTRONIC VISA UPDATE SYSTEM

0
31. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202(4), 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1104,
1184, 1185 (pursuant to Executive Order 13323 (Dec. 30, 2003)),
1365a note, 1379, 1731-32; and 8 CFR part 2.

0
32. Section 215.8 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(3)(i) to read as follows:

Sec. 215.8 Requirements for biometrics from aliens on departure from
the United States.

(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
33. Section 215.9 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 215.9 Temporary Worker Visa Exit Program.

An alien admitted on certain temporary worker visas at a port of
entry participating in the Temporary Worker Visa Exit Program must also
depart at the end of his or her authorized period of stay through a
port of entry participating in the program and must present designated
biographic information and/or biometrics upon departure. U.S. Customs
and Border Protection will publish a notice in the Federal Register
designating which temporary workers must participate in the Temporary
Worker Visa Exit Program, which ports of entry are participating in the
program, which biographic information and/or biometrics will be
required, and the format for submission of that information or
biometrics by the departing designated temporary workers.

PART 216--CONDITIONAL BASIS OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS

0
34. 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.

0
35. Section 216.4 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the paragraph heading for paragraph (b), removing
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), and redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as
paragraph (b); and

[[Page 49142]]

0
b. Revising paragraph (b).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 216.4 Joint petition to remove conditional basis of lawful
permanent resident status for alien spouse.

* * * * *
(b) Termination of status for failure to appear for interview. If
the conditional resident alien and/or the petitioning spouse fail to
appear for an interview in connection with the joint petition required
by section 216(c) of the Act, the alien's permanent residence status
will be automatically terminated as of the second anniversary of the
date on which the alien obtained permanent residence. The alien shall
be provided with written notification of the termination and the
reasons therefor, and a notice to appear shall be issued initiating
removal proceedings. The alien may seek review of the decision to
terminate his or her status in such proceedings, but the burden shall
be on the alien to establish compliance with the interview
requirements. If the alien requests that the interview be rescheduled,
pursuant to Sec. 103.2(b)(9)(iv)(A) of this chapter, and if there are
exceptional circumstances for granting the request, the interview may
be rescheduled, as appropriate. If the interview is rescheduled at the
request of the petitioners, USCIS shall not be required to conduct the
interview within the 90-day period following the filing of the
petition.
* * * * *

PART 235--INSPECTION OF PERSONS APPLYING FOR ADMISSION

0
36. 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, 2003 Comp., p. 278), 1201, 1224,
1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1365b, 1379, 1731-32; 48 U.S.C. 1806,
1807, and 1808 and 48 U.S.C. 1806 notes (title VII, Pub. L. 110-229,
122 Stat. 754); 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (sec. 7209, Pub. L. 108-458, 118
Stat. 3638, and Pub. L. 112-54, 125 Stat. 550).

Sec. 235.1 Scope of examination [Amended]

0
37. Section 235.1 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(f)(1)(vi)(A).
0
38. Section 235.7 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph
(a)(3). and revising paragraph (a)(4)(vi) to read as follows:

Sec. 235.7 Automated inspection services (PORTPASS).

(a) * * *
(3) * * * Notwithstanding the provisions of part 264 of this
chapter, biometric collection in the manner prescribed by DHS may be
required to participate in the PORTPASS program.
(4) * * *
(vi) If biometrics are required to assist in a determination of
eligibility at that Point of Entry (POE), the applicant will be so
advised by DHS, before submitting his or her application. The applicant
will also be informed at that time of any biometric fee for conducting
the biometric collection and any identity verification and national
security and criminal history background checks. The biometric fee must
be paid by the applicant to DHS before any processing of the
application shall occur. The biometric fee may not be waived.
* * * * *

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

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

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 6 U.S.C. 112(a)(2),
112(a)(3), 112(b)(1), 112(e), 202, 251, 279, 291; 8 U.S.C. 1103,
1182, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1231,1232, 1324a, 1357, 1362, 1611; 18
U.S.C. 4002, 4013(c)(4); 8 CFR part 2.

0
40. Section 236.5 is revised as follows:

Sec. 236.5 Biometrics.

Every alien against whom proceedings based on inadmissibility under
section 212(a) of the Act or deportability under section 237 of the Act
are initiated, including proceedings under sections 235, 238(b), and
240 of the Act, may be required to submit biometrics at a time and
place determined by DHS. DHS may also require submission of biometrics
by any alien whose deportation, exclusion, or removal order is
reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Act, or who is determined to
be removable under Sec. 217.4 of this chapter.

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

0
41. 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
42. Section 240.21 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(2)(ii).

Sec. 240.21 Suspension of deportation and adjustment of status under
section 244(a) of the Act (as in effect before April 1, 1997) and
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b)
of the Act for certain nonpermanent residents.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) [Reserved]
(A) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
(C) [Reserved]
(D) [Reserved]
0
43. Section 240.67 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows:

Sec. 240.67 Procedure for interview before an asylum officer.

(a) Interview and biometric collection. USCIS will notify each
applicant to appear for an interview only after USCIS has scheduled the
applicant to submit biometrics in accordance with Sec. 103.16 of this
chapter and initiated national security and criminal history background
checks.
* * * * *
0
44. Section 240.68 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 240.68 Failure to appear at an interview before an asylum
officer or failure to follow requirements for biometrics.

Failure to appear for a scheduled interview or biometrics will be
handled in accordance with Sec. 208.10 of this chapter.
0
45. Section 240.70 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec. 240.70 Decision by the Department of Homeland Security.

(d) * * *
(4) The applicant failed to appear for a scheduled interview with
an asylum officer or failed to comply with biometrics requirements and
such failure was not excused by USCIS, unless the application is
dismissed.
* * * * *

PART 244--TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR NATIONALS OF DESIGNATED
FOREIGN STATES AND PERSONS WITHOUT NATIONALITY WHO LAST HABITUALLY
RESIDED IN A TPS DESIGNATED STATE

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

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

0
47. Section 244.6(a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 244.6 Application.

(a) An application for Temporary Protected Status must be submitted
in

[[Page 49143]]

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 Sec. 106.2 of
this chapter.
* * * * *
0
48. 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 1
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. Applicants for re-registration do not need to pay
the fee that was required for initial registration but are required to
pay the biometric services fee, 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 requested by USCIS.
* * * * *

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

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

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1252, 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.

0
50. Section 245.15 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec. 245.15 Adjustment of status of certain Haitian nationals under
the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act of 1998 (HRIFA).

* * * * *
(h) Application and supporting documents. Each applicant for
adjustment of status must file an application on the form prescribed by
USCIS in accordance with the form instructions and with the appropriate
fee prescribed in Sec. 106.2 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
51. Section 245.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 245.21 Adjustment of status of certain nationals of Vietnam,
Cambodia, and Laos (section 586 of Pub. L. 106-429).

* * * * *
(b) Application. An applicant must submit an application on the
form designated by USCIS with the fee specified in Sec. 106.2 of this
chapter and in accordance with the form instructions. Applicants must
also submit biometrics in accordance with Sec. 103.16 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
52. Section 245.23 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec. 245.23 Adjustment of aliens in T nonimmigrant classification.

* * * * *
(g) Good moral character: A T-1 nonimmigrant applicant for
adjustment of status under this section must demonstrate that he or she
has been a person of good moral character since first being lawfully
admitted as a T-1 nonimmigrant and until USCIS completes the
adjudication of their application for adjustment of status. Claims of
good moral character will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account section 101(f) of the Act and the standards of the
community. USCIS will determine an applicant's good moral character as
follows:
(1) Reviewing any credible and relevant evidence, which includes,
but is not limited to, criminal history information obtained through
the applicant's biometrics and evidence submitted by the applicant.
(2) USCIS may consider the applicant's conduct beyond the requisite
period, if the earlier conduct directly relates to a determination of
the applicant's moral character during the requisite period, and the
conduct of the applicant during the requisite period does not reflect
that there has been a reform of character from an earlier period.
(3) Until USCIS has automated data-sharing capabilities that allow
the agency to query a foreign partner country for an applicant's
criminal history record information, and notifies the public of such
capability, applicants who have been arrested, charged, or convicted
outside the United States during the requisite period must submit a law
enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report
issued by an appropriate authority from the foreign jurisdiction in
which the applicant was arrested, charged, or convicted during the
requisite period, in addition to biometrics.
(4) All T nonimmigrant applicants for adjustment of status age 14
and over are required to submit evidence of good moral character as
initial evidence with their application. For T nonimmigrant applicants
for adjustment of status under the age of 14, USCIS may request
evidence of good moral character at any time, in its discretion.
* * * * *

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

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

0
54. Section 245a.2 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (d), paragraph (d)(2)(ii), the last sentence of paragraph
(e)(1), and paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 245a.2 Application for temporary residence.

* * * * *
(d) Documentation. Evidence to support an alien's eligibility for
the legalization program must include documents establishing proof of
identity, proof of residence, and proof of financial responsibility, as
well as biometrics and a completed report of medical examination as
described in paragraph (i) of this section and on the form prescribed
by USCIS. USCIS may deny applications submitted with unverifiable
documentation. Failure by an applicant to authorize release to USCIS of
information protected by the Privacy Act and/or related laws in order
for USCIS to adjudicate a claim may result in denial of the benefit
sought. Acceptable supporting documents for these three categories are
discussed below.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Proof of common identity. The most persuasive evidence is a
document issued in the assumed name that biometrically identifies the
applicant. Other evidence that will be considered are affidavit(s) by a
person or persons other than the applicant, made under oath, that
identify the affiant by name and address and state the affiant's
relationship to the applicant and the basis of the affiant's knowledge
of the applicant's use of the assumed name. Affidavits accompanied by a
photograph that has been identified by the affiant as the individual
known to the affiant under the assumed name in question will carry
greater weight.
* * * * *

[[Page 49144]]

(e) * * *
(1) * * * The applicant must appear for a personal interview and
submit biometrics as scheduled and as described in Sec. 103.16 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
(j) Interview. Each applicant will be interviewed by an immigration
officer. USCIS may waive the interview on a case-by-case basis, at its
discretion, pursuant to Sec. 103.2(b)(9)(ii) of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
55. Section 245a.3 is amended by removing ``(ADIT processing)'' from
the last sentence of paragraph (b)(1) and revising paragraph (e) to
read as follows:

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

* * * * *
(e) Interview. Each applicant will be interviewed by an immigration
officer, except that the adjudicative interview may be waived by USCIS
on a case-by-case basis at its discretion, pursuant to Sec.
103.2(b)(9)(ii) of this chapter. An applicant failing to appear for a
scheduled interview may be afforded another interview if the applicant
can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances prevented the applicant
from appearing as scheduled by notice. Where an applicant fails to
appear for more than one scheduled interview, his or her application
will be held in abeyance until the end of 43 months from the date of
the application for temporary residence was approved and adjudicated on
the basis of the existing record.
* * * * *
0
56. Section 245a.4 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b)(4) and paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(D), (b)(5)(i), and (b)(10)
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) * * *
(4) Documentation. Evidence to support an alien's eligibility for
temporary residence status must include documents establishing proof of
identity, proof of nationality, proof of residence, and proof of
financial responsibility, as well as a report of medical examination as
described in paragraph (i) of this section and on the form prescribed
by USCIS. USCIS may deny any applications submitted with unverifiable
documentation. USCIS may deny the benefit sought where an applicant
fails to authorize release to USCIS of information protected by the
Privacy Act or related laws in order for USCIS to adjudicate a benefit
request. Acceptable supporting documents for the four categories of
documentation are discussed as follows:
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) Other credible documents, including those created by, or in the
possession of, USCIS, or any other documents (excluding affidavits)
that, when taken singly, or together as a whole, establish the alien's
nationality.
* * * * *
(5) Filing of application. (i) An Application for Status as a
Temporary Resident under Section 245A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act must be filed on the form prescribed by USCIS and in
accordance with the form instructions. The applicant must appear for a
personal interview and submit biometrics as scheduled and as described
in Sec. 103.16 of this chapter. USCIS may, at its discretion:
(A) Require the applicant to file the application in person;
(B) Require the applicant to file the application by mail; or
(C) Permit the filing of applications whether by mail or in person.
* * * * *
(10) Interview. Each applicant will be interviewed by an
immigration officer. USCIS may waive the interview on a case-by-case
basis, at its discretion, pursuant to Sec. 103.2(b)(9)(ii) of this
chapter.
* * * * *
0
57. Section 245a.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to
read as follows:

Sec. 245a.12 Filing and applications.

* * * * *
(b) Filing of applications in the United States. USCIS has
jurisdiction over all applications for the benefits of LIFE
Legalization under this subpart B. All applications filed with USCIS
for the benefits of LIFE Legalization must be submitted in accordance
with application form instructions. After proper filing of the
application, USCIS will notify the applicant to appear for an interview
and to submit biometrics.
* * * * *
(d) Application and supporting documentation. Each applicant for
LIFE Legalization adjustment of status must properly file an
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in
accordance with the form instructions and with the appropriate fee(s).
An applicant should complete Part 2 of the Application to Register
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status by checking box ``h--other'' and
writing ``LIFE Legalization'' next to that block. Each application must
be accompanied by:
(1) A report of medical examination, as specified in Sec. 245.5 of
this chapter.
(2) Proof of application for class membership in CSS, LULAC, or
Zambrano class action lawsuits as described in Sec. 245a.14.
(3) Proof of continuous residence in an unlawful status since
before January 1, 1982, through May 4, 1988, as described in Sec.
245a.15.
(4) Proof of continuous physical presence from November 6, 1986,
through May 4, 1988, as described in Sec. 245a.16.
(5) Proof of citizenship skills as described in Sec. 245a.17. This
proof may be submitted either at the time of filing the application,
subsequent to filing the application but before the interview, or at
the time of the interview.
* * * * *

PART 264--REGISTRATION, BIOMETRIC COLLECTION, AND VETTING

0
58. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows:

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

0
59. The heading for part 264 is revised as set forth above.
0
60. Section 264.1 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (e) and (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 264.1 Registration and biometric submission.

* * * * *
(e) Biometrics exemption. (1) Generally, DHS will not require
biometrics submission under this section from nonimmigrant aliens who
are:
(i) Admitted as foreign government officials, employees, and their
immediate family members; international organization representatives,
officers, employees, and their immediate family members; NATO
representatives, officers, employees, and their immediate family
members; and holders of diplomatic visas while they maintain such
nonimmigrant status.
(ii) Nationals of countries that do not require biometrics
collection of U.S. citizens temporarily residing therein.
(iii) Nonimmigrant aliens exempted under this provision may be
required to appear in person for DHS to collect a photograph that can
be used to create a secure identity document.
(2) Every nonimmigrant alien not included in paragraph (e)(1) of
this section who departs from the United States within 1 year of his or
her

[[Page 49145]]

admission may be exempted from biometrics collection, provided he or
she maintains his or her nonimmigrant status during that time; each
such alien who has not previously provided biometrics will apply for
registration and biometric submission at once if he or she remains in
the United States in excess of 1 year.
(3) Every nonimmigrant alien who has not previously submitted
biometrics will apply for registration and biometric submission at once
upon his or her failure to maintain his or her nonimmigrant status.
* * * * *
(g) Registration and biometrics of children. Within 30 days after
reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United States not exempt from
alien registration under the INA and this chapter must apply for
registration and submit biometrics under Sec. 103.16 of this chapter,
unless the submission of biometrics is exempt by USCIS.
(1) Permanent residents. If an alien who is a lawful permanent
resident of the United States is temporarily absent from the United
States when he or she reaches age 14, he or she must apply for
registration and-submit biometrics within 30 days of his or her return
to the United States in accordance with applicable form instructions.
Furthermore, the alien must surrender any prior evidence of alien
registration and USCIS will issue the alien new evidence of alien
registration.
(2) Others. In the case of an alien who is not a lawful permanent
resident, the alien's previously issued registration document will be
noted to show that he or she has been re-registered and the date of re-
registration.

Sec. 264.2 [Amended]

0
61. Section 264.2 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(d) Biometrics. After filing an application, each applicant shall
be required to submit biometrics as prescribed in 8 CFR 103.16.
* * * * *

Sec. 264.5 [Amended]

0
62. Section 264.5 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (i).

PART 287--FIELD OFFICERS; POWERS AND DUTIES

0
63. The authority citation for part 287 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1225, 1226, 1251, 1252, 1357;
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296 (6 U.S.C. 1, et.
Seq.); 8 CFR part 2.

0
64. Section 287.11(b)(3) is amended by revising the last sentence to
read as follows:

Sec. 287.11 Pre-enrolled Access Lane.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * * DHS may require applicants to submit biometrics in
accordance with Sec. 103.16 of this chapter, and DHS may provide that
biometric data to Federal, State, and local government agencies for the
purpose of determining eligibility to participate in the PAL program.
* * * * *

PART 333--PHOTOGRAPHS

0
65. The authority citation for part 333 continues to read as follows:

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

0
66. Section 333.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 333.1 Required photographs.

Every applicant under section 333 of the Act must provide a
photograph in the manner prescribed in the biometrics notice,
applicable form instructions, or other notification provided by USCIS.
USCIS may require applicants to attend a biometric services appointment
to be photographed.

PART 335--EXAMINATION ON APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION

0
67. The authority citation for part 335 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443, 1447.

0
68. Section 335.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec. 335.2 Examination of applicant.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the
biometrics or biometric data submitted for the criminal background
check has been rejected.
* * * * *

Kristi Noem,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2025-19747 Filed 10-31-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P