[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 19, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52129-52131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-20231]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 12851]
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for
Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration
ACTION: Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of
proposed collection of information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested
individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow
30 days for public comment.
DATES: Submit comments up to December 19, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Information Collection: Application for Immigrant
Visa and Alien Registration.
OMB Control Number: 1405-0185.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
Originating Office: CA/VO.
Form Number: DS-260.
Respondents: Immigrant Visa Applicants.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 460,000.
Estimated Number of Responses: 460,000.
Average Time per Response: 155 minutes.
Total Estimated Burden Time: 1,188,333 hours.
Frequency: Once Per Application.
Obligation to Respond: Required to Obtain or Retain a
Benefit.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost
burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected.
Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are
public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you
should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your
personal information, will be available for public review.
Abstract of Proposed Collection
The Department uses the Electronic Application for Immigrant Visa
and Alien Registration (DS-260) to obtain the information needed to
fulfill the legal requirements for the issuance of an immigrant visa
(IV). The information required on the form is limited to what is
necessary for consular officers to determine the eligibility and
classification of an individual seeking an IV to the United States.
Please note this information collection will no longer seek to renew
the paper version of the form (DS-230), which will be discontinued
effective November 1, 2025.
Methodology
The DS-260 is submitted electronically over an encrypted connection
to the Department via the internet. The applicant will be instructed to
print a confirmation page containing a barcoded record locator, which
will be physically scanned at the time of processing.
60-Day Comment Period Analysis
The Department published a notice in the Federal Register
soliciting public comments for a period of 60 days on July 9, 2025 (90
FR 30543). The Department received four comments before the comment
period ended on September 8, 2025, with two being nonresponsive to the
collection. Comments are publicly viewable on regulations.gov, and the
Department addresses the two responsive comments here:
Comment 1
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) submitted a
comment on behalf of the over 15,000 member attorneys who practice
immigration law in the United States. The Department appreciates AILA's
thoughtful feedback and has reviewed and addressed recommendations in
the space below.
Countries the Applicant Has Visited
AILA recommended rephrasing the question, ``Have you traveled to
any
[[Page 52130]]
countries/regions within the last five years?'' to clarify that the
applicant should not include U.S. travel in that section.
In addressing this suggestion, the Department is first clarifying
that the proposed version of the form, which was available for public
comment through regulations.gov, included modified language requesting
15 years of address history rather than five. The United States is not
an available region or country in this section, and U.S. travel is
requested in the form prior to reaching this section. However, since
additional clarity may reduce applicant burden, the Department will
incorporate this suggestion to the proposed DS-260. The question now
reads: ``Have you traveled to any countries/regions, other than the
United States, within the last fifteen years?''
Security and Fraud Questions
AILA suggested simplifying the language of complex questions to
ensure applicants understand their intent and scope.
The Department acknowledges and agrees with the importance of
clarity in these questions and is actively engaging in a large-scale
modernization project that will address these concerns. The
modernization will include technical improvements and plain language
rephrasing of these and other questions throughout the form. The
Department appreciates AILA's continued patience while it works to
improve its systems, as the modernization project cannot be completed
in the limited time left in this PRA renewal cycle.
Present and Previous Address Information
AILA proposed requiring only city, state/province, country, and
dates for address history, with an option to mark street addresses as
``unknown.'' While the Department recognizes the challenges applicants
may face in recalling detailed address information, particularly for
elderly applicants, past addresses are used for multiple purposes
beyond police certificate requirements, including fraud prevention and
enhanced vetting. At this time, the Department will not implement this
suggestion, but it will re-open discussions with vetting partners to
determine whether adding an ``unknown'' checkbox to the address field
is possible without significantly impacting U.S. national security
interests in the future.
Family Information
AILA recommended rephrasing questions about family members'
immigration intentions.
The Department agrees to rephrase these questions and will replace
the word ``immigrating'' with the more specific phrase ``applying for a
U.S. immigrant visa.''
Additional Work/Education/Training/Travel Information Page
AILA suggested providing additional context to the question, ``Have
you belonged to, contributed to, or worked for any professional,
social, or charitable organization?''
The Department understands AILA's suggestion to be motivated by
applicants' possible misunderstanding of the scope of information
sought. Due to resource and time constraints, the Department will need
to further consider this recommendation as part of the ongoing
modernization project.
Security and Background Information
AILA recommended rephrasing the question, ``Has the Secretary of
Homeland Security of the United States ever determined that you
knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum?''
The Department agrees with this recommendation and will revise the
form to reference ``an immigration judge or Board of Immigration
Appeals'' instead of ``the Secretary of Homeland Security of the United
States.''
Signature and Submission
AILA proposed retitling the page, making grammatical adjustments,
and including language clarifying that the visa application is not
formally made until the consular interview. While the Department is
open to considering these changes, these issues will be addressed as
part of the aforementioned modernization project.
E-Signature Section
AILA questioned a reference to the Australian Department of Home
Affairs (ADHA) and raised privacy and security concerns regarding
language about medical examinations and data storage in the eMedical
system.
In response to this comment, the Department is revising language to
better explain the role that ADHA plays in the eMedical system and
clarify its relevance to all applicants subject to medical examination.
For greater transparency, the Department also is adding language to
better explain how applicants' medical information may be temporarily
stored in the eMedical system and providing additional data privacy
assurances, as records access by the ADHA is strictly limited to
providing technical support to the U.S. government and its designated
panel physicians. This language is now included in a new ``Medical
Examination Disclosure and Consent'' subsection, which is separate from
the e-signature section where the information currently displays.
Accessibility
AILA highlighted certain technical issues, including timeouts,
login errors, and the inability to amend the form post-submission.
The Department's modernization project also aims to address many of
these technical challenges, and attempts to resolve these issues are
underway.
General Data Collection
AILA advocated for the option to provide explanatory information,
either through a tick box next to each question or a stand-alone final
page, similar to the overflow sheet option in the old paper DS-230
form.
The Department has determined that these changes are neither
necessary nor feasible and will not implement them at this time.
The DS-230 previously contained the following instruction that
allowed for an ``overflow'' sheet: ``If there is insufficient room on
the form, answer on a separate sheet using the same numbers that appear
on the form. Attach any additional sheets to this form.'' The intention
behind this instruction was to allow applicants to provide required
information that did not fit in the limited space provided on the paper
form. This included information about additional family members,
additional social media, etc. The instruction was not designed to allow
applicants to provide explanatory information beyond the explicit
information the Department requested. Furthermore, space is not limited
in the DS-260, as the e-form allows applicants to select ``add
another'' for questions that might have required an additional sheet
when completing the paper form. Applicants wishing to provide
explanatory information for responses have the opportunity to do so
during the required in-person interview.
Comment 2
The comment expresses ``concern for the volume of applications for
the registration of individuals applying and the extreme annual cost of
$156B'' and recommends the Department review the ``authenticity and the
number of applications'' for this collection.
[[Page 52131]]
The Department assures the public that every application undergoes
adequate vetting. Furthermore, the Department clarifies that the cost
to process the DS-260 is not $156 billion, as the comment states, but
rather $94,022,024 in federal government expenditures. Consular fees
are generally set based on the policy of full cost recovery, which
means the full cost is offset by the DS-260 application fee. The net
cost to the American taxpayer is $0.
Stuart R Wilson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, Bureau of Consular
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2025-20231 Filed 11-18-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P