[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25479-25489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09289]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2026 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 25479]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
8 CFR Part 103
[CIS No. 2855-26; Docket No. USCIS-2026-0166]
RIN 1615-AD17
Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its
regulations governing the submission of benefit requests to provide
that if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) accepts a
benefit request and determines later that it lacks a valid signature,
USCIS may, in its discretion, reject or deny the request. This interim
final rule (IFR or rule) will clarify USCIS procedures relating to the
rejection or denial of benefit requests that do not meet regulatory
requirements to ensure better enforcement of signature requirements.
DATES:
Effective Date: This interim final rule is effective on July 10,
2026.
Comment Date: Written comments on the interim final rule must be
submitted on or before July 10, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the entirety of this rule
package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0166 through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), the summary of this rule found above may also
be found at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the website
instructions for submitting comments. USCIS cannot accept comments
contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/
DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also not accepting mailed comments at
this time. 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: Office of Policy & Strategy, USCIS,
DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone
(240) 721-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with
hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via
TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-
877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 rule. DHS also invites comments relating to the
economic, environmental, or federalism effects possibly resulting from
this rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English
translation must be provided. Comments providing the most assistance to
USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion
of the 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 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-2026-0166 for this rule. 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 you
provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make to DHS. DHS
may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing it
determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For
additional information, please read the Privacy and Security Notice
available 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-2026-0166. You may also sign up for email alerts on
the online docket to be notified when comments or other documents are
posted to the docket.
II. Executive Summary
DHS is adding a clarifying provision to 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7) governing
the submission of benefit requests to reduce the risks that are
presented by invalid signatures identified after a benefit request is
accepted. Specifically, DHS is amending regulations to provide that
USCIS adjudicators may, in their discretion, reject or deny the
request. This amendment applies to requests submitted on or after July
10, 2026. If USCIS decides to deny a request on the basis of an invalid
signature, USCIS may retain the associated benefit filing fee and
consider the application fully adjudicated and the applicant ineligible
for the requested benefit.
Since 2018, USCIS policy has provided that, ``[i]f USCIS accepts a
request for adjudication and later determines that it has a deficient
signature, USCIS will deny the request.'' \1\ However, as described
more fully in this rule, application and implementation of that policy
has not resulted in benefit requestors having a clear understanding
about how USCIS generally handles requests with questionable or invalid
signatures, and USCIS officers have not always understood the scope of
their authority
[[Page 25480]]
when faced with invalid signatures. Indeed, in recent years, USCIS has
experienced several instances of questionable and invalid signatures on
USCIS immigration benefit requests and inconsistent implementation of
policy addressing invalid signatures. Therefore, DHS is issuing this
rule to codify the authority for immigration officers to exercise
discretion to deny improperly signed requests. USCIS believes this
codification will, in turn, better encourage compliance with signature
requirements, reduce the number of rejections caused by invalid
signatures, protect the integrity of the benefit request adjudication,
and allow USCIS to recoup the costs associated with enforcing these
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See USCIS Memorandum from the Office of the Director,
``Signatures on Paper Applications, Petitions, Requests, and Other
Documents Filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'',
PM-602-0134.1 (Feb. 15, 2018). See also USCIS, Policy Manual, Volume
1, General Policies and Procedures, Part B, Submission of Benefit
Requests, Chapter. 2, Signatures, Section A, Signature Requirements
[1 USCIS-PM B.2(A)], https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-2 (current as of Feb. 3, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background
A. Legal Authority
The general authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security
(Secretary) to issue this procedural rule is found in section 103(a) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which
authorizes the Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration and
nationality laws and establish such regulations as the Secretary deems
necessary for carrying out such authority. The Secretary's authorities
under the INA include the authorities and functions transferred to
USCIS under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-
296, 116 Stat. 2135 (codified in part at 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), related
to the adjudication of immigration benefits requests, 6 U.S.C. 271(b).
See also 6 U.S.C. 112 (vesting all functions of DHS in the Secretary).
Accordingly, the Secretary has authority to issue regulations necessary
for carrying out USCIS' functions related to the administration and
adjudication of immigration benefits under the INA.
In addition, DHS has statutory authority under INA 287(b), 8 U.S.C.
1357(b), to require signatures on immigration benefits requests.
Section 287(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1357(b), provides generally that an
officer or employee of DHS may administer oaths and consider evidence
concerning a person's privilege to enter or reside in the United States
or concerning ``any matter that is material and relevant to the
enforcement of the [INA] and the administration of [DHS]'', which
includes immigration benefits requests. This statute also permits DHS
to require a person to provide an unsworn signed declaration or
certification, under penalty of perjury, as permitted under 28 U.S.C.
1746, in lieu of providing information under oath. Although DHS has not
explicitly codified the adoption of 28 U.S.C. 1746, USCIS has generally
followed the requirements of that statute in 8 CFR 103.2(a) by
requiring requestors to sign benefits requests and certify through
their signature, under penalty of perjury, that the benefit request and
all evidence submitted with it is true and correct.\2\ By conforming to
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1746 in its benefit request system, DHS
signature declarations empower requestors to attest with full legal
authority, from any location without appearance before an immigration
officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Additionally, USCIS benefits request forms generally follow
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1746 in the declaration that precedes
the signature on USCIS forms that require a signature or an unsworn
declaration made under penalty of perjury. See, e.g., USCIS Form I-
90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Green Card),
https://www.uscis.gov/i-90 (Jan. 20, 2025 ed.) (stating in relevant
part, ``I certify, under penalty of perjury, that I provided or
authorized all of the information in my application, I understand
all of the information contained in, and submitted with, my
application, and that all of this information is complete, true, and
correct.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, DHS issues this IFR consistent with INA 286(m), 8 U.S.C.
1356(m), which authorizes DHS to charge fees for adjudication and
naturalization services at a level to ``ensure recovery of the full
costs of providing all such services, including the costs of similar
services provided without charge to asylum applicants or other
immigrants.'' This rule is consistent with the purpose of INA 286(m), 8
U.S.C. 1356(m), because it codifies USCIS authority to deny a request
and retain the fees paid to recover costs that USCIS incurs to process
and adjudicate the benefit request before determining the request was
not properly signed.
B. Signatures
1. Filing Requirements
DHS regulations require that a form must be executed in accordance
with the form instructions. 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1). In addition, regulations
provide that USCIS records the receipt date as of the actual date of
physical receipt of a benefit request, a rejected request will not
retain a receipt date, and a request will be rejected if not submitted
with the correct fee. 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D).\3\ Current DHS
regulations at 8 CFR 103.2(a)(2) state that ``[a]n applicant or
petitioner must sign his or her benefit request.'' \4\ With respect to
the submission of that benefit request, 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(A) states
that USCIS will reject the request if not ``[s]igned with a valid
signature.'' Further, ``a benefit request which is rejected will not
retain a filing date.'' 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii). In addition, 8 CFR
103.2(a)(7)(iii) states that ``a rejection of a filing with USCIS may
not be appealed.'' Finally, 8 CFR 103.2(a)(2) specifies that ``an
acceptable signature on a benefit request that is being filed with the
USCIS is one that is either handwritten or, for benefit requests filed
electronically as permitted by the instructions to the form, in
electronic format.'' As such, a properly filed USCIS benefit request
means that the benefit request includes a complete and properly
executed form with a valid signature, the correct fees, and the
required initial evidence for intake purposes as specified in the form
instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USCIS general filing requirements and receipt rules have
been in place for benefit request filings since at least 1964. See
29 FR 11956 (Aug. 21, 1964) (final rule codifying 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1)
that provided that every application shall be executed and filed in
accordance with the instructions on the form, applications received
shall be stamped to show the time and date of their actual receipt
and regarded as filed when so stamped unless returned as improperly
executed).
\4\ The term ``benefit request'' means any application,
petition, motion, appeal, or other request relating to an
immigration or naturalization benefit, whether such request is filed
on a paper form or submitted in an electronic format, provided such
request is submitted in a manner prescribed by DHS for such purpose.
8 CFR 1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Current Signature Requirements
USCIS considers a ``valid signature'' to generally consist of any
handwritten mark or sign made by a requestor (or in certain situations
a parent or legal guardian) to signify his or her knowledge and
approval of the contents of the request and any supporting document(s)
and that the information contained therein is true and correct. See 8
CFR 103.2(a)(2).\5\ This requirement applies to any request filed by
mail (paper) or online through the PDFi upload process. In limited
contexts, USCIS considers a valid signature to include an electronic
signature. When filing online through guided e-filing or PDFi via
myUSCIS, a requestor's valid signature is a secure electronic signature
prompted during the e-filing process. In addition, if during certain
PDFi upload processes, no handwritten mark or signature is detected on
the uploaded form, an individual may be prompted to provide a secure
electronic signature. This option only applies to benefit requestor-
filed submissions; no electronic
[[Page 25481]]
signature option is currently available for attorney-filed PDFi
submissions. Beyond these processes, an electronic signature is not
valid and only a requestor's handwritten signature is valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See also USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 1, General Policies and
Procedures, Part B, Submission of Benefit Requests, Chapter 2,
Signatures, Section A, Signature Requirements [1 USCIS-PM B.2(A)],
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-2
(current as of Feb. 3, 2026). Additionally, USCIS form instructions
for benefits applications and requests explain the requirements for
a valid signature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For handwritten signatures, USCIS policies have evolved with the
increased use of facsimile machines, scanners, and the internet; and an
increasing number of USCIS immigration benefit requests are being e-
filed or filed through the PDFi upload process, in accordance with the
direction by Congress to eliminate paper filings in program
administration to the extent possible. Government Paperwork Elimination
Act (GPEA), Public Law 105-277, tit. XVII, section 1703, 112 Stat.
2681, 2681-749 (Oct. 21, 1998) (as codified in 44 U.S.C. 3504 note).\6\
To provide flexibility and efficiency, USCIS does not generally require
submission of the ``original'' document with a wet-ink signature. A
scanned, copied, or faxed version of the originally signed benefit
request, with the wet-ink signature on it, suffices (the regulatory
text states ``handwritten'', 8 CFR 103.2(a)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GPEA defines electronic signature as ``. . .a method of
signing an electronic message that identifies and authenticates a
particular person as the source of the electronic message; and
indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the
electronic message.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Handling of Requests Containing Invalid Signatures
USCIS regulations presently state that a benefit request will be
rejected if it is not signed with valid signature. 8 CFR
103.2(a)(7)(ii)(A). Neither the INA nor DHS regulations define the
terms ``rejected'' and ``rejection''; however, for the purpose of 8 CFR
103.2(a)(7), USCIS agency practice has long defined the term
``rejected'' to mean the benefit request and fee payment are returned
for failure to comply with all filing requirements without being fully
considered, and can be re-filed when properly completed.\7\ ``Denied,''
on the other hand, generally means that the request is fully
adjudicated and considered, and the requestor is determined ineligible
for the benefit sought. Id. Additionally, when a benefit is denied,
USCIS retains the fee.\8\ When USCIS denies a benefit request, the
USCIS adjudicating officer will issue a decision explaining the denial.
See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(i). For certain requests, the requestor can
appeal the denial. See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(ii), (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Immigration Benefits Business Transformation,
Increment I, 76 FR 53764, 53770 (August 29, 2011) (final rule);
Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B
Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to the Numerical Limitations,
76 FR 11686 (Mar. 3, 2011) (notice of proposed rulemaking)
(discussing the USCIS resources required to reject and return to the
petitioning employer petitions and associated fees that are not
randomly selected as eligible for an H-1B cap number).
\8\ INA 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), provides that DHS may set
benefit request fees to recover the costs of providing such
services. DHS has interpreted ``fees for providing adjudication and
naturalization services'' in section 1356(m) as meaning the fee is
required for the provision of a service, in effect, an adjudication
of the filed request. Historically, DHS has determined that when a
request is rejected and the only service performed is to determine
if it is minimally acceptable, no adjudication service occurs, no
fee is due, and the fee is returned. When DHS has determined the fee
should not be returned when a request is rejected it has codified
retention. See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(1) (providing that USCIS does
not refund the filing fee when it rejects an appeal filed by a
person or entity not entitled to file an appeal); see also USCIS
Immigration Fees and Related Procedures Required by H.R.1
Reconciliation Bill, 91 FR 22952, 22971 (Apr. 29, 2026) (amending 8
CFR 106.2(c) to provide that the fee for Form I-589 will be retained
and not returned or refunded when a filed asylum application is
rejected consistent with 8 CFR 103.2(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USCIS Policy Manual provides that once USCIS receives a benefit
request, including an appeal or motion, USCIS assesses whether the
request meets the minimum requirements for USCIS to accept it.\9\ This
includes verifying that the request contains a valid signature. This
initial intake assessment occurs at the USCIS Lockbox.\10\ The USCIS
Lockbox either accepts or rejects benefit request packets after
applying a set of business rules, accepting the benefit request if it
is properly filed or rejecting it if it is not. With respect to
signatures, the USCIS Lockbox business rules require that the data
entry operator verify if the signature appears to be valid or invalid.
Specifically, per USCIS policy, the USCIS Lockbox business rules look
for a ``valid signature,'' or one that is (1) handwritten, (2) on the
signature line of the form, (3) a thumbprint in place of a written
signature, or (4) an `X'. Under the same business rules, an invalid
signature is one that is typewritten or missing. If a requestor uses an
``X'', USCIS usually engages in some additional validation to ensure
the individual consistently uses an ``X.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 1, General Policies and
Procedures, Part B, Submission of Benefit Requests, Chapter 6,
Submitting Requests, Section B, Intake Processing [1 USCIS-PM
B.6(B)], https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-6 (current as of Feb. 3, 2026).
\10\ The USCIS Lockbox system is a paper-based intake system for
specific immigration applications and petitions. The Lockbox
operations are provided by the Department of the Treasury's
Financial Agency, JP Morgan. See U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, General Lockbox Network, https://fiscal.treasury.gov/gln/ (last updated Jan. 20, 2026). The
lockboxes, including USCIS case resolution analysts, are responsible
for: data entry of applications, petitions and requests, determining
whether to accept or reject forms, depositing fees, sending receipt
or reject notices, physically assembling cases in accordance with
the business requirements, sending the files to the appropriate
USCIS offices, and transmitting the electronic data to the
appropriate USCIS systems and offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If minimum requirements for acceptance are not met (e.g., a missing
signature), the USCIS Lockbox rejects the benefit request for improper
filing and returns it to the sender. The Lockbox determines whether
each benefit request meets the requirements to be accepted but it does
not make adjudicative decisions. USCIS can only begin to adjudicate a
benefit request after USCIS accepts the request, processes any required
fees, and issues a receipt notice (or date stamp, where applicable),
reflecting the date of physical or electronic receipt. USCIS does not
consider benefits requests that are rejected to be properly filed.\11\
If the benefit request is accepted, USCIS issues a receipt notice to
the requestor and forwards the request for processing, including
adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 1, General Policies and
Procedures, Part B, Submission of Benefit Requests, Chapter 6,
Submitting Requests, Section B, Intake Processing [1 USCIS-PM
B.6(B)], https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-6 (current as of Feb. 3, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed further below in Section IV.B of this preamble, the
Lockbox is not able to identify all benefits requests containing
invalid signatures at intake. USCIS has issued various policies over
the years addressing how USCIS handles invalid signatures in such
circumstances. First, USCIS issued a general signature policy on
January 19, 2010, to provide, among other things, that if USCIS
identifies an application or petition without the proper signature at
the time of receipt, USCIS will reject the application or petition in
accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(i) and return the filing fee. The
2010 policy clarified, however, that if USCIS discovers the improper
signature after receipting, USCIS may deny the application or petition
pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(ii) for failure to establish eligibility
for the benefit sought.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ USCIS Memorandum from Lauren Kielsmeier, ``Signatures on
Applications and Petitions Filed with USCIS: Amendment of
Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 10.1(a)(2) (AFM Update AD
10-23)'', HQSCOP 70/6-P (Jan. 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCIS next published an interim policy memorandum (PM) \13\ on June
7, 2016.\14\ The 2016 p.m. stated, in
[[Page 25482]]
relevant part, that if USCIS determines the requisite signature on the
request is not valid, the request will be deemed to not be signed and,
pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7), USCIS will reject the request and return
it to the party responsible. The 2016 p.m. also provided that if USCIS
questions the validity of the signature on a form filed by a parent for
their minor child, a legal guardian for a child or incapacitated adult,
or an individual on behalf of a corporation of other legal entity, it
may send a Request for Evidence or other type of notice to the
requestor, requesting evidence of the signatory's authority to sign
documents on their behalf, or refer the file or record to the Fraud
Detection and National Security Unit where appropriate. The 2016 p.m.
did not address whether USCIS may, should, or will deny a request for a
deficient signature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ USCIS Memorandum from the Office of the Director,
``Signatures on Paper Applications, Petitions, Requests, and Other
Documents Filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'',
PM-602-0134 (June 7, 2016).
\14\ Prior to 2016, no general signature policy existed and
policies were provided on a per form basis. See, e.g., USCIS Update,
INFORMATION TO HELP COMPLETE AND SUBMIT I-129 PETITIONS TO USCIS
SERVICES CENTERS FOR FY 2008 H-1B CAP CASES (March 27, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 15, 2018, USCIS issued a new PM.\15\ The 2018 p.m.
provided, in relevant part, that if USCIS determines that the requisite
signature on the request is not valid, USCIS will reject the request
and return it under 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7), however, if USCIS accepts a
request for adjudication and later determines it has a deficient
signature, USCIS will deny the request. The 2018 p.m. also provided
that USCIS may send either a Request for Evidence or a Notice of Intent
to Deny to confirm that signature authority existed at the time the
document was submitted, but stated that USCIS will not permit an
opportunity to correct or ``cure'' an invalid signature. The 2018 p.m.
was incorporated into the USCIS Policy Manual on March 5, 2020, and
remains the operative policy to date.\16\ Consistent with the 2018
p.m., USCIS form instructions also provide that if USCIS accepts a
request for adjudication and then determines that it has a deficient
signature, USCIS may deny the request.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ USCIS Policy Memorandum from the Office of the Director,
``Signatures on Paper Applications, Petitions, Requests, and Other
Documents Filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'',
PM-602-0134.1 (Feb. 15, 2018).
\16\ USCIS Policy Alert, ``Submission of Benefit Requests'', PA-
2020-07 (March 5, 2020).
\17\ This is the standard form instruction that USCIS has
adopted for use across all forms. However, one or more USCIS forms
include form instructions provide that if USCIS accepts a request
for adjudication and determines that it has a deficient signature,
USCIS ``will deny'' the request, rather than ``may deny'' the
request. See, e.g., USCIS, Form N-400 Instructions, Instructions for
Application for Naturalization, https://www.uscis.gov/n-400 (last
updated Jan. 20, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 20, 2020, USCIS announced that, due to the COVID-19
National Emergency the agency would accept all benefit forms and
documents with reproduced original signatures. The announcement stated
that individuals or entities that submit documents with electronically
reproduced original signature must retain copies of the original
documents containing the wet signature because USCIS may, at any time,
request the original documents. USCIS defined ``reproduced'' by stating
``a document may be scanned, faxed, photocopied, or similarly
reproduced provided that the copy must be of an original document
containing an original handwritten signature.'' \18\ On July 25, 2022,
USCIS announced that the reproduced signature flexibility announced in
March, 2020, will become permanent policy.\19\ Although individual form
instructions could and can still provide more specific requirements, as
of July 25, 2022, no USCIS form required an original signature, and a
copy of the originally signed form containing the handwritten signature
could be submitted as provided in the USCIS Policy Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Web Alert, USCIS Announces Flexibility in Submitting
Required Signatures During COVID-19 National Emergency (last updated
May 1, 2020).
\19\ Web Alert, USCIS Extends COVID-19-related Flexibilities
(last updated July 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion
Through this IFR, DHS is amending 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii) to codify
the authority for USCIS adjudicating officers to either reject or deny
the request if USCIS accepts a benefits request and later determines
that it contains an invalid signature. DHS is making this change for
several reasons.
A. Challenges Related to Invalid Signatures
In recent years, many requestors have been submitting benefit
requests to USCIS with invalid signatures. For example, USCIS has seen
requests submitted with invalid signatures created by copy-pasting or
affixing an image of the same signature on multiple benefit requests in
contravention of USCIS policy that allows for photocopied, faxed, or
scanned signatures only if the photocopy, fax, or scan is of the
original document containing the handwritten wet ink signature.\20\ The
USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) has adjudicated 758 appeals
of requests that were denied because the signature was copied from
another document. In effect, these requestors are pasting a picture of
the signature from one signed document onto multiple unsigned
documents, which can be done by anyone and not necessarily the
signatory. In one case, the authorized signatory signed a blank sheet
of paper and had their subordinate copy that signature onto at least 20
Petitions for Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129). In another case, a
consulting firm completed and filed approximately 3,000 Petitions for
Immigrant Worker (Form I-140) where the signature was pasted on the
Form I-140.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 1, General Policies and
Procedures, Part B, Submission of Benefit Requests, Chapter 2,
Signatures, Section A, Signature Requirements [1 USCIS-PM B.2(A)],
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-2
(current as of Feb. 3, 2026). In certain instances, a stamped
signature may be allowed as provided by the form instructions. For
example, a health department physician who is acting as a blanket-
designated civil surgeon and submitting a vaccination assessment for
a refugee adjusting status on the Report of Medical Examination and
Vaccination Record (Form I-693) may provide an original
(handwritten) or stamped signature, as long as it is the signature
of the health department physician. See USCIS, Form I-693
Instructions, Instructions for Report of Immigration Medical
Examination and Vaccination Record, https://www.uscis.gov/i-693
(last updated Jan. 20, 2025); see also USCIS Policy Manual, Volume
8, Admissibility, Part B, Health-Related Grounds of Inadmissibility,
Chapter 4, Review of Medical Examination Documentation, Section C,
Documentation Completed by Civil Surgeon, Subsection 3, Signatures
[8 USCIS-PM B.4(C)(3)], https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-chapter-4 (current as of Feb. 3, 2026).
\21\ The requests were also submitted without completed preparer
sections or a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney
or Accredited Representative. All requests list the same in-care-of
person and the requestor address is a residential address in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other types of invalid signatures that USCIS commonly sees are
signatures that are stamped, applications that are signed by someone
other than the requestor (attorney, preparer, or interpreter), and
signatures created by signature software programs. All of these types
of invalid signatures raise concerns about the integrity of the
request, including falsification, fraud, or the submission of requests
on an individual's behalf without their knowledge or consent.
Proper signatures are critical to document that the requestor
understood the form he or she signed and all of the evidence submitted
with it. See Gui Cun Liu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 529, 534 (3d Cir. 2004)
(it is presumed that an asylum applicant's signature on form meant he
was aware of contents); see also Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. 496, 499
(BIA 2018) (``[A]n alien's signature on an immigration application
establishes a strong presumption that he or she knows the contents of
the application and has assented to them.''). It is critical that the
requestor certify that all of the information on a request
[[Page 25483]]
is true and correct, that he or she is responsible for the information
that is binding on him or her, and that the requestor is granting
permission for USCIS to investigate his or her background and use the
information for processing and adjudication of the request. Ultimately,
a signature on a benefit request represents the requestor's
authorization for USCIS to investigate and adjudicate the request, and
attestation to, and accountability for the contents of the request.
USCIS signature requirements also protect against the falsification
of requests and submission of requests on an individual's behalf
without their knowledge or consent. See, e.g., United States v.
Jimenez, 972 F.3d 1183, 1193 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming a conviction
for immigration fraud where ``business owners . . . testified their
signatures had been forged on the I-140 petition or the supporting
documentation, or both''); U.S. v. Adcock, 447 F.2d 1337 (2d Cir.),
cert. den., 404 U.S. 939 (1971) (conviction for making false statements
to INS); Abusamhadaneh v. Taylor, 873 F. Supp. 2d 682, 687-88 (E.D. Va.
2012) (reversing USCIS denial of naturalization application where
applicant testified that his failure to disclose his relationship with
a mosque was attributable to an attorney-preparer who signed the
application and erroneously advised him that he was not required to
disclose the affiliation).
That the request is properly signed is also a fundamental
eligibility criterion for any immigration benefit request. See Savane
v. DHS, 164 F.4th 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2026) (holding that 8 CFR 103.2(a)(2)
requires the applicant or petitioner to certify under penalty of
perjury that the benefit request, and all evidence submitted with it,
either at the time of filing or thereafter, is true and correct).
Failure to properly sign the request renders the requestor ineligible
for the benefit. See id.; see also Injeti v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr.
Servs., 737 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that 8 CFR
103.2(a)(2)'s signature and certification requirement is necessary to
``facilitate USCIS' assessment of whether the applicant is eligible for
the benefit sought'').
B. Screening Challenges at Intake
While it is not explicitly stated, the regulations governing USCIS
receipt and acceptance of requests at 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7) imply that
USCIS will be able to identify and quickly reject benefits requests
that do not meet minimum submission requirements, including requests
with invalid signatures, at the point of intake.\22\ However, USCIS
intake procedures can only detect if a handwritten signature exists
(i.e., not missing and not typewritten). For various reasons, those
intake procedures cannot identify all invalid signatures, including
signatures copied from another document, signatures from someone other
than the requestor, and signatures created by a signature software
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., 76 FR 53764, 53770 (discussing recordation of
filing dates for benefit requests in an electronic environment and
how procedures had reflected regular mail, hand delivery, and
internal actions of USCIS for physically paper, stamping dates
etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, USCIS received more than thirteen million benefit requests
in FY 2025.\23\ As a result of the volume of forms submitted to USCIS,
benefit request intake must be automated to the maximum extent
possible.\24\ USCIS does not currently possess and cannot readily
acquire the technology to identify all invalid signatures at intake.
USCIS has explored obtaining the technology to identify invalid
signatures but has been unable to find a product that is scalable and
sufficiently accurate to meet signature requirements, high-volume
document workflows, and intake speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality, NPD, CLAIMS3,
ELIS, HQRAIO, queried Jan. 2026, PAER0020178.
\24\ See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule
and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request
Requirements, 89 FR 6194, 6169, 6209 (Jan. 31, 2024) (final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, signature inspection cannot be handled manually at intake
with the USCIS document volume, compliance requirements, and the need
to ensure timely and efficient processing. The contractors and
personnel that perform intake are not trained, or, by their position
description, expected to analyze signatures. In many cases, intake
contractors do not have access to USCIS systems needed to compare the
instant request or document with previous filings by the requestor.
Indeed, as discussed above in Section IV.A of this preamble, USCIS has
seen an uptick in invalid signatures that are copy-and-pasted from
other documents. From an initial review at USCIS intake, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate these sorts of invalid
signatures from signatures that are true copies of benefit requests
with a valid original signature. In both instances, they present as a
copy of a handwritten signature. It is only via comparison between
documents and greater scrutiny at the adjudication stage that these
sorts of issues are identified and able to be addressed. As a result of
these intake screening limitations and challenges, invalid signatures
are often only identified by the USCIS adjudicating officer after a
benefit request is accepted.
In some cases, these invalid signatures can be identified only
after USCIS officers perform a detailed comparison and review of
signatures across a benefit requestor's filings. For example, officers
may need to compare signatures from various previous requests and use
an imaging tool to see if the signatures match. Additionally, signature
deficiencies are sometimes only identified after the initial
adjudication of filings because comparison of the signatures could only
be made after receiving additional filings. When a signature deficiency
is discovered after adjudication, USCIS officers must often expend time
and resources reopening and re-adjudicating the benefit request, which
has a ripple effect on USCIS' ability to timely adjudicate other
applications, including those from applicants that have complied with
signature requirements.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Numerous non-precedent decisions of the USCIS AAO also
illustrate the complexities involved in the identification and
adjudication of deficient signatures. See, e.g., In Re. -, 2025 WL
1743144 (analyzing the ``image of a signature'' that was provided in
the petitioner's signature block); In Re. -, 2023 WL 5747114 (AAO
July 25, 2023) (discussing a signature generated by a word
processor); In Re. -, 2022 WL 11142606 (AAO Aug. 31, 2022)
(discussing an employer's failure to explain inconsistent
signatures); In Re. -, 2019 WL 6873927 (AAO Nov. 15, 2019)
(remanding to allow the Director to address signature discrepancies
in the record, among other issues).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. USCIS Policy and Procedures
As previously described in Section III.B.3 of this preamble, USCIS
signature policies have changed multiple times since 2010. USCIS
signature requirements have evolved over time, reflecting changes in
technologies and operational practices. This has led to varying
approaches regarding whether requests with deficient signatures may or
will be denied or if applicants are given an opportunity to correct the
deficient signature through a Request for Evidence as provided by 8 CFR
103.2(b)(8). As a result of these shifting approaches and recent
incidents that have drawn attention to invalid signatures, DHS believes
that addressing how USCIS handles deficient signatures solely through
policy guidance has not provided sufficient clarity for requestors and
USCIS adjudicating officers, nor has it fully addressed the challenges
described in this rule. Thus, DHS is using this rule to codify options
for handling deficient signatures and to provide an explanation of the
rationale behind this approach.
[[Page 25484]]
D. Purpose and Scope of This Rule
This rule responds to these problems by codifying the discretionary
authority to reject or deny benefit requests that contain invalid
signatures. DHS is providing USCIS adjudicators with this discretion
because, in some cases, denials may be more appropriate than
rejections. As discussed above in Section IV.A of this preamble, in
recent years, USCIS has seen an uptick in many invalid signatures that
are only able to be identified after a benefits request is accepted,
typically by the adjudicating USCIS officer and after the adjudicating
officer has expended time, effort, and resources on reviewing the
request, including the requestor's compliance with signature
requirements. DHS believes that this increase may be because denials
are not currently codified and rejection of the request under the
existing regulations, 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(A) (2025), is not
sufficient to discourage parties from exploiting USCIS limitations on
signature validation at intake.
Providing in DHS regulations that USCIS may deny the request and
retain the fee will better support USCIS' efforts to enforce signature
requirements and protect the integrity of the immigration benefit
system by discouraging requestors from engaging in signature practices
that clearly contravene USCIS signature requirements. Additionally, as
discussed above in Section IV.B of this preamble, USCIS officers must
often spend significant time and resources on applications that are not
rejected at intake but are ultimately found to contain an invalid
signature. A denial allows USCIS to retain the filing fees associated
with a denied request to cover the costs associated with processing the
request, including adjudication resources and costs.
At the same time, this rule provides USCIS adjudicators with
flexibility to simply reject the benefit request, which results in
refunding the fee. This may be appropriate if, for example, the officer
is able to identify the deficient signature quickly and before spending
significant time, resources, and effort on the request. Rejection may
also be more appropriate than a denial if the signature defect appears
to simply be a product of inadvertent error or omission, rather than
reflecting a pattern or practice of failing to comply with USCIS
signature requirements.
Finally, this rule does not change the existing regulations or
procedures for requests that USCIS identifies as lacking a valid
signature at intake. USCIS will continue to reject requests that are
identified at intake as lacking a proper signature and return the
request and the fee to the sender. At this time, USCIS believes that
this is the appropriate policy because requests that are identified at
intake as lacking a valid signature (e.g., missing or typewritten
signatures) are able to be quickly identified without significant costs
or resource expenditures by USCIS.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ As stated previously, USCIS does not refund the filing fee
when it rejects an appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled
to file an appeal, under 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(1). Additionally,
on April 29, 2026, DHS published an interim final rule titled USCIS
Immigration Fees and Related Procedures Required by H.R.1
Reconciliation Bill, 91 FR 22952 (Apr. 29, 2026). After that rule
takes effect, USCIS will not refund the filing fee when a filed
asylum application is rejected at intake or otherwise. See 91 FR
22956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Alternatives Considered
As an alternative to this rule, USCIS considered addressing the
above discussed problems by requiring all adjudicating officers to
immediately review each case they are assigned for the adequacy of the
signature on the request at the point he or she is assigned to
adjudicate the request. This procedure would catch invalid signatures
before much time has passed after the request was filed, and result in
a rejection before the request has been in the processing queue for
some time or the officer has expended effort on preliminary actions
such as scheduling biometrics submission.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ When there is not a processing backlog and the case will be
processed relatively soon, a prompt review of compliance with filing
requirements by USCIS adjudicators adds no efficiencies. This
alternative, implemented prospectively, would also not address the
over 11 million requests currently pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sort of analysis would be burdensome to perform given the
millions of filings that USCIS receives each year. In Fiscal Year (FY)
2025, USCIS processed 11,037,994 requests and 11,651,012 were pending
adjudication.\28\ DHS believes that requiring an initial triage of each
signature on each request by USCIS adjudicating officers would be
reversing the burden of properly signing a request from the requestor
to the USCIS officer.\29\ DHS appreciates that a requestor or a
beneficiary whose request is rejected or denied many months after being
submitted because of a signature may be frustrated by that rejection or
denial when their request was accepted, they received a receipt notice,
and they thought their request was being processed. Nevertheless, USCIS
should be able to rely on the requestor to sign their request and
assume they have properly done so without the need to pause work on
others' requests to conduct a preliminary review of each submission to
protect the requestor from their own oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ USCIS, Immigration and Citizenship Data, All USCIS
Application and Petition Form Types (Fiscal Year 2025, Quarter 4),
https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/immigration-and-citizenship-data (Sep. 30, 2025).
\29\ Additionally, as discussed above in Section IV.B of this
preamble, in some cases USCIS officers are only able to identify
invalid signatures during the adjudication process after the
requestor provides additional signed documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCIS has also considered, but has rejected, adopting a policy of
allowing requestors to ``cure'' any deficient signature that is
identified after the request was accepted for adjudication. At the
outset it is important to note that this rule does not change the
policy and practice of requesting evidence to support the validity of
any signature or authority of the signatory, or to request the
originally signed benefit request or document when a copy of the
request was filed. An officer may use the discretion provided by 8 CFR
103.2(b)(8) to request additional evidence from the requestor if the
officer is not certain whether a signature is valid, such as when he or
she questions if the individual who signed the request is authorized to
commit the requestor or if the signature is that of the printed name
above it. Likewise, if a copy of a benefit request was filed, an
officer may request the original as provided by 8 CFR 103.2(b)(5) if,
for example, the signature appears to be computer-generated or a stamp.
If the officer determines after these further inquiries that the
signature is valid, the officer will retain the request for
adjudication. If the officer determines that the signature is invalid,
then the officer can exercise the discretion provided by this rule to
reject or deny the request.
However, it is important to distinguish 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8), which
involves missing required initial evidence which can be remedied while
pending, with 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii), which addresses failure to meet
threshold submission requirements that result in the request not being
considered at all. While there is discretion under the regulations to
allow submission of required evidence post-submission, USCIS officers
have no discretion to ``cure'' an invalid signature or deficient
signature that would have rendered the filing invalid at the time of
submission.
Moreover, USCIS does not believe that amending the regulations to
cure a deficient signature would be appropriate. Many USCIS benefit
requests involve filing deadlines that
[[Page 25485]]
have major ramifications if missed.\30\ When USCIS assigns a receipt
date to a deficient filing that is subject to a statutory numerical
limit, that deficient filing precludes acceptance of and assignment of
a numerically limited visa or status to a valid filing. An ameliorative
policy would harm requestors who properly sign their filing because the
deficient filing gets in line ahead of others who filed properly,
receives an earlier priority date, or is granted access to a cap-
subject benefit.\31\ As stated previously, USCIS rejecting a request
allows for refiling of the benefit request when the error can be
corrected. However, where the operative priority date no longer exists
or has retrogressed and visa numbers are no longer available, the
requestor who used a copied or otherwise invalid signature may cause a
properly filed and signed request to be excluded. Individuals who were
not allowed to take advantage of an earlier filing or priority date or
missed out on a cap subject benefit suffer a concrete injury because
another individual, knowingly or otherwise, submitted a deficient
filing just to get a foot in the door first. Therefore, DHS is making
no changes to current regulations that provide no authority to ``cure''
a request that should have been rejected in the first instance for lack
of a valid signature because the case was never properly before the
agency. DHS has determined that rejection and denial are appropriate in
these instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, e.g., INA 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(CC) (To qualify
for a VAWA self-petition based on an abusive U.S. citizen, the
survivor spouse must file a self-petition during the marriage or
within two years of the termination of the marriage or the loss of
immigration status of the abuser); 20 CFR 656.30(a)(b)(1) (``An
approved permanent labor certification . . . expires if not filed in
support of a Form I-140 petition with the Department of Homeland
Security within 180 calendar days of the date the Department of
Labor granted the certification); 8 CFR 208.4(a)(2) (``One-year
filing deadline'' . . . an applicant has the burden of proving: . .
. that the [asylum] application has been filed within 1 year of the
date of the alien's arrival. . . .'').
\31\ USCIS has anecdotal evidence of practitioners who submit a
known bad signature so they can get their spot in the processing
line with their plan being to fix it later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Other Impacts of This Rule
DHS has also considered other impacts that codifying the discretion
for USCIS to issue denials would result in beyond USCIS retaining the
fee. DHS has determined that, for all but a very few requests,
retention of the fees paid for a denial and the provision of appeal
rights for a denial are the only differences between rejection and
denial. As stated previously, DHS realizes that many USCIS benefit
requests involve filing deadlines that have major ramifications if
missed, but the impacts regarding deadlines are generally the same if
the request is rejected or denied. If the relevant deadline has not
passed, the applicant can correct the deficiencies that resulted in the
denial, complete a new request, and submit it. Following rejection,
completing a new request may not be required, but the deadline impact
remains the same.
DHS acknowledges that certain benefits attend to a pending request,
such as eligibility for employment authorization,\32\ advance
parole,\33\ or protection from removal (deferred action for a bona-fide
or prima facie determination),\34\ and when the request is no longer
pending, those benefits are not available. However, absent a passed
deadline, lack of a visa, or inability to meet threshold filing
requirements, generally (with one exception discussed immediately
below) no law or regulation precludes an individual or entity that was
previously denied from submitting the same immigration benefit request
again. Thus, loss of the fee, gain of an appeal, completion of a new
form, and payment of a new fee following the denial are the only
differences between rejection and denial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 208.7(a)(1) and 8 CFR 274A.12(c)(9).
\33\ 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A).
\34\ 8 CFR 214.204(b)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS is making an exception in this rule for the Form N-600,
Application for Certificate of Citizenship, and Form N-600K,
Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section
322. An applicant seeking a certificate of citizenship may submit only
one Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, or Form N-
600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under
Section 322. If a Form N-600 or N-600K is denied and the appeal period
has passed, any subsequent applications are rejected. See 8 CFR
320.5(c), 322.5(c), and 341.5(e). Instead of filing a new application,
the applicant is required to file a motion under 8 CFR 103.5. Id.
Therefore, because a denial may have more of an impact than a rejection
on Forms N-600 and N-600K, DHS is exempting these applications from
this rule.
V. Regulatory Requirements
A. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The APA requires DHS to provide public notice and seek public
comment on substantive regulations. See 5 U.S.C. 553. The APA, however,
provides limited exceptions to this requirement for notice and public
comment, including for ``rules of agency organization, procedure or
practice.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
Not all rules that appear procedural are exempt from notice and
comment, and the distinction between substantive and procedural rules
is not a clear line. JEM Broad. Co., Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326
(D.C. Cir. 1994). However, almost all procedural rules affect
substantive rights to some degree and substantive rules are bounded and
defined by procedural dictates. Lamoille Valley R. Co. v. ICC, 711 F.2d
295, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1983). A procedural rule cannot alter the rights or
interests of parties, although it may alter the manner in which the
parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency. James V.
Hurson Assocs., Inc. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277, 280 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
The determining factor is whether the substantive effect is enough to
provide that notice and comment are needed to safeguard the policies
underlying the APA. Id.
Applying the exception to this rule, DHS first notes that its
current policy states that ``[i]f USCIS accepts a request for
adjudication and later determines that it has a deficient signature,
USCIS denies the request.'' \35\ With this IFR, DHS is incorporating
into its regulations procedures that have been in place since 2018 and
that are reflected in most USCIS forms: authority to deny, in
appropriate circumstances, benefit requests that contain an invalid
signature. Ensuring that DHS regulations are consistent with existing
USCIS policy and guidance ensures that the general public has access to
these policies through DHS regulations without needing to refer to un-
codified policy guidance. Moreover, as explained further below in
Section V.E of this preamble, DHS estimates that codifying this long-
standing authority in DHS's regulations will result in no additional
costs to impacted applicants nor the Federal government. Accordingly,
DHS believes that this procedural rule, which codifies USCIS policy,
does not impact requestors ``to a degree sufficient to implicate the
policy interests animating notice-and-comment rulemaking.'' See Elec.
Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1, 6
(DCCir.2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ As discussed above, that policy is also reflected in most
USCIS forms and applications. See Section III.B.3 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even absent the existing policy, DHS finds that the policy adopted
in this IFR to address deficient signatures, qualifies as procedural
because it ``does not change the substantive standard by
[[Page 25486]]
which [the agency] evaluates'' immigration benefits requests. JEM
Broadcasting, 22 F.3d at 327. Initially, DHS notes that signature
requirements, while intertwined with the eligibility requirements for
the relevant immigration benefits, are fundamentally procedural because
they establish the methods and procedures that USCIS and requestors
must follow when seeking a benefit, but they do not govern the
substance of the immigration benefit itself. Further, this IFR does not
impose any new or additional signature requirements; it merely codifies
USCIS discretion to reject or deny a request if USCIS determines that
the request contains an invalid signature during the adjudication
process. Moreover, as discussed above in Section IV.F of this preamble,
with two exceptions noted in this rule, there is no substantive
difference between a denial and a rejection on a requestor's future
eligibility for the benefit because no law or regulation precludes the
requestor from re-applying for the benefit after a denial.
DHS acknowledges that a denial, as compared to a rejection, may
impose an additional burden on requestors to complete a new request and
pay a new fee to re-apply after a denial. However, DHS finds that these
incidental burdens do not otherwise convert this procedural rule into a
substantive one for the APA's notice and comment purposes. See
Glickman, 229 F.3d at 281 (``[A]n otherwise-procedural rule does not
become a substantive one, for notice-and-comment purposes, simply
because it imposes a burden on regulated parties.''). Current
regulations already provide that ``[f]iling fees generally are non-
refundable regardless of the outcome of the benefit request, or how
much time the adjudication requires, and any decision to refund a fee
is at the discretion of USCIS.'' 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1). Therefore,
requestors have no right to the return of a fee. Moreover, requestors
can avoid denial, loss of a fee, and the need to reapply by simply
complying with USCIS signature requirements. Additionally, a requestor
whose request was denied for an invalid signature may appeal the denial
and, if successful, the requestor can avoid having to complete a new
request. Finally, as discussed immediately above, a denial does not,
itself, impact a requestor's substantive eligibility for the benefit if
the requestor submits a new request.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ DHS acknowledges that retaining a fee and requiring a
requestor to pay a new fee at the time of re-filing may impose an
additional financial hardship on certain requestors, however, DHS
notes that this rule does not change any fees for applications, nor
does it modify the criteria for fee waivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all these reasons, individually and collectively, DHS believes
that this rule qualifies as procedural and is therefore exempt from the
APA's notice and comment requirements. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Although
this rule is procedural, DHS nevertheless recognizes the value of
public input and is publishing this rule as an IFR with request for
comments.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) mandates that agencies conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency was required to
``publish [a] general notice of proposed rulemaking.'' 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
DHS has determined that this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment
requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553, and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule
will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with
foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. DHS will submit
this IFR to both houses of Congress and the Comptroller General before
the rule takes effect.
E. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive
Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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 both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 directs
agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to
comply with Federal regulations and provides that ``any new incremental
costs associated with 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 not designated this
rule a ``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This 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 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).
DHS is pursuing this regulatory action to clarify in its
regulations how the agency will process benefit requests submitted
without a valid signature. This IFR makes one change and one
clarification. First, the regulation codifies the authority for USCIS
to either reject or deny a benefit request that does not contain a
valid signature, recognizing that not every invalid signature will be
identified at intake. Second, the regulation gives USCIS the discretion
to determine which result (reject or deny) is appropriate based on the
facts and circumstances of each individual filing and situation,
allowing the agency the ability to take such facts and circumstances
into account. Current regulations do not expressly authorize any form
of ``cure'' for invalid signatures; this change should impose no
additional record keeping burden and should not change the outcome of
submitting a benefit request without a valid signature from the outcome
required by current law. This will not result in any additional costs
to USCIS because the costs of denying a benefit request would be
similar to the costs for rejecting that same request. Therefore, DHS
estimates that this clarification and change will not result in a
direct cost to USCIS or to an individual requestor.
[[Page 25487]]
USCIS adjudicators already issue denials based on deficient
signatures. This IFR will codify existing procedures, providing
clarification of this policy. Because USCIS is codifying existing
procedures, DHS expects that neither requestors nor USCIS will incur
additional costs due to this rule.
DHS assesses the costs and benefits of this rule against a baseline
scenario. For this rule, DHS assesses the impacts of the rule against
both the current baseline (status quo, or no action), and a pre-policy
baseline (the state of the world prior to the change in policy). Under
a no-action baseline, there are no expected costs of the IFR because
USCIS policy already states the agency may deny a form as a result of
deficient signatures; however, there are expected benefits and
potential transfers. Benefits of the IFR include improved clarity for
requestors regarding the risks of denial associated with deficient
signatures. The potential transfers associated with this IFR are
possible reductions in the number of forms received by USCIS, though we
do not have evidence to suggest any reduction would be significant.
The pre-policy baseline considers the impacts when the policy was
enacted and compares the effects of the IFR relative to no denials
during adjudication based on deficient signatures. Under the pre-policy
baseline, deficient signatures caught during adjudication would result
in rejection of the form and the return of fees. In the pre-policy
baseline, this results in costs to USCIS associated with adjudication
that were not covered by user fees since the fees were returned to the
requestor. The IFR would eliminate these costs to the Agency.\37\ If a
form is rejected, the requestor may be able to re-file the form if the
window of opportunity to submit remains open. In the pre-policy
baseline, the requestor would incur costs associated with refiling,
such as opportunity costs of time to resubmit the form.\38\ The
requestor would be able to use the returned fee(s) to cover the form
fees. However, the requestor would not be able to appeal a rejection.
Under this IFR, if a form is denied for deficient signatures, the
requestor can appeal the denial and challenge the invalid signature
determination. This can be of use in situations where the person's
place in line is important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ This is technically a negative cost to the agency, but to
provide a more easily understood analysis, we include this as a
benefit to the agency.
\38\ We do not attempt to estimate an expected opportunity cost
of time to file a form to USCIS given the large number of forms and
variance in the time burden to file a form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a denial results in the requestor being provided appeal
rights, and rejections may not be appealed, additional Forms I-290B,
Notice of Appeal or Motion, may be filed than before this rule if more
requests are denied, all else staying the same. That may result in some
denied requestors incurring costs associated with Form I-290B, while
had they been rejected, they would only have to resubmit their rejected
request. The fees associated with filing Form I-290B are transfers from
the requestor to USCIS to cover the cost of adjudicating the form; the
requestor will incur opportunity costs of time associated with the
estimated 1.184 hours to submit Form I-290B.\39\ However, requestors
may also resubmit a denied request and forgo an appeal.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The general filing fee for Form I-290B, unless excepted, is
$800. See G-1055, Fee Schedule (Feb. 23, 2026 Edition), I-290B,
Notice of Appeal or Motion at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/g-1055.pdf.
\40\ 40 Aside from Forms N-600 and N-600K as described above in
Section IV.F of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the form has entered the adjudication process, it is expected
that this IFR will not change how long it takes an officer to realize
the form has an invalid or deficient signature. Therefore, this IFR is
neither expected to affect the timing of whether a form would be denied
or rejected for a deficient signature, nor expected to impact the
window of opportunity for a requestor to resubmit a form. Since USCIS
does not expect this IFR to affect the timing of when a form is
rejected or denied for a deficient signature, we do not expect this IFR
will affect the period of time a requestor is considered to have a
pending request. Therefore, this IFR is not expected to affect the
benefits to the requestors that attend from a pending request, such as
eligibility for employment authorization, advance parole, or protection
from removal.
Table 1 provides a summary of impacts due to this rule (the no
action baseline) compared to the impacts of the policy (the pre-policy
baseline).
Table 1--Summary of Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison Costs Transfers Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action Baseline vs. Interim Final None................... Clarity for requestors USCIS could receive
Rule. regarding signature fewer forms for
requirements. adjudication.
Pre-Policy Baseline vs. Interim Final Denials can be appealed Encourages properly USCIS could receive
Rule. or re-submitted. There signed applications. fewer resubmitted
is an opportunity cost Covers adjudication forms.
of time to the costs of forms that Form fees associated
requestor to submit contain deficient with Form I-290B,
either an appeal or to signatures. Notice of Appeal or
submit a new form; Motion.
fees would be required Form fees if the
for both. requestor chooses to
submit a new form.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The denials that occur because of the existing procedure codified
in this rule will be due to decisions made by an adjudicator that has
reviewed a benefit request; and, USCIS fees are designed to cover the
costs to the agency of processing benefit requests, including
adjudication. Table 2 shows the total number of denials for signature
reasons for FY 2021 to FY 2025. As discussed, Table 2 shows that the
number of denials based on issues with the signature have increased
significantly in recent years. The number of denials for signature
reasons in the future are estimated to be around 1,200 applications
annually based on historical data.
Table 2--The Annual Number of Denials for Signature Reasons
[FY 2021-FY 2025]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021........................................................... 300
2022........................................................... 436
2023........................................................... 727
2024........................................................... 1,545
2025........................................................... 2,953
[[Page 25488]]
5-Year Annual Average.......................................... 1,192
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Performance and Quality, NPD, ECHO,
queried 1/2026, PAER0020097.
It is possible that this IFR will result in a decrease in the
number of forms filed with a deficient signature. If this is the case,
it means either that the agency is receiving fewer forms for
adjudication, or that publication of this IFR provided sufficient
notice and information about factors USCIS considers concerning
signature requirements and the potential consequences of invalid
signatures. The former is a reduction in transfers between requestors
and USCIS; the latter is an increase in the benefits to requestors.
However, the agency does not have evidence to support this hypothesis.
Form instructions already include the following:
Signature. You (or your signing authority) must properly
complete your application. USCIS will not accept a stamped or
typewritten name in place of any signature on this application. If
you are under 14 years of age, your parent or legal guardian may
sign the application on your behalf. A legal guardian may also sign
for a mentally incompetent person. If your application is not
signed, or if the signature is not valid, we will reject your
application. See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(A). If USCIS accepts a
request for adjudication and determines that it has a deficient
signature, USCIS may deny the request.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ This is the standard form instruction that USCIS has
adopted for use across all forms. However, as previously noted, one
or more USCIS forms include form instructions providing that USCIS
will deny the request. See Section III.B.3 of this preamble, n. 17.
While requestors are expected to follow the instructions on the
forms they file, DHS notes that requestors are informed of the risk of
lost fees as a result of deficient signatures. Therefore, we expect the
number of forms received will not change in a meaningful way as a
result of this rule.
DHS acknowledges that long processing backlogs exist for almost all
USCIS benefit requests, and, as a result of such backlogs, an invalid
signature may not be detected for months or years after the request was
submitted. Such a requestor may not be able to correct his or her
signature and resubmit the benefit request because the visa is no
longer available, a deadline has passed, or an age parameter has been
exceeded. For example, because of annual limits on U nonimmigrant
visas, USCIS may not substantively review a filed Form I-918, Petition
for U Nonimmigrant Status, for months or years after intake and, if
such a petition is rejected and resubmitted, it will be further down
the processing queue because of backlogs, based on a deficient
signature that was not caught at intake. Nevertheless, a benefit
requestor bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility at the time of
filing, which includes properly completing the benefit request. 8 CFR
103.2(b)(1). A valid signature has always been required for the proper
completion of a benefit request, and that foundational element of
eligibility is not changing with this IFR. 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7).
Simultaneously, the policy on what is a valid or invalid signature is
not changing with this rule.
F. Executive Order 13132
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the Federal 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
Executive Order 13132, DHS has determined that this rule does not have
sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism summary impact statement.
G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
H. 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) \42\ establish the policies
and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The Instruction Manual contains DHS's procedures for
implementing NEPA and was issued on November 6, 2014, https://www.dhs.gov/ocrso/eed/epb/nepa (last updated July 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 or environmental
impact statement.\43\ The Instruction Manual, Appendix A lists the DHS
Categorical Exclusions.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 4336e(1).
\44\ 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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Instruction Manual at V.B(2)(a) through (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule is limited to amending existing DHS regulations governing
the submission of benefits requests. It provides that USCIS may, in its
discretion, reject or deny a request that lacks a valid signature. This
rule also standardizes USCIS policy and clarifies USCIS practices
relating to the rejection or denial of benefit requests that do not
meet regulatory requirements to ensure clarity for stakeholders. DHS
has reviewed this 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 rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this 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. Therefore, the proposed regulatory amendments are categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, all Departments are required
to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. USCIS anticipates that no collections of
information will be directly impacted by this rule. Signatures are
currently required for all submitted collections of information and
instructions detailing the requirements for valid signatures along with
the Agency's remedies for signatures deemed not valid will support the
rulemaking. To the extent that form instructions must be revised
[[Page 25489]]
due to the changes in this rule, while not changing the information
collection burden, USCIS will prepare and submit a non-substantive
change worksheet for the affected forms to OMB.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Freedom of information, Immigration, Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Accordingly, DHS is amending part 103 of chapter I of title 8 of
the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
PART 103--IMMIGRANT BENEFITS; BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS: AVAILABILITY
OF RECORDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304,
1356, 1356b, 1372; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Public Law 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.
Subpart A--Applying for Benefits, Surety Bonds, Fees
0
2. Amend section 103.2 by revising paragraph (a)(7)(ii)(A) to read as
follows:
Sec. 103.2 Submission and adjudication of benefit requests.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Signed with valid signature.
(1) Every form, benefit request, or other document that requires a
signature must be submitted with a valid signature.
(2) If USCIS accepts a benefit request and determines later that
the request was not submitted with a valid signature, USCIS may reject
or deny the request, except
(3) An Application for Certificate of Citizenship or Application
for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 of the
INA filed by an applicant seeking a certificate of citizenship may only
be rejected if the only deficiency with the request is that it was not
submitted with a valid signature;
* * * * *
Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2026-09289 Filed 5-8-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P