Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 123 (Monday, June 29, 2026)

[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39248-39332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-13057]

[[Page 39247]]

Vol. 91

Monday,

No. 123

June 29, 2026

Part IV

Department of Homeland Security

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

8 CFR Part 264

Alien Registration Form and Evidence of Registration; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 39248]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Part 264

[CIS No. 2810-25; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0004]
RIN 1615-AC96

Alien Registration Form and Evidence of Registration

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department
of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Final rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On March 12, 2025, DHS issued an interim final rule (IFR) with
request for comments amending DHS regulations to designate a new
registration form for aliens to comply with statutory alien
registration and fingerprinting provisions. Unregistered aliens may use
this general registration form to satisfy their statutory obligations.
This final rule responds to public comments, amends DHS regulations to
adjust the lists of forms and processes that may serve as registration
forms and evidence of alien registration, and seeks comments on other
potential changes to the regulations relating to alien registration and
fingerprinting.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 29, 2026.
Comment period for solicited comments: Comments on the other
potential changes relating to alien registration and fingerprinting
described in section V, Request for Comments, of this preamble must be
submitted on or before August 28, 2026.

ADDRESSES: Comment period for solicited additional comments: You may
submit comments on the specific issues identified in section V, Request
for Comments, of this preamble via Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov, to DHS Docket Number USCIS-2025-0004.
Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.
Comments submitted in a manner other than via https://www.regulations.gov, including emails or letters sent to the
Department's officials, will not be considered and may not receive a
response from the Department. Please note that the Department cannot
accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition,
the Department cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital
media storage, such as CDs, DVDs, or USB drives. The Department is not
accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your
comment by using https://www.regulations.gov, please contact John R.
Pfirrmann-Powell, Acting Chief, 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: Branch Chief, Residence and
Admissibility Branch, Residence and Naturalization Division, Office of
Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 5900
Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000
(not a toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
A. Basis and Purpose
B. Legal Authority
C. Summary of the Changes From the Interim Final Rule to the
Final Rule
D. Request for Comments on Potential Future Changes
E. Severability
F. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
A. Alien Registration Requirements of the Immigration and
Nationality Act
B. Regulations Prior to the 2025 IFR
C. The March 2025 IFR
III. Response to Public Comments on the IFR
A. Overview of Comments on the IFR
B. Support for the IFR
C. Opposition to the Rule and Policy Objections
1. General Negative Impacts
2. Impact on Specific Populations
3. Impact on Aliens' Legal Services
4. Impact on the Immigration System and Government Operations
5. Impact on Communities and Public Safety
D. Legal Issues and Statutory Provisions
1. General Legal Authority and Legality of the IFR
2. Legal Basis for the IFR
3. Constitutional Concerns Related to the IFR
4. The IFR's Compliance With International Law
E. Applicability
1. General Applicability
2. Applicability to Minors
3. Applicability to Canadian Citizens
4. Applicability to Aliens Seeking Humanitarian Relief
5. Applicability to Other Immigrant Populations
F. Specific Rule Provisions
1. Regulatory Structure of 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b)
2. Submission Process
3. Proof of Registration
4. Biometrics Process
5. Filing Fee
6. Registration Validity
G. Other Issues Relating to the Rule
1. Confidentiality/Privacy of Registration and Fingerprinting
2. Implementation Timeline
3. Other Issues Related to the Rule
H. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
1. Administrative Procedure Act
2. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Costs, and Benefits (E.O. 12866
and E.O. 13563)
3. Other Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
I. Out of Scope
1. Registration Requirements Under Pre-Existing Statute and
Regulation
2. Enforcement of Criminal Provisions
3. Other Out of Scope (Not Related to Registration Requirements)
IV. Additional Changes in the Final Rule
A. Changes to the Prescribed Registration Forms in 8 CFR
264.1(a)
1. Removing Prescribed Registration Forms
2. Updating Prescribed Registration Form Names, Numbers, and
Related Classes
B. Changes to Forms Constitute Evidence of Registration in 8 CFR
264.1(b)
1. Updating Form I-94 as Evidence of Registration
2. Updating Forms Name and Numbers Related to Bordering Crossing
Cards
3. Adding Forms that Constitute Evidence of Registration
4. Remove ``Form'' in 8 CFR 264.1(b)
C. Changes to Fingerprint Waiver in 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1)
D. Updates to 8 CFR 264.1(g)
E. Changes to Temporary Evidence of Permanent Resident Status in
8 CFR 264.5(h)
F. Changes to Related to the Application for a Nonimmigrant
Arrival-Departure Record in 8 CFR 264.6
V. Request for Comments
A. Prescribe Additional Registration Forms To Align With DHS
Information Collections and Ensure Screening and Vetting to a
Uniform Baseline
B. Ensuring That Evidence of Registration Is Provided to Aliens
Who Have Registered and Been Screened and Vetted to a Uniform
Baseline
1. Eliminate Certain Prescribed Evidence of Alien Registration
Forms From 8 CFR 264.1(b)
2. Updates to the Classes of Aliens for Whom a Form I-94
Constitutes Evidence of Registration Under 8 CFR 264.1(b)
C. Issuance of Evidence of Registration Prior to Adjudication of
Related Benefit Request
D. Updating Outdated Waivers of Biometrics Requirement for
Certain Nonimmigrants
1. Eliminate or Replace the Biometrics Waiver for Certain
Nonimmigrant Aliens
2. Clarify ``Not Previously Fingerprinted'' in 8 CFR 264.1(e)(2)
and (3)
E. Requirement To Apply for Replace Permanent Resident Card When
Alien Reaches 14 Years Old
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
1. Procedural Rule Exception
2. Delayed Effective Date
B. Executive Order 12866, 13563
1. Summary
2. Affected Population

[[Page 39249]]

3. Costs
4. Benefits
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(Congressional Review Act)
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
I. Family Assessment
J. National Environmental Policy Act
K. Paperwork Reduction Act

Table of Abbreviations

APA--Administrative Procedure Act
ADIT--Alien Documentation Identification and Telecommunication
ARR--Alien Registration Requirement
ASC--USCIS Application Support Center
BCC--Border Crossing Card
BIA--Board of Immigration Appeals
CBP--U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CPI-U--Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
CRCL--DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
DACA--Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
DHS--Department of Homeland Security
DOJ--U.S. Department of Justice
DOL--U.S. Department of Labor
EAD--Employment Authorization Document
ELIS--Electronic Immigration System
E.O.--Executive Order
EOIR--Executive Office for Immigration Review
EWI--Entered Without Inspection
FAM--Foreign Affairs Manual
FBI--Federal Bureau of Investigation
FISMA--Federal Information Security Modernization Act
FOIA--Freedom of Information Act
FR--Federal Register
HHS--U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
HSA--Homeland Security Act
ICE--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ID--Identification Card
IFR--Interim Final Rule
IIRIRA--Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
INA--Immigration and Nationality Act
INS--Immigration and Naturalization Service
IRCA--Immigration Reform and Control Act
IT--Information Technology
LPR--Lawful Permanent Resident
NATO--North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NEPA--National Environment Policy Act
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NSEERS--National Security Entry-Exit Registration System
NTA--Notice to Appear
OHSS--Office of Homeland Security Statistics
OIRA--Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
ORR--Office of Refugee Resettlement
PIA--Privacy Impact Assessment
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
Pub. L.--Public Law
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SAW--Special Agricultural Worker
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Secretary--Secretary of Homeland Security
SIJ--Special Immigrant Juvenile
SORN--System of Record Notice
SSN--Social Security Number
State--U.S. Department of State
TPS--Temporary Protected Status
TVPA--Trafficking Victims Protection Act
TVPRA--William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008
TTP--Trusted Traveler Programs
UAC--Unaccompanied Alien Child
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.--United States Code
USCIS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
VAWA--Violence Against Women Act
VTVPA--Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act

Public Participation

Instructions for providing comments are in the ADDRESSES caption.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the specific
issues identified in section V, Request for Comments, of this preamble
by submitting relevant written data, views, comments, and arguments by
the deadline stated in the DATES caption. To provide the most
assistance to DHS, comments should explain the reason for any
recommendation and include data, information, or authority that
supports the recommended course of action. Comments must be submitted
in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments
submitted in a manner other than pursuant to the instructions,
including emails or letters sent to the Department's officials, will
not be considered comments on the rule and may not receive a response
from the Department.
Privacy: You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal
information that you provide in any public comment submission you make
to the Department. The Department may withhold information provided in
comments from public viewing that they determine may impact the privacy
of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please
read the Privacy and Security Notice at https://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket and to read background documents
or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov, referencing
DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0004. You may also sign up for email alerts
on the online docket to be notified when additional documents are added
to the docket.

I. Executive Summary

A. Basis and Purpose

On March 12, 2025, DHS issued an IFR with request for comments. See
90 FR 11793 (Mar. 12, 2025). The IFR was effective on April 11, 2025.
The IFR amended DHS regulations to designate a new registration form
for aliens to comply with the statutory alien registration and
fingerprinting provision. The IFR partially implemented section 7 of
the Executive Order (E.O.) 14159, Protecting the American People
Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025), which
directed the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), among other
things, to take appropriate action to ensure that all previously
unregistered aliens in the United States comply with the statutory
registration requirements.
After careful consideration of the public comments submitted in
connection with the IFR, DHS is finalizing the IFR and making
additional procedural and technical modifications to the regulatory
text at 8 CFR 264.1 in response to the public comments. The rationale
for the changes provided to 8 CFR 264.1 in the IFR and the reasoning
provided in the IFR's preamble remain valid, except as distinguished in
this final rule.
The purpose of this final rule remains the same as articulated
throughout the IFR: to improve the registration outcomes for certain
groups of aliens to better ensure that all previously unregistered
aliens in the United States comply with the statutory requirements in
sections 261 through 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306. The IFR filled a gap in the DHS regulatory
regime by prescribing a registration form available to all aliens
regardless of their status and corresponding evidence as proof of that
registration. This final rule adopts the IFR as final. The rule
improves DHS law enforcement efficacy, making it easier and safer for
DHS to enforce the law by providing more comprehensive information
about the location of aliens in the United States. Additionally,
increased compliance with fingerprinting requirements will provide DHS
with additional information about an alien's criminal record, including
whether the alien is a known or suspected terrorist.
The final rule also makes additional technical corrections in the
existing regulations to replace the name, description, and number of
certain forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) that have evolved or changed
over time, eliminates references to certain long-

[[Page 39250]]

expired forms that aliens cannot use to register, and prescribes some
additional forms as evidence of registration. The final rule also makes
technical amendments and corrections to the fingerprinting waiver
provisions of 8 CFR 264.1(e) and 8 CFR 264.1(g) related to the
registration requirement of aliens who turn 14 years, as well as the
provisions of 8 CFR 264.5(h) relating to temporary evidence of
registration and lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. Finally, the
rule makes technical corrections to 8 CFR 264.6. These changes reduce
confusion and improve the usability of the revised provisions. These
technical amendments and corrections do not substantively impact the
regulated public.

B. Legal Authority

The authority for the Secretary to issue this final rule is found
in various provisions of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., including
section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the
Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration laws and establish
such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out such
authority. The authority is furthermore found in sections 262 through
266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1306, which govern the
registration of aliens and authorizes the Secretary to prepare forms
for registration and fingerprinting of aliens. Section 102(a)(3) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), 6 U.S.C. 112(a)(3), vests all
functions of all DHS officers, employees, and organizational units in
the Secretary. See also 6 U.S.C. 202, 271; INA sec. 214(a)(1), 8 U.S.C.
1184(a)(1).

C. Summary of the Changes From the Interim Final Rule to the Final Rule

Following careful consideration of the public comments received in
response to the IFR, this final rule makes additional changes to DHS's
registration and fingerprinting regulations. DHS is not seeking public
comments on these changes. DHS is taking the following actions in this
final rule:
Adopting the changes to 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) made by the
IFR as final. DHS is adopting as final the IFR's amendments to 8 CFR
264.1(a) and (b) without change. The IFR added to the list of
prescribed registration forms in the table of 8 CFR 264.1(a) a
reference to the Form G-325R, Biographic Information (Registration).
The IFR also added to the list of evidence of registration in the table
of 8 CFR 264.1(b) the USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration.
Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(a) by removing the
entries related to the I-67, Inspection Record--Hungarian refugees (Act
of July 25, 1958), I-691, Notice of Approval for Status as a Temporary
Resident, and I-700, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident.
Revising the tables in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) by updating
the Arrival-Departure Record Form Number and Class. In 8 CFR 264.1(a)
and (b), DHS is adding Form I-94A/94W to the item for the Form I-94.
DHS is also removing in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) the entry referring to
the class of ``aliens whose claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot
be verified, they having satisfactorily established residence in the
United States since prior to July 1, 1924.''
Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(a) by updating the entry
relating to Form I-181, Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful
Permanent Residence. In 8 CFR 264.1(a), DHS is revising the class to
``aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
during a temporary visit abroad admitted without a visa under 8 CFR
211.1(b).''
Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(a) by updating the entry
relating to Form I-485 and the Adjustment of Status Form Title. In 8
CFR 264.1(a), DHS is revising the form title for Form I-485 to
``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, or its
predecessor or successor form.''
Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(a) by updating the form
title and class of alien of the Form I-590. In 8 CFR 264.1(a), DHS is
revising the form title and class of alien of Form I-590 to read as
``Form I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee or its
successor form, or its predecessor form--Applicants under section 207
of the INA and Refugee-escapees paroled pursuant to section 1 of the
Act of July 14, 1960.''
Revising the table of 8 CFR 264.1(a) by updating the entry
relating to Form I-817, Application for Voluntary Departure under the
Family Unity Program. In 8 CFR 264.1(a), DHS is revising the form title
of Form I-817 to ``Application for Family Unity Benefits or its
successor form, or its predecessor form.''
Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b) by removing the
references to Form I-185, Nonresident Alien Canadian Border Crossing
Card, and Form I-186, Nonresident Alien Mexican Border Crossing Card.
DHS is removing the form numbers and titles of the Canadian Border
Crossing Card (BCC) and the Mexican BCC and adding Form DSP-150, B-1/B-
2 Visa and Border Crossing Card or its successor form, or its
predecessor form in 8 CFR 264.1(b).
Amending the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b) by adding Form I-860,
Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, and Form I-871, Notice of
Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order and the class of aliens for
each form. DHS is adding ``Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited
Removal'' with the class of aliens who have been determined to be
inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or (7) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended, and ordered removed under section
235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and
``Form I-871, Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order'' with
the class of aliens who reentered the United States illegally and whose
prior order of removal has been reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, as evidence of
registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b).
Amending the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b) by removing ``Form''
from the entry relating to the I-862, Notice to Appear, and the I-863,
Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge.
Amending the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b) by adding ``CBP-
approved document or its electronic equivalent for the Trusted Traveler
Programs NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, and Global Entry--Aliens who were last
admitted to the United States through NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, or Global
Entry facilitated processing.''
Amending 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) relating to fingerprint waiver.
DHS is removing the language waiving the fingerprinting requirements
for ``nonimmigrant aliens admitted as foreign government officials and
employees; international organization representatives, officers and
employees'' from 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) and adding reference to 22 CFR
41.26(a)(2) and section 101(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act to describe aliens who are holders of diplomatic visas.
Additionally, DHS is also adding language to clarify that the
attendants, servants, or personal employees of North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) representatives, officers, and employees (NATO-7
nonimmigrants) are not themselves eligible for the waiver because they
are not and have never been classified as NATO representatives,
officers, or employees.
Restructuring paragraph (e) of 8 CFR 264.1 to separate the
three fingerprint waivers into three paragraphs and adding ``she'' or
``her'' where appropriate.
Amending 8 CFR 264.1(g) to add ``or by law'' after ``under
the Act.''

[[Page 39251]]

Amending paragraph (g)(1) of 8 CFR 264.1(g) to clarify
that an LPR who reaches 14 years old must apply for registration in
accordance with the applicable form instructions and with the fee
specified in 8 CFR 106.2 to replace a permanent residence card within
30 days of the alien's return to the United States; to remove the
requirement of a physical photograph when applying for registration; to
remove ``if a lawful permanent resident of the United States in the
second sentence of the provision; and to add ``she'' or ``her'' where
appropriate.
Amending 8 CFR 264.5(h) to state that USCIS may issue
temporary evidence of registration and LPR status to an alien who is a
``lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident alien who
has properly filed an application for a replacement permanent resident
card or for naturalization, petitioned for the removal of the
conditions on his or her residence using the form prescribed by USCIS,
or as otherwise determined by USCIS in accordance with the form
instructions.'' In 8 CFR 264.5(h), DHS is also clarifying that the
temporary evidence of registration placed by USCIS in the alien's
passport does not need to be surrendered to USCIS by the alien when the
alien is issued a new Form I-551.
Amending 8 CFR 264.6 related to the application for a
nonimmigrant arrival-departure record. DHS is amending regulations in 8
CFR 264.6 by making technical editorial updates to remove obsolete
regulatory references.
While DHS did not impose a fee as part of the IFR, DHS requested
comments on adding a potential biometric services fee per registrant of
$30. After careful consideration of the comments received, DHS has
determined that it will not, at this time, impose a biometric services
fee, but may impose an application or biometric services fee in the
future.
Additionally, within the IFR, DHS requested comments on the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved Form G-325R, Biographic
Information (Registration), for purposes of the 60-day Federal Register
Notice under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. See 90 FR 11793, 11799 (Mar. 12, 2025). The comment period for
purposes of the PRA ended on May 12, 2025. Any public comment received
on Form G-325R as a result of the IFR has been responded to in the 30-
day Federal Register Notice published for purposes of obtaining OMB
approval of Form G-325R \1\ on August 11, 2025, at 90 FR 38655. The
information collection instrument with instructions and additional
supporting documents, including responses to comments submitted as part
of the 60-day Federal Register Notice, can be accessed by visiting the
Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID number USCIS-2025-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ DHS had requested, and OMB approved, Form G-325R on an
emergency review basis pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR
1320.13, on March 5, 2025. See Notice of Action for OMB Control
Number 1615-0166 (Mar. 5, 2025), https://www.reginfo.gov. The
information collection was submitted to OMB on August 22, 2025 and
is pending OMB approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Request for Comments on Potential Future Changes

In section V of this preamble, DHS solicits comments on certain
potential amendments throughout the existing regulation in 8 CFR part
264 to improve usability and reduce the need for conforming changes in
future rules. Potential future amendments for which DHS is seeking
comments include:
Prescribing additional registration forms, including but
not limited to Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident
Card, Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Status, and Form I-589,
Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.
Eliminating certain prescribed evidence of Alien
Registration forms from 8 CFR 264.1(b), such as Form I-766, Employment
Authorization Document;
Updating the classes of aliens for whom Form I-94
constitutes evidence of Registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b).
Issuing evidence of registration prior to the adjudication
of related benefit requests.
Updating and clarifying edits related to the waiver of
fingerprinting requirements in 8 CFR 264.1(e).

E. Severability

In issuing this final rule, it is DHS's intention that the rule's
various provisions be considered severable from one another to the
greatest extent possible. If a court of competent jurisdiction were to
hold that any of the provisions amended were not to be applied to a
particular category of individuals or circumstances, DHS would intend
for the court to leave the remainder of the rule in place with respect
to all covered persons and circumstances. DHS's overarching goal is to
improve the registration outcomes of aliens not previously registered
consistent with the provisions of the INA.

F. Benefits and Costs

This rule makes available another method for aliens to comply with
the alien registration requirements of the INA. The rule does not
impose new registration or fingerprinting obligations separate from the
obligations already contained in the INA. The rule provides benefits by
providing a general registration option to allow unregistered aliens to
comply with their registration requirements and improve DHS
enforcement. DHS recognizes that there are costs to aliens to comply
with registration requirements in the INA. Because this rule does not
impose new alien registration or biometric obligations separate from
those already contained in the INA, the costs are inherent to
compliance with the statute and are not a result of this rule. This
rule may result in increased compliance costs for aliens that use this
option. Costs to aliens may include the time to complete and file a
registration form, as well as time spent traveling to an ASC,
submitting fingerprints, and record retention. There is currently no
fee for applicants to file the form or to submit biometrics. This rule
may increase costs to DHS from additional alien registrations resulting
from this rule. DHS estimates current registration and biometrics
submissions under this rule have cost aliens approximately $21.3
million, as of May 7, 2026. The estimated burden to the Agency is $0.6
million from collecting and processing biometrics. DHS has considered
the possibility that this rule, perhaps in combination with other
policies, could have some indirect effects, such as increased legal
costs for those who choose to seek legal assistance and potential
workforce impacts. We do not have sufficient information to quantify
these effects.Table 1 provides a summary of the regulatory changes and
the estimated costs and benefits associated with the expected impacts.

[[Page 39252]]

Table 1--Summary of Estimated Impacts of the Rule, FY 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the change to provision Expected impact of the rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend existing regulations to make Quantitative:
available another method for aliens Benefits
to comply with the alien None.
registration requirements of the Costs
INA. $21.3 million to aliens
in registration costs.
$0.6 million to USCIS in
biometric costs.
Qualitative:
Benefits
The rule is expected
to result in increased alien
registrations that are
consistent with provisions of
the INA.
Costs
Technical changes are
expected to have a de minimis
effect on costs.
Indirect costs of the
rule may include increased
legal costs for those who
choose to seek legal
assistance and potential
workforce impacts. Public
comments identified these and
other potential indirect
effects, which are difficult
to quantify.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis.

II. Background

A. Alien Registration Requirements of the Immigration and Nationality
Act

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act,
was enacted into law on June 28, 1940.\2\ The Smith Act generally
required all aliens in the country beyond 30 days to apply to register
and to be fingerprinted. Congress later incorporated these
requirements, as amended, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952, Public Law 82-414, 66 Stat. 163. The registration and
fingerprinting requirements currently appear, as amended, in part VII
of subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 8, United States Code (8 U.S.C.
1301 through 1306). Throughout this preamble, we refer to such
requirements as the alien registration requirements or the alien
registration requirements of the INA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See Public Law 76-670, 54 Stat. 670 (June 28, 1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the alien registration requirements of the INA, with limited
exceptions (e.g., for visa holders who have already been registered and
fingerprinted (through their application for a visa) and A and G visa
holders),\3\ all aliens above the age of 14 who remain in the United
States for 30 days or longer must apply for registration and be
fingerprinted before the expiration of 30 days. See INA sec. 262(a), 8
U.S.C. 1302(a). Similarly, parents and legal guardians must ensure that
their children below the age of 14 are registered. See INA sec. 262(b),
8 U.S.C. 1302(b). Within 30 days of reaching his or her 14th birthday,
the alien child must ``apply in person for registration and to be
fingerprinted.'' Id. The Secretary may, in his discretion and on the
basis of reciprocity pursuant to such regulations as he may prescribe,
waive the requirement of fingerprinting specified in section 262(a) and
(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(a) and (b), in the case of any
nonimmigrant. See INA sec. 262(c), 8 U.S.C. 1302(c). As discussed in
the next section, the Secretary has exercised this discretion with
respect to certain nonimmigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See INA sec. 221(b), 8 U.S.C. 1201(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An alien's willful failure or refusal to apply to register or to be
fingerprinted is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment
for up to 6 months, or both.\4\ The same applies to an alien's parent
or legal guardian's willful failure or refusal to register. See INA sec
266(a), 8 U.S.C. 1306(a). Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of
an alien who files a registration application ``containing statements
known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure
registration of himself or through another person by fraud'' is subject
to criminal prosecution. See INA sec. 266(c), 8 U.S.C. 1306(c). See,
e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1001, 1546. A conviction for fraudulent registration
constitutes a ground of removal under section 237(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See INA sec. 266(a), 8 U.S.C. 1306(a). 8 U.S.C 1306(a)
refers to a fine of up to $1,000, but the general fine provisions of
18 U.S.C. 3571 supersede that language. As a class B misdemeanor,
the applicable fine is not more than $5,000. See 18 U.S.C.
3559(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Secretary has authority to ``prepare forms for the registration
and fingerprinting of aliens,'' which ``shall contain inquiries with
respect to (1) the date and place of entry of the alien into the United
States; (2) activities in which he has been and intends to be engaged;
(3) the length of time he expects to remain in the United States; (4)
the police and criminal record, if any, of such alien; and (5) such
additional matters as may be prescribed.'' See INA sec. 264(a), 8
U.S.C. 1304(a). The Secretary also has authority to prescribe ``special
regulations and forms for the registration and fingerprinting of''
certain classes of aliens, including ``aliens of any other class not
lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence,''
``[n]otwithstanding the provisions of'' sections 261 and 262 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1301 and 1302. See INA sec. 263(a), 8 U.S.C. 1303(a).
Although this rule is fully consistent with sections 261 and 262 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1301 and 1302 and related authority, the Secretary also
invokes section 263(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1303(a) to the extent
necessary to support this rulemaking.
Every alien in the United States who has been registered and
fingerprinted under the alien registration requirements of the INA must
``be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien
registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as
shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the [Secretary].'' \5\
Every registered alien 18 years of age and over must at all times carry
and have in his or her personal possession any certificate of alien
registration or alien registration receipt card. Noncompliance is a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for
not more than 30 days, or both. See INA sec. 266(b), 8

[[Page 39253]]

U.S.C. 1306(b); 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(8), 3571(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See INA sec. 264(d), 8 U.S.C. 1304(d). As of March 1, 2003,
in accordance with section 1517 of title XV of the HSA, Public Law
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, any reference to the Attorney General in a
provision of the INA describing functions that were transferred from
the Attorney General or other DOJ official to DHS by the HSA ``shall
be deemed to refer to the Secretary'' of Homeland Security. 6 U.S.C.
557 (2003) (codifying HSA, title XV, sec. 1517); 6 U.S.C. 542 note;
8 U.S.C. 1551 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, each alien required to be registered under the alien
registration requirements of the INA who is within the United States
must notify DHS in writing of each change of address and new address
within 10 days from the date of such change and provide such additional
information as the Secretary may require by regulation. See INA sec.
265(a), 8 U.S.C. 1305(a). Noncompliance is a misdemeanor punishable by
a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or
both. In addition, any alien who has failed to comply with the change-
of-address notification requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1305 is removable
unless the alien establishes that such failure was reasonably excusable
or was not willful. See INA sec. 237(a)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(A).

B. Regulations Prior to the 2025 IFR

Longstanding regulations provide that within 30 days after reaching
the age of 14 years old, an alien in the United States who is not
exempt from alien registration must apply for registration and
fingerprinting, unless fingerprinting is waived under 8 CFR
264.1(e),\6\ in accordance with applicable form instructions. See 8 CFR
264.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ DHS may waive fingerprinting requirements for some
nonimmigrants. Such waivers are in the DHS's discretion, on the
basis of reciprocity, and pursuant to such DHS regulations. See INA
sec. 262(c), 8 U.S.C. 1302(c). DHS regulations waive fingerprinting
requirements for some nonimmigrants, which covers various diplomatic
and similar categories; other nonimmigrant aliens, while they
maintain nonimmigrant status, who are nationals of countries which
do not require fingerprinting of U.S. citizens, temporarily residing
therein; and nonimmigrants who depart from the United States within
1 year of admission. See 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) and (2). A nonimmigrant
who fails to maintain his or her nonimmigrant status must apply to
be fingerprinted at once upon failing to maintain nonimmigrant
status. See 8 CFR 264.1(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If such alien is an LPR of the United States and is temporarily
absent from the United States when he or she reaches the age of 14, the
alien must apply for registration and provide a photograph within 30
days of his or her return to the United States in accordance with
applicable form instructions. See 8 CFR 264.1(g)(1). The alien, if an
LPR of the United States, must surrender any prior evidence of alien
registration. Id.
DHS regulations prescribe forms that satisfy the alien registration
requirements. See 8 CFR 264.1(a). The regulations also designate
certain forms as constituting evidence of registration. See 8 CFR
264.1(b).
Before the IFR added Form G-325R, 8 CFR 264.1(a) identified the
following forms as registration forms:
I-67, Inspection Record--Hungarian refugees (Act of July
25, 1958).
I-94, Arrival-Departure Record--Aliens admitted as
nonimmigrants; \7\ aliens paroled into the United States under section
212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; aliens whose claimed
entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot be verified, they having
satisfactorily established residence in the United States since prior
to July 1, 1924; aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence who have not been registered previously; aliens who
are granted permission to depart without the institution of deportation
proceedings or against whom deportation proceedings are being
instituted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ This includes aliens admitted as B-1/B-2 nonimmigrants
through the Visa Waiver Program who were issued a Nonimmigrant Visa
Waiver Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94W).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I-95, Crewmen's Landing Permit--Crewmen arriving by vessel
or aircraft.
I-181, Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful
Permanent Residence--Aliens presumed to be lawfully admitted to the
United States under 8 CFR 101.1.
I-485, Application for Status as Permanent Resident--
Applicants under sections 245 and 249 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act as amended, and section 13 of the Act of September 11,
1957.
I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee--
Escapee--Refugee-escapees paroled pursuant to section 1 of the Act of
July 14, 1960.
I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident--
Applicants under section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
as amended.
I-691, Notice of Approval for Status as a Temporary
Resident--Aliens adjusted to lawful temporary residence under 8 CFR
210.2 and 245A.2.
I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to
Permanent Resident--Applicants under section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as amended.
I-700, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident--
Applicants under section 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
amended.
I-817, Application for Voluntary Departure under the
Family Unity Program.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See 8 CFR 264.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the IFR added ``USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration,''
8 CFR 264.1(b) listed the following forms as constituting evidence of
registration:
I-94, Arrival-Departure Record--Aliens admitted as
nonimmigrants; aliens paroled into the United States under section
212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; aliens whose claimed
entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot be verified, they having
satisfactorily established residence in the United States since prior
to July 1, 1924; and aliens granted permission to depart without the
institution of deportation proceedings.
I-95, Crewmen's Landing Permit--Crewmen arriving by vessel
or aircraft.
I-184, Alien Crewman Landing Permit and Identification
Card--Crewmen arriving by vessel.
I-185, Nonresident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card--
Citizens of Canada or British subjects residing in Canada.
I-186, Nonresident Alien Mexican Border Crossing Card--
Citizens of Mexico residing in Mexico.
I-221, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing--Aliens
against whom deportation proceedings are being instituted.
I-221S, Order to Show Cause, Notice of Hearing, and
Warrant for Arrest of Alien--Aliens against whom deportation
proceedings are being instituted.
I-551, Permanent Resident Card--Lawful permanent resident
of the United States.
I-766, Employment Authorization Document (EAD).
Form I-862, Notice to Appear--Aliens against whom removal
proceedings are being instituted.
Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge--
Aliens against whom removal proceedings are being instituted.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See 8 CFR 264.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, under a note to 8 CFR 264.1(b), a valid, unexpired
nonimmigrant DHS admission or parole stamp in a foreign passport
constitutes evidence of registration.

C. The March 2025 IFR

On March 12, 2025, DHS published an IFR with request for comments
in the Federal Register, 90 FR 11793 (Mar. 12, 2025). The IFR partially
implemented section 7 of E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People
Against Invasion, issued on January 20, 2025. See 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29,
2025). Section 7 directs the DHS, in coordination with the Department
of State (State) and the Attorney General, to take all appropriate
action to:
Immediately announce and publicize information about the
legal obligation of all previously unregistered aliens in the United
States to comply with the requirements of part VII of

[[Page 39254]]

subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 8, U.S. Code (8 U.S.C. 1301
through 1306);
Ensure that all previously unregistered aliens in the
United States comply with 8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306; and
Ensure that failure to comply with the legal obligations
of 8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306 is treated as a civil and criminal
enforcement priority. See 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).
Following the issuance of this E.O., DHS reviewed the registration
regulations at 8 CFR part 264 and determined that it would be
appropriate to designate a general registration form in addition to
those already identified in the regulations to improve registration
outcomes for certain groups of aliens who currently lack a designated
registration form, such as aliens who are present without being
admitted or paroled and have not otherwise been encountered by DHS, or
Canadian nonimmigrants for business or pleasure who are not issued Form
I-94. See 90 FR 11793, 11795 (Mar. 12, 2025).
Consistent with the E.O. and the alien registration requirements of
the INA, the IFR designated new Form G-325R, Biometric Information
(Registration) as a general registration option available to all
unregistered aliens regardless of their status. See 90 FR 11793, 11795
(Mar. 12, 2025). As explained in the IFR, to use this option, aliens
must create their own unique account, or an account for their child, in
myUSCIS at https://my.uscis.gov/ and then complete the Form G-325R,
Biographic Information (Registration). See 90 FR 11793, 11796 (Mar. 12,
2025). There is no fee.
Submission of the registration in myUSCIS initiates the process for
the alien's biometric services appointment at a local USCIS Application
Support Center (ASC) for the collection of biometrics, including
fingerprints, photograph, and signature.
Once an alien successfully completes his or her biometrics
appointment at an ASC, the USCIS Electronic Immigration System (ELIS)
case management system triggers the creation of ``USCIS Proof of Alien
G-325R Registration'' with a unique identifier printed on the document.
For those aliens, such as Canadian nonimmigrants and aliens under the
age of 14 years old, required to register but for whom the fingerprint
requirement is waived, the ELIS case management system triggers the
creation of the ``USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration'' upon
receipt of the Form G-325R. This ``USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R
Registration'' document is then posted to the alien's myUSCIS account.
In the myUSCIS account, the alien is allowed to download a PDF version
of the document and can print it. This document serves as evidence of
the alien's registration for purposes of section 264(d) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1304(d).
The IFR filled the gaps in the regulatory regime by prescribing a
registration form available to all aliens regardless of their status,
in addition to the other forms already listed. Specifically, the IFR
listed the new form at 8 CFR 264.1(a) and listed the corresponding
evidence of registration at 8 CFR 264.1(b). See 90 FR 11793, 11796
(Mar. 12, 2025).
Consistent with section 289 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1359, DHS
interpreted the registration and fingerprinting requirements of section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 to exclude from ``all aliens'' American
Indians born in Canada who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of
the American Indian race who are present in the United States under the
authority of section 289 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1359, as section 262 of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 and other provisions of subchapter II of chapter
12, title 8 of the U.S. Code are construed consistent with their right
to pass the borders of the United States.\10\ Therefore, the
registration form added in the IFR is not used by these entrants
because such entrants do not have to register.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Me. 1974); Matter
of Yellowquill, 16 I&N Dec. 576 (BIA 1978). Members of the Texas
Band of Kickapoo Indians similarly are not required to register. See
Texas Band of Kickapoo Act, Public Law 97-429, sec. 4(d) (1983)
(``Notwithstanding the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1101, all members of the Band shall be entitled to freely pass and
repass the borders of the United States and to live and work in the
United States.'').
\11\ While DHS wrote in the IFR that American Indians born in
Canada who enter the United States under INA sec. 289, 8 U.S.C.
1359, may register using Form G-325R ``if they wish,'' this is not
consistent with the statute. Just as U.S. citizens and nationals are
excluded from ``all aliens,'' so are American Indians Born in Canada
who enter under INA sec. 289, 8 U.S.C. 1359, and members of the
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas who enter the United States
under the Texas Band of Kickapoo Act. If individuals in any of these
groups submit Form G-325R to USCIS, USCIS will not register them and
instead will send them a notice informing them that they are not
required to register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IFR did not impose any new registration or fingerprinting
obligations separate from the obligations already contained in the INA.
An alien who has previously registered consistent with 8 CFR 264.1(a),
or an alien who has evidence of registration consistent with 8 CFR
264.1(b), generally need not register again, although such an alien is
subject to ongoing change of address reporting requirements under
section 265(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1305(a) and 8 CFR 265.1, which are
in addition to, and separate from, any other address reporting
obligations the alien may have.
While DHS did not incorporate a fee for filing the Form G-325R, DHS
requested comments in the IFR on the option of adding biometric
services fee per registrant of $30, for the collection, use, and
storage of biometric information, pursuant to 8 CFR 103.16 and 17.

III. Response to Public Comments on the IFR

A. Overview of Comments on the IFR

When issuing the IFR, DHS invited the public to participate in the
rulemaking by submitting post-promulgation comments on every aspect of
the rule. DHS also invited the public to comment on a potential
biometric services fee, including on the calculation of the fee.
Additionally, the IFR contained a secondary comment period for purposes
of the 60-day Federal Register notice under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and OMB approved Form G-325R, Biographic Information
(Registration). See 90 FR 11793, 11799 (Mar. 12, 2025). DHS requested
that comments on the information collection included the term OMB
Control Number 1615-NEW. The comment period for purposes of the PRA
ended on May 12, 2025. Any public comment received on Form G-325R has
been responded to as part of the 30-day Federal Register notice
published for purposes of obtaining OMB approval of Form G-325R \12\ on
August 11, 2025, at 90 FR 38655. The information collection instrument
with instructions and additional supporting documents, including
responses to comments submitted as part of the 60-day Federal Register
Notice, can be accessed by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site
at: http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID number USCIS-2025-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 12 DHS had requested, and OMB approved, Form G-325R on an
emergency review basis pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR
1320.13, on March 5, 2025. See Notice of Action, OMB Control Number
1615-0166 (Mar. 5, 2025), https://www.reginfo.gov. The information
collection approved on an emergency review basis had a subsequent
information collection request for revision of the information
collection submitted timely to OMB and thus, USCIS may continue to
conduct the information collection while the submission is pending
OMB review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments were submitted by a range of entities and individuals,
including attorneys and legal service providers, applicants, individual
commenters, professional organizations, unions, advocacy groups,
religious organizations, research and community

[[Page 39255]]

organizations, and State and local government agencies or elected
officials.
In response to the IFR, DHS received 4,198 public comment
submissions during the initial comment period that ended on April 11,
2025, for purposes of the IFR and the information collection. The
secondary comment period for purposes of the information collection
closed on May 12, 2025, with 71 additional submissions received to the
docket after April 11, 2025.
DHS appreciates all comments and feedback. A few commenters
expressed their support for the IFR or parts thereof, and the
registration requirements. The majority of commenters opposed the
statutory registration requirement and thus, the implementation
thereof, including the IFR, Form G-325R, or the form's contents based
on the impact on various populations or past practices but without
providing specific suggestions. The majority of the commenters
requested that DHS rescind the rule.
DHS is responding to the feedback received in this final rule but
reiterates that, for approximately 85 years, the laws of the United
States, including longstanding regulations, have required most aliens
present in the United States who remain for 30 days or longer to
register and, with some exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant status,
be fingerprinted. The IFR and this final rule have not modified these
statutory requirements. Similarly, the IFR and final rule do not modify
the criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago that
apply when aliens fail to meet their registration and related
obligations. This rule is consistent with E.O. 14159 and the alien
registration requirements in sections 262 through 265 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1302 through 1305, and establishes a general registration option
available to all unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status.
DHS has no authority to rescind the E.O. or the alien registration
requirements of the INA.

B. Support for the IFR

Comment: Multiple commenters expressed support for the IFR. One
commenter noted the IFR is a means for DHS and USCIS to comply with
E.O. 14159. The commenter reasoned that a general registration form for
all unregistered aliens,\13\ regardless of status, would improve
registration outcomes and support the enforcement of immigration laws
and regulations. The commenter added that this new registration form
would bridge the regulatory gap between ``certain immigration
statuses'' and appropriate registration procedures and requirements.
Another commenter reasoned that ``aliens need to be vetted'' to protect
the safety of U.S. citizens, including by knowing ``who has entered our
country,'' and encouraged DHS to ``pass'' this regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The commenter used the word ``alien,'' consistent with the
terminology in the alien registration provisions of the INA. Other
commenters used different terminology. In general, when describing
comments in this preamble, DHS has sought to mirror the language
used in those comments, sometimes with quotation marks for clarity.
Otherwise, DHS has used the statutory term ``alien.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: DHS agrees that the new registration form and evidence of
registration will improve registration outcomes and support the
enforcement of immigration laws and regulations. DHS appreciates the
commenters' feedback and support for DHS obligation to faithfully
execute immigration laws established by Congress.

C. Opposition to the IFR and Policy Objections

1. General Negative Impacts
a. Overreach and Invasiveness Concerns
Comment: Many commenters voiced concerns with Federal overreach as
a result of the IFR. Commenters variously wrote that the IFR is
``invasive,'' ``out of bounds,'' would create a ``police state,'' ``has
no place in our system of democratic laws,'' would violate the rule of
law, would allow excessive surveillance or government control that sets
a troubling precedent, represents an abuse of power, and is a dangerous
expansion of state control that will enable the government to surveil
millions of people. A commenter stated that once implemented, the IFR
could provide a tool by which any future administration could enact
targeted, repressive measures against alien residents of the United
States. The commenter remarked that authority, once delegated to
governing bodies, is rarely yielded or revoked, and that DHS should
take care to consider the regulatory precedent the IFR would establish.
Another commenter stated that the IFR imposes a similar registration
requirement that was imposed by Germany during World War II as a means
to control unpopular groups. A commenter added that while the
registration is codified in the laws of the United States and it is
lawful to ensure compliance, the law disproportionately impacts
individuals and their families who have been living and contributing to
society peacefully for years, especially those with pending immigration
relief or humanitarian protections.
Another commenter stated that the normalization of mass
surveillance for one group sets a dangerous precedent, potentially
paving the way for broader erosions of privacy and civil rights for all
individuals. A commenter stated that the IFR gives the Secretary of
Homeland Security unchecked discretionary power to monitor, register,
and remove immigrants and thus, was ``a sweeping revision of prior
powers to the Secretary.''
Commenters expressed reservations about the implications of
surveillance by law enforcement. For example, a commenter wrote that
surveillance measures weaken the social fabric of entire communities.
Other commenters wrote that the expansion of surveillance could
eventually include all U.S. citizens, with another expressing concern
about the ease with which the policy could expand surveillance and
restrict individual liberties.
A commenter wrote that the IFR would create ``undignified''
monitoring requirements that would be a barrier to integration,
economic participation, and community trust. Another commenter said the
IFR is an ``absolute abomination,'' as it targets and entraps people
who contribute to the cultural depth and economic vitality of the
United States. One commenter stated that this tactic relies on lies to
divide people, while another commenter said that ``this program'' sends
an unwelcoming message.
Another commenter expressed concern that the data collected under
the IFR could facilitate human rights abuses, similar to those seen in
historical mandatory registration programs. The commenter cited
examples such as the internment of Japanese citizens during World War
II, the post-September 11 NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit
Registration System) program, and the registration of Jews during the
Holocaust. The commenter remarked that there are no safeguards in the
IFR to prevent such abuses and recommended rescinding the rule to
protect privacy and prevent potential harm.
A commenter wrote that if the Federal Government intends to enforce
a ``show me your papers'' rule against aliens, then every person in the
United States, including U.S. citizens, must carry proof of their
immigration status or face penalties. With regard to ``carrying
papers,'' a commenter stated that registered immigrants risk
prosecution if they do not carry them or update their address, while
aliens face deportation or criminal charges. A different commenter said
that certain States have already

[[Page 39256]]

seen immigration enforcement and said that with a nationwide ``show me
your papers'' law, U.S. citizens without proof on them, or LPRs, are
also at risk of being unlawfully detained and even deported. The
commenter stated that the rule and registration processes are an
affront to public safety as well as national security, which this
process purports to uphold.
Another commenter criticized the IFR as a ``deep overreach'' in
Federal authority, despite the administration's promises to turn more
power to the States. Another commenter viewed the IFR as contradictory
to the administration's stated goal of reducing regulations. Commenters
also wrote that the rule and forced registration reinforces the idea of
a ``Deep State'' and surveillance state, where government officials use
registration data to track, target, and punish individuals in direct
violation of human rights and U.S. rights.
A commenter stated that requiring registered aliens to update the
government with their current residence is surveillance ``on par with a
parole sentence that no other U.S. citizen has to go through.''
Commenters stated that the IFR and the registration requirement are a
step toward mass surveillance and criminalization of ``undocumented''
communities; that these requirements are ``Orwellian;'' and that they
have the potential government overreach and the misuse of data to
surveil immigrants.
Numerous commenters suggested that the rule is un-American or runs
contrary to U.S. values, authoritarian, un-democratic, that it would
reinforce harmful stereotypes; or that it was an ``attempt to complete
[an] authoritarian takeover,'' or establish a dictatorship. Other
commenters stated that the IFR disagrees with the American value of
free movement; is dangerous; fascist; punitive; inhumane; immoral; or
exploitative. A few commenters wrote that only Native Americans are not
immigrants to the United States, and that the IFR's policies are
hypocritical as a result.
Commenters wrote that the IFR is ``cruel'' and contradicts the
values of welcoming aliens and providing them with safety and freedom,
as represented by the Statue of Liberty. Similarly, a few commenters
remarked that the United States is a nation of immigrants that should
embrace diversity and be more respectful of those immigrants; that the
U.S. immigration system should be fair and provide viable paths to
legal status, and that the rule does not further those goals. Other
commenters said that the United States should not intimidate or demean
aliens and that the United States should honor its reputation of
accepting aliens in need of protection from persecution, threats,
torture, and death from their own country. Stating that the rule
imposes an undue burden and creates fear in communities, a commenter
said that making criminals out of people who are contributing to
society was nonsensical. Discussing efforts in their State, the
commenter noted that there can be ``calls for border security'' while
still treating all people with respect and acknowledging the value of
immigrants in society.
Several commenters called the registration requirement a violation
of human rights. A commenter also said that the IFR would open the door
for human rights abuse. Commenters stated that the IFR risks damaging
the United States' international reputation as a champion of fairness,
human rights, and due process. Another commenter wrote that the IFR
aims to ``reduce the immigrant to an undesirable person,'' which
contradicts religious principles, is against Christian values, and
prevents individuals from practicing their religious beliefs.
Commenters also stated that the IFR raises moral and legal questions
and harkens back to dark days in Jewish history.
A commenter stated that the Federal Government, under the previous
Presidential administration, repeatedly committed to a humane, trauma-
informed immigration policy, particularly for children and families.
The commenters said that the IFR contradicts those values and codifies
fear-based compliance mechanisms without providing pathways to safety,
legal relief, or stability, which was particularly concerning in cities
like Chicago, where thousands of asylum seekers are still awaiting work
permits, school placements, and basic housing.
Response: DHS disagrees with the characterization of the IFR as
overreach, discriminatory, or otherwise contrary to the principles and
values of American society, as raised by the commenters. DHS also
disagrees with the concerns raised by commenters that equate the
registration program with government overreach, mass surveillance,
eroding civil liberties, punishment, lack of safeguards, and setting
precedents for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens. Congress directed
and provided the necessary authority for the registration of aliens,
including the content of the registration in sections 262 through 266
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1306. It is Congress that sets the
policy and consequences; DHS is directed by Congress and committed to
carry out the congressional mandate.
President Trump directed DHS to take all appropriate action to
ensure that previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply
with their duty to register with the government. DHS identified a gap
in the regulatory regime and established a new general registration
option so that previously unregistered aliens could comply with the
longstanding statutory requirement. As explained throughout this
rulemaking, registration has existed for over 80 years; administrations
had implemented the registration requirement in the longstanding
regulation at 8 CFR 264.1, listing forms and evidence of registration,
such as Form I-485. The IFR and this final rule is limited in scope by
prescribing an additional registration form and evidence of
registration for unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status.
The general registration form collects basic biographic information and
information required by section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a),
which USCIS has a legal responsibility to safeguard, similar to the
other form types collected by the agency. See INA sec. 264(b), 8 U.S.C.
1304(b).
b. Effect on Removal, Detention, and Criminalization
Comment: Many commenters criticized the rule as an attempt to
entrap aliens by forcing them to either register (causing them to face
potential deportation), or face criminal penalties for failing to
comply. Another commenter described the rule as ``unnecessarily
complicated and clearly designed to entrap and ensnare people,'' while
another described it as a ``bad faith `policy' '' meant to confuse
immigrants into providing information that would be used to persecute
them by illegal or unconstitutional means.
A commenter stated that in media interviews, then-Secretary Noem
indicated that the purpose of registration is to facilitate removal of
people from the United States, and that those who register would likely
face detention, removal proceedings, and eventual deportation. A
commenter stated opposition to the IFR and the potential detention of
aliens resulting from it, describing conditions in immigration
detention centers as potentially deadly and noting reports of medical
abuse.
Numerous other commenters stated that the IFR would lead to unjust
detentions, the criminalization of aliens' presence in the United
States, arbitrary searches and seizures, unjust deportations (including
for aliens in the country legally and awaiting court hearings),
scapegoating of hardworking

[[Page 39257]]

immigrants, and punishing people without merit. A commenter expressed
concern that the main purpose of the rule is to make it easier for DHS
to identify and deport aliens, and stated that following the IFR's
logic, similar measures should be applied to U.S. citizens because it
would be easier to identify them for arrest should it be deemed
necessary. Another commenter stated that coupling the new registration
requirement with an E.O. requiring DHS to prioritize prosecuting
violations and misdemeanors, rather than serious crimes, highlights
that the purpose of this registration is ``mass deportation.'' A
commenter expressed concern that the current administration would
weaponize the process against individuals who have no criminal history
and no immediate path to legal status under the current law, but are
otherwise valued members of society.
A commenter wrote that E.O. 14159, alien registration, and the
focus on deportation indicate that the primary aim of the Federal
Government in enforcing these provisions is to use the registry as a
tool to identify, detain, and deport ``undocumented immigrants'' or
incentivize them to self-deport. Other commenters stated that the IFR
fails to meaningfully distinguish between lawfully present aliens and
those without status, which they said could lead to the treatment of
all aliens as potential enforcement targets, regardless of their legal
status or history.
Other comments stated that, unlike programs such as Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), this registration process offers no
benefits, no legal protections, no form of immigration relief, and no
shield from deportation, and added that the IFR makes no promises that
the data collected through this process would not be used for
enforcement purposes. Another commenter stated that past attempts to
enforce registration requirements in the interest of national security
included explicit assurances that those who complied would be afforded
due consideration for immigration relief, and stated that such a
requirement without providing opportunities for registrants to pursue
legal pathways toward status adjustment undermines our collective
commitment to establishing a just, efficient immigration system that
prioritizes the wellbeing of long-term residents. The commenter said
that rather than incentivizing compliance, this policy punishes those
who self-identify.
A commenter indicated that the rule would fail to meet the
administration's policy goals of improving registration outcomes
because the administration fails to incentivize ``undocumented
immigrants'' to register. Discussing the historical context of the
Alien Registration Act of 1940, the commenter wrote that Congress had
given then Attorney General Robert H. Jackson the power to relieve
registrants of penalties for illegal entry. As a result, and because of
the Attorney General's successful public messaging encouraging aliens
to register, approximately 5 million aliens registered with the Federal
Government by January 1941. In contrast, according to the commenter,
this Administration made clear that it plans to use the registration
process to advance its immigration enforcement activities, including
removal, which fails to incentivize ``undocumented immigrants'' to
register. Similarly, a commenter also indicated that it is the first
time the government has required registration as part of a campaign to
prioritize the prosecution of immigration offenses and encourage self-
removal, rather than providing assurances, unlike in the past, that
registration might lead to lawful status or that the alien does not
have to fear adverse consequences for registering.
Several commenters expressed concerns that DHS would use the rule
to facilitate deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
Response: The goal of the IFR and this final rule is to fill a gap
in the regulatory regime by prescribing a general registration form
available to all aliens. The IFR did not establish the statutory
requirements to register or carry evidence of registration, or
establish the criminal penalties established by Congress many decades
ago that apply when aliens failed to meet their registration and
related obligations.
DHS agrees that the registration is not an immigration status, and
the registration documentation does not evidence an immigration status,
establish employment authorization, or provide any other right or
benefit under the INA or any other U.S. law.
However, the statute provides that most aliens 14 years of age or
older who were not registered and fingerprinted (if required) when
applying for a U.S. visa and who remain in the United States for 30
days or longer, must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted.
The statute imposes civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply.
The purpose of this rule is to provide a straightforward way for aliens
to meet their statutory obligations to register, rather than to provide
incentives beyond those already contained in the INA.
As then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson stated in his address
before the Common Council for American Unity, ``[t]hese detailed
individual records enable the government to deal with any alien
problems on the basis of individual merits, and they take away any
excuse for indiscriminating dragnet procedures or mass action.'' \14\
Many aliens who are present in the United States have already fulfilled
their duty to register through a variety of pathways identified in 8
CFR 264.1. Each registration Form G-325R will undergo an individual
review to determine if the alien has already complied with the
registration requirements in some other way and does not need to submit
Form G-325R or if the alien is required to appear for a biometric
services appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See ``Address of Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the
United States, before the Common Council for American Unity'' (Apr.
4, 1941), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-03-1941.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS believes that improved registration outcomes will improve DHS
law enforcement efficacy by providing more comprehensive information
about the location of aliens in the United States, which makes it
easier and safer for DHS to enforce the law. The increased compliance
with fingerprinting requirements would provide DHS with additional
information about an alien's criminal record, including whether the
alien is a known or suspected terrorist. DHS does not believe that a
nexus between registration and law enforcement efficacy is problematic;
Congress specifically provided for the sharing of alien registration
information with Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and DHS
complies with the laws as duly passed by Congress.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See INA sec. 264(b), 8 U.S.C. 1304(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Administrative and Financial Impacts to Nonimmigrant Populations
Comment: Commenters opposed the IFR due to financial and
administrative burdens on immigrant populations. A commenter stated
that registration requirements would challenge immigrants experiencing
changes in living situations, particularly those needing to relocate
quickly. The commenter noted that change-of-address update requirements
could impede immigrants' ability to navigate the court system, while
bureaucratic backlogs might incorrectly label mobile immigrants as non-
compliant with registration requirements.
A commenter expressed concern about potential financial burdens if
DHS implemented processing fees for Form G-325R, especially for
individuals submitting multiple registrations due to

[[Page 39258]]

changing circumstances. These administrative requirements would
compound existing challenges immigrants face while managing legal
proceedings, education, family responsibilities, and digital barriers.
Many commenters suggested that requiring the Form G-325R would add
unnecessary bureaucratic and financial burdens, as immigrants already
submit extensive documentation.
Response: The IFR and this rule are limited in scope and designate
a new registration form for aliens to comply with the statutory alien
registration and fingerprinting provisions. DHS was directed through
E.O. 14159 to take all appropriate action to ensure that aliens
understand their duty under the law and have a path to satisfy that
duty through the new general registration process and form. This
rulemaking has not modified the duty established by Congress for aliens
to register and be fingerprinted. Similarly, this IFR did not create or
modify the criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago
that apply when aliens fail to meet their registration and related
obligations, including the requirement to notify DHS of change of
address. The law created by Congress requires that aliens who are
required to register update their address with the government within 10
days of moving. See INA sec. 265, 8 U.S.C. 1305.
The general registration form collects basic biographic information
and information required by section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1304(a). The form is a digital form that can be easily accessed through
an internet browser or a person's cell phone. Additionally, public
libraries and other private and public institutions provide access to
the internet. The burden assessed for the average hour burden per
response for completion of Form G-325R is 2.5 hours. Also, many aliens
in the United States have already registered, as required by law, and
would not need to complete Form G-325R. DHS thus disagrees with the
characterization that the rule imposes an undue burden on the public or
compounds existing challenges immigrants are facing. If an individual
encounters difficulties with registering, DHS recommends contacting the
USCIS Contact Center for live assistance.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ USCIS Contact Center, https://www.uscis.gov/contactcenter
(accessed Oct. 24, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS has determined that it will not impose a biometric services fee
for registration applicants as part of this final rule. Section III.F.5
of this preamble provides more details on the determination of the
filing fee.
Comment: Commenters said that the additional Form G-325R
registration requirement would impose financial burdens on low-income
aliens due to legal and application costs or other costs associated
with the IFR, such as missing work or school, arranging childcare, and
even travel for biometrics appointments, or to obtain specific
documentation, which places an undue strain on their limited resources,
all of which can make compliance unattainable. A commenter stated that
immigration forms frequently require outside assistance to ensure
compliant completion, and prospective registrants are likely to seek
external support given the penalties for noncompliance.
Response: DHS acknowledges there are burdens to registrants
associated with this rule. These costs include, but are not limited to,
time burden to submit biometrics, and travel costs to go to an ASC. A
more detailed breakdown of the costs associated with this rule is in
section VI, the Statutory and Regulatory Requirements section of this
preamble.
d. Health Impacts
Comment: A commenter stated that the IFR would endanger
communities' mental and physical well-being. Another commenter cited a
study finding that restrictive immigration policies and surveillance
measures correlate with poorer mental and physical health outcomes
among aliens, including heightened anxiety and depression, as well as
reduced access to healthcare services. Yet another commenter expressed
concern that the IFR would limit their ability to provide medical care
to patients due to patients' fear of encountering ICE, and further
raised concerns about the health conditions in alien detention
facilities, stating that ``multiple people'' have died in them due to
inhumane, unsafe, and unsanitary conditions. A commenter wrote that the
increased stress from the IFR to vulnerable populations would lead to
higher contact with emergency rooms, mental health agencies, and
primary health care providers. A commenter wrote that the additional
burden from the IFR on USCIS processing centers could increase stress
for aliens waiting for decisions, leading to mental and physical health
challenges.
Response: For over 80 years, the laws of the United States have
required most aliens present in the United States who remain for 30
days or longer to register and, with some exceptions based on age or
nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted.
DHS identified a gap in the regulatory regime and established a new
general registration option that aliens, who are required to register
but have not yet done so, may use to satisfy their statutory
obligations. The IFR and this rule are limited in scope by amending DHS
regulations to designate a new registration form and evidence of
registration for unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status.
2. Impact on Specific Populations
a. Groups Based on Immigration Status
Comment: A commenter said that the population of refugees, asylum
seekers, visa holders, and permanent residents they serve almost
exclusively comprises aliens who have been persecuted in their home
countries, adding that a new registration requirement gives them more
reason to fear the place they have come to for refuge and protection.
Another commenter stated that the rule may cause aliens who are already
legally registered using other registration forms to be increasingly
fearful and uncertain. Multiple commenters added that the IFR would
severely impact lawful immigration.
Some commenters stated that the registration would be used to
single out ``undocumented'' individuals for law enforcement actions. A
commenter stated that the ``undocumented'' community includes
hardworking individuals who contribute to the United States but do not
see the benefits of their work. The commenter concluded that
registration would harm communities and generate fear.
Others indicated that the IFR would negatively impact individuals
who contribute richly to our country and pose no threat to U.S.
citizens, including DACA recipients and other individuals who arrived
in the United States at a young age.
A commenter stated that the organization's members, including
``noncitizens'' who entered without inspection, are directly impacted
by the registration requirements and potential criminal penalties for
noncompliance. The commenter expressed concern for members with pending
immigration relief applications or deferred action requests (such as U
visas or DACA) who have completed biometrics appointments but lack EADs
that would qualify as valid registration. The commenter said it had
helped submit numerous DACA applications in 2020 to 2021 that were
never adjudicated due to a court order.
A commenter wrote that the IFR would target and disproportionately
affect long-term U.S. residents awaiting

[[Page 39259]]

immigration relief or humanitarian protections. A commenter questioned
the rationale behind DHS's decision, suggesting that it creates an
additional procedural hurdle for vulnerable populations who have likely
already submitted their biometric data to the government. Another
commenter expressed concern that registration often leads to negative
outcomes, such as surveillance, segregation, and incrimination. The
commenter remarked that identifying a group as separate from the rest
can have serious consequences, regardless of the original intentions.
Response: The IFR and this rule are limited in scope to establish a
general registration option available to all unregistered aliens
regardless of immigration status to improve registration outcomes for
certain groups of aliens. An alien who has been issued one of the
documents designated as evidence of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b)
has already registered, and an alien who has submitted one of the forms
designated at 8 CFR 264.1(a) and provided fingerprints (unless waived),
but was not issued one of the evidence of registration designated at 8
CFR 264.1(b), has complied with the registration requirement of section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. If an alien does not have any other
pathway to register and to be fingerprinted, the alien may file the
Form G-325R to comply with their duty under section 262 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1302. Aliens who are registered and reached 14 years old may use
the new form to register if they have no other pathway to satisfy this
requirement.
DHS is aware that there are areas of the existing regulations that
could be improved, including amending the list of forms prescribed as
registration forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and the list of forms constituted
as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b). As part of this final
rule, DHS is requesting comments on various ways to amend the DHS
regulation to improve implementation of the registration requirement
under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. See section V of this
preamble.
b. Families and Children
Comment: Many commenters state that the IFR would harm children and
families. Several commenters indicated that the IFR could deter
families from enrolling children in school, from seeking medical care,
or from reporting crimes. Speaking to the impact on children's
education, a commenter stated that the registration system could lead
to a risk of punishment and parents may be hesitant to register
themselves or their children out of fear the information could be used
to initiate removal proceedings. They concluded that this undermines
the trust necessary not only to cooperate with local law enforcement to
reduce crime, but for educators, social workers, and healthcare
partners to serve these families effectively.
Several other commenters remarked that the IFR does not contain
safeguards for families and stated that the IFR could lead to the
deportation of parents or caregivers, and leading to family separation,
including for mixed-status families. A commenter criticized USCIS'
assumption that potential registrants would understand they need to
register and described immigrants as ``targets for family separation,
detention, or deportation.''
A commenter voiced concern that the IFR would create burdens for
those families with minor children who lack access to stable housing,
legal counsel, digital literacy, or reliable internet and potentially
facing criminal penalties if not successful at registering.
Another commenter stated that the IFR fails to consider the
significant impact on its application of expedited removal to parolees
would have on families and communities, adding that subjecting them to
removal without appropriate procedural protections could result in
severe social and economic consequences for these individuals and their
families. With regard to the economy, commenters wrote that many
``mixed-status'' families would be harmed, despite having significantly
contributed to the economy.
A commenter wrote that some immigrant families are already in the
midst of pursuing lawful immigration relief and that the IFR could
introduce confusion and risk of unintentional noncompliance into that
process. Another commenter stated the rule would cause immigrant
families to withdraw from everyday life for fear of criminalization,
leading to negative impacts on local communities, economies, and public
safety.
Numerous commenters stated that the trauma of fear of deportation
and family separation resulting from the IFR and from registration
leads to long-term emotional, developmental, health (including heart
disease, diabetes, substance abuse, and depression), and educational
harm for children. Another commenter wrote that the IFR would impact
hardworking families, taxpayers, and individuals who speak and write in
English, and would harm the mental health of alien children, leading
some to consider taking their own lives. Another commenter wrote that
the administration is using immigrants, regardless of status, and
children whose parents arrived to the United States ``undocumented,''
as ``pawns'' in a ``power struggle.'' Another commenter stated that IFR
would make children who are victims of trafficking and abuse less
likely to come forward and report their experiences to law enforcement.
Response: DHS has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws
established by Congress, including provisions related to the alien
registration requirements. See INA sec. 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a).
President Trump directed DHS to take all appropriate steps to
ensure that previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply
with the statutory duty to register with the government. DHS identified
a gap in the regulatory regime and established a new general
registration option to improve registration outcomes of certain groups
of aliens. The IFR and this rule are limited in scope to establishing
the new registration form and evidence of registration for unregistered
aliens regardless of immigration status. This rulemaking has not
created these requirements or modified the duties established by
Congress for aliens.
DHS notes that the statute requires, with limited exceptions, all
aliens 14 years or older who remain in the United States for 30 days or
longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the
expiration of 30 days. Similarly, parents and legal guardians of aliens
below the age of 14 must ensure that those aliens are registered.
Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th birthday, all
previously registered alien must apply for re-registration and be
fingerprinted.
Before the IFR, longstanding regulations already provided that
within 30 days after reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United
States who is not exempt from the alien registration requirement must
apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted, unless fingerprinting
is waived. The IFR and this rule do not change those procedures but
fill a gap in the regulation by adding a general option available to
unregistered alien, regardless of status to improve registration
outcomes for certain groups of aliens. Also, many aliens in the United
States have already registered, as required by law. An alien who was
issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa and at his or her most recent
arrival was admitted into the United States using that visa is
registered. See INA sec. 221(b), 8 U.S.C. 1201(b). This includes aliens
admitted

[[Page 39260]]

as nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors. Id.
For these reasons and the reasons articulated in previous
responses, DHS does not believe that the IFR or this rule, particularly
when viewed separate and apart from the alien registration requirements
of the INA, creates a burden for families and children or otherwise
leads to a negative impact on families, local communities and public
safety.
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed opposition to the IFR's
application to minors and children. Several commenters urged DHS to
rescind or abandon the IFR on the basis of potential impacts to minors
subject to the registration requirements.
A commenter stated that many children affected by the IFR have
experienced trauma, such as threats of harm or death, abuse, or
neglect, and that trauma-related challenges can further impair their
ability to comply with the numerous and complex requirements of the
IFR.
A commenter wrote that young people are often particularly fearful
of procedures such as fingerprinting due to trauma they experienced in
their home countries. The commenter said that if they are navigating
the immigration legal system with specially trained legal advice and
support, they are able to overcome such fears as part of the process of
being scrutinized for lawful status in the United States but added that
many of these children are set to lose representation due to funding
cuts and thus are not able to successfully navigate the legal process
as they will lack the help to understand the purpose and relative
safety of such procedures. A commenter wrote that the information
required for registration may be either unavailable or incomprehensible
to children, including unaccompanied children and especially those in
Federal Government custody. The commenter said that especially for
children who have faced significant trauma, best practice indicates
that they be provided special consideration and trauma-informed care,
not an expectation to comply with the same requirements as adults for
processes that potentially implicate criminal liability.
Expressing concerns about the IFR's requirement for children
between the ages of 14 and 18 to submit to registration,
fingerprinting, and background checks, a commenter stated that these
registration's invasive requirements failed to account for evolving
understanding of childhood vulnerabilities since the underlying law was
written. The commenter noted the increased exploitation of vulnerable
migrants, particularly minors, under a universal registration
requirement, because on account of fraudsters and scammers, including
those impersonating Federal agents. The commenter urged DHS to
reconsider registration requirements to preserve civil rights and
public safety protections for minors. Similarly, a commenter expressed
concern for children between the ages of 12 and 18 who may not have a
license being targeted for their skin color or lack of English language
skills, and the commenter therefore opposed the requirement to carry ID
or registration cards.
Similarly, commenters expressed concern about the impact of the
registration requirements on children and youth. A commenter stated
that the criminal penalties contemplated also extend to children
between the ages of 14-18, placing them at particular risk of profiling
and criminalization, noting that a 1940-era statute does not account
for the decades of improvement that have been made regarding the
criminal prosecution of juveniles.
Other commenters stated that the IFR makes no exceptions for the
severe consequences of not registering, treating youth the same as
adults. One commenter stated that with the return of family detention,
youth could potentially be held with their parents or alone, facing
possible deportation to countries where their safety and well-being may
be compromised. The commenter cited the American Academy of Pediatrics'
position that ``no amount of time in detention is safe for a child''
and referenced a DHS advisory committee report concluding that
``detention is generally neither appropriate nor necessary for
families'' and is ``never in the best interest of children.''
Another commenter stated that if children's sponsors and family
members are criminally prosecuted for failing to register or not having
proof of registration on their person, children would remain detained
even longer awaiting reunification and release, and many would be left
without anyone to house and care for them.
Another commenter expressed concern that the rule's requirement to
carry registration documentation could be used as a pretext for law
enforcement actions against children and families. The commenter stated
this could lead to racial profiling of people who may appear
``foreign'' to law enforcement officials, a practice the commenter
described as disproportionately harming ``Black and Brown'' youth and
their families, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The
commenter said that failure to register or carry documentation
essentially criminalizes youth by default and creates additional
distrust of law enforcement, making it less likely that young people
and families report crimes or seek assistance from law enforcement. The
commenter suggested this could particularly impact unaccompanied youth
who are at higher risk for child labor exploitation and other types of
abuse, as they may be more reluctant to seek help. Another commenter
stated that the IFR would harm children subjected to profiling based on
skin color or perceived nation of origin, and children who are victims
of trafficking or other crimes.
Response: The statute requires, with limited exceptions, all aliens
14 years or older who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer
must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the
expiration of 30 days. Similarly, parents and legal guardians of aliens
below the age of 14 must ensure that those aliens are registered.
Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th birthday, all
previously registered aliens must apply for re-registration and be
fingerprinted. The statute further requires aliens 18 years or older in
the United States who are required to register must at all times carry
with them and have in their personal possession any certificate of
alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to them.
DHS, with the IFR and final rule, has not created these requirements or
modified the duties established by Congress for aliens.
Longstanding regulations before this IFR already provided that,
within 30 days after reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United
States who is not exempt from the alien registration requirement must
apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted, unless fingerprinting
is waived. The IFR and final rule do not change those procedures but
fill a gap in the regulatory regime by prescribing a general
registration option available to all aliens regardless of their status
and corresponding evidence as proof of that registration.
The comments regarding the enforcement of the criminal provisions
are out of scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking does not set civil
immigration or criminal enforcement policies or priorities. Children
under 14 years of age face no criminal penalties for a willful failure
or refusal to register. See INA sec. 266(a), 8 U.S.C. 1306(a).
Comment: Comments said that the IFR would also disproportionately
harm children with disabilities, youth with certain mental health,
developmental or cognitive disabilities, and those with

[[Page 39261]]

limited English proficiency, adding that youth with certain mental
health, developmental or cognitive disabilities may face challenges in
being able to comprehend that the registration requirement applies to
them, complete the requirements, or understand that they need to carry
proof of registration with them at all times. Another commenter said
that youth who are unable to speak or read English may also face
significant challenges, especially since unaccompanied youth come from
all around the globe, many of whom speak indigenous languages and other
uncommon languages and often lack access to interpretation assistance.
Another comment stated that faced with law enforcement interactions,
youth with certain mental health, developmental, or cognitive
disabilities are at higher risk of worse outcomes, such as arrest,
detention, or even physical harm.
Commenters also stated that children with limited technology access
or who otherwise need support to comply with the requirement may seek
guidance from teachers and other school personnel, adding burdens to
the education system.
Another commenter said that the registration requirement would
prejudice children in living situations where they may not have access
to their immigration paperwork or have not had the opportunity to speak
to a lawyer. The commenter added that children may not have an adult
who understands English, let alone the complex nature of the form
required for registration.
Response: The statute provides that, with limited exceptions, all
aliens 14 years or older who remain in the United States for 30 days or
longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the
expiration of 30 days. See INA sec. 262, 8 U.S.C. 1302. Similarly,
parents and legal guardians of aliens below the age of 14 must ensure
that those aliens are registered. Within 30 days of an alien reaching
his or her 14th birthday, all previously registered aliens must apply
for re-registration and be fingerprinted. See INA sec. 262(b), 8 U.S.C.
1302(b). DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not changed the
requirements established by Congress for aliens. The IFR and this rule
are limited in scope, designating a new registration form for aliens to
comply with the statutory registration and fingerprinting requirements.
DHS acknowledges the challenges that children may encounter, in
particular children with disabilities, mental health difficulties,
limited English proficiency, or based on socio-economic situation.
These difficulties apply generally to any statutorily imposed
obligations codified by Congress, and the longstanding alien
registration requirement does not distinguish itself in this manner. To
address concerns about disability and access issues, DHS provides
various accommodations, in accordance with current laws. DHS and USCIS
electronic and information technology (IT) systems meet and in some
respects may exceed the requirement of section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d) and related guidance. DHS and USCIS
are committed to making the public information and data accessible and
usable by individuals with disabilities in a manner that is comparable
with individuals who do not have disabilities. USCIS provides
accommodations consistent with section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See USCIS, ``Disability Accommodations for the Public,''
https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/disability-accommodations-for-the-public (last updated Oct. 19, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

USCIS also established a dedicated website with information on the
Alien Registration Requirement (ARR) and an ARR Tool that help aliens
determine if they must register.\18\ The tool poses a series of
questions to aliens and based on an alien's responses, may help an
alien determine if they must register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See USCIS, ``Alien Registration Requirement,'' https://www.uscis.gov//alienregistration (last updated May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter expressed concern that the IFR creates a
financial burden on unaccompanied children who typically lack
independent income sources. The commenter stated that children might
feel compelled to work to comply with the IFR, though many cannot, due
to lack of work authorization or school attendance. The commenter
identified several costs that would burden children, including
application fees, technology access, transportation to biometrics
appointments, document costs, fingerprinting fees, interpretation
services, and legal consultation expenses. The commenter concluded that
these financial barriers would prevent many children from complying
with the requirements, potentially subjecting them to criminal
liability.
Response: The statute requires, with limited exceptions, that all
aliens 14 years or older who remain in the United States for 30 days or
longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the
expiration of 30 days. Similarly, parents and legal guardians of aliens
below the age of 14 must ensure that those aliens are registered.
Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th birthday, all
previously registered aliens must apply for re-registration and be
fingerprinted.
DHS, with the IFR and final rule, has not modified the duties
established by Congress for aliens. Before the IFR, regulations already
provided that within 30 days after reaching the age of 14, any alien in
the United States who is not exempt from the alien registration
requirement must apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted, unless
fingerprinting is waived. The IFR and final rule do not change those
procedures but fills a gap in the regulation by adding an option for
aliens to comply with the existing statutory registration requirements.
DHS notes that some unaccompanied alien children will already be
registered by virtue of having been placed in removal proceedings via
the Form I-862, Notice to Appear.
c. People With Disabilities
Comment: Commenters stated that the IFR would disproportionately
harm people with disabilities. Similarly, commenters stated that
individuals with mental, developmental, or health-related disabilities
may be unable to reliably carry documentation as described in the IFR.
The commenter wrote that without available assistance from family
members or others, these individuals would face increased risk of law
enforcement actions, incarceration, and removal from the United States
without meaningful due process.
Similarly, commenters stated that the IFR would deter sponsors and
family members from providing support for Non-Qualified Respondent
Program participants with mental disabilities. The commenter noted that
immigration judges often require individuals with mental disabilities
to be released into family members' care during bond hearings, ensuring
their participation in legal proceedings. According to the commenter,
the IFR would discourage family members from acting as sponsors due to
concerns about potential consequences if the respondent fails to
register. The commenter said this would prolong detention of
individuals with mental disabilities, who may lose their support system
and be unable to meaningfully participate in immigration proceedings.
Similarly, commenters stated that people with disabilities would
not have meaningful access to the registration process for several
reasons. The commenters wrote that people with certain mental health,
developmental, or cognitive disabilities may be unable to determine if
the registration requirement applies to them. The commenters stated
that additionally,

[[Page 39262]]

registration requires access to the internet, a computer or smartphone,
and an email address, which may be difficult or impossible for people
with various disabilities, including those who are blind or have low
vision, those with mobility issues affecting manual dexterity or
ability to navigate technology, and those with intellectual or
cognitive disabilities. Commenters added that the registration process
also requires cognitive capacity to follow a multi-step process for
creating an account and registering for myUSCIS, including a two-factor
authentication process. Finally, a commenter said that registrants must
have the cognitive capacity to answer a long list of questions with
minimal instructions or risk civil and criminal penalties.
A commenter said that expecting individuals with disabilities to
comply with the registration requirement would place ``an unrealistic
and significant burden on them,'' reasoning that clients with health
needs living in the community are frequently without stable housing.
Specifically, the commenter noted that as these individuals move from
one transitional housing situation to another, papers are frequently
lost, and, often, possessions are stolen.
Response: DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not changed
the requirements established by Congress for aliens. The IFR and this
rule are limited in scope, designating a new registration form for
aliens to comply with the statutory registration and fingerprinting
requirements.
Most aliens in the United States already complied with the
registration requirement prior to the publication of the IFR. For many
decades, these aliens have satisfied the requirement through a variety
of pathways. However, the IFR and this final rule fills a gap in the
regulatory regime by prescribing a general registration option
available to all aliens regardless of their status and corresponding
evidence as proof of that registration. DHS believes that this new
option may improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens.
DHS and USCIS are committed to making electronic and information
technologies accessible to individuals with disabilities. The myUSCIS
site and its technology are designed to ensure individuals with
disabilities can access and use information and data in a way that is
comparable to those without disabilities.
The Form G-325R complies with section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act; additionally, USCIS provides reasonable accommodations in
accordance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.\19\ As part of
the accommodation, we encourage individuals to reach out to the USCIS
Contact Center if they require help with alien registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ See USCIS, ``Disability Accommodations for the Public,''
https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/disability-accommodations-for-the-public (last updated Oct. 19, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS notes that this rulemaking has not changed the requirement that
all aliens 18 years or older in the United States who are required to
register must at all times carry with them and have in their personal
possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration
receipt card issued to them. These are statutory requirements under
section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e).
d. Victims of Crime and Abuse
Comment: Commenters stated that the IFR undermines and threatens
the safety of victims of human trafficking and domestic and sexual
violence, and law enforcement depends on community cooperation to
maintain public safety, which becomes difficult when crime victims are
afraid to report crimes or speak to police. A commenter emphasized that
immigrant women, particularly those who are ``undocumented,'' are
extremely vulnerable to domestic violence, sexual assault, human
trafficking, and other violent crimes. The commenter explained that
these victims face significant barriers to seeking safety because
perpetrators, often U.S. citizens, exploit the victims' immigration
status to control them and threaten escalated violence if they seek
help. The commenter reasoned that the expanded registration
requirements in the IFR create an unnecessary climate of fear in
immigrant communities that undermines public safety, as crime victims
would avoid contacting police due to fears of penalties, detention, or
deportation. The commenter stated that the IFR effectively renders
current Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) legal protections for
immigrant victims of human trafficking and domestic/sexual violence
meaningless. The commenter wrote that the IFR puts immigrant victims
with pending applications for protection and those already working with
government authorities at immediate risk for deportation or criminal
prosecution, removing incentives for immigrant victims of violent crime
to seek help. The commenter further noted that the new registration
process creates an additional tool for abusive partners to harm victims
by establishing what they described as an impossible barrier to safety
for immigrant survivors.
A commenter stated that the IFR would cause people to be targeted
by ICE before they have had a chance to get trustworthy legal advice,
including individuals who have survived human trafficking, and
adolescents and young children who have been granted specialized status
due to their victimization. The commenter wrote that the IFR would
retraumatize these groups by arresting them and forcing them to show
documentation. A commenter said that the IFR introduces new
requirements that would deter survivors from coming forward, increase
the risk of re-traumatization, and make it easier for abusers and
perpetrators to maintain control over their victims. A commenter raised
specific concerns regarding the impact on survivors of abuse who have
received or are seeking humanitarian protection through VAWA, T, or U
visas.
A union said that the IFR will chill reporting of serious workplace
violations and harm ``applicants'' for U and T nonimmigrant status, in
violation of congressional intent of the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act (VTVPA). The commenter elaborated, discussing
various implications of the IFR for U and T visa applicants that the
commenter said DHS did not consider. The commenter remarked on
unnecessary and unjustified paperwork burdens, a lack of clarity around
privacy protections, and ``bad policy'' set forth in the IFR that
undoes the victim and witness protection scheme set forth in the VTVPA,
triggering adverse immigration consequences, ``intolerable'' abuses
against individual alien workers, and harms to all U.S. workers.
A commenter expressed concern about the IFR's lack of privacy and
confidentiality protections associated with the registration
requirement. According to the commenter, this deficiency could enable
abusers to leverage survivors' fears to prevent their access to the
immigration system. Multiple commenters remarked that abusers might
manipulate, control, coerce, and intimidate survivors by interfering
with the registration process, preventing access to necessary
technology, obstructing biometrics appointments, or hindering access to
legal assistance. The commenter reported that their organization has
observed clients struggling to determine whether they need to register
and experiencing fear and hesitancy around the registration process.
A few commenters similarly described the existing barriers
survivors

[[Page 39263]]

experience while submitting requests for immigration benefits, such as:
language access; the length and complexity of the forms; ability to
gather the necessary documents and evidence to support their claims;
and geographical barriers to accessing government offices and legal,
community, and financial services. The commenters suggested that the
IFR would exacerbate the barriers, fear, and confusion this population
already faces. Another commenter added that the broad scope and lack of
clear delineation regarding who must register may inadvertently create
opportunities for fraudulent actors to exploit vulnerable populations.
The commenter stated that despite DHS's ongoing initiatives to combat
immigration services scams, in the absence of explicit guidance,
individuals may fall prey to scams promising assistance with the
registration process, leading to financial loss and further
misinformation.
Multiple commenters remarked that domestic or sexual violence
perpetrators could manipulate the registration process by erroneously
registering survivors or interfering with a survivor's ability to
complete registration, including attending biometrics appointments,
thus exposing them to criminalization and enforcement. Other commenters
noted that abusers might also prevent survivors from carrying proof of
registration, exposing them to enforcement under section 264(e) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e). A commenter recommended that any registration
process provide flexibility for survivors to correct inconsistencies
and consider how victimization may impact compliance before conducting
enforcement actions based on section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1306(a).
A commenter noted that immigration-related abuse is a common tactic
used by abusers and perpetrators of crime to maintain power and control
over victims, citing the National Center for Domestic and Sexual
Violence's ``Immigrant Power and Control Wheel.'' The commenter
explained that survivors often depend on abusive partners or employers
for their immigration status, housing, transportation, income, and
access to technology, creating dependencies that abusers intentionally
maintain to isolate and control survivors. The commenter stated that
these vulnerabilities are compounded in today's digital environment,
citing research indicating that 80 percent of stalking victims report
being stalked using technology, with over one-third targeted by current
or former intimate partners. The commenter said that phones, apps, and
digital tools have become weapons for monitoring, harassing, and
interfering with survivors' efforts to escape or seek help. The
commenter reasoned that the IFR's registration requirements could be
manipulated by abusers who might block internet access, withhold
necessary documents, prevent survivors from attending biometrics
appointments, or deliberately mislead survivors about compliance
requirements, causing them to unknowingly fall out of compliance. The
commenter wrote that without survivor-specific safeguards, the
registration process could become another tool of coercion, placing
survivors at further risk of removal or harm. The commenter recommended
that if DHS does not rescind the IFR, it should include clear
provisions allowing survivors to correct abuser-generated
inconsistencies, explain delays or gaps, and avoid penalties for
noncompliance resulting from abuse. The commenter emphasized that no
survivor should face immigration consequences because of coercion,
fear, or manipulation by someone who has already caused them harm.
A commenter also stated that the requirement to possess proof of
registration at all times would disproportionately harm survivors of
violence who may be fleeing abuse or whose abusers control their
documentation as a means of maintaining power and control. The
commenter urged DHS to consider factors such as emergencies,
victimization, and health conditions in its enforcement actions related
to 8 U.S.C. 1304(e).
Response: DHS notes the IFR and this rule have not changed the
registration requirements established by Congress. This rulemaking
establishes a general registration option available to all unregistered
aliens regardless of immigration status to improve registration
outcomes for certain groups of aliens.
The INA requires that, with limited exceptions, most aliens in the
United States who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer
must apply for registration and fingerprinting. Prior to the IFR, most
aliens already complied with the registration requirements, however,
the IFR and this final rule fill a gap in the regulatory regime by
prescribing a registration form for unregistered aliens.
The IFR and this final rule have not changed any current procedures
or processes related to aliens who are eligible for and recipients of
victim-based immigration relief (specifically, VAWA self-petitioners as
well as applicants and petitioners for, and recipients of, T and U
nonimmigrant status). Also, the IFR and this final rule have not
changed the procedures or practices of DHS agencies to protect against
the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable information that
it collects, uses, or maintains.
DHS notes that if a registered alien does not have immediate
possession of his or her evidence of registration, DHS agencies have
access to DHS databases to confirm whether an alien satisfies the
registration requirement.
DHS recognizes that the immigration processes can be complex and
that requestors, including registrants, may still be at risk of
becoming victims of scams or fraud. DHS encourages requestors to use
the information on the USCIS website to avoid becoming victims of
common scams, fraud, and misconduct.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See USCIS, ``Scams, Fraud, and Misconduct,'' https://www.uscis.gov/scams-fraud-and-misconduct/scams-fraud-and-misconduct
(last visited June 23, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Other Populations
Comment: Several commenters stated that individuals with limited
English proficiency or limited access to technology or financial access
barriers would be exposed to punitive ramifications due to inability to
file the Form G-325R electronically. Another commenter also said that
the IFR makes no mention of its impact on ``noncitizens'' with limited
English proficiency or other language barriers, and noted that the IFR
does not account for any translation of the registration forms or
instructions.
One of the commenters voiced concern that those with limited
English proficiency might inadvertently register when not required to
do so, potentially triggering erroneous immigration enforcement
actions. Other commenters stated that the rule fails to mention its
impact on ``noncitizens'' with limited English proficiency or other
language barriers, nor does it account for any translation of Form G-
325R or the rule itself.
Response: DHS notes that this rulemaking has not changed the
requirement that all aliens 18 years or older in the United States who
are required to register must at all times carry with them and have in
their personal possession any certificate of alien registration or
alien registration receipt card issued to them. These are statutory
requirements under section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e). In
addition, this rulemaking does impose

[[Page 39264]]

any new registration or fingerprinting obligations separate from the
obligations already contained in the INA.
DHS acknowledges there are costs to registrants associated with the
statutory requirements to register. These costs include, but are not
limited to, time burden to submit biometrics, and travel costs to go to
an ASC. As a result of comments received, a more detailed breakdown of
the costs associated with this rule is in section VI, the Statutory and
Regulatory Requirements section of this preamble.
USCIS also established a dedicated website with information on the
ARR and an ARR Tool that may help aliens determine whether they must
register.\21\ DHS also notes Form G-325R is a digital form that can be
easily accessed through an internet browser or a person's cell phone.
Additionally, public libraries and other private and public
institutions can provide access to the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See USCIS, ``Alien Registration Requirement,'' https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration (last updated May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS notes that USCIS' immigration forms are offered and must be
submitted in English.\22\ USCIS also provides a PDF copy of Form G-325R
for aliens to access before completing the form.\23\ An alien may also
use the assistance of an interpreter for reading the instructions and
questions on the new registration form. If the alien uses an
interpreter, he or she must provide the contact information of that
interpreter and upload the interpreter's certification and signature
when applying for registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ The exception to this general rule is the Form I-9,
Employment Eligibility Verification, which is offered in the Spanish
language for employers in Puerto Rico only, and is not filed with
USCIS. See USCIS, ``I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification,''
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9 (last updated Apr. 2, 2025). USCIS also
has a Multilingual Resource Center, https://www.uscis.gov/tools/multilingual-resource-center, and a website in Spanish, https://www.uscis.gov/es/herramientas/centro-de-recursos-multilingues.
\23\ 23 See USCIS, ``G-325R, Biographic Information
(Registration),'' https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/g-325r (last
updated Apr. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Impact on Aliens' Legal Services
Comment: Commenters stated that as providers of comprehensive legal
services to refugees and displaced persons, the IFR would adversely
impact their client communities as well as stretch their resources,
hindering their mission to expand access to protection, lasting safety,
and due process for aliens and displaced persons. Another commenter
stated that confusion surrounding the IFR would cause them to expend
more resources to investigate which of their clients would require
registration. A commenter remarked that their organization has been
receiving numerous inquiries from community members asking whether they
need to register or not, creating a strain on their resources that
could be better utilized helping people to apply for immigration
relief.
A commenter said that they would need to screen every individual
they encounter, potentially changing intake processes, risk assessment,
advisal, and training to determine registration applicability for
clients and their family members. The commenter noted that providing
competent legal advice would require assessing the IFR's constitutional
implications, necessitating expert review and supervision for each
case. The commenter remarked that these changes would require
additional staff hours, diverting resources from serving more clients.
The commenter anticipated clients facing fines and criminal penalties
that would require legal advice and rapid response review.
Additionally, the commenter expressed concern about potential
``notario'' misrepresentation and abuse, which could defraud
individuals acting under faulty registration advice. The commenter
concluded this would significantly reduce their capacity to provide
services and pursue permanent relief for immigrants and asylum seekers
they would normally serve. A commenter said that since providers are
overwhelmed across the country due to funding cuts and increased demand
for services, it is unlikely that they and other nonprofit
organizations would have capacity to assist with registration under the
rule, which is needed for many aliens with limited English proficiency,
raising a host of fairness concerns.
A commenter similarly wrote that the IFR places heavy
administrative, time, and financial burdens on organizations serving
immigrants, as they must educate community members and help navigate
complex compliance requirements. The commenter described determining
registration eligibility as ``extremely time-consuming'' and difficult
for individuals who may lack necessary records. The commenter
contextualized the IFR within numerous other immigration policy
changes, citing alleged confusion created by actions revoking certain
grants of parole. The commenter stated that proper notice is impossible
if the Administration changes status determinations in real time
without resolving ambiguities, concluding that the IFR's requirements
could change without due consideration of impacts on immigrant
communities and supporting organizations.
A commenter voiced concern that the IFR would be burdensome and
limit their ability to fulfill their mission of serving alien
communities in New York. The commenter expressed that there is
widespread confusion about the rule among immigrant communities,
stating that individuals with various immigration statuses have raised
questions about the rule's applicability to their particular
situations. The commenter indicated that the complexity and rapid
implementation of the IFR have created vulnerability to misinformation.
According to the commenter, addressing this confusion requires
extensive one-on-one consultation with their members, which exceeds
their organization's capacity. The commenter stated that their legal
team's experience has demonstrated both the complexity of determining
registration requirements and the significant barriers to understanding
and complying with the rule. The commenter explained, for instance,
that determining whether an alien has previously registered requires
knowing whether the alien has filed a Form I-485 or Form I-765 and
knowing the outcome of such application. The commenter further noted
that clients could reasonably be confused about whether they had
registered if the client had previously submitted extensive
documentation to USCIS that does not qualify as registration under the
regulations. The commenter said that for some aliens, the only way to
verify their registration status and obtain the documents they must now
carry by law would be through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request--which is a multi-step process that can take months, consumes
their organization's staff time, and requires maintaining contact.
Other commenters also remarked that the IFR would lead to an increase
in FOIA requests due to a lack of clarity about who is required to
complete the new registration process and would place burdens on
immigration attorneys to file FOIA requests.
A commenter stated that the IFR's complexity and inconsistency pose
significant challenges to their staff, who cannot confidently advise
members on registration requirements in group settings such as
committee meetings and workshops that often include dozens of
attendees. According to the commenter, the confusing nature of the
registration requirement, coupled with its nearly universal impact,
undermines their model of providing community education and know-your-
rights presentations. The commenter stated

[[Page 39265]]

that with tens of thousands of members, their legal team lacks the
capacity to provide individual advice to all potentially affected
individuals. A commenter stated that the rule's unclear requirements
and lack of a concerted rollout or public education on the part of
USCIS impose tremendous burdens on its organization and its members.
The commenter said this also creates an environment ripe for fraud.
A commenter said that it would be forced to prioritize helping
clients obtain registration documents quickly to avoid enforcement
actions, adding that its staff would have to devote more time and
resources abiding by such a rule, which would divert capacity to assist
with other vital legal services and pathways to relief.
A commenter wrote that Michigan professionals who serve survivors
of domestic and sexual violence would be ``left in the lurch'' about
what could happen to survivors when they register, adding that without
being able to safely provide guidance and avoid unauthorized practice
of law, such advocates would struggle to support their clients to stay
safe and to keep their children safe. The commenter also stated that
Michigan police officers would struggle to secure supportive witnesses
in their investigations because survivors would be so fearful of
removal that they would not come forward.
A commenter voiced concern about the IFR's impact on organizations
like themselves, stating that their organization has already
experienced a significant increase in requests for information, legal
advice, and assistance from existing clients regarding the IFR's
registration and proof requirements. Additionally, the commenter
reported increased inquiries and concerns from the broader community,
which has interfered with their core function of providing immigration
legal services. The commenter explained that the complexity and
``inconsistencies'' of the rule, coupled with its nearly universal
impact, mean that even existing clients who may be considered
``registered'' would need legal advice to confidently make that
determination. The commenter added that this is particularly true for
clients with pending applications or those in mixed-status households
where there is greater ambiguity about who needs to comply with the
process. The commenter raised concerns about the IFR's impact on their
organization's funding and operations. The commenter explained that
they receive a significant portion of their funding from grants and
contracts that require specific deliverables of immigration legal
services, with some contracts paid on a ``per case'' basis and others
paid in cycles based on reporting requirements. The commenter said that
advising and assisting existing clients and community members around
the new rule would not qualify under these grants as deliverables,
since those grants fund other specific services. The commenter warned
that failure to comply with current grant metrics and reporting
requirements due to the diversion of resources to address the IFR may
result in the loss of remaining funds under those grants. The commenter
expressed concern that this could jeopardize the organization's ability
to apply for future grants, potentially leading to staff layoffs and
other cost-cutting measures, ultimately reducing their ability to
assist existing and future clients.
A commenter wrote that the immigrant registration requirement would
present a conflict of interest for their organization and the defense
attorneys they work with because it would force attorneys to advise
``noncitizens'' to comply with a law that likely violates the Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination. The commenter further said
that since failure to register can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, it
would be more difficult to accurately advise on the risks and benefits
of criminal case dispositions and would complicate plea negotiations.
Another commenter said that the IFR creates moral issues for attorneys,
who are not going to want to advise their clients not to register
because of the associated legal obligations.
Response: DHS understands that organizations may experience an
increase in inquiries from client communities, or an expansion of an
organization's services to include additional assistance about the
alien registration requirement. However, this is often the case with
new processes and is not unique to this IFR. DHS disagrees with the
characterization that the IFR and alien registration presents legal
organizations and defense attorneys with a conflict of interest or
moral issues. Legal services providers would presumably advise their
clients about the directives of section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302,
as they would any other legal obligation.
DHS also notes that the IFR and this final rule have not changed
the registration requirements and related obligations established by
Congress many decades ago. The statute requires that, with limited
exceptions, all aliens 14 years or older who were not registered and
fingerprinted, if required, who remain in the United States for 30 days
or longer, must apply for registration and fingerprinting. These
rulemakings fill a gap in DHS's regulatory regime by establishing a
general registration option available to all aliens, regardless of
status. DHS believes that this option may improve registration outcomes
for certain groups of aliens.
USCIS also established a dedicated website with information on the
ARR and an ARR Tool that may help aliens determine whether they must
register.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See USCIS, ``Alien Registration Requirement,'' https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration (last updated May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of this rulemaking, DHS is also requesting comments on
proposed amendments to prescribe certain existing forms with
information collection and thorough biometric-based screening and
vetting for use by aliens to improve registration outcomes for certain
populations of aliens while increasing efficiency and reducing burden
for the public and the government. See Section V.A of this preamble.
4. Impact on the Immigration System and Government Operations
a. Unclear Benefits to Enforcement Capabilities
Comment: Many commenters said that the IFR fails to provide
sufficient evidence demonstrating that the current system is
inadequately enforced or that the proposed rule would provide a benefit
for enforcement effectiveness or efficiency, public safety, or national
security. Multiple other commenters described the rule as unnecessary,
highly costly, and ineffective, with several commenters calling for its
rescission. A commenter expressed concern that the IFR does not
meaningfully distinguish between different immigration statuses, which
could lead to confusion and duplicated registrations. A couple of
commenters warned that similar registration policies were used during
World War II and ``consistently failed to enhance security.'' A
commenter described the IFR as ``addressing a problem that does not
exist.'' A different commenter reasoned that perpetrators of serious
crimes would not be likely to follow the registration requirement,
writing that the similar NSEERS registration requirement imposed after
September 11th was not productive and that there was no evidence of any
terrorist identified through the program. Similarly, a commenter wrote
that sweeping registries ``don't make us safer.'' The commenter stated
that after September 11, 2001, a similar program

[[Page 39266]]

(NSEERS) targeted Muslim immigrants and failed to produce a single
terrorism conviction--while causing lasting harm. They added that true
safety comes from trust and smart, targeted policies--not from a fear-
based overreach. Another commenter expressed concern that the rule
would consume vast amounts of resources for data likely to be of poor
quality.
A commenter said that the rule would press immigration authorities
to detain more individuals based on the perception of noncompliance,
including U.S. citizens, undermining public safety and wasting
enforcement resources that should target legitimate security threats.
The commenter articulated that the rule lacks evidence to justify the
costs to benefit public safety, citing studies indicating that past
uses of this section of immigration law do not provide such evidence.
Some commenter said the rule would apply more resources to immigration
enforcement by flooding courts with low-level administrative cases,
which would divert resources away from prosecuting crimes against
public safety, such as felonies and other serious crimes and limit
agency resources on border enforcement, fraud prevention, and asylum
adjudication. Another commenter said the rule's effects would be
compounded for immigration enforcement officers in the field, who would
be required to spend disproportionate time seeking out and reviewing
registration documents rather than focusing on priority enforcement
tasks, with consequences for national security and overall public
safety.
A few commenters similarly wrote that it is unclear how the rule
would significantly improve national security or law enforcement
efficacy beyond existing measures. One of these commenters discussed
the existing measures at both the State and Federal level to verify
employment, driver's licenses, and legal status and cited research from
the Migration Policy Institute to demonstrate that measures such as E-
Verify and REAL ID are sufficient. A commenter stated that DHS already
possesses registration and biometric data for most individuals it
interacts with, and the background checks associated with the G-325R
form replicate checks already done through visa, asylum, TPS, and
employment authorization applications. The commenter stated that,
rather than improving DHS's ability to identify threats, the rule may
hamper enforcement by overloading systems with redundant data and
discouraging cooperation from immigrant communities who fear
retaliation for attempted compliance. A commenter similarly said that
existing processes and systems already track individuals who interact
with immigration agencies and there is no indication that current
tracking mechanisms have left DHS unable to identify or apprehend
individuals who pose real public safety or national security risks,
making this ``sweeping expansion'' both unnecessary and inefficient.
Similarly, another commenter urged the Department to focus on improving
existing systems rather than creating unnecessary administrative
complexities, while a different commenter described the registry
requirement as an ``unnecessary overhaul'' of the immigration system.
One commenter expressed concern that the IFR would be impossible to
enforce. Another commenter recommended that DHS ensure the proposed
registration would not automatically trigger enforcement actions.
Response: The IFR and final rule do not change current procedures
but fill a gap in the regulatory regime by prescribing a general
registration option available to all aliens regardless of their status
and corresponding evidence as proof of that registration. The rule is
expected to improve DHS law enforcement efficacy by providing more
comprehensive information about the location of aliens in the United
States to make it easier and safer for DHS to enforce the law. The
increased compliance with fingerprinting requirements provides DHS with
additional information about an alien's criminal record, including
whether an alien is a known or suspected terrorist. DHS also notes that
most aliens lawfully present in the United States are likely already
registered. Finally, DHS notes that even if this rulemaking lacked a
clear net positive effect on law enforcement efficacy, DHS would pursue
this rulemaking consistent with DHS's duty to faithfully implement the
alien registration requirements of the INA and the President's
direction in E.O. 14159.
b. Government Cost and Misallocation of Government Resources
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern regarding increased DHS
costs arising from the IFR and described it as misallocation of
government resources. For example, some commenters opposed the use of
tax dollars to fund the policing and deportation of individuals fleeing
conditions they attributed to U.S. foreign policy. Another commenter
recommended against using resources to fund policing practices they
viewed as invasive. A couple of commenters wrote that government
resources should be directed toward ensuring basic human needs.
A commenter stated that the rule would create an expensive, bloated
bureaucracy in an effort to criminalize neighbors if they fall behind
on their paperwork and constitutes a waste of resources given that the
government already has all the information it needs.
A commenter stated that DHS would need to create a whole new system
to keep track of these registrations, creating an undue burden. A
commenter stated that, as currently written, any LPR who takes even a
1-hour trip to Mexico could be subject to having to tender their Green
Card upon each re-entry and be re-fingerprinted, leading to an ``absurd
result'' and waste of time and resources.
One commenter wrote that it would not be an efficient use of
resources to institute this registration process, describing it as
``unrelated to the general welfare of Americans nor to the provision of
the benefits USCIS already administers.''
Other commenters said the rule's criminal penalties for failing to
comply with registration requirements would create a high cost for
civil and criminal law enforcement. Describing the difficulty
authorities faced in effectively carrying out the NSEERS program and
its financial costs, a commenter wrote that this history and the lack
of a clear and manageable method of implementing the various aspects of
the program should be informative to the IFR and its potential
financial implications, as the impending registration requirement would
require multiple agencies and authorities to troubleshoot the various
aspects of the program. Some commenters wrote that the IFR would lead
to more litigation and abuse, with an individual commenter expressing
concern about ``legal fees'' DHS might incur and become a ``waste of
taxpayer money.''
Response: With this IFR and final rule, as always, DHS strives to
be fair and efficiently execute the laws established by Congress. This
rulemaking addresses a gap in the existing regulatory regime and
ensures that there is a way for all aliens, regardless of their
immigration status, to comply with their duty under the law and to
improve overall registration outcomes.
To address the resource and efficiency concerns of the comments,
the Form G-325R process is entirely electronic. Anyone issued Form I-94
or I-94W upon their admission or parole to the United States is already
registered. LPRs

[[Page 39267]]

who reenter the United States after a temporary absence abroad have
generally already been registered as they are in possession of a Form
I-551 (``a green card'') and are generally not seeking admission to the
United States. See INA sec. 101(a)(13)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C).
The statute requires an alien to provide fingerprints, unless
waived, as part of the registration process, and in general, USCIS has
not seen any significant delays or inefficiencies in biometric
collection services. Section VI.B.3 of this preamble provides further
discussion on the estimated cost to the agency of this rulemaking.
To the extent that the commenters suggest that DHS should not fully
administer and enforce the alien registration requirements of the INA,
DHS respectfully disagrees. Furthermore, the rule does not obligate
additional enforcement of the existing statute DHS will administer,
enforce, and faithfully execute these laws consistent with DHS's
statutory duties under the INA, and as directed by the President, which
includes defending against challenges from those who would prefer that
the government not enforce these laws. DHS does not believe that
defending the faithful implementation of immigration laws, as passed by
Congress, against legal challenges is a waste of government resources,
but instead is part of the government's mandate.
Comment: A few commenters expressed general concerns that the IFR
would support government corruption and inappropriate usage of the
immigration system. One of the commenters wrote that the requirement
could lead to an increase in officers within the immigration system
abusing their position of authority and that the government is trying
to appear effective without being effective.
Response: As part of E.O. 14159, President Trump made it a priority
to enforce the registration requirement in accordance with the law, and
to publicize information about the duty of aliens described in section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, to register and be fingerprinted (if
required), as well as the related requirements to carry such evidence
of registration and notify DHS of changes of address.
The goal of the IFR and final rule is to faithfully implement the
alien registration requirements of the INA. DHS seeks to better ensure
that aliens understand their duty under the law and have a path to
satisfy that statutory duty through the new general registration
process and form. Speculation about potential future misuse of
authority or other malfeasance by government officials is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking does not set enforcement
policy and cannot reasonably be expected to comprehensively account for
such activity.
c. Duplicating Existing Processes and Exacerbating Backlog
Comment: Many commenters wrote that the IFR does not adequately
address how DHS would handle the massive influx of registrations and
the associated administrative and enforcement costs of the rule, as
well as impacts to the existing backlog and other essential DHS
functions. Many commenters also expressed concern that the new
registration system would further burden an overwhelmed system and
exacerbate the USCIS backlog, resulting in negative effects, such as
loss of protection, delays in visa and petition processing, and
interruption in employment authorization.
Many commenters similarly stated that requiring millions of people
to register and enforcing proof of registration would increase
administrative costs for DOJ and USCIS, including costs for personnel,
training, and materials; they said the latter agency already has severe
backlogs in processing several benefit categories. Likewise, a
commenter stated that creating, maintaining, and enforcing compliance
with a massive registration regime would be extraordinarily costly and
require new bureaucracy, increased surveillance, and extensive
enforcement operations to act on the data collected, thus overwhelming
DHS resources and layering on to existing backlogs. A commenter stated
that the significant challenges USCIS already faces in processing Form
I-765 filings would only become more acute if resources are diverted to
process millions of Form G-325Rs, thus increasing current EAD
processing backlogs and harming workers, businesses, and the overall
economy in the process. A few commenters encouraged DHS to focus on
other priorities, including improving efficiency within the existing
system, such as reducing the case backlog, instead of expanding alien
registration requirements.
A commenter stated that DHS does not have the necessary resources
for increased logistics, staffing, training, and developing and
maintaining a system, adding that if DHS does currently have the
funding, the government could put it to better use in other departments
within the government '' to improve services, staffing, training,
etc.'' A commenter also noted that the IFR would create unnecessary
administrative burden for DHS employees during a period of Federal job
reductions. Several commenters critiqued the rule for its lack of
discussion on the current backlog at USCIS or how the rule would affect
this backlog. Commenters expressed concern that USCIS is already
experiencing significant backlogs in processing various applications,
including asylum applications, Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status
petitions, and other immigration benefits. Commenters also critiqued
the IFR for its lack of discussion on the potential costs of adding
``significant'' additional workload to the overburdened state of USCIS,
describing the ongoing economic damage of the backlog across benefit
categories.
One of the commenters wrote that the government collects extensive
biometric and biographic data through multiple agencies. Some
commenters stated that many aliens are already registered, including
individuals who have been granted or applied for lawful permanent
residence, received a Form I-94 when arriving in the United States,
were issued an EAD, or were issued a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa
prior to their most recent arrival in the United States. Similarly, a
commenter said relevant information is already collected via
longstanding forms such as I-94, I-485, I-589, and I-765. The commenter
stated that this rule fragments the system further, confusing both
applicants and government agencies, creating overlap with existing
databases and identification mechanisms, thus directly contradicting
calls for immigration system streamlining. The commenter urged DHS to
develop registration mechanisms that integrate with existing forms and
databases, rather than creating redundant and confusing parallel
systems.
Multiple commenters similarly expressed concern with the
requirement for asylum applicants, Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
holders, and others who have applied for humanitarian benefits not
currently listed as a registration form, to submit the G-325R. A
commenter noted that this duplication places a significant and
unnecessary burden on DHS employees at a time when the Federal
Government is cutting jobs.
A commenter stated that numerous immigration forms that require
biometrics upon receipt as part of the form's application process are
not listed as acceptable forms of registration, writing that this
omission shows that this type of mandatory registration is outdated and
unnecessary. For example,

[[Page 39268]]

the commenter said Form I-589 is not included on the list of accepted
forms, but as part of the asylum process, all applicants must disclose
extensive biographical and demographic information on Form I-589 and
also complete the biometrics process. Therefore, the commenter reasoned
that to consider asylum applicants as ``not registered'' is
unreasonable and arbitrary and that the same argument would hold for a
variety of different immigration forms and application processes,
including U and T visas, SIJ, and VAWA relief. The commenter concluded
that to force asylum, U visa, T visa, SIJ, and VAWA applicants to
register using the G-325R would be a waste of government resources and
time since the government already has the same information that is
being asked for in the G-325R.
Response: DHS has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws
established by Congress, including the alien registration requirement.
The statute requires most aliens who remain in the United States for 30
days or longer to apply for registration and with some exceptions based
on age or nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted. DHS, with the IFR and
this final rule, has not created or modified the statutory requirements
of an alien's duty to register with the government under section 262 of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
In general, the IFR has not caused any significant processing
delays or an increase of backlogs on other immigration benefits
processed by USCIS. DHS purposefully streamlined the process by which
unregistered aliens may register and comply with the law as required by
the INA to benefit aliens and USCIS. The Form G-325R process is
entirely electronic. Unlike paper filings, an unregistered alien
submits information through the electronic process and is automatically
prompted to provide necessary information to complete his or her
registration. An alien obtains evidence of registration (USCIS Proof of
Alien G-325R Registration) almost instantly after applying for
registration or after providing biometrics, if required. In the alien's
myUSCIS account, he or she will be able to download and print a PDF
version of the evidence of registration (USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R
Registration), which is of significance in light of the requirement in
section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e), that all aliens 18 years
or older in the United States who are required to register must at all
times carry with them and have in their personal possession any
certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card
issued to them. The electronic processing of the Form G-325R eliminates
manual intake processing that includes opening envelopes of a mailed
submission, checking forms against acceptance criteria, and scanning
the documents to convert them into electronic format or otherwise
entering form responses into USCIS systems. Manual intake processing is
more time-consuming and burdensome for the agency and could lead to
delays in processing and data integrity issues. The electronic
processing of Form G-325R has enhanced automated services for
unregistered aliens and USCIS. This process has not created any
significant processing delays and has not required reallocation of
resources from other workloads in USCIS.
At this time, under 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b), aliens who have filed
the Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, and
other forms that are not enumerated in the existing regulations, are
not considered to be registered. DHS notes that Form I-766, Employment
Authorization Document, is listed as evidence of registration at 8 CFR
264.1(b). Many asylees, asylum applicants, TPS applicants, and other
aliens have received such evidence of registration.
DHS is aware that there are areas of the existing regulations that
could be improved, including amending the list of forms prescribed as
registration forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and the list of forms constituted
as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b). As part of this final
rule, DHS is requesting comments on various ways to amend the DHS
regulation to improve implementation of the registration requirement
under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. See section V of this
preamble.
5. Impact on Communities and Public Safety
a. Impacts and Implications for Law Enforcement and Participation in
Community Safety
Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns that the rule would
undermine public safety and law enforcement effectiveness. A commenter
stated that communities across the country rely on a strong
relationship with law enforcement officers; they said the IFR threatens
that relationship due to the increased threat or perception of wrongful
arrests, which would lead to a downward spiral of eroding trust
impacting both U.S. citizens and aliens. Similarly, a different
commenter expressed concern that enforcement agencies would be unable
to distinguish between immigrants of different registration statuses
and that there would be an increase in false arrests. With regard to
trust, commenters wrote that the policy would damage community trust in
law enforcement, subject both U.S citizens and lawfully present aliens,
including LPRs, to wrongful arrests and detentions, and place
additional strain on the immigration legal system without achieving
meaningful public safety benefits. One commenter wrote that the current
administration has already engaged in ``haphazard and aggressive
pattern of enforcement actions,'' and that ``this IFR will only fuel
the alarming enforcement practices commonplace in this
administration.'' In connection with their stated concerns about public
safety, some commenters wrote that aliens commit crime at lower rates
than U.S. citizens.
Separate commenters wrote that the policy would pave the way for
widespread abuse without improving community safety, with others adding
that it would impede cooperation with law enforcement, make communities
less safe, and also undermine officer safety. As an alternative to the
IFR, a commenter recommended concentrating on improved coordination
with local law enforcement agencies on tailored cooperation and
focusing resources on the most serious national security and public
safety threats, rather than registering and pursuing millions of aliens
indiscriminately. A different commenter suggested that policymakers
should pursue immigration policies that benefit the economy and
increase public safety and prioritize the removal of legitimate public
safety threats over individuals without a criminal record.
A commenter wrote that the IFR is expected to divert law
enforcement from essential duties. The commenter warned that local
officers directed to enforce the requirement to carry evidence of
registration would need to engage in ``complex interactions with
considerable fourth and fifth amendment entanglements without
appropriate funding for training in immigration requirements,''
reducing overall public safety efficacy. With regard to police, a
commenter stated that they are not trained in immigration law and may
struggle to differentiate if someone is properly registered,
potentially leading to false charges and litigation. The commenter
cited a 2008 report from the Goldwater Institute stating that the
effectiveness of the Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff's Department
``was compromised by misplaced priorities,'' including immigration
enforcement.

[[Page 39269]]

A commenter stated that law enforcement officials themselves have
expressed concern about the impact of immigration enforcement on
community trust, in particular when people are unwilling to or fearful
of calling the police, report victimization, or cooperate as witnesses,
it increases the vulnerability of everyone in the city to
victimization. A commenter said that because of the severe penalties
for not having registration, immigrants would be reluctant to have any
contact with law enforcement officials, even if they are victims or
witnessed a crime.
Many commenters stated that mandatory registration might deter
individuals from seeking essential services, seeking help, or reporting
crimes. For example, one of those commenters cited research that, per
the commenter, showed that Hispanic community members were 30 percent
less likely to report crimes during the implementation of Secure
Communities, a 2008 program that automatically forwarded fingerprints
of all arrestees to DHS. The same commenter noted that a review of
local cooperation in Federal enforcement programs found that ``none
reduced violent crime [and] on the contrary, two of the arrangements
significantly increased a person's risk of experiencing violent
crime.'' Another commenter wrote that the IFR makes communities less
safe by creating a hostile environment for immigrants, affecting both
immigrants and U.S. citizens. They said this could result in over-
policing and stated that mandatory registration might deter
``noncitizens'' from reporting crimes, therefore undermining public
safety and allowing crimes to go unreported, which impacts the broader
community.
Expressing agreement with this viewpoint, another commenter wrote
that there would be a ``dramatic'' spike in detention and deportation.
They also wrote that USCIS fails to consider the impact of arbitrary
and discriminatory searches, seizures, detentions, and deportations
premised on the rule and the impacts on ``noncitizens'' and U.S.
citizens alike. Numerous commenters expressed concern that the IFR
would harm or instill fear in immigrant communities. A commenter stated
that the rule may cause aliens who are already legally registered using
other registration forms to be increasingly fearful and uncertain. A
commenter wrote that fear among alien communities is being exacerbated
by the administration's ``threatening'' rhetoric and by the tactics
employed in immigration enforcement. Numerous commenters raised
concerns that fear stemming from the IFR would lead to deterioration of
trust in the immigration system and potential chilling effects on
aliens' access or willingness to engage with public services, health
care, the legal system, or legal immigration processes. For example, a
commenter discussed potential fears that registering could expose
individuals to future enforcement actions, deportation proceedings, or
discriminatory treatment, and stated that the rule exacerbates fears,
rather than addressing legitimate concerns transparently. Other
commenters stated that the IFR would generally discourage civic
participation or limit access to social services, because aliens are
being treated with suspicion, rather than as valued members of society.
Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR negatively impacts public
safety and participation in community safety, puts an undue burden on
law enforcement, or would divert them from performing their essential
duties. The alien registration requirement is not new. For the last 85
years, the laws of the United States have required most aliens present
in the United States who remain for 30 days or longer to register and,
with some exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant status, be
fingerprinted. The requirement that aliens register and update their
address with the government within 10 days of moving, and the
requirement that aliens issued evidence of registration carry such
evidence on their person, were also established by Congress in the
middle of the 20th century.\25\ DHS, with the IFR and this final rule,
has not created these requirements or modified the duties established
by Congress for aliens. Similarly, this IFR did not create or modify
the criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago that
apply when aliens fail to meet their registration and related
obligations. This rule is consistent with E.O. 14159 and the alien
registration requirements in sections 262 through 265 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1302 through 1305, and establishes a general registration option
available to all unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status.
It is within Congress' control and its policy choice to change the
statutory registration requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith
Act, required all aliens in the United States beyond 30 days to
apply to register and to be fingerprinted. See Public Law 76-670, 54
Stat. 670 (June 28, 1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, the rule does not obligate additional enforcement of
the existing statute. The rule also does not oblige the removal of any
unauthorized alien from the country. The rule establishes that those
aliens that have not registered through other means can now register
using Form G-325R. As explained in the IFR, the rule is expected to
improve DHS law enforcement efficacy and to provide more comprehensive
information about the location of aliens in the United States. Further,
it will make it easier and safer for DHS to enforce the law and
increase alien compliance with statutory fingerprinting requirements.
These biometrics would provide the Department with additional
information about an alien's criminal record, including whether the
alien is a known or suspected terrorist.
b. Impacts on Communities
Comment: Commenters stated that registration programs do not make
communities safer but instead undermine community wellbeing, harm the
community, drive families into hiding, and weaken the community instead
of strengthening it. While expressing opposition, a commenter generally
wrote that the rule would ``attack our community.''
Commenters further wrote that the rule would make people afraid to
send their children to school, leave their homes to go to work, and
contribute to their communities. For example, a commenter, stating that
they are a teacher, said that a public registry of immigrants would
make it impossible for their students to attend school every day, and
they expressed fear for their own safety if the registry were
implemented.
Multiple commenters condemned the proposed registration process as
unjust and infuriating, while others said it would destabilize
communities, with another criticizing the policy as dangerous, saying
that paperwork errors are harming innocent peoples' lives. Commenters
added that registration programs do not make communities safer but
instead would lead to civic disengagement and community divestment.
Expressing a similar opinion, a commenter wrote that the IFR would
impose unclear and punitive bureaucracy on immigrant workers and
establishes a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure that does not
differentiate between high-risk and low-risk individuals or those with
legal protections and those without. They said this approach encourages
disengagement from lawful processes, undermining both public safety and
economic participation.
Commenters wrote that people deserve to live safely in their
communities, with a commenter saying immigrants are integral to all
corners of

[[Page 39270]]

life, including their neighborhood. A commenter generally stated that
they oppose the alien registration as it would be a disservice to the
American people to ``implement such a task.''
Referring to personal experience, a commenter stated they live in a
city with many aliens who contribute to the economy. They expressed
concern about the potential separation of families and loved ones due
to the new process, which they regarded as unjust. A commenter wrote
that with their 45 years of experience in fostering learning and
intercultural community, they recognize the widespread harm that would
result if the IFR were implemented. Expressing opposition and without
specifics, another commenter wrote that the rule is a step deeper into
fascism and would hurt communities and the country at-large.
Commenters wrote that they value immigrants as important members of
their communities and support their ability to remain in the United
States while navigating the lengthy and complex citizenship process.
Response: This rulemaking has not changed the existing statutory
registration requirements established by Congress. For many decades,
the laws of the United States have required most aliens present in the
United States who remain for 30 days or longer to register, and with
some exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted.
The statute further requires that all aliens 18 years or older in the
United States who are required to register must at all times carry with
them and have in their personal possession any certificate of alien
registration or alien registration receipt card issued to them. Most
aliens in the United States already complied with the alien
registration requirement prior to the publication of the IFR and
related information collection. The IFR fills a gap in the DHS's
regulatory regime by prescribing a registration form available to all
aliens regardless of their immigration status and corresponding
evidence as proof of that registration. DHS believes that this general
registration option may improve registration outcomes for certain
groups of aliens.
c. Impact on Academic Communities
Comment: With regard to university communities, some commenters
wrote that student enrollment would be affected by the rule, with one
of those citing research highlighting the impact of restrictive
immigration on education. Another commenter said the United States is a
top destination for individuals seeking to build skills and engage in
intellectual exchange, adding that ``noncitizen'' students, graduates,
and researchers enhance the U.S. workforce, economic competitiveness,
and global leadership. The commenter wrote that on college campuses,
both short- and long-term visitors enrich learning, advance knowledge,
drive innovation, and offer fresh perspectives that benefit communities
and the nation. Further, they wrote that the registration requirement
could discourage immigrant populations, including immigrant students,
scholars, and workers, from enrolling or seeking employment at U.S.
higher education institutions. They continued, saying that this
reduction in participation would negatively impact U.S. innovation and
research, harming global competitiveness. The commenter said that
countries with more predictable and readily intelligible immigration
systems would have an advantage in recruiting top talent, contributing
to recent trends that see international students and graduates choosing
competitor countries over the United States. Additionally, they
remarked that it would affect surrounding communities that rely on the
economic and social contributions of students, faculty, and staff. They
concluded that the United States risks losing both immediate consumer
spending and long-term intellectual and social contributions from
``noncitizen'' communities.
Response: DHS, with the IFR and final rule, has not changed the
existing statutory registration requirements established by Congress
for aliens. This longstanding statute has always provided that most
aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for 30 days
or longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before
the expiration of the 30 days. See INA sec. 262, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
DHS notes that many aliens in the United States have already
registered, as required by law. Any alien who was issued an immigrant
or nonimmigrant visa and at his or her most recent arrival was admitted
into the United States using that visa is registered. This includes
aliens who are nonimmigrant students or exchange visitors.

D. Legal Issues and Statutory Provisions

1. General Legal Authority and Legality of the IFR
Comment: Many commenters discussed and compared alien registration
under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, to NSEERS, a program
implemented after 9/11, stating that past attempts to enforce similar
policies led to the disproportionate targeting, detention and
deportation of U.S. residents, and increased discrimination.\26\ For
example, a commenter remarked that while NSEERS rarely resulted in
criminal prosecution, prosecution is a major component of this IFR.
Commenters also stated that NSEERS led to prolific racial, ethnic, and
religious discrimination and many legally questionable outcomes,
including possible First and Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights
violations. A commenter remarked that NSEERS resulted in over 13,000
people being placed in removal proceedings, yet produced no convictions
for terrorism, contrary to the purported purpose of the program.
Comparing NSEERS to the IFR, a commenter stated that an Office of
Inspector General report in 2012 found that the NSEERS was ineffective
and duplicative of existing, more reliable methods of information
gathering. The commenter stated that the IFR's registration system
would face similar problems, such as difficulty for registrants to
adhere to requirements due to system outages and delays and other
technical glitches and lack of access (e.g., technology and language
barriers) in its online-only model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ NSEERS was a special registration program implemented by
the U.S. government and former INS after the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, requiring nonimmigrants from selected countries
to report to INS. See 67 FR 52584 (Aug. 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: The IFR and this final rule serves a different purpose
than NSEERS, which primarily established criteria for the registration
of special groups under section 263 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1303. In
contrast, the IFR merely identifies an additional registration form
related to general registration requirements that already apply. The
goal of the IFR and this final rule is to ensure that aliens have a
straightforward way to satisfy their obligation to register. The Form
G-325R is available to all unregistered aliens regardless of
immigration status, religion, nationality, or race. Comments regarding
technical difficulties with the online G-325R are addressed in more
detail in section III.F.2.b of this preamble.
2. Legal Basis for the IFR
Comment: A commenter indicated that while the INA includes
registration provisions, the IFR would exceed the law's intended
administrative functions and would weaponize registration to effect
mass removals. Another commenter wrote that the IFR exceeds sections
262 through 264 of the INA authorities, remarking that those provisions
govern entry documentation, not retroactive registration of

[[Page 39271]]

individuals already residing in the United States. Many commenters
criticized the IFR as an attempt to facilitate the removal of
individuals under the Alien Enemies Act,\27\ which they stated the
President has invoked illegally or improperly, and for the purpose of
terrorizing aliens with removal and criminal penalties, and removing
and detaining individuals without due process solely based on national
origin or perceived threats Another commenter wrote that the Department
should not implement any registration requirements until the
administration ``complies with existing laws, rules, regulations, and
court orders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ See 50 U.S.C. 21 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: DHS disagrees with the assertion that the intent of the
IFR is to ``weaponize registration to effect mass removals,'' or to
terrorize aliens or remove them without due process. This rule is also
unrelated to the Alien Enemies Act. Section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1302, simply requires registration and fingerprinting of aliens in the
United States for 30 days or more, which is well within this nation's
sovereign prerogative to require. This rule addresses a gap in the
existing regulatory regime and ensures that all aliens, regardless of
their immigration status, have a way to comply with their duty under
the law. The Department has a duty to implement the registration
requirements and administer and enforce all the immigration laws of the
United States.
a. Claims That the Rule Is Based on Outdated or Racist Laws
Comment: Several commenters expressed their opposition to the
registration of aliens by citing to examples of historic use of
registration as an explanation as to why they believe that the IFR
would result in violations and harm to the immigrant and U.S.
communities, as well as the Federal Government, and why registration is
an ineffective method of keeping the United States safe. For example, a
commenter wrote that during World War II the Alien Registration Act of
1940 required aliens to register with the Federal Government or face
imprisonment or fine. Specifically relating to World War II, commenters
noted that by early 1942, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had
arrested 2,192 Japanese, 1,393 German, and 264 Italian nationals, and
that this law also led to the internment of over 120,000 individuals of
Japanese descent, including U.S. citizens. Several commenters similarly
expressed general concerns about the Department invoking the statute
that led to internment use during World War II for modern immigration
issues. Citing to research, commenters indicated that U.S. internments
during World War II caused trauma with long-lasting effect, and were
later found to not be supported by military necessity. Commenters wrote
that racism, war hysteria, and failure of political leadership led to
grave injustice to communities.
A commenter stated that while the Supreme Court originally upheld
the practice of the imprisonment of thousands of Japanese residents
during World War II in Korematsu v. United States (1944),\28\ it
repudiated that decision in Trump v. Hawaii (2018),\29\ when the first
Trump administration cited to Korematsu in its defense in a lawsuit
over a travel ban on certain people groups.\30\ Commenters also
remarked that the ``invasion'' narrative has been part of xenophobic,
discriminatory, and anti-immigrant rhetoric for over a century, citing
to examples such as the ``Chinese Invasion'' in 1873 that incited hate
against Chinese immigrants and paved the way for the Chinese Exclusion
Act of 1882 or the Immigration Act of 1924. Other commenters stated
that the IFR reanimates a World War II-era policy originally invoked
during a time of war, which they said no longer aligns with the values
and needs of a modern and diverse society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
\29\ 585 U.S. 667 (2018).
\30\ The commenter correctly noted the Supreme Court found that
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was gravely wrongly
decided, overruled in the court of history, and that the decision
has no place in law under the U.S. Constitution. See Trump v.
Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 710 (2018). However, the Court also explained
that Korematsu--which dealt with the ``forcible relocation of U.S.
citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly based on
race''--was unlawful and outside the scope of the Presidential
authority. Id. The Court also found that Korematsu had nothing to do
with the proclamation at issue, which prevented entry of nationals
who could not be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to
improve their practices. See id. Similarly, registration has nothing
to do with Korematsu. Implementing the registration provisions
codified by Congress is neither objectively unlawful nor outside the
scope of the President's or DHS's authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14159,
Protecting the American People Against Invasion, which directed DHS to
ensure that aliens comply with their statutory duty, as provided by
Congress, to register with the government under sections 262 through
265 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1305. See 90 FR 8443, 8444 (Jan.
29, 2025). The President further directed DHS and DOJ to ensure that
failure to comply with the registration requirement is treated as a
civil and criminal enforcement priority. See 90 FR 8443, 8444 (Jan. 29,
2025).
Many aliens in the United States have already registered, as
required by law, through a variety of pathways identified in 8 CFR
264.1 or through the visa application process with State. However, a
significant number of aliens present in the United States, including
many who have not previously been encountered by DHS, have no
straightforward way to register and meet their registration obligations
under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. Despite the history cited
in the comments, Congress specifically included alien registration
requirements in the INA of 1952, well after World War II had ended.
Congress made the policy choice to require registration; DHS is merely
administering and enforcing longstanding legal requirements, consistent
with the President's direction. The purpose of establishing the new
form, G-325R, Biometric Information (Registration), is not to target
racial groups or for other discriminatory purposes, but to create an
online process by which unregistered aliens may register and comply
with the alien registration provisions of the INA. As explained in the
IFR, DHS does believe that one of the benefits of the designation of a
general registration form option is that it will improve the
registration outcomes for aliens, which in turn will result in improved
law enforcement efficacy. See 90 FR 11793, 11797 (Mar. 12, 2025).
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern with the statutory basis
for the rule, with many stating that the alien registration
requirements of the INA: (1) are obsolete or misaligned with the
current immigration landscape; (2) originated in a different historical
context; (3) are not well suited to address the current U.S.
immigration system; or (4) do not align with modern values of
inclusivity, fairness, and human rights. Commenters stated that the
United States has effectively abandoned universal registration for the
past 75 years, and that after the overhaul of federal immigration law
in 1952 and 1965, the U.S. Government shifted registration into
regularized immigration applications and enforcement.
Many commenters believed that mandatory registration is not
commensurate with, nor reflective of, modern immigration law and
practice, and is contrary to the intent of our current laws. For
example, commenters remarked that the IFR essentially revives a policy
deemed unnecessary

[[Page 39272]]

and irrelevant to the country's postwar immigration framework.
Commenters, expressing concerns with the IFR, stated that the Alien
Registration Act of 1940 (also known as the Smith Act) had been
dormant, and not operationalized on such a large scale as the IFR since
1940, and that it would have negative economic and societal costs while
providing minimal benefits to Americans and the United States.
Commenters similarly remarked that the IFR marks a stark departure from
the narrow application of the registration statute over the past 80
years and that the World War II-era independent registration process
reflected in the statute has been abandoned since 1950.
Other commenters wrote that the administration is ``weaponizing
once unenforceable and obsolete laws'' rooted in wartime xenophobia,
and with the IFR, is undermining democracy, freedom, and human rights,
and is proliferating ``inhumane and racist'' immigration policies.
Commenters suggested that DHS remove 8 CFR part 264 entirely due to the
``obsolescence of the underlying legal regime.''
Some commenters stated that the IFR is an inappropriate way to
apply the Smith Act in today's immigration context because the country
is not at war and the Smith Act's purpose and intent, which was based
on World War II policies, was to protect the United States from
potential invasion by an enemy power and prevent communists who sought
to overthrow the U.S. Government from immigrating. Thus, commenters
concluded that the Smith Act was created in a vastly different context,
while the current circumstances involve individuals and families who
have been living and contributing to society for years, including those
who are waiting for a resolution regarding their asylee or refugee
status. In light of these concerns, many commenters stated that the
registration requirement should be either rescinded or modified. A
commenter suggested that Congress should have a ``proper discussion''
around this and other immigration policies.
A commenter wrote that while registration requirements were added
to the INA in 1952, the government has not previously leveraged these
provisions to support a separate, national registration process
applicable to all aliens. Instead, the commenter said, DHS regulations
have identified various immigration forms that constitute evidence of
registration, such as Form I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record), Form I-862
(NTA), Form I-766 (EAD), and Form I-551 (Permanent Resident Card),
among others. The commenter expressed concern that, prior to the IFR,
the government did not maintain another process for individuals not
covered by the enumerated forms to register, yet, this rule would
require millions of people, including children, to interpret the IFR's
complex provisions and complete a separate form requesting information
with bearing on their cases for immigration relief, without guidance or
legal assistance.
Response: Since 1940, the laws of the United States have required
most aliens present in the United States who remain for 30 days or
longer to register, and with some exceptions based on age or
nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted. DHS agrees that the law was
enacted at a different time in history, but this is true of many laws
and many provisions of the INA. Since the time Congress first enacted
the Smith Act, Congress has codified alien registration requirements
into the INA in 1952 and subsequently amended the INA many times
without eliminating these requirements. To offer a non-exhaustive list,
Congress amended section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, in 1994, see
Public Law 103-416, title II, sec. 219(n) (Oct. 25, 1994) (technical
correction); in 1988, see Public Law 100-525, sec. 8(h) (Oct. 24, 1988)
(adding fingerprinting waiver authority); and in 1986, see Public Law
99-653, sec. 9 (Nov. 14, 1986) (technical correction). And Congress
amended section 264 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304 in 1996, see Public Law
104-208, Div. C, title IV, sec. 415 (Sept. 30, 1996) (authority to
require aliens to provide their Social Security numbers (SSNs)), and in
1990, see Public Law 101-649, title V, sec. 503(b)(2) (Nov. 29, 1990)
(adding reference to information sharing under section 287(f)(2) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1357(f)(2)). And as part of a 2008 law extending U.S.
immigration laws to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Congress provided the Secretary with additional alien registration
authority and specifically clarified that ``[n]othing in this paragraph
shall modify or limit section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1302) or other provision of the Immigration and
Nationality Act relating to the registration of aliens.'' 48 U.S.C.
1806(e)(3).
DHS and State have continued over the years to provide ways for
many aliens to register by providing several pathways to do so and made
changes to the registration provisions in the regulations to reflect
current procedures and processes. However, following the issuance of
E.O. 14159, DHS was aware that there was a gap in the existing
regulatory regime that made it difficult for some aliens to comply with
the registration requirement. The President is charged with taking care
that the laws be faithfully executed, and by establishing this general
registration form and process, DHS is faithfully executing these laws.
Comment: A commenter listed other U.S. laws or programs that they
compared to the IFR and that they said were discriminatory, including
the Johnson-Reed Act (1924), the Relatives Rule (1941), and the Bracero
programs (1917-21 and 1942-64). Other commenters, while criticizing the
legal and constitutional basis for the IFR, likened it to historical
discriminatory legal regimes abroad, such as those in Nazi Germany or
apartheid-era South Africa.
Response: The historically discriminatory regimes abroad do not
correlate to the alien registration requirement. Furthermore, DHS
disagrees that the U.S. laws or programs cited by the commenter are
comparable to the alien registration requirement. Unlike the alien
registration requirement, the referenced laws or programs were either
repealed or were not incorporated into the INA. The alien registration
requirement was incorporated into the INA periodically updated by
Congress, with the most recent updates in the 1990s.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See Public Law 103-416, 180 Stat. 4305, 4317 (Oct. 25,
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. E.O. 14159, Sec. 7
Comment: A commenter objected to the IFR, stating that it is based
on an E.O. containing ``broad mandates and inflammatory, xenophobic
language.'' Questioning the legal basis of the rule, a commenter stated
that the E.O. that the rule implements is unlawful. The commenter wrote
that the E.O. seeks to characterize ``lawful and necessary'' migration
driven by persecution, war, famine, and natural disasters as an
``invasion.'' The commenter added that if the government's true intent
were to remove violent criminals, it could accomplish this by cross-
referencing State criminal databases and focusing on removing these
individuals. Instead, the commenter wrote, the IFR would criminalize
refugees and asylum seekers. Other commenters stated that the E.O. is
``inherently founded in race-based prejudice.''
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters and notes that the
language choices in the E.O. have no impact on the lawfulness of
implementing section 7 of the E.O., which merely directs DHS and other
agencies to faithfully execute

[[Page 39273]]

the laws established by Congress relating to alien registration.
c. Major Questions Doctrine and Congressional Intent
Comment: Commenters indicated that the IFR addresses a question of
major national significance and is not clearly supported by clear
congressional authorization, such that courts should apply the ``major
questions doctrine'' when evaluating the rule's lawfulness. A commenter
reasoned that the IFR imposes a registration obligation that impacts
between 2.2 and 3.2 million people, with the likely purpose of removing
individuals and conferring criminal penalties on those who fail to
register. This commenter, as well as others, stated that the IFR
effectively criminalizes unlawful status, which has historically been a
civil offense. The commenter wrote that Congress had considered
creating criminal penalties for unlawful presence in the United States
in the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration
Control Act of 2005 but rejected doing so.
The commenter observed that Congress' alleged failure to
criminalize unlawful presence, combined with the general and long-
standing shift in the use of registration, indicated that the IFR
creating such criminal penalties is contrary to congressional intent
and the purpose of the statute. Citing West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S.
697 (2022), the commenter opined that the IFR uses an outdated and
dormant national security provision to effect a major policy change,
violating the major questions doctrine. Therefore, the commenter
concluded that its issues should be left to Congress to consider for
legislation.
A commenter stated that the IFR created a ``two-track registration
system'' under which an alien would either admit to the crime of
illegal entry by submitting Form G-325R or be guilty of failing to
register. The commenter suggested that this approach is inconsistent
with ``the single-track registration system created by Congress,''
under which Congress contemplated that aliens would be able to register
without needing to admit to any crimes.
A few commenters stated that the IFR represents a ``betrayal'' of
the mission with which Congress charged USCIS as an immigration
benefits and adjudications agency, insofar as registration is an
immigration enforcement tool for DHS and the administration.
Response: In relation to the major questions doctrine,\32\
Congress, in sections 262 through 265 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through
1305, specifically authorized and directed DHS \33\ to register aliens,
and in section 264 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304, to prescribe forms for
the registration of aliens under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302,
and related actions.\34\ Congress also specifically directed DHS to
include, on alien registration forms, inquiries into ``the date and
place of entry of the alien into the United States.'' INA sec.
264(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1304(a)(1). The decision to offer a registration
form to those who must register, and to include on that form the
questions that Congress required DHS to ask, does not implicate the
major questions doctrine and DHS disagrees with the commenter's
characterization of this rule as an action of major political or
economic significance as described in West Virginia. However, even if
the matter were of great political or economic significance, it would
be supported by clear congressional authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Congress frequently delegates, in legislation, the
authority to agencies to regulate particular aspects. In a number of
decisions, however, the Supreme Court has declared that if an agency
seeks to decide an issue of major national economic or political
significance in regulations its action must be supported by clear
congressional authorization. See West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697,
732 (2022). For more on the major question doctrine, see Kate R.
Bowers, Congressional Research Service (CRS), ``The Major Questions
Doctrine'' (Nov. 2, 2022), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12077.
\33\ Although the statutory registration provisions, such as INA
sec. 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304, refer to the Attorney General, Congress
authorized DHS's administration of the INA. As of March 1, 2003, the
former INS, which was part of DOJ, ceased to exist and its functions
respecting immigration benefits applications, petitions, and
requests under INA, including registration, were transferred to
USCIS within DHS. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296, sec. 471(a) (Nov. 25, 2002); 68 FR 10922 (Mar. 6, 2003).
\34\ See INA sec. 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304(a) (``The Attorney
General and the Secretary of State jointly are authorized and
directed to prepare forms for the registration of aliens under
section 1301 of this title, and the Attorney General is authorized
and directed to prepare forms for the registration and
fingerprinting of aliens under section 1302 of this title.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, as explained in the preamble to the IFR, Federal statutes
have, since 1940, generally required aliens present in the United
States for 30 days or more to register and be fingerprinted.
DHS also disagrees that this rule criminalizes unlawful status or
presence in the United States. The INA has long contained provisions
criminalizing various forms of immigration-related conduct. See, e.g.,
INA secs. 264(e), 366, 272-278, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e), 1306, 1322-1328.
Thus, although the commenter is correct that immigration violations are
often handled as civil matters, any criminal liability feared by the
commenter nevertheless exists by virtue of longstanding statutory
provisions. Nothing in the IFR, by designating a registration form and
evidence of registration as a general means for individuals to comply
with the statutory registration requirement, impermissibly deviates
from congressional intent or the plain meaning of the statute.
d. Other Comments on Authority and Alignment With Authorizing Statutes
Comment: A commenter stated that the ``new registration
requirement'' is ``redundant,'' because section 262(a) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1302(a), already requires covered aliens to register. A
commenter wrote that self-registration is not necessary to enforce the
statutory scheme, stating that the government's interest--``the
criminalization of non-citizens without proper registration''--is not
significant, as many States already provide an identification card (ID)
for aliens. Commenters also stated that the purpose of registration is
not to detect and prosecute criminal aliens, but rather, to criminalize
all aliens who do not have the Form G-325R.
Response: The registration requirement is not new or redundant.
Congress prescribed the requirement in section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1302, and directed DHS to implement the requirement. DHS designated the
new registration form to address a gap in the existing regulatory
regime relating to registration and allow all aliens, regardless of
their status, to fulfill their duty to register under section 262 of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. DHS has the obligation to faithfully execute
the laws established by Congress, including the alien registration
requirement, regardless of other ID provided by States. In response to
the specific comment about the criminalization of ``all aliens who do
not have'' the new evidence of registration, this is inaccurate. Many
aliens inside the United States are already registered and have
evidence of registration without the need to utilize the new form and
process.
e. Legal Issues for Survivors of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and
Human Trafficking
Comment: Commenters discussed the history of legislation providing
protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human
trafficking, and other serious crimes, such as VAWA and the VTVPA. The
commenters remarked that over 30 years ago, a bipartisan Congress
recognized the risks faced by aliens who are

[[Page 39274]]

immigrant survivors when it enacted VAWA, which created immigration
protections for survivors who experience battery or extreme cruelty
that allow them to apply for immigration relief without the knowledge
or consent of the abusive partner, giving them a path to safety and
independence. The commenters continued, writing that Congress
strengthened protections through VTVPA, which created the T
nonimmigrant status (``T visa'') for victims of trafficking and the U
nonimmigrant status (``U visa'') for victims of certain qualifying
crimes who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement. The
commenters criticized the IFR, stating that it disregards the
congressional intent of these laws by exposing survivors of violence to
immigration enforcement before their cases are resolved and deprives
them of the protections Congress explicitly created for them. A
commenter emphasized the historical importance of VAWA and VTVPA
protections and urged DHS to uphold them.
A commenter said that the IFR's content regarding change of address
requirements creates needless hardships for aliens as it would deprive
them of private, safe addresses to protect themselves from their
abusers as they take steps toward independence.
A commenter remarked that 8 U.S.C. 1367 prohibits DHS from making
adverse determinations using information furnished by abusers or
disclosing information about alien victims. The commenter expressed
concern that the IFR does not address how these privacy protections,
particularly with respect to address reporting on Form G-325R, would be
maintained, and that the IFR does not account for domestic violence
laws that establish address confidentiality for eligible aliens for
their safety. The commenter concluded that despite the IFR mentioning
``safe addresses,'' it does not explain what that means in the context
of registration, nor does Form G-325R appear to allow for address
confidentiality.
Another commenter wrote that the IFR failed to address the special
circumstances of alien victims in shelters and at unsafe addresses;
under USCIS special protections, applicants for VAWA, T- and U-based
benefits are entitled to use safe mailing addresses and have their
cases processed according to strict privacy rules. The commenter stated
that the IFR would violate those privacy protections by demanding that
such aliens register using a general registration form that is not
processed by the ``special applicants' office of the Vermont Service
Center,'' and that, unlike other immigration information collections,
the IFR includes no provisions related to procedures that would be used
to protect this data in conformity with heightened VAWA protections.
The commenter added that disclosing shelter addresses is often against
the policies of the shelter and doing so can result in aliens becoming
ineligible for housing there.
Response: Aliens submitting a Form G-325R do not qualify as a
protected alien under 8 U.S.C. 1367, by virtue of such filing; however,
if the alien is otherwise designated as a protected alien on another
basis, USCIS would maintain the same protections for information
submitted through the Form G-325R process as it does for other
information provided by such protected aliens. Form G-325R collects a
physical address and allows aliens to provide a safe address. As with
all USCIS forms in which an alien may provide a safe address, if USCIS
contacts the alien through the mail it will use the safe address that
he or she provides. However, the G-325R process is entirely electronic
at this time. All notices sent from USCIS to an alien are uploaded to
the alien's myUSCIS account. None of the notices correlating to a Form
G-325R are issued via mail. Therefore, not only may aliens provide a
safe address, consistent with longstanding USCIS practice, USCIS does
not at this time send any documents through the mail in connection with
Form G-325R. While an alien is required to provide a physical address,
DHS will continue to ensure that personnel adhere to statutory
requirements and protections.
3. Constitutional Concerns Related to the IFR
Comment: Several commenters expressed general concerns related to
the constitutionality of the IFR or registration requirement. For
example, a commenter expressing opposition to the IFR urged those in
power to stop the ``blatant violation'' of the U.S. Constitution and
indicated that those involved in this process who do not attempt to
stop it are in dereliction of their duty to the U.S. Constitution.
Commenters criticized the IFR, saying that it ``fails to account for
its sweeping impact on the constitutional rights of citizens and
noncitizens alike.''
Response: DHS disagrees with commenters' broad characterization of
this rule as unconstitutional. This rule makes available a new
mechanism by which aliens may comply with longstanding statutory
registration and fingerprinting requirements, as directed by Congress.
It is the Executive's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law
created by Congress. DHS responds to comments raising specific
constitutionality concerns later in this final rule.
With respect to the U.S. Government's general authority to require
aliens within its borders to register, DHS notes that a nation has a
sovereign prerogative to control its borders. Cf. Ping v. United
States, 130 U.S. 581, 603-04 (1889) (``That the government of the
United States, through the action of the legislative department, can
exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not
think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that
extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its
independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent
subject to the control of another power.''). Congress long ago
legislated in pursuit of this utmost responsibility by, among others,
setting statutory registration and fingerprinting requirements. What is
more, the U.S. Constitution vests both Congress and the Executive with
control over immigration matters; the Supreme Court for over a century
has acknowledged that the President's broad foreign affairs power
extends to matters of immigration. U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2;
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 713 (1893) (finding
because the regulation of immigration is ``a power affecting
international relations,'' it appropriately ``is vested in the
political departments of the government''). These broad constitutional
authorities further support the statutory alien registration
requirements and the President's authority to direct DHS to take care
to faithfully execute such requirements. They provide ample authority
for the IFR, which merely designates a new form by which aliens can
comply with longstanding statutory requirements.
a. The Right Against Self-Incrimination
Comment: Commenters expressed general concern that the disclosures
required by the IFR, such as the requirement to report past criminal
activity, would violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination, would place aliens in a position of identifying
themselves for purposes of enforcement, or would generally violate
Fifth Amendment rights. One commenter stated that the IFR is
``unconstitutional on its face,'' because it would ask aliens to
confess to crimes and violations of criminal substance abuse laws and
requires aliens who are present in the United States without
documentation to register

[[Page 39275]]

``even though the current administration regards undocumented
immigrants to be illegal.''
Commenters stated that the requirement to register and potential
penalties for non-registration implicate Fifth Amendment protections in
several ways, including by:
Effectively compelling aliens to admit unlawful presence
in the United States or provide other information that could
potentially expose them to criminal prosecution or removal; and
Creating a ``Catch-22'' situation in which registering
would risk self-incrimination through acknowledging unlawful status,
while not registering would trigger penalties for noncompliance.
In light of these concerns, commenters either urged DHS to withdraw
or not implement the rule, or to reconsider the registration
requirement and develop an alternative approach that respects
constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
A commenter reasoned that because of the privilege against self-
incrimination, the requirement would be unenforceable and that it would
be impossible to convict an alien for willful failure to register,
citing Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 67, 70 (1968). The commenter
reasoned that the finding in this case requires that DHS amend the form
to include a guarantee that information required by the form would
never be used to prosecute a registrant for criminal offenses. This
commenter further remarked that the Alien Registration Act itself did
not have such a self-incrimination problem, because the form it imposed
was universal for all aliens and did not demand admission of a crime.
Citing to case law, a commenter stated that the privilege against
self-incrimination protects not just against answers that would alone
support convictions, but also against evidence needed to prosecute for
a Federal crime.\35\ A commenter concluded that because of the Supreme
Court's rejection of the ``exculpatory no,'' \36\ the only way an alien
subject to the IFR can invoke their privilege against self-
incrimination is either not to register, or to register without fully
completing the registration form. The commenter specifically identified
questions 1.11 (address history), 1.12 (last arrival), 1.13 (I-94
information), 3.2 (crimes committed without arrest), and 3.5
(controlled substance violations) as problematic from a self-
incrimination perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Commenters cited Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479,
486 (1951); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45 (1972);
and Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 48 (1968).
\36\ Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 400-06 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another commenter discussed the ``essentially regulatory''
exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,
which the commenter said permits compelled disclosure of testimonial
information as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme when the
government action is directed at the public at large and related to an
essentially noncriminal and regulatory inquiry. The commenter stated
that the IFR does not qualify for this exception because it targets
those suspected of criminal conduct and is not essentially regulatory
in nature.
Response: DHS disagrees that this rule violates aliens' Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment
does not forbid the government from asking questions and it does not
forbid the government from taking the answers. See Nat'l Fed'n of Fed.
Emps. v. Greenberg, 983 F.2d 286, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Nor does it
impede the enforcement of a valid civil regulatory regime. Rajah v.
Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008). Courts ``have long
recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental
sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments
largely immune from judicial control.'' Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787,
792 (1977). The nature of registration is regulatory rather than
criminal because it is not ``permeated with criminal statutes and [ ]
there is a substantial non-prosecutorial interest served by the
reporting regime.'' Rajah, 544 F.3d at 442. Specifically, the primary
purpose of registration is to enhance immigration law enforcement
through the regulation of aliens seeking to enter and remain in the
United States. Certainly, there are criminal penalties for willful
failure to register and failure to notify DHS of a change in address,
but the purpose of the statutory framework is to exercise authority
over the regulation of aliens in this country. Furthermore, courts
consistently acknowledge that the Fifth Amendment does not relieve
individuals of their statutory obligations to make certain submissions
to the Federal Government. See United States v. Oliver, 505 F.2d 301,
307 (7th Cir. 1974) (observing Fifth Amendment does not relieve
taxpayers of statutory obligation to report income in full, including
income from illegal ventures) (overruled on other grounds).
Thus, the Fifth Amendment does not protect an alien from having to
provide information relevant to the registration that is a condition of
the alien's presence in the United States, including information from
passports, other documents, or statements regarding his or her
immigration status. See Rajah, 544 F.3d at 441 (relating to NSEERS
registration policy); see also, e.g., United States v. Sacco, 428 F.2d
264, 271 (9th Cir. 1970); Matter of Chen, 15 I&N Dec. 480, 482 (BIA
1975); Matter of Yau, 14 I&N Dec. 630, 635 (BIA 1974). Finally, a Fifth
Amendment self-incrimination claim is not ripe until a claim of the
privilege is actually asserted. See, e.g., Carman v. Yellen, 112 F.4th
386, 404 (6th Cir. 2024).
b. Due Process
Comment: Many commenters also indicated that the IFR would violate
or result in violations of Fifth Amendment due process protections,
such as protections against arbitrary or wrongful government actions
like immigration enforcement, arrests, detentions, or removals.
Commenters also indicated that this is particularly likely given
accessibility challenges such as language barriers and lack of access
to counsel of understand the IFR. Others expressed due process concerns
relating to the targeting of cities and States with welcoming policies
for enforcement actions; warrantless collateral arrests that violate
binding settlement agreements; and removal of whole families that
include U.S. citizens. A commenter urged DHS to revise the IFR to
include ``due process safeguards, such including clear eligibility
guidelines, waiver processes, and appeal mechanisms.'' The commenter
did not suggest specific guidelines or processes, or bases for appeal.
Citing to the three-part test for evaluating due process
requirements from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), a commenter
stated that aliens have a significant private interest in avoiding
criminal prosecution; that due to language barriers and poverty there
is a significant risk of erroneous deprivation; and that the
government's interest in this case is not in genuine security but in
leveraging fear over immigration for political purposes. This commenter
also stated that with the registration requirement, individuals are not
afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the governmental
action deprives them of a significant interest as required by Goldberg
v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), because DHS is not providing registrants
reasonable opportunities to comply with its stringent deadlines or to
access legal counsel, placing undue burdens on aliens to submit
required documentation within an unrealistic time frame.

[[Page 39276]]

Response: DHS disagrees that this rule violates aliens' Fifth
Amendment right to due process and also declines to establish
additional eligibility guidelines, waiver processes, and appeal
mechanisms associated with the registration.
The IFR simply amended the regulations to designate a new
registration form for aliens to comply with the statutory registration
requirements. The registration requirement of section 262 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1302 was implemented by Congress; any due process objection to a
registration obligation in general amounts to an objection to the
statute rather than this rule. This rule's only effect is to create a
registration form that ensures all aliens have a way to register,
consistent with the statute. And in any event, there is no cognizable
due process interest in violating U.S. immigration law and remaining
undetected indefinitely, or in failing to register consistent with
one's statutory obligations. It has long been held that aliens enjoy
some constitutional protections regardless of their status, but the
protection is limited by Congress' broad powers to control immigration.
See, e.g., Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 439 (5th Cir. 2006)
(recognizing, as part of NSEERS registration, Congress' broad power to
control immigration) (citing Rodriguez-Silva v. INS, 242 F.3d 243, 246,
247 (5th Cir. 2001)). DHS also notes that the duty to register and its
consequences is unrelated to the consequences of potential removal
because of other actions that render individuals removable and that
with the registration requirement, DHS neither is targeting certain
classes of aliens, cities, or States. Rather, Congress universally
prescribed the registration requirement to all aliens, and the general
registration option provided by DHS is available to all previously
unregistered aliens regardless of their status.
Regarding commenters' statements about certain aliens' limited
proficiency in English or access to legal resources, DHS notes that
immigration forms are only offered in English.\37\ Inability to speak
English because the alien does not understand English, but can vocalize
other languages, is not a disability warranting a reasonable
accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act.\38\ DHS also notes that any
individual--alien or citizen--potentially affected by a DHS regulation
may theoretically have limited access to legal resources to help them
understand that regulation and how it may affect them. DHS is not
required to provide aliens with legal resources, but this rule does not
prevent an alien from seeking counsel. DHS accordingly does not view
commenters' concern about access to legal resources as outweighing the
agency's interest in faithfully executing the statutory registration
and fingerprinting requirements. For all these reasons, this rule
steers well clear of infringing upon the Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination and right to due process and equal
protection of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ With the exception of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility
Verification, which is also available in Spanish for employers in
Puerto Rico.
\38\ USCIS provides reasonable accommodations in accordance with
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. See USCIS, ``Disability
Accommodations for the Public,'' https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/disability-accommodations-for-the-public (last updated Oct. 19,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Due Process of Children and Unaccompanied Minors
Comment: An organization commented that subjecting alien children
to the requirements of the rule belies the outdated nature of the
registration statute and remarked that since its enactment, our
understanding of childhood and adolescence has significantly evolved,
with subsequent legislation recognizing the differences and
vulnerabilities of children and teenagers. Another commenter stated
that the key change attempts to divert juveniles away from the criminal
legal system.
Another commenter stated that Congress created specific procedural
protections for unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in the William
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
(TVPRA), see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1232, in recognition of UAC's particular
vulnerability and to prevent their return to trafficking and other
harm. The commenter reasoned that the IFR's and E.O. 14159's compliance
with the TVPRA is questionable, because the IFR would subject aliens
over the age of 14 to its requirements, but it does not appear to
consider alien children's distinct developmental needs, limited
understanding of immigration law, and need for support and care from
trusted adults, with greater barriers for UACs. The commenter
elaborated on concerns for UACs, writing that noncompliance with the
IFR could lead to detention of them, but that the IFR does not explain
how such detentions would comport with TVPRA, the Flores Settlement
Agreement, or other juvenile justice reforms. The commenter concluded
that the IFR would allow for the summary detention, removal, or other
penalties for alien children, and therefore contravenes TVPRA's aim of
ensuring vulnerable alien children are able to fairly access legal
protections to prevent their return to trafficking and other harm,
adding that there is no reason to think that Congress anticipated the
Executive Branch would revive a comprehensive registration program and
apply it in a manner that would threaten alien children's due process
protections.
Citing multiple concerns about impacts of the IFR on alien
children, a commenter urged DHS to reconsider registration requirements
to preserve civil rights and public safety protections for alien
children. The commenter stated that a universal registration
requirement for aliens ``as the IFR proposes'' would ``increase the
vectors by which vulnerable migrants, particularly minors, may be
exploited by bad actors.'' The commenter explained that they had worked
with an alien who is 19 years old and fled Guatemala after having been
forced to work as a child domestic servant, and that even after
arriving in the United States, this alien had such limited access to
necessary information that she would have been ``an ideal target for
would-be cozeners seeking to prey on newcomers who are unfamiliar with
the requirements of the IFR.'' Another commenter urged DHS to protect
aliens who were brought to the United States as children.
Response: DHS disagrees that the registration requirement threatens
due process interests of alien children. The USCIS website contains
information to help all aliens understand the registration requirement.
All aliens, including UACs, must follow the INA, which requires all
aliens, with limited exceptions, to apply for registration and
fingerprinting if they are age 14 or older and will remain in the
United States for 30 days or longer.
d. First Amendment, Expression, Assembly, and Association
Comment: Many commenters expressed a general concern that the IFR
would require aliens to show proof of registration, which would also
lead to racial profiling, fears of detention, and ultimately chill
First Amendment liberties, including the right to assembly and freedom
of expression. Citing to research, a commenter said that studies have
found a direct link between widespread surveillance or profiling and
restricted First Amendment activity among members of the community
being targeted. Others expressed particular concerns for the IFR's
chilling effect in the context of the Trump administration's broader
immigration enforcement policies, including the right to nonviolently
object to government policies that have a

[[Page 39277]]

potential discriminatory effect and to arbitrary enforcement practices.
A commenter stated that the IFR would facilitate the administration's
agenda of targeting individuals based on speech by providing near-
universal centralized identifying information for all aliens.
Another commenter opposed the IFR because alien registration would
be used to persecute those who exercise their freedom of speech to
disagree with the policies of an administration or political party.
Several commenters voiced concern that the IFR would have, and
already has had, a chilling effect on free speech and expression for
aliens, due to fear of detention and deportation. A commenter stated
that the IFR trespasses on freedom of religion and speech by working
``hand-in-hand with the rescinding of the Sensitive Locations Memos to
intrude upon the religious freedom of U.S. residents by discouraging
many from attending religious services for fear of being profiled or to
exercise their freedom of speech for fear of being targeted for
deportation, even erroneously.'' Regarding speech rights, a commenter
stated that the current administration has been revoking immigration
status, including student visas, based on speech and that IFR would
facilitate this agenda by providing centralized identifying information
for all aliens, creating a chilling effect on First Amendment
protections.
A commenter expressed concern that the organization's most visible
and active members could become targets for enforcement whether they
register or not, directly impacting their work of advocating for low-
income and immigrant communities. The commenter remarked that their
organization's advocacy often relies on in-person events such as
rallies to advance policy proposals and that the IFR creates a chilling
effect on individuals' willingness to participate in these forms of
advocacy. The commenter stated that the IFR would necessitate greater
surveillance and monitoring of their community, and reported that they
have already witnessed the negative impact of registration-like
policies on political speech and the organization's advocacy
activities, such as their ability to find and support members willing
to share their stories for use with the press, legislators, and social
media in support of building grassroot support and advancing the
organization's policy goals. Additionally, the commenter stated that
during rallies organizers spend significant time addressing these
concerns.
Response: Citizens and aliens of course may object to various
statutes, regulations, and policies and express those objections
publicly. This rule does not abridge the freedom of speech, of the
press, or of association or peaceful assembly. A pre-enforcement facial
challenge under the First Amendment cannot lie unless an individual
establishes that he or she faces a ``credible threat of prosecution''
``under a statute [or rule] that appears to render the [individual]'s
arguably protected speech illegal.'' Am. Library Ass'n v. Barr, 956
F.2d 1178, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1992). That is not and cannot be the case
here. Neither section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, nor this rule
renders illegal any form of speech. Section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1302 simply requires registration and fingerprinting of aliens in the
United States for 30 days or more, which is well within this nation's
sovereign prerogative to require. This rule addresses a gap in the
existing regulatory regime and provides a way for all aliens,
regardless of their immigration status, to comply with their duty under
the law.
DHS notes that registration activity has always taken place, as
evidenced by the forms listed in 8 CFR 264.1, in accordance with the
nearly century-old statutory requirement. The questions on the Form G-
325R are similar to questions on other registration forms designated at
8 CFR 264.1(a), including the Form I-485, Application to Register
Permanent or Adjust Status.
e. Equal Protection, Racial Profiling, and Discrimination,
Comment: Many commenters expressed a general concern that the IFR
would lead to in racism, xenophobia, racial profiling, or
discrimination.
Some commenters indicated that the IFR would lead to racial
profiling which, in turn, would lead to wrongful arrests of U.S.
citizens and LPRs. A commenter said that the rule fundamentally alters
the rights and interests of millions of people, including U.S. citizens
who may be asked to show ``proof'' of their citizenship in any
discriminatory dragnet created by this registration rule, adding that
this process is part of a larger attack on immigrant communities.
A commenter stated that the IFR would particularly target aliens
based not only on national origin but also on race and ethnicity in
order boost arrest statistics to meet quotas. The commenter referenced
a Washington Post report stating that the administration has directed
ICE officials to increase arrests to meet daily quotas, with each field
office required to make 75 arrests per day and managers being held
accountable for failing to meet these targets. This commenter and
others reasoned that racial profiling is an unavoidable certainty in a
system where law enforcement is encouraged to demand proof of
registration without justification. Commenters said that law
enforcement could ask for proof of registration based on factors such
as an individual's ethnicity, skin color, uncommon name, language
proficiency, or perceived foreign accent.
Another commenter stated that enforcement of the IFR would rely on
the national origin of individuals under scrutiny by law enforcement
officials, which would ``undoubtedly lead to racial profiling, wrongful
arrests, and detention of U.S. citizens and other individuals with
lawful status.'' This commenter wrote that U.S. citizens are already
being racially profiled in immigration enforcement under the Trump
administration and that the IFR would exacerbate this problem. This
commenter and others cited examples of State-level ``show me your
papers'' laws, such as Arizona Senate Bill 1070, the ``Support Our Law
Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,'' that resulted in lawsuits
over the constitutionality of racial profiling against Latino and Asian
Americans. Several commenters stated that there have been reports of
Native Americans and other U.S. citizens who have been detained by
immigration authorities due to racial profiling.
Another commenter stated that the IFR would exacerbate the problems
that result from racial and ethnic profiling being a ``cornerstone'' of
U.S. immigration enforcement, specifically citing the U.S. Immigration
and Custom Enforcement (ICE's) 287(g) Program Task Force Model, which
``allows deputized officers to ask about immigration status of
individuals stopped during routine traffic stops and make arrests based
solely on federal immigration grounds.'' A commenter wrote that
discrimination on account of national origin should not be legal in the
United States. Another commenter raised concern that the IFR would
affect lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens. For example, providing an
anecdotal account, a commenter wrote that U.S. citizens were arrested
for speaking Spanish. A commenter stated that discrimination on account
of national origin should not be legal in the United States and that
the IFR did not have enough government-overreach-safeguards to pass
constitutional muster. The commenter also stated that even if national
security were at issue, it would not give the Federal Government a
license to violate the rights of aliens.

[[Page 39278]]

Another commenter wrote that the IFR's criminalization of alien
status and the IFR's underlying racially discriminatory motive and
``show-your-paper regime'' would disproportionately harm ``Black and
Brown'' and Latino communities, as well as communities of color
generally, which are already disproportionately incarcerated and
subjected to police stops, questioning, and searches. The commenter
said that these policies would lead to a situation in which U.S.
citizens of color would need to have proof of citizenship to avoid
being swept into the enforcement and criminalization under the rule.
A commenter stated that while some may attempt to justify the
implementation of the rule due to the necessity for increased vetting
for the purposes of national security, the rule will necessarily rely
on national origin, which will inevitably result in racial profiling
and wrongful arrests and detention of U.S. citizens and lawfully
present noncitizens including lawful permanent residents. The commenter
stated that the alleged intent to discriminate based on national origin
reflects political rhetoric against immigrant communities and racial
prejudice, not a legitimate concern about national security or the U.S.
public well-being. According to the commenter, E.O. 14159 ``is
inherently founded in race-based prejudice and its implementation
through the IFR is based on the premise that immigrants that are not
citizens are `invading' the United States. The commenter wrote that
``[t]he misuse of a military term of war equates migrants, immigrants,
and asylum seekers with a group incursion that is hostile and armed.''
Another commenter stated that such an approach is also linked to
political rhetoric against immigrant communities and racial prejudice,
rather than legitimate national security or public concerns,
referencing, as evidence, President Trump's statements, including
claims about ``bad genes'' and immigrants ``poisoning the blood of our
country,'' as well as an immigrant ``invasion.''
Many commenters expressed concern that the rule would lead to
racial profiling and civil rights violations that would undermine
public safety. A commenter stated that the rule's criminal penalty for
failing to carry ``proof of registration'' on one's person at all times
encourages racial profiling and arbitrary searches, seizures, detention
or arrest by immigration officials and law enforcement officers of
individuals whom they perceive to be immigrants, including children and
families.
Commenters stated that the IFR would create a ``hostile
environment'' and target anyone perceived as foreign, and harm both
aliens and U.S. citizens, leading to over-policing. Another couple of
commenters wrote that the implementation of this rule would likely
result in discriminatory searches and seizures, as well as wrongful
arrests that would impact U.S. citizens and ``non-citizens'' alike.
A commenter wrote that the requirements of the IFR would
disproportionately impact vulnerable groups, such as low-income
immigrants and those with limited access to legal assistance. A
commenter indicated that the IFR would instill fear in Asian, Native
Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander community members, preventing them from
accessing schools, healthcare, employment, and other benefits.
Similarly, a couple of commenters wrote that the IFR instills fear in
or criminalizes integral members of the Asian and Pacific Islander
community, who make up one in seven ``undocumented immigrants,'' and
scapegoats them simply for their national origin, targets them for
racial profiling, and makes compliance difficult due to high rates of
limited English proficiency in these communities.
A commenter stated that the IFR did not account for the social and
economic impacts that the IFR would have on minority communities,
citing examples of alleged discriminatory immigration enforcement in
New York. Another commenter wrote that immigration policy and
enforcement reinforce harmful stereotypes and social inequities that
impact all Latinos, regardless of their legal status; they added that
although permanent residents have legal work authorization, they often
encounter discrimination when seeking resources. A commenter stated
that rural communities in California with disproportionate Latino farm
workers are already being targeted for immigration enforcement, which
the commenter said DHS falsely characterizes as targeting aliens with
criminal records. Another commenter wrote that immigration policy and
enforcement is a tool of white supremacy, reasoning that it limits
access to resources, services, and opportunities among Latinos and
other immigrants in the United States.
A commenter stated that the IFR and DHS conflate ``undocumented''
and unregistered ``noncitizens'' with gang members and criminals. The
commenter stated that, while U.S. public safety and national security
are important concerns, the rule stems from a misplaced and exaggerated
focus on crime committed by ``noncitizens.'' The commenter referenced a
January 21, 2025, DOJ memo that linked ``transnational gangs'' and
``illegal aliens'' to ``brutal and intolerant violent crime'' that is
``escalating rapidly across the country.'' The commenter said that this
characterization fails to distinguish between misdemeanors and more
serious criminal activities. The commenter wrote that individual
violent crimes by ``noncitizens'' are often highlighted to justify
actions like the passage of the Laken Riley Act, but suggested these
incidents are presented without proper context regarding the actual
level of crime committed by aliens. The commenter cited academic
research suggesting that criminal activity by ``noncitizens'' is not
disproportionate to the U.S. population at large.
Expressing a slightly different concern, a commenter wrote that the
IFR fails to consider or take steps to safeguard against
entrepreneurial burdens, taxpayer expenditures, and public safety
costs. Further, another commenter wrote that the IFR would broaden
DHS's ability to arbitrarily arrest and deport more asylum seekers to
danger, adding that though DHS has no lawful right to deport U.S.
citizens, this is likely to become a daily occurrence with the
implementation of this IFR.
Similarly, a commenter opposed the proposed ``noncitizen''
registration policy, arguing it would lead to discriminatory law
enforcement practices. The commenter stated that requiring
``noncitizens'' to carry registration documents at all times would
create enforcement challenges, as DHS officers would have no practical
way to identify who would be subject to this requirement without
resorting to profiling.
Another commenter further wrote that the administration would
employ arbitrary methods of identifying ``noncitizens'' under the
policy. According to a commenter, while the IFR's stated purpose is to
enhance law enforcement by DHS to protect public safety and reduce
violent crime, it is important to remember that equal protection under
the law means criminal activity is caused by individual actions, not
group identity or status, with a different commenter stating that
communities would be irreparably harmed by attempts to identify and
detain suspected aliens.
A commenter expressed concern that enforcement practices can create
fear even among lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens, which
leads to

[[Page 39279]]

reduced participation in civil society. As an example, they cited a
study on Arizona's stringent immigration laws and said that it found
that such policies negatively impact Latino youths in particular. A
commenter wrote that this process negates everything the United States
should stand for and should not be ``reinstated'' in this country.
Commenters also stated that the IFR's enforcement practices enable
racial profiling and create fear and anxiety even among lawful
permanent residents and U.S. citizens. The commenters cited research on
stringent immigration laws, specifically Arizona's Support our Law
Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, which found that policies
promoting racial profiling negatively impact Latino youths' mental
health and academic achievement. The commenters stated that while the
IFR estimates the registration requirement would directly impact 2 to 3
million people, the racial profiling likely to occur would have
detrimental effects on the broader population of over 63 million Latino
residents in the United States.
A commenter voiced concern that without clear protections, the
registration process could be misused to target certain populations
unfairly, particularly with giving preference to immigrants from
specific countries over others. While discussing allegedly
discriminatory practices under the former NSEERS program, other
commenters also stated that expanding alien registration requirements
could once again lead to biased enforcement practices, eroding trust
between immigrant communities and government agencies, dehumanizing
immigrants, and infringing on aliens' basic rights.
Response: DHS strongly disagrees with the characterization of the
IFR as linked to political rhetoric against immigrant communities and
racial prejudice, rather than legitimate concerns of implementing a
statutory mandate, as well as national and public security concerns.
The laws of the United States generally require aliens to register--
either as part of the visa process or upon being present in the United
States for 30 days or more. The IFR and this final rule are limited in
scope to establish a general registration option for aliens to comply,
as applicable, with their statutory duty to register and to be
fingerprinted. This rulemaking does not impose any new obligations on
any population, or create disparate treatment motivated by racial
prejudice. Similarly, the IFR and this rule do not create or modify the
criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago that apply
when aliens fail to meet their registration and related obligations.
The rule also does not oblige the removal of any alien from the
country. The registration requirements apply to all aliens who are 14
years or older, have not been registered and fingerprinted, and remain
in the United States for 30 days or longer. If an alien does not have
any other pathway to register and to be fingerprinted, the alien may
file the Form G-325R to comply with their duty under section 262 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. The rule is expected to improve DHS law enforcement
efficacy and to provide more comprehensive information about the
location of aliens in the United States to make it easier and safer for
DHS to enforce the law. The increased compliance with statutory
fingerprinting requirements would provide DHS with additional
information about an alien's criminal record, including whether the
alien is a known or suspected terrorist. Finally, DHS reiterates that
the alien registration requirements of the INA require aliens--not U.S.
citizens--to register.
Comment: Two commenters objected to the use of the word ``alien''
in the IFR as offensive and subjective, as well as inaccurate and
suggested, as part of providing safeguards, to change the term.
Response: The term ``alien'' is a legal term defined in the INA
that is used to describe any person who is not a citizen or national of
the United States.\39\ Moreover, the term alien is used in sections 261
through 266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306, the sections that
describe the alien registration requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ See INA sec.101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter said the comprehensive registration policy
that was established in the Alien Registration Act of 1940 was
abandoned in the decades following its adoption due, in part, to its
social and economic costs, and stated that the enforcement of this
registration policy would fail to achieve the goals of the
administration while leading to discriminatory targeting of U.S.
citizens and ``noncitizens'' based on their perceived race or
ethnicity.
While discussing discriminatory practices under the former NSEERS
program, another commenter remarked that expanding alien registration
requirements could once again lead to biased enforcement practices,
eroding trust between immigrant communities and government agencies.
Response: This rule is consistent with E.O. 14159 and the alien
registration requirements in section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
This rulemaking establishes a general registration option available to
all unregistered aliens, regardless of immigration status, to improve
the registration outcomes of certain groups of aliens. This rulemaking
does not change or modify the existing statutory requirements that most
aliens must comply with the existing statutory registration
requirements.
Comment: Multiple comments expressed a general concern that the IFR
would violate equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fifth
Amendment's Due Process Clause. Citing to case law from the Supreme
Court,\40\ commenters indicated that the rule would disproportionately
impact aliens from low-income, non-English-speaking communities and
that it, therefore, may violate equal protection and should be subject
to strict scrutiny. A commenter warned that the IFR raises equal
protection concerns because its complex requirements would be
overwhelming and confusing for aliens with limited formal education or
English proficiency. Commenters expressed particular concern for equal
protection violations and racial profiling resulting from the IFR's
implicit ``show your papers'' requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Commenters cited to Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629
(1969) (extending the Fourteenth Amendment's State equal protection
guarantees to Federal actions through the Fifth Amendment);
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (providing that laws
disproportionately impacting specific groups must meet strict
scrutiny if the classification is based on race or national origin);
and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (finding that facially
neutral laws may violate equal protection if they are applied in a
discriminatory manner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A commenter indicated that the IFR would violate equal protection
principles because Form G-325R is only available in English, remarking
that while a plaintiff must prove a discriminatory purpose to prove in
an equal protection claim and the IFR is facially neutral, the
administration has made statements and taken other actions, such as
declaring English as the official U.S. language, that would support the
contention that the government elected not to translate Form G-325R as
part of larger scheme to limit language access in government services.
A commenter stated that while there are bona fide arguments for
government interest in information about residents, the IFR would
create a disproportionate and deleterious burden on aliens subject to
its terms, and therefore exceeds that government interest, crossing
into equal protection violations.

[[Page 39280]]

Response: DHS disagrees that this rule violates equal protection.
Section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, is a facially neutral law,
requiring ``every alien now or hereafter in the United States, who (1)
is fourteen years of age or older, (2) has not been registered and
fingerprinted under [section 211(b) of the INA], and (3) remains in the
United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and
to be fingerprinted before the expiration of such thirty days.'' 8
U.S.C. 1302(a) (emphasis added). This rule likewise creates an
additional mechanism by which any previously unregistered alien may
comply with his or her statutory duty regardless of the alien's country
of nationality.\41\ It thus does not violate equal protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Even if DHS were to adopt a special registration policy for
nationals of certain countries, such classifications under the
immigration laws may be made so long as they have a rational basis.
See Rajah, 544 F.3d at 438 (rejecting equal protection challenge to
NSEERS); see also Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 747 (D.C. Cir.
1979) (``Distinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in
the immigration field by the Congress or the Executive. So long as
such distinctions are not wholly irrational they must be
sustained.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Fourth Amendment Issues
Comment: Several commenters expressed a general concern that the
IFR would lead to violations of Fourth Amendment rights, such as
arbitrary searches and seizures of U.S. citizens and aliens alike. A
commenter stated that the IFR's implementation without clear and
narrowly tailored enforcement guidelines would increase the risk of
Fourth Amendment violations, as officers may stop and detain
individuals without reasonable suspicion or probable cause solely to
verify registration status. This commenter reasoned that this would
create an unconstitutional presumption of illegality tied to race, a
practice long rejected by Federal courts.
Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR would lead to violations of an
alien's Fourth Amendment rights. Congress has long required aliens
described in section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, to register and be
fingerprinted (if required) as well as carry evidence of registration
and notify DHS of a change in address, and it is the duty of DHS to
carry out those laws. See INA sec. 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a); see E.O.
No. 14159 sec. 7, Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan.
20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8444 (Jan. 29, 2025). The goal of the IFR and
final rule is to ensure that aliens understand their duty under the law
and have a path to comply with that duty through the new general
registration process and form. The IFR has not changed the existing
authority provided to DHS on engagement with aliens.
g. Eighth Amendment Issues
Comment: A commenter raised concerns that causing ``undocumented
people'' to live in fear of both potential consequences in their
country of origin and ``cruel treatment'' from ICE could constitute a
violation of their Eighth Amendment rights. Another commenter expressed
concern that the IFR would lead to inhumane and illegal
extraterritorial or indefinite imprisonment. A commenter stated that
the penalties aliens would face under the IFR for noncompliance are
disproportionate to the alleged offense, particularly where the
violation is technical or inadvertent. Citing Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S.
86 (1958), which found that punishment must be proportionate to the
offense, the commenter concluded that the IFR violates this principle
by imposing penalties for procedural or technical violations, which the
commenter said would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Response: Congress has established civil and criminal penalties for
a variety of offenses relating to immigration. While certain aliens may
be afraid of being subjected to the penalties connected to their
choices and actions, this rule does not establish any such consequences
or offenses. This rule also has no impact on the constitutional
protections available to aliens within the United States. The criminal
penalties for failure to register or meet the other associated
requirements under sections 262 through 265 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302-
1305, were established by Congress and also fall outside the scope of
this rule.
h. Privacy Rights
Comment: A commenter wrote that the information collected by this
registration information cannot be used by ICE under existing law and
regulation, for its enforcement actions because under 8 U.S.C.
1357(f)(2), ICE is a civil enforcement body, not a law enforcement
agency. The commenter also stated that the IFR does not contain any
designations by the Attorney General to expand the persons with whom
registration and fingerprint records may be shared, as required under 8
U.S.C. 1304(b).
Response: For approximately 85 years, the laws of the United States
have required most aliens present in the United States for 30 days or
longer to register and, with some exceptions based on age or
nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted. DHS, with the IFR and this final
rule, has not changed the existing statutory registration requirements
or established by Congress for aliens but merely prescribed a general
means for aliens to register, as required by law. The requirements that
aliens are required to register, update his or her address with the
government within 10 days of moving, and carry evidence of registration
on their person, were also established by Congress in the middle of the
20th century. Similarly, this IFR has not created or modified the
criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago that apply
when aliens fail to meet their registration and related obligations.
This rule is consistent with E.O. 14159 and the alien registration
requirements in sections 262 through 265 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302
through 1305, and establishes a general registration option available
to all unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status.
In regard to the comment addressing sharing of information pursuant
to section 264(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(b), DHS disagrees with the
commenter's view that registration and fingerprint records cannot be
shared within DHS for immigration enforcement purposes, as well as the
commenter's view that ICE is not a law enforcement agency in general.
Moreover, under section 264(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(b), all
registration and fingerprint records ``shall be confidential, and shall
be made available only'': (1) pursuant to section 287(f)(2) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1357(f)(2) (i.e., the provision cited by the commenter); and
(2) to such persons or agencies as may be designated by the
Secretary.\42\ The statute does not direct USCIS alone to register
aliens and prescribe registration forms, or to hold alien registration
records confidential. The statute vests these authorities in the
Secretary, in whom all authorities of USCIS, ICE, and other DHS
components are vested.\43\ It would make little sense to interpret the
confidentiality provision to require the Secretary to hold alien
registration information confidential as against ICE and CBP, which are
subagencies within DHS, particularly in light of the Secretary's
plenary authority to make alien registration and fingerprint records
available ``to such

[[Page 39281]]

persons or agencies'' as he may designate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ As of March 1, 2023, in accordance with the HSA any
reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the INA
describing functions that were transferred from the Attorney General
or other DOJ official to DHS by the HSA, are deemed to refer to the
Secretary of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. 557; see also 6 U.S.C.
542 note; 8 U.S.C. 1551 note.
\43\ 6 U.S.C. 112(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any event, the IFR did not change DHS practices related to the
maintenance, collection, and use of the information, including alien
registration information; such information was available to ICE and CBP
even before the IFR.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Alien registration has typically been covered by a DHS SORN
published pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, in particular the A-
File SORN. See 82 FR 43556 (Sept. 18, 2017) (SORN for Department of
Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection--001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System
of Records). Alien registration information may be covered by other
DHS systems of records, as noted on the form used to collect such
information. This has been true even though many aliens who register
are not covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, by law or policy. See 5
U.S.C. 552a(a)(2) (the term ``individual'' for purposes of the
Privacy Act means a citizen of the United States or an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence); see also DHS, '' Privacy
Policy and Compliance,'' Instruction Number 047-01-001, Revision
00.1 (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/25_0205_mgmt-047-01-001-Privacy-Policy-Compliance-Instruction.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: Several commenters expressed general concern that the IFR
would violate individuals' privacy rights. A commenter reasoned that
mandatory registration, including current addresses, poses threats to
privacy rights guaranteed by the Privacy Act of 1974 and Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). The commenter remarked that fears of
excessive surveillance have repeatedly led to the deferral or rejection
of universal registration mandates, including the long-running delays
in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (REAL ID Act).\45\ The
commenter added that the privacy concerns are heightened because the
IFR makes no exception for registration requirements based on age, only
procedural allowances for aliens under the age of 14. The commenter
said that the inadequate privacy protection for this information raises
considerations for the safety of both minors and survivors of domestic
abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat. 302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A commenter stated that the IFR is silent on privacy and
confidentiality protections associated with the registration
requirement, remarking that any DHS disclosures of information
collected under the IFR must comply with 8 U.S.C. 1367 and related
guidance.
A commenter expressed concern that the IFR does not provide clear
information regarding its privacy impact or how it comports with
existing law, including 8 U.S.C. 1367 and related guidance such as DHS
Instruction 002-02-001, Revision 00.1; DHS Directive 215-01; DHS
Instruction 215-01-001; and DHS Instruction 215-01-002. The commenter
remarked that the lack of clarity would make it difficult for
individuals, including those subject to 8 U.S.C. 1367 protections or
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, to fully
understand how their information would be used and shared in compliance
with existing law.
Response: Aliens submitting G-325R do not qualify as protected
aliens under 8 U.S.C. 1367, by virtue of such filing; however, if the
alien is otherwise designated as a protected alien on another basis,
USCIS maintains the same protection for the alien, including for the
safe address. Form G-325R provides fields for the alien's mailing or
safe address, and if different from his or her mailing or safe address,
the alien's physical address. As with all USCIS forms in which an alien
may provide a safe address, if USCIS contacts the alien through the
mail, USCIS will use the safe address that he or she provides. However,
the G-325R process is entirely electronic at this time. All notices
sent from USCIS to an alien are uploaded to the alien's myUSCIS
account. None of the notices correlating to Form G-325R are issued via
mail. Therefore, not only may aliens provide a safe address, consistent
with longstanding USCIS practice, USCIS does not at this time send any
documents through the mail in connection with Form G-325R.
This rule also does not change any procedures or practices of DHS
and its subagencies to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of
personally identifiable information that DHS collects, disseminates,
uses, or maintains.
i. Freedom of Movement
Comment: A commenter stated that the financial and criminal
penalties created by the IFR, related to the requirement to register
and update addresses, would threaten individuals' freedom of movement,
a right affirmed by the Supreme Court in Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168
(1868), and Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). With respect to the
statement in the IFR's preamble that ``any alien who has failed to
comply with the change-of-address notification requirements of 8 U.S.C.
1305 is deportable unless the alien establishes that such failure was
reasonably excusable or was not willful'' (citing 8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(3)(A)), the commenter stated that this discussion is
insufficient because it ``provides no framework by which this clause
may be interpreted by either registrants or federal officials, exposing
registrants to undue subjectivity.''
Response: This IFR neither restricts an alien's freedom of movement
\46\ nor creates or modifies the criminal penalties, established by
Congress many decades ago, that apply when aliens failed to meet their
registration and related obligations. The requirements that aliens are
required to register, update their address with the government within
10 days of moving, and carry evidence of registration on their person
are also not new. DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not
created these requirements or modified the duties established by
Congress for aliens. Providing a current address to DHS is the
responsibility of each covered alien.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ In other context, several federal courts of appeals have
found that a registration requirement and notification provisions do
not put a physical restraint on an individual's freedom of movement.
See, e.g., Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
1998) (concluding that the sex offender statute requiring the
petitioner to register did not constitute a significant restraint on
the petitioner's freedom of movement because the law did not specify
a place where the petitioner could not travel and did not otherwise
impose great burden); Wilson v. Flaherty, 689 F.3d 332, 337-38 (4th
Cir. 2012) (same--citing cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

j. Separation of Powers
Comment: Citing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, INS v.
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
483 (1954), a commenter stated that the IFR violates the separation of
powers doctrine, and that regulations that significantly affect
immigrants' rights should be grounded in congressional legislation, not
solely in administrative rulemaking.
Response: The IFR is firmly grounded in congressional legislation;
it implemented the alien registration requirements of sections 262
through 266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1306. Additionally,
section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), as well as the
registration provisions cited previously, provide broad statutory
authorization to implement these registration requirements. These laws
are duly enacted by Congress. DHS disagrees with the commenters that
the IFR suffers from any separation-of-powers defect.
4. The IFR's Compliance With International Law
Comment: A commenter stated that the IFR would violate U.S.
international legal obligations to refugees and asylum seekers,
obligations stemming from the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees that have been implemented in domestic U.S. law through the
Refugee

[[Page 39282]]

Act of 1980 and that have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in INS
v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 426 (1987). The commenter remarked
that, internationally, registration requirements are intended to
facilitate the protection of refugees but that the IFR appears to
intend to use registration as a method to target individuals for
removal. The commenter wrote that E.O. 14159's purported aim is to
``faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States,'' but
it does not acknowledge that those laws include the Refugee Act, and
that such faithful execution includes providing asylum and other
humanitarian protections as appropriate. The commenter criticized the
IFR, stating that it fails to take such protections into account.
More specifically, the commenter cited Article 31(1) of the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which establishes that
refugees generally may not be penalized for their illegal entry or
presence when they come directly from territories where their life or
freedom is threatened, present themselves without delay to the
authorities, and show good cause for their irregular entry or presence
save under certain specified circumstances. Stating that the IFR lacks
clarity with respect to whether and how it applies to aliens who are
asylees, asylum applicants, and people with protection needs who have
not yet applied for asylum, and that it makes no provision for
consideration of their individual circumstances, the commenter
concluded that the IFR's civil and criminal penalties, if applied to
refugees, would generally constitute such impermissible penalties
according to international law. Finally, the commenter expressed
concern that the registration requirement could lead directly to
refugees being removed in violation of non-refoulement requirements,
or, for aliens who are in or have completed the asylum application
process, that registration noncompliance penalties could lead to either
a negative discretionary asylum determination or interfere later with
their adjustment of status or naturalization.
Other commenters stated that the IFR would infringe on human rights
through arbitrary interference with privacy, family, and home law. The
commenters noted inadequate information on safeguarding confidential
information. While acknowledging the government's authority to regulate
immigration, the commenters characterized the IFR as an effort to
intimidate aliens that risks violating human rights.
Response: The IFR and this rule are limited in scope to establish a
general registration option available to all unregistered aliens
regardless of immigration status. An alien who has been issued one of
the documents designated as evidence of registration under 8 CFR
264.1(b) has already registered, and an alien who has submitted one of
the forms designated at 8 CFR 264.1(a) and provided fingerprints
(unless waived), but was not issued one of the evidence of registration
designated at 8 CFR 264.1(b), has complied with the registration
requirement of section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. If an alien does
not have any other pathway to register and to be fingerprinted, the
alien may file the Form G-325R to comply with their duty under section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
Moreover, neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol
preclude state parties from requiring refugees to register with
immigration authorities. Indeed, Article 2 of the Convention states,
``Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself,
which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations
as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.'' And
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) encourages
the prompt registration of aliens seeking refugee protection.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ See UNHCR, Registration and Identity Management, https://www.unhcr.org/us/what-we-do/protect-human-rights/protection/registration-and-identity-management; UNHCR, Handbook for
Registration (Sept. 2003), available at https://www.refworld.org/policy/opguidance/unhcr/2003/en/20510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Applicability

1. General Applicability
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the rule and the
new registration process creates confusion surrounding who is required
to register and who is exempt. Commenters stated that the IFR and
registration requirements caused confusion and lacked clarity and,
therefore, the IFR would lead to errors and result in legal immigrants
being wrongly penalized for not carrying proof of registration.
Commenters similarly expressed concern that the rule is confusing about
who is considered registered and lacks clarity for individuals who have
already filed immigration forms and may have attended USCIS biometrics
appointments.
Another commenter wrote that the ``confusing'' nature of the IFR,
coupled with the anxiety and fear, driven by the administration's
enhanced immigration enforcement efforts, could lead to the spread of
misinformation, with ``drastic'' consequences even for individuals not
subject to the requirement. The commenter wrote that the combination of
confusion on how to register with the sudden removal of legal status is
entrapment. Other commenters stated that increased bureaucratic hurdles
may discourage or complicate compliance. A couple of commenters stated
that the IFR adds unnecessary complexity to an already complex
immigration system. A commenter wrote that the IFR creates confusion
and fear, particularly for immigrants who may already be considered
registered through other processes. Another commenter echoed that the
IFR creates confusion among those who believe they have already
submitted proof of registration, and the omission of certain common
immigration documents within the IFR exacerbates the potential for
confusion. A commenter stated that, by imposing registration
requirements with criminal penalties for noncompliance, it treats
immigrants as enforcement targets, regardless of their legal status or
history.
A commenter expressed concern that the IFR's approach to
immigration forms for registration requirements was inadequate and
would create stress, fear, and confusion among lawfully present
individuals who should be considered registered. The commenter
additionally stated that they had heard from community members that
unscrupulous actors were exploiting this confusion by promising
permanent residency through the registration process and deliberately
conflating ``Registry'' with ``Registration'' to defraud vulnerable
individuals.
Specifically, commenters expressed concern that it would be
difficult for individuals to accurately assess whether they have
previously registered because of the lack of guidance in the IFR, and,
therefore, would lead to individuals failing to file Form G-325R.
Commenters expressed particular concern about the enumerated lists of
registration forms and forms that constitute evidence of registration;
commenters stated that these lists of forms do not include all forms
that would appear to meet the threshold requirements for registration
and fingerprints as prescribed in the INA. A commenter said that those
who have submitted lengthy and detailed immigration application forms
and undergone fingerprinting and biometrics would reasonably believe
that they are already registered.

[[Page 39283]]

A commenter wrote that individuals may not know whether their
admission at a U.S. border was pursuant to parole or not, and they may
not have an easy way to tell whether an NTA was issued to them, given
the wide variation in case processing at the southern U.S. border. The
commenter said that its members and clients generally do not know which
documents were issued to them at the border and many have lost their
documents by the time they reach their place of residence. The
commenter raised additional concerns about confusion stating, for
instance, that not all of their members who were issued NTAs were
fingerprinted in the process. They said that the rule's suggestion that
they do not need to do anything else to be considered ``registered''
leaves no guidance and questions about whether they also need to comply
with the fingerprinting requirement. The commenter raised the same
question for individuals who submit Form I-485 and for whom it is
unclear whether they were previously fingerprinted or if any prior
fingerprinting, potentially decades ago, is sufficient for purposes of
the registration. Other commenters said that opaque language in the IFR
makes the requirements difficult to understand, particularly for those
with DACA or TPS status who are technically registered with the U.S.
Government but would have to re-register only if they did not have a
work permit.
Response: To the extent that confusion exists regarding whether a
given alien has met their registration obligations, the IFR is not
responsible for such confusion, and may in fact help abate it. The IFR
helped ensure that all aliens have a straightforward way to comply with
their alien registration obligations. The IFR did not create alien
registration obligations or impose new consequences on aliens for
failing to meet those obligations; the requirement to register, the
requirement to carry evidence of registration, and the consequences for
failing to do so are all creatures of statute. And the President
directed DHS and DOJ to prioritize full implementation and enforcement
of the law. If an alien was unsure about their registration status
prior to the IFR or had lost documents necessary to comply with the
alien registration requirements of the INA, the alien might today see a
need to clarify his or her registration status or seek a replacement
document; but that is not a function of the IFR.
In addition to the IFR that publicized the legal obligation of
unregistered aliens in the United States to comply with the
registration requirements, USCIS established a dedicated website with
information on the ARR and created an ARR Tool that may help aliens
determine whether they must register.48
In principle, DHS agrees that if an application form contains the
data elements for alien registration described in 8 U.S.C. 1304(a) and
the alien has satisfied relevant fingerprinting requirements, DHS
should consider designating such application form and related evidence
of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b). In section V.A of this
preamble, DHS seeks comment on a number of potential forms that DHS may
designate at a future date.
Comment: A commenter similarly wrote that the Department failed to
consider the effects of the IFR on the broader pool of aliens who have
registered, leaving a ``troubling array of practical issues
unaddressed.'' The commenter questioned whether LPRs would be required
to carry a physical copy of their Green Card at all times, or whether a
photocopy would suffice. The commenter further questioned what
individuals should do if a Green Card is lost or stolen, as processing
times for replacing a Green Card are over 2 years. Additionally, the
commenter asked whether those deemed registered by submitting a
benefits application, such as a Form I-485, would be required to always
carry a copy of the 24-page application on their person. Additionally,
for those whose registration hinges on their having been placed into
immigration court removal proceedings, the commenter asked whether they
must carry a copy of an NTA, even if those proceedings concluded years
or decades ago.
Response: The IFR did not change the requirement that aliens issued
evidence of registration carry such evidence on their person. The IFR
filled a gap in the regulation by adding a general option for
unregistered aliens who previously did not have a straightforward way
to comply with the existing statutory registration requirements. Such
aliens may register using the Form G-325R and carry a copy of the USCIS
Proof of Alien G-325R Registration, or its successor form.
The IFR had no effects on LPRs, because LPRs are considered
registered and are issued a permanent resident card as evidence of
registration.\49\ Such persons are not affected by the IFR's
prescribing of the Form G-325R as a registration form. DHS notes that,
as required by statute, LPRs 18 years of age or older must carry their
evidence of registration on their person. See INA sec. 264(e), 8 U.S.C.
1304(e). If an LPR's permanent resident card is lost or stolen and the
LPR files the Form I-90 to replace his or her card, the LPR could
obtain temporary evidence of LPR status, such as an Alien Documentation
Identification and Telecommunication (ADIT) stamp (also known as an I-
551 stamp). See 8 CFR 264.5(h). DHS agencies have access to DHS
databases, which contain information regarding a pending Form I-90.
Similarly, DHS agencies have access to DHS database to confirm a
pending adjustment of status application and whether an alien has been
fingerprinted as part of that application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ See 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b). However, DHS notes that if an
LPR turns 14, the LPR is required to re-register by filing Form I-
90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, pursuant to 8
CFR 264.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If an alien's evidence of registration is the Form I-862, Notice to
Appear, the alien must carry that evidence of registration and always
have that evidence in their personal possession as required by the law.
See 8 U.S.C. 1304(e); 8 CFR 264.1(b). But that requirement is not a
function of this rule; it is a function of the alien registration
requirements of the INA and longstanding regulations.
2. Applicability to Minors
a. Legal Considerations of Applicability to Minors
Comment: Multiple commenters discussed the legal implications of
applying registration requirements to minors. Commenters said the
application of the IFR to minors would raise numerous concerns and
``belies the outdated nature of the law on which this rule is based.''
These commenters remarked that in the decades since the Alien
Registration Act was written, our understanding of childhood and
adolescence has evolved, including intervening law that recognizes the
unique, significant vulnerabilities and differences of children. To
support their position on the IFR's perceived departure from the
prevailing law and science of childhood and adolescence, commenters
cited examples of case law, such as Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551
(2005); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967); and Matter of Devison, 22 I&N
Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000). A commenter, echoing these remarks, said that
immigration law has long recognized a distinction between juvenile and
adult law, and children have not been held to the same standards as
adults.
Multiple commenters wrote that requiring children between the ages
of 14 and 18 years old to register and be fingerprinted runs contrary
to longstanding norms in the U.S. legal system. The commenters wrote
that juvenile justice experts agree that

[[Page 39284]]

juvenile justice policies and stakeholders should avoid exposing youth
to the criminal juvenile justice system. Thus, the commenters reasoned,
expecting that a child of middle- or high-school age would be aware of,
understand, and complete the complex process and implications of
registration with the Federal Government or face exposure to the U.S.
criminal juvenile system for failure to comply would be ``unduly
burdensome and harsh, as well as inappropriate and unfounded.'' A
commenter, citing the Juvenile Delinquency Act and 18 U.S.C. 5031 and
5032, remarked that while States determine their own age of majority,
under Federal law, individuals under 18 are typically considered too
young to bear full criminal responsibility and are generally processed
through State juvenile courts, with adult prosecution occurring only in
specific circumstances involving violent crimes. The commenter
expressed concern that violations of registration and biometric
requirements could potentially classify children as ``juvenile
delinquents'' for failing to comply with administrative regulations
they may not fully understand. The commenter pointed out that for alien
minors aged 14 to 18, compliance with registration requirements assumes
these adolescents have complete knowledge of their immigration status
and can independently take legal action. The commenter concluded that
channeling alien children into juvenile or Federal court systems as a
consequence of noncompliance with registration and biometric
requirements could potentially compromise children's wellbeing and
place inappropriate legal burdens on minors.
A commenter stated that the registration requirements under the IFR
would negatively impact children's safety, health and well-being, and
their family integrity. The commenter suggested that this would defy
universal standards found in State courts as well as multiple aspects
of immigration law, which consider a child's best interests.
Specifically, the commenter wrote that all 50 States and the District
of Columbia require courts to consider a child's best interests (e.g.,
the child's safety and well-being; expressed interests; health; and
their rights to family integrity, liberty, development, and identity)
in decisions about the child's custody, placement, or other critical
life issues. While providing detailed remarks and examples, including
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) guidance requiring
immigration judges to ``employ age-appropriate procedures whenever a
juvenile respondent or witness is present in the courtroom,'' the
commenter stated that this same awareness of what is best for children
is not reflected in the IFR.
Response: Congress, by the express terms of section 262 of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1302, intended that the ARR apply to aliens 14 years of age or
older. It is the duty of DHS to administer and enforce that law. See
INA sec. 103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1); see E.O. 14159 sec. 7, 90 FR
8443 (Jan. 20, 2025). As explained in the IFR, the IFR did not impose
any new registration or fingerprinting obligations separate from the
obligations already contained in the INA, including for children who
turn 14 years of age. Parents and legal guardians of aliens under the
age of 14, not the children themselves, must ensure that those alien
children are registered.
b. Information Access, Comprehension, and Developmental Considerations
for Minors
Comment: Commenters expressed concern that the IFR would subject
children to ``invasive'' reporting requirements. Another commenter
similarly wrote that the requirement that non-U.S. citizens aged 14 and
older register, provide fingerprints, and list their current address is
an ``overstep.'' The commenter reasoned that children's rights should
be protected by the law, and many aliens are already registered (e.g.,
via Form I-94, an EAD, or nonimmigrant or immigrant visa). Thus, the
commenter concluded, this policy would not provide any additional
protection, but, instead, would encroach on the rights of children and
produce fear.
Numerous commenters regarded reporting requirements for minors as
inappropriate or unnecessary. Many commenters said it is not
developmentally appropriate to expect children ages 14 to 18 to
understand and fulfill the requirement to register and be fingerprinted
or to safeguard or always carry proof of registration on their person.
Commenters stated that the IFR holds children to unrealistically high
standard, and that children as young as 14 cannot be expected to
understand and fulfill the registration requirement or carry proof of
registration--nor can they be expected to be aware of the need to
register, in addition to the consequential implications of
noncompliance. Another commenter generally remarked that children
should not be treated as adults, regardless of their immigration
status.
A commenter cited research on the development of children and
adolescents and said it would be ``unfair and unwise'' to place such a
consequential requirement on children, based on what is known about
their development. Other commenters cited numerous scientific studies
and standards within the Federal Sentencing Commission to demonstrate
that the brains of children and adolescents have not developed fully in
a way that provides them the necessary reasoning skills to comply with
the registration requirements or meaningfully calculate the long-term
effects of certain actions.
Another commenter likewise wrote that the age limit for the
unaccompanied minors program illustrates the government's understanding
that 18 years old is a reasonable threshold at which to expect that a
child is capable of handling their affairs independently. Thus, the
commenter concluded, the IFR's application to 14-year-olds ignores the
modern understanding of adolescence and a teenager's ability to
understand not only the process but also the repercussions of violating
the registration requirement. A commenter, similarly raising
developmental concerns for minors subject to the IFR, further reasoned
that for adults, the choices and consequences presented by the IFR are
difficult enough to fully understand; to expect children to make such a
decision would be ``unconscionable.''
Multiple commenters similarly expressed concern that the
information required for registration may be unavailable or
incomprehensible to minors, and specifically, commenters remarked that
children 14 years or older may have been very young when they entered
the United States and may not easily be able to access their
immigration history, such as their date of arrival. Another commenter
explained that questions regarding immigration history, dates of entry,
and parental information may be difficult for children to know or
recall, and questions about criminal history may be misunderstood by a
child, including children who have been exploited or trafficked by
criminal actors.
Commenters additionally wrote that the Form G-325R asks complex
questions that minors would be unlikely to comprehend, such as
questions about past and future activities in the United States. A
commenter reasoned that the registration process is highly complex,
leaving ``no room for errors or gaps''; however, the commenter said, as
many of those completing the form would be minors and may have limited
English proficiency, such errors could result in serious consequences
for that population.

[[Page 39285]]

A commenter stated that questions regarding immigration history,
dates of entry, and parental information may be difficult for children
to know or recall, and questions about criminal history may be
misunderstood by a child, including children who have been exploited or
trafficked by criminal actors, potentially abridging children's legal
rights. The commenter said that many of these questions may be
duplicative of information requested on applications for legal relief
that a child may already have on file with the government.
A commenter, expressing concerns about impacts of the rule on
minors, wrote that the IFR provides no provisions for developmentally
appropriate information or guidance related to the many mandatory
questions on Form G-325R. A commenter similarly noted that for children
under 14 and their guardians, there is a lack of age-specific
instruction or accommodation, increasing the risk of mistaken
noncompliance.
A commenter wrote that requiring immigrant minors to register with
the Federal Government could lead to unnecessary fiscal and health
costs, while exposing minors to targeting, arrests, and detention.
Response: DHS notes that many aliens are already registered and,
thus, are not directly affected by this IFR or the new general
registration option. The statute requires, with limited exceptions,
that all aliens over the age 14 who remain in the United States for 30
days or longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted, if
required, before the expiration of 30 days. Similarly, parents and
legal guardians of aliens below the age of 14 must ensure that those
aliens are registered. Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her
14th birthday, all previously registered aliens must apply for re-
registration and be fingerprinted. DHS, with the IFR and final rule,
has not changed the existing statutory registration requirements
established by Congress for aliens. It is within Congress' control and
its policy choice to change the statutory registration requirement.
With regard to the complexity of questions on the Form G-325R,
aliens who are 14 years or older already receive service of notices to
initiate removal proceedings, and must sign their own applications for
immigration benefits. See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(2), 103.8(c)(2)(ii). The
questions on the Form G-325R are similar to the questions asked on
other registration forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a), including the Form I-485,
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. With
regard to aliens under 14 years of age, the parent or legal guardian
has the duty to register aliens under 14, using an USCIS online account
that the parent or legal guardian creates for the alien child.
Additionally, aliens under the age of 18 are not forced to carry
proof of registration at all times. The statutory carry requirement
under section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e) applies only to
aliens 18 years of age and over in the United States, including but not
limited to those who register using this new process. The statute does
not require children under the age of 18 to carry proof of the
registration.
Comment: A different commenter suggested that the application of
the IFR to minors is misguided. The commenter questioned how
fingerprinting migrant children falls under ``Protecting the American
People Against Invasion,'' and requested statistics of crimes committed
by migrant children in the United States. The commenter further
questioned why a child would need fingerprinting as they are being
placed into foster care and asked whether the same is done with
naturalized children.
Response: The statute requires most aliens over the age of 14 who
remain in the United States for 30 days or longer are required to apply
for registration and with some exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant
status, be fingerprinted. This rule is consistent with the requirements
outlined in section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 and E.O. 14159 and
simply prescribe a general registration option available to all
unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status. DHS, with the IFR
and this final rule, has not created or modified the statutory
requirements of an alien's duty to register with the government under
section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. DHS has an obligation to
faithfully execute the laws established by Congress, including the
alien registration requirement. See INA sec. 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a).
The IFR established a general registration option available to all
unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status.
Comment: Commenters also expressed concern that children who are
forced to carry proof of registration at all times could be
marginalized and separated from their citizen peers, which a commenter
said would have detrimental developmental impacts.
Response: DHS disagrees with the characterization and the impact
described by commenters. Aliens under the age of 18 are not forced to
always carry proof of registration. The statutory carry requirement
under section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e) applies only to
aliens 18 years of age and over in the United States, including but not
limited to those who register using this new process. The statute does
not require children under the age of 18 to carry proof of the
registration.
c. Inconsistencies or Clarity of the Rule for Minors
Comment: A commenter asked whether children under 14 years of age
who enter the United States on a visa are required to re-register under
section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, including the new requirement to
register and be fingerprinted when they turn 14 years old.
Response: The statute, with limited exceptions, requires that
within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th birthday, all
previously registered aliens must apply for re-registration and be
fingerprinted. See INA sec. 262(b), 8 U.S.C. 1302(b).
Comment: A commenter criticized the IFR as confusing, questioned
the applicability of the biometrics requirement to minors under 14, and
wrote that border authorities reportedly issued a policy providing for
the collection of biometrics from all minors, despite the waiver in the
IFR for those under 14.
Response: The statute requires parents and legal guardians of
aliens under the age of 14 to register those aliens. These aliens are
not required to appear for a biometric services appointment to
register, and USCIS will provide evidence of registration after the
parent or legal guardian complies with the registration requirement.
The collection of biometrics by CBP is outside the scope of the rule.
Comment: A commenter stated the IFR is replete with ambiguities
that require more clarification from DHS, including the extent to which
the registration requirements are retroactive, and whether they cover
people who entered the United States more than 30 days before the IFR
was published or takes effect, or whether they cover children subject
to registration upon turning 14 who turned 14 more than 30 days before
the IFR was published or takes effect. The commenter said, if it is not
retroactive, then it is unclear whether DHS is setting the
applicability date at the IFR publication date of March 12, 2025, or
the IFR effective date of April 11, 2025.
Response: DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not created
new requirements or modified the legal obligations that most aliens who
are in the United States for 30 days or longer to comply with the
registration requirements. This rulemaking has

[[Page 39286]]

established a general registration option to ensure that all aliens
have a way to register. The IFR had an effective date of April 11,
2025, and thus provided sufficient notice again of the enforcement
priority pursuant to President Trump's directing on the enforcement
priority. See 90 FR 11793 (Mar. 12, 2025); see also DHS, Press Release,
``Secretary Noem Reminds Foreign Nationals to Register under
Longstanding Federal Law or Face Legal Penalties'' (Apr. 11, 2025),
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/11/secretary-noem-reminds-foreign-nationals-register-or-face-legal-penalties. In any event, many months
have passed since the IFR's publication.
Comment: Commenters stated that children under the age of 14 who
were issued an immigrant or a nonimmigrant visa were already registered
pursuant to section 221 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201 and should not have
to register again.
Response: DHS agrees that an alien who has not turned 14 years old
and was issued an immigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa prior to
admission to the United States is considered registered under section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. However, these aliens will have to re-
register and be fingerprinted within 30 days after reaching 14 years of
age, in accordance with section 262(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(b).
Comment: A commenter stated that it is unclear whether all children
who received Form I-551 while under the age of 14 are exempt from the
process as long as they comply with the existing rule that they file a
Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, within 30
days of turning 14 to apply for a new Green Card.
The commenter also asked whether children who do not file a Form I-
90 within 30 days of turning 14 because their current Green Card
expires before they turn 16, would need to complete Form G-325R when
they turn 14. These children are using the regulatory exception that
allows them not to submit a Form I-90 (and be fingerprinted) until they
file their routine Green Card extension application within 6 months of
the card's expiration.
Response: DHS notes that in accordance with 8 CFR 264.1(g), an
alien who reaches 14 years of age and who is an LPR must apply for
registration and to be fingerprinted, unless waived. See INA sec.
262(a), 8 U.S.C. 1302(a); see 8 CFR 264.1(g). As noted in the Form I-90
instructions, such an alien submits the Form I-90 to comply with his or
her duty to register with the government under the statute.\50\ Such an
alien would not submit the Form G-325R. DHS is also soliciting comments
in section V of this preamble on updating the regulatory text in 8 CFR
264.5(b)(8) to align with section 262(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(b),
which requires aliens who turn 14 to register irrespective of whether
they were registered previously. The instructions of Form I-90 are
clear on this point, and accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ See USCIS, Form I-90, ``Instruction for Application to
Replace Permanent Resident Card,'' OMB No. 1615-0082 (expires Feb.
28, 2027), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-90instr.pdf (``After reaching 14 years of age, a lawful permanent
resident must register and submit Form I-90. Registration and
fingerprinting are required within 30 days after a child reaches 14
years of age.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A few commenters addressed ambiguities in the IFR's
discussion of the provisions for minors. The commenters noted that the
rule states in one section that if children have one of the forms
listed, they ``need not register again,'' while in another section, the
rule states that all ``noncitizen'' children must register when they
turn 14, whether previously registered or not. A couple of these
commenters quoted the rule, stating that while the IFR explains that
someone ``who has previously registered consistent with 8 CFR 264.1(a),
or. . .who has evidence of registration consistent with 8 CFR 264.1(b),
need not register again,'' it elsewhere states that affected
populations include a ``noncitizen'' ``whether previously registered or
not, who turns 14 years old in the United States and therefore must
register within 30 days after their 14th birthday.''
Response: The statute requires aliens under the age of 14 who
remain in the United States for 30 days or longer to be registered by
their parents or legal guardians before the expiration of the 30 days.
There is no fingerprint requirement for the registration of these
aliens under the age of 14. USCIS and the former INS have consistently
implemented the plain language of section 262(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1302(b) (for example, in the context of LPRs turning 14 years of age)
over the years. The broad language of the second sentence of section
262(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(b) (``whenever any alien attains his
fourteenth birthday in the United States he shall'') compels such
aliens to register again and to be fingerprinted (unless waived) within
30 days after their 14th birthday. This requirement has been in place
in section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(b), without amendment by
Congress, since the ARR was initially placed in the INA in 1952.
Indeed, the requirement (using this language) initially appeared in the
Alien Registration Act of 1940, Public Law 76-670.
Comment: A commenter said the IFR does not address how the
enumerated criminal penalties would be assessed to children who may not
be able to meet the requirements to register or maintain proof of
registration.
Commenters noted that the rule is silent on the implications for a
child who is not living with a parent or legal guardian, or who lives
with one who is abusive or neglectful and does not register on the
child's behalf.
Response: DHS notes that the alien registration requirement,
including the provisions relating to children under 14 years of age,
those who have recently turned 14 years of age within the United
States, or those 14 years of age or older, as well as the related
criminal penalties, has been a part of our laws since 1940. The IFR and
the final rule add another method for compliance with the existing
statutory registration requirements. This IFR did not create or modify
the obligations and consequences related to the registration
requirement, including the criminal penalties. The registration
requirement was established by Congress many decades ago and is thus a
longstanding legal requirement. While DHS defers to its partners at the
DOJ regarding the enforcement of the criminal provisions, DHS notes
that for children under 14 years of age, the children themselves face
no criminal penalties for a failure or refusal to register, but rather
the parents and or the legal guardians could face criminal penalties.
For those 14 years of age or older, DHS notes that only a ``willful''
failure or refusal to register is penalized in section 266(a) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1306(a).
Comment: A commenter said that the IFR does not consider how law
enforcement implementing the carry requirement would distinguish
between children under 18 and youth 18 and over. The commenter asked
whether this implicitly imposes a separate carry requirement for
adolescent children subject to registration to always carry proof of
their age on their person and asked what kind of proof of age would
suffice.
Response: DHS notes that the IFR and this rule have not changed
procedures related to the carry requirements under section 264(e) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e). The comments regarding the enforcement of
section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e) is out of scope of this
rulemaking. In general, however, DHS agencies enforcing the carry
requirement have access to DHS

[[Page 39287]]

databases, which contain not only information about whether DHS has
issued evidence of registration to a specific alien, but also the
alien's age. Additionally, aliens under the age of 18 are not forced to
carry proof of registration at all times. The statutory carry
requirement under section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e) applies
only to aliens 18 years of age and over in the United States, including
but not limited to those who register using this new process. The
statute does not require children under the age of 18 to carry proof of
the registration.
d. Safety Concerns for Minors
Comment: While citing reports and anecdotal evidence, a commenter
additionally expressed concern that uncertainty about registration
requirements could expose minors to potential abuse. Specifically, the
commenter said that a ``universal registration requirement'' for aliens
as proposed under the IFR would increase the vectors by which bad
actors impersonating Federal agents can exploit vulnerable migrants,
particularly minors, while simultaneously hindering compliance with
registration requirements.
A commenter expressed concern that questioning ``undocumented''
minors as young as 14 years old would provide an avenue to incarcerate
them, adding that detention facilities are detrimental to mental and
physical health and even fatal.
A commenter expressed safety concerns related to the registration
requirement for parents and legal guardians while discussing the risks
of family safety and stability. The commenter expressed concern with
family separation under the IFR, stating that by subjecting parents who
fail to register or who lack proof of registration to detention or
criminal prosecution, the IFR would institutionalize family separation
and psychological harm to children. The commenter added that the IFR
requires parents to volunteer information about their children that
could expose their children to immigration enforcement, including
detention and deportation, impacting the authority of parents to direct
the education, nurture, and supervision of their children. The
commenter concluded that these impacts on family well-being, autonomy
and integrity would violate section 654 of the Treasury General
Appropriations Act of 1999.
Response: As stated in the IFR, DHS has determined that the
implementation of this regulation will not negatively affect family
well-being in accordance with section 654 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 1999 \51\ and will not have any impact
on the autonomy and integrity of the family as an institution. See 90
FR 11793, 11799 (Mar. 12, 2025). The registration requirement neither
impacts the stability or the safety of the family, particularly in
terms of the marital commitment, nor the well-being of a family
overall. To the contrary, as outlined in President Trump's E.O.,
enforcing the Nation's immigration laws is critically important to the
national security and public safety of the United States and
individuals present within the United States. See E.O. 14159, sec. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ See Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Unaccompanied Alien Children
Comment: A commenter, offering highly detailed remarks on the IFR,
stated that UACs are among the world's most vulnerable populations,
with thousands fleeing violence, persecution, abuse, and trafficking
each year. The commenter noted that Congress created specific
procedural protections for UACs in the TVPRA to prevent their return to
trafficking and other harm. The commenter wrote that the TVPRA provides
safeguards for UACs, including exemption from expedited removal,
placement in full immigration removal proceedings, the right to have
asylum applications first considered by USCIS in an interview setting,
and exemption from the 1-year filing deadline for asylum and from the
safe third country bar. The commenter expressed concern that the IFR
fails to consider these existing protections and the unique needs of
UACs. Furthermore, the commenter observed that the IFR does not
specifically mention UACs, their legal protections, or provide an
exemption for this population. The commenter additionally warned that
DHS's failure to consider the specific ways in which the IFR would
impact UACs could cause significant harm as a result of noncompliance.
Response: DHS notes that the various existing protections mentioned
in the context of UACs were established by Congress through
legislation. While various pieces of legislation providing protections
for UACs have been enacted, Congress has not made any changes to
sections 262 through 266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1306,
regarding UACs and the alien registration requirement. However, DHS
notes that the criminal provision relating to a failure or refusal to
register does not apply to aliens under 14 years of age, and for aliens
14 years of age or older requires that such a failure or refusal to
register be willful. See INA sec. 266(a), 8 U.S.C. 1306(a). In
addition, the carry requirement of section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1304(e), only applies to aliens 18 years of age or older who have been
issued evidence of registration by DHS.
Comment: A commenter expressed concern that the rule does not
address whether and how UACs who do not have parents or legal guardians
in the United States would comply with the initial registration
requirement; who would be responsible for registering children in ORR
custody or released to a nonparental/non-guardian sponsor; and how UACs
turning 18 would learn if they were previously registered or provide
evidence of such registration. Another commenter also raised concerns
about compliance for those in government custody with ORR. A commenter
said that it may be particularly challenging for UACs and those
previously in Federal Government custody to obtain the information
required for registration.
A commenter stated that the IFR, as written, would cause confusion
among shelter providers and sponsors about whether and when children in
ORR custody need to register, and who is responsible for registration.
The commenter warned that this confusion could expose children to
prolonged detention and later arrest due to the rule's vagueness as to
who has responsibility for registering them and how to comply when a
child is in government custody. The commenter further expressed concern
that the IFR does not provide children with a mechanism to comply while
in government custody. They explained that children in ORR shelters are
rarely permitted to leave and would face structural barriers to
complying with the registration requirements, including not having
basic access to the rules or the ability to obtain fingerprinting and
biometrics. Finally, the commenter warned that the IFR leaves foster
children who are in the custody of State foster agencies vulnerable to
the risk of arrest and deportation.
Several commenters expressed concern that the IFR lacks clarity
regarding who would be required to register an unaccompanied child
released to a sponsor who was neither a parent nor a legal guardian. A
commenter voiced concern that the rule lacks clarity regarding its
application to UACs and their sponsors, which they said may make it
less likely that they would be able to determine whether they are
required to complete Form G-325R to register with the Federal

[[Page 39288]]

Government. The commenter wrote, under the IFR, parents and legal
guardians of alien children under the age of 14 have a duty to register
their child, but the IFR does not account for the fact that many UACs
under the age of 14 are released to a sponsor who is not their parent
or legal guardian. Citing HHS data, the commenter said that, from
November 30, 2024, to February 28, 2025, 49.7 percent of UACs in ORR
custody were released to a sponsor who was neither a parent nor a legal
guardian. Commenting from the viewpoint of a legal services provider
for many UACs, the commenter expressed deep concerns about a lack of
clarity around who is required to register such individuals and
potential penalties for failing to register before the age of 14 and
requested additional guidance from DHS around how to ensure young
immigrant children comply with the IFR.
A commenter stated that the IFR does not address if and how the
registration requirement would be applied to children under the age of
14 placed with non-parental/non-guardian sponsors. The commenter
expressed concern that children could be registered inconsistently or
with inaccurate information or be compelled to interact with parents
with whom they may not otherwise be in contact, potentially risking
harm to children seeking protection from abuse, abandonment, neglect,
or similar parental mistreatment. Furthermore, the commenter said it is
unclear whether UACs or sponsors would be advised of registration
requirements through legal orientations during ORR care or upon
release, and how children turning 14 while in the care of a non-parent/
non-guardian sponsor would learn of related requirements to register
themselves. The commenter also expressed concern that a child's
registration status could vary unexpectedly over time based on their
submission or receipt of immigration forms, their age, or other
factors, creating confusion and barriers, particularly for UACs turning
18, who are expected to carry proof of registration at all times or
face significant penalties.
A commenter said the rule would have a chilling effect on potential
sponsors of UACs, who may fear that they would be targeted if they have
not registered, or that, by agreeing to sponsor an unaccompanied child
under the age of 14, they would assume a legal obligation to ensure
that child is registered.
Another commenter wrote that a lack of clarity around the
applicability of the IFR to UACs would increase reluctance among
immigrant children to confide in or cooperate with law enforcement,
causing particular harm to children who are victims of or witnesses to
trafficking or other crimes, making children and communities less safe.
A commenter, citing multiple studies and reports, stated that
immigrant children, including many UACs the commenter serves, have
suffered trauma--from poverty, trafficking, or violence--that affects
cognitive development, maturity, and memory. The commenter said that
these conditions could make responding to the registration process more
difficult for these children. A commenter in the healthcare sector
noted that pediatricians who provide care to immigrant children are
reporting great confusion over how to comply with the IFR, as patients
who are UACs and their family members or caregivers do not understand
whether they are subject to the IFR. The commenter said its members
lack clarity from DHS on how best to advise these patients.
Commenters expressed concern that UACs may face prolonged family
separation and profound re-traumatization if their sponsors or family
are criminally prosecuted for failure to register or carry proof of
registration. Similarly, a commenter voiced concern about chilling
effects on those willing to be sponsors as a result of the IFR, as
adults living with children would be held criminally responsible for
complying with the registration requirement. This, the commenter
cautioned, would lead to children languishing for longer periods in ORR
custody, where educational curricula are limited, and certain
developmental needs--such as hugs--are prohibited. A commenter
additionally commented that prioritized enforcement against those who
fail to comply with registration and fingerprinting requirements could
impact potential sponsors of UACs, including children's parents and
other family members, impeding their ability to care for children once
they leave ORR custody. Consequently, the commenter said, children
could face prolonged time in ORR care or face release to more distant
and potentially less suitable sponsors.
A commenter said the Department offers no clarity about what would
happen to minors who are arrested for noncompliance, including whether
they may be returned to Federal custody, such as under ORR. The
commenter and others, citing multiple reports, expressed additional
concern for children in ORR custody due to the rule's complexity and
language requirements, which the commenters warned could lead to
unnecessary registrations of children 14 and older and enforcement
actions against children and their families. The commenters said this
is particularly concerning, as ORR has begun dismantling legal services
for UACs and has issued its own IFR for ORR employees to share
information about sponsors to ICE.
A commenter, discussing detailed concerns, wrote that the IFR is
silent on whether DHS intends to apply the registration requirement to
UACs in government custody. The commenter said it is also unclear
whether ORR must complete registration forms for children in its care,
how ORR would make such determinations, what physical address would be
used, how to avoid duplication of registration, and other
considerations for UACs. The commenter noted that average lengths of
stay in ORR custody exceed 30 days, and some children may remain in
long-term foster care placements for months or longer, meaning many
UACs may still be in government care when they are required to comply
with registration provisions. Citing the ORR Policy Guide, the
commenter explained that ORR currently undertakes certain actions to
ensure a child's attendance at immigration hearings scheduled while the
child is in custody and facilitates access to legal orientations and
screenings; however, the commenter noted that ORR generally must not
make representations or share information about a child's immigration
case with other Federal agencies unless requested by the child or their
legal service provider. The commenter said that these safeguards
recognize the harmful and prejudicial effect that unauthorized
information sharing could have on a child's rights, fair adjudication
of applications for humanitarian protection, and overall safety.
The commenter expressed concern that Form G-325R includes numerous
questions with potential bearing on a child's immigration case that may
also be contained within other legal applications the child is
completing or has submitted. The commenter stated it would be
inappropriate and prejudicial for ORR to complete this form on a
child's behalf, particularly without the child's ability to consult
with legal counsel.
A commenter expressed concern about the potential for imprisonment
of UACs based on noncompliance with requirements discussed in the IFR,
stating that this raises serious issues that the Department should have
considered but does not address in the IFR. The commenter stated it
would therefore be

[[Page 39289]]

possible for UACs to face re-detention in ORR custody or in ICE or
other law enforcement facilities. The commenter questioned how any such
arrests would comport with the TVPRA, Flores Settlement, and juvenile
justice reforms regarding conditions and procedural protections for
children and youth.
Response: The IFR and this final rule are limited in scope and
establish a general registration option available to all unregistered
aliens regardless of immigration status. When Congress established the
alien registration requirement in 1940, it did not address scenarios in
which an alien child under 14 years of age required to register would
be present in the United States without a parent or legal guardian.
However, the statute and the registration processes does not require a
parent or legal guardian to themselves be present in the United States
in order to register an alien child under 14 years of age as required
under section 262(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(b). The same is true for
UACs under 14 years of age in HHS custody or who have been released to
a nonparental or non-legal guardian sponsor; the statute still places
duty to register the UAC on the parent or legal guardian. The statute
does not place a duty to register a UAC on ORR or on any nonparental or
non-legal guardian sponsor. Also, in general, UACs are served Form I-
862, Notice to Appear, and placed in removal proceedings by DHS before
the UAC is transferred to ORR care, custody, and placement. See 8
U.S.C. 1232(a)(5)(D) and 8 CFR 236.3(f)(1). UACs are considered to be
registered once the Form I-862 is issued by DHS. See 8 CFR 264.1(b).
With regard to UACs who are 14 years of age or older, DHS notes that
they already receive personal service of notices to initiate removal
proceedings on Form I-862, Notice to Appear, which constitutes as
evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b), and must sign their own
applications for immigration benefits. See 8 CFR 103.8(c)(2)(ii); see 8
CFR 103.2(a)(2). DHS, as directed by President Trump in E.O. 14159, has
publicized information about the duty of aliens described in section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, to register and be fingerprinted (if
required). In addition to the rulemaking actions to publicize
information on the alien registration requirement, USCIS established a
dedicated website with information on the ARR and an ARR Tool that may
help aliens determine whether they must register.
Also, as mentioned previously, the criminal provision relating to a
failure or refusal to register does not apply to aliens under 14 years
of age. While DHS defers to its partners at DOJ regarding the
enforcement of the criminal provisions, DHS notes that for aliens 14
years of age or older only a ``willful'' failure or refusal to register
or be fingerprinted is penalized in section 266(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1306(a).
If any alien is unsure whether they are registered, an alien may
use the ARR Tool established by USCIS, to determine if an alien must
register.\52\ In addition, the carry requirement of section 264(e) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e), only applies to aliens 18 years of age or
older who have been issued evidence of registration by DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ See USCIS, ``Alien Registration Requirement,'' https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration (last updated May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: Following the placement of an unaccompanied child with a
sponsor, the child is to be provided with an NTA (Form I-862), which 8
CFR 264.1(b) lists as satisfying the registration requirements;
however, multiple commenters discussed confusion and practical concerns
about UACs fulfilling the registration requirements with an NTA.
Commenters said that, while the rule exempts those who have been served
an NTA, this would be confusing for many UACs and their families. They
wrote that UACs not only may be unaware of the specific documentation
they have received by nature of their age, vulnerability, and lack of
legal competency; but they also may not have received an NTA. While
citing a report, some commenters wrote that, until recently, ICE
maintained a policy of deferring filings with immigration courts of
UACs' NTAs until their placement with sponsors. Furthermore, the
commenter reasoned, receipt of NTAs for unaccompanied youth has also
been hampered by address changes amongst children and families, and by
information errors and improper service by the government.
A commenter remarked that lawyers have reported many cases where
DHS either fails to file or delays in filing NTAs that have been issued
to UACs with the DOJ's EOIR. The commenter said that, in cases where
the form is not filed with EOIR in a timely manner, an unaccompanied
child should not be expected to file Form G-325R; instead, once they
have been issued an NTA, they should be considered registered. The
commenter expressed concern that the IFR does not contemplate this
scenario and requested clarity as to whether the issuance of Form I-862
without the filing of said form with EOIR would satisfy the
registration requirements.
Response: The IFR and this rule are limited in scope and establish
a general registration option available to all unregistered aliens
regardless of immigration status. The regulations identify a Form I-862
as constituting evidence of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b), and an
alien with this evidence of registration is considered to have complied
with their duty to register with the government under section 262(a) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(a). If a UAC or his or her sponsor is unsure
whether the UAC is registered, the UAC or his or her sponsor may use
the ARR Tool established by USCIS, to determine if an alien must
register.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ See USCIS, ``Alien Registration Requirement,'' https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration (last updated May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter expressed concern with the requirement to
admit juvenile adjudications, even those that were sealed, which the
commenter said could have immigration consequences children would not
understand.
Response: Under section 262(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(a), forms
designated to register aliens ``shall contain queries with respect to .
. . the police and criminal record, if any, of such alien.'' See INA
sec. 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304(a). Many forms used to seek immigration
benefits request information about the applicant's criminal history,
even if the criminal activity occurred when the applicant is a minor.
See, e.g., Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or
Adjust Status, Part 9, Question 23; Form I-589, Application for Asylum
and for Withholding of Removal, Part B, Question 2.
Comment: A commenter expressed his concerns about the confusion and
compliance challenges for UACs, including those in ORR custody, and
suggested that there should, at the least, be a clear carveout for
children who are currently or have previously been in Federal
immigration custody. The commenter reasoned that these children have
already been processed by government agencies and should have been
issued an NTA, although it may not be in their possession due to
government practices and policies, and that these children have
necessarily provided biographic and biometric information, rendering
further registration unnecessary. Another commenter urged DHS to
rescind the IFR, and, at minimum, exempt UACs from the provisions, to
prevent the return of this population to trafficking and other harm.
The commenter suggested, rather than increasing barriers for UACs
facing known harm, DHS could have exempted UACs

[[Page 39290]]

altogether or considered children's other legal applications as
evidence of registration.
Response: The statute provides limited exemptions \54\ to the alien
registration requirements. The IFR and this final rule have not created
or modified the statutory requirements established by Congress that
apply to aliens under 14 years of age, those who have recently turned
14 years of age within the United States, and those 14 years of age or
older who are still a ``child'' for immigration purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Aliens who are exempt from the registration requirement are
A and G nonimmigrants in the United States until they cease to be
entitled to such nonimmigrant status pursuant to INA sec. 263(b), 8
U.S.C. 1303(b), American Indians born in Canada who entered the
United States under INA sec. 289, 8 U.S.C. 1359, and Members of the
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas who entered the United States
under the Texas Band of Kickapoo Act sec. 4(d) of Public Law 97-429
(1983)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS agrees that aliens issued an NTA on a Form I-862 have evidence
of registration in accordance with 8 CFR 264.1(b) and would not
complete the general registration option as provided in the IFR and
this final rule. An alien is, in general, already registered if the
alien:
Was issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa and at his or
her most recent arrival was admitted into the United States using that
visa;
Has been issued one of the documents designated as
evidence of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b); or
Submitted one of the forms designated at 8 CFR 264.1(a)
and provided fingerprints (unless waived) but was not issued one of the
forms of evidence of registration designated at 8 CFR 264.1(b).
f. Special Immigrant Juveniles
Comment: A commenter expressed concern that children who file Form
I-360, seeking SIJ status, would experience difficulties assessing
whether they have met the registration requirements. The commenter
said, after filing a SIJ-based Form I-360, applicants generally are not
required to attend biometrics appointments; however, those who file
Form I-765, after they receive a SIJ-based deferred action
determination are required to attend a biometrics appointment, although
they are not always fingerprinted. The commenter said that many of
these children would be uncertain as to whether they are registered and
would be unlikely to complete Form G-325R on their own. They urged the
Federal Government to take the age and particular vulnerabilities of
children who file for SIJ status into account and waive the requirement
for children who file Form I-360 to be fingerprinted, just as it waives
the requirement for all children under the age of 14.
Response: DHS, as directed by President Trump in E.O. 14159, has
publicized information about the duty of aliens described in section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, to register and be fingerprinted (if
required). In addition to the rulemaking actions to publicize
information on the alien registration requirement, USCIS established a
dedicated website with information on the ARR and an ARR Tool that may
help aliens determine whether they must register. If any alien is
unsure whether they are registered, an alien may use the ARR Tool
established by USCIS, to determine if an alien must register.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ See USCIS, ``Alien Registration Requirement,'' https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration (last updated May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An alien issued one of the documents designated as evidence of
registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b), including a Form I-766, Employment
Authorization Document, has already registered. However, an alien who
was issued evidence of registration and turns 14 years old in the
United States must apply for reregistration within 30 days after the
14th birthday and be fingerprinted, if required. These aliens may
submit a Form G-325R to reregister and be fingerprinted.
These rulemakings have not created or modified the statutory
requirements established by Congress that apply to aliens under 14
years of age, those who have recently turned 14 years of age within the
United States, and those 14 years of age or older who are still a
``child'' for immigration purposes.
The statute requires aliens 14 years or older to be fingerprinted.
See INA sec. 262, 8 U.S.C. 1302. Children under the age of 14 do not
have to be fingerprinted for purposes of the registration statute. See
INA sec. 262(b), 8 U.S.C. 1302(b). Pursuant to section 262(c) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(c), the Secretary may, in the Secretary's discretion
and on the basis of reciprocity pursuant to regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe, waive the requirement for fingerprinting in
the case of any nonimmigrant. See INA sec. 262(c), 8 U.S.C. 1302(c).
That authority was exercised through long-standing regulations at 8 CFR
264.1(e). The purpose of the IFR was to amend DHS regulations at 8 CFR
264.1(a) and (b) to designate a new registration form and an additional
documentation that may serve as evidence of alien registration. The IFR
did not alter the existing fingerprinting waiver scheme as outlined in
8 CFR 264.1(e), which is beyond the scope of the IFR and this final
rule.
g. Child Survivors
Comment: A commenter expressed particular concern that the
registration process could be manipulated by abusers seeking to
control, coerce, or intimidate immigrant child victims. The commenter
said that although there is an exception to criminal liability for lack
of willfulness in failing to register, this exception requires a
sophisticated understanding of criminal law, which children between 14
and 18 should not be expected to have, especially if they do not have
access to counsel.
Response: DHS agrees that the criminal provision relating to a
failure or refusal to register does not apply to aliens under 14 years
of age and that, for aliens 14 years of age or older, it requires that
such a failure or refusal to register be ``willful.'' INA sec. 266(a),
8 U.S.C. 1306(a), but DHS defers to DOJ regarding enforcement of the
criminal provisions.
3. Applicability to Canadian Citizens
a. Burdens and Redundant Requirements for Canadians
Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about the application
to Canadian visitors, with commenters warning that the requirements
would deter Canadians from visiting or returning to the United States.
A commenter specifically expressed concern about applicability of
the IFR to nonimmigrant Canadian tourists and business travelers, who
were not issued an electronic Form I-94 upon processing at a land port
of entry, to submit Form G-325R if they plan to be physically present
in the United States for 30 days or longer.
A commenter expressed concern that the IFR creates an unnecessary
burden on Canadian tourists to the United States. The commenter
reasoned that Canadian citizens entering the United States by land
typically do not receive an electronic Form I-94, unlike those arriving
by air or sea. As a result, the commenter said that hundreds of
thousands of Canadian travelers who enter the United States for
extended stays of 30 days or longer through land ports of entry would
be required to register with USCIS. The commenter said this requirement
is redundant given the extensive information sharing between Canada and
the United States, including the coordinated Entry/Exit information
system established under the Beyond the Border security agreement in
2011, which permits the

[[Page 39291]]

sharing of biographic entry data on all travelers who cross the land
border. The commenter also remarked that the United States has access
to Canadian criminal record and public safety information through the
Canadian Police Information Centre system.
Commenters expressed concerns with the applicability of the IFR to
Canadian visitors who entered the United States at land ports of entry
and were not issued evidence of registration, reasoning that it would
be overly burdensome for them to fulfill the requirement to create an
individual electronic account, complete a form asking for more
information than they would have otherwise had to provide for admission
into the United States, and then appear for a biometrics appointment at
an ASC. Furthermore, the commenters wrote that the Department could
better meet the IFR's compliance objectives and increase efficiency by
capturing all of the information at one's time of entry, rather than
waiting 30 days for such individuals to self-report. A commenter
specifically expressed concern that the fingerprinting proposal would
lead Canadians to exit en masse and suggested that ``a form and a
passport'' is sufficient.
Response: DHS agrees that aliens who are Canadian citizens and
admitted at land ports of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for business
or pleasure are generally not issued a Form I-94. Under 8 CFR 212.1, a
visa is generally not required for these aliens and under 8 CFR
235.1(h), the Form I-94 is not required. An alien who was admitted
without the issuance of Form I-94 and without issuance of a
nonimmigrant visa under section 221 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201, who
remains for 30 days or more in the United States must register in order
to comply with section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. Such an alien may
use the general registration option available to all unregistered
aliens regardless of immigration status or one of the other paths to
registration available under the regulation.
Regarding the commenters' suggestion that it would be reasonable
for Canadian visitors to register in connection with their admission to
the United States as nonimmigrants, rather than after their admission,
DHS agrees. While most Canadian citizens seeking to be admitted at land
ports of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for business or pleasure, or
for direct transit through the United States, are not subject to the
Form I-94 requirement under 8 CFR 235.1(h)(1)(i), they may choose to
request a Form I-94 from CBP in advance of their travel at https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/home. Aliens issued Form I-94 upon admission as
nonimmigrants are considered registered under 8 CFR 264.1, and a
Canadian citizen who opts for this approach has fulfilled his or her
duty to register under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, and
generally, does not have to register again during his or her visit to
the United States. DHS agrees with these and other commenters who have
suggested that DHS should consider whether there are other processes
that include robust information collection and thorough screening and
vetting, including the provision of biometrics, that may be suitable
ways for aliens to comply with the registration requirement of section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. DHS has updated the list of prescribed
registration forms as well as evidence of registration as a part of
this final rule. See section IV.A.2 of this preamble. DHS is also
seeking comments on the possible addition of other forms. See section
V. of this preamble.
A nonimmigrant who is a Canadian citizen and who files the G-325R
may be eligible for a waiver of the registration fingerprinting
requirement under 8 CFR 264.1(e)(2) or, in more limited circumstances,
8 CFR 264.1(e)(1). Once an alien submits the Form G-325R, USCIS reviews
the information and any DHS records to determine if an alien is already
registered or if fingerprints are required. If a Canadian nonimmigrant
who submits Form G-325R is not already registered and is not required
to be fingerprinted, USCIS will provide the alien with evidence of
registration through his or her USCIS online account without the
scheduling of a biometrics appointment. Under section 264(a) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a), forms for registration of aliens should collect
information related to an alien, including activities in which the
alien has been and intends to be engaged. Further, as mentioned in the
IFR and this rule, the information an alien provides in the
registration process and the biometric collection, if required,
provides DHS with additional information about an alien's criminal
record, including whether the alien is a known or suspected terrorist.
DHS prioritizes the removal of aliens who pose threats to public safety
and national security and this information helps DHS address such
threats.
b. Requests for Exemptions
Comment: A commenter stated that Canadians should be exempt from
the rule, reasoning that requiring registration for Canadians who plan
to stay in the United States longer than 30 days adds an unnecessary
burden for both Canadian visitors and DHS. The commenter further
reasoned that Canadians pose very little to no risk to national
security and have close relations with the United States. Another
commenter wrote that Canada and the United States ``have always had
open borders'' and warned that this would put a strain on relationships
across the borders, particularly for Canadians needing access to U.S.
medical facilities. The commenter further expressed concern that the
rule would stop travel on the Alaska Highway or entry into Canada.
Other commenters discussed the historical and practical reasons for
insulating Canadian visitors from registration. Citing research, the
commenters stated that, by 1952, Canadians visiting the United States
for less than 6 months were exempt from registration requirements, even
though there was no clear authorization in the statute for these
exemptions. Additionally, the commenters said that, for Canadian
visitors present in the United States for 30 days or more, CBP has long
waived the need to obtain an admission stamp in their passport or a
Form I-94 admission record. Furthermore, the commenters reasoned that
CBP admits many Canadian nonimmigrants to the United States at the land
border without a Form I-94 admission record. Furthermore, due to CBP's
implementation of stampless entry, the commenters said Canadian
nonimmigrants are unlikely to be provided an admission stamp that
references an entry date, category of admission, and end date. The
commenters said that land border entries have always been treated
differently due to processing time concerns for pedestrian, commercial,
and passenger vehicular traffic, reasoning that, due to CBP's pragmatic
approach, Canadians are accustomed to being allowed to remain in the
United States for up to 6 months after driving into the United States
via a land port of entry. The commenters ultimately expressed concern
that the IFR does not maintain these exemptions despite Canadians' low
security risk and visa exemptions in most nonimmigrant categories. The
commenters said that enforcing the provisional Form I-94 process at
land borders would burden limited CBP staff while yielding minimal
security benefits.
A commenter similarly recommended exempting Canadian travelers who
have not been issued an electronic Form I-94 from the general
registration requirement, reasoning that Canadian citizens entering the
United States at the

[[Page 39292]]

land border should be considered ``registered'' when they are inspected
and admitted by CBP officers. The commenter further reasoned that the
E.O. was intended to apply to unlawfully present individuals, not
tourists temporarily visiting the United States, and noted that the
registration form itself does not permit users to enter a foreign
address, such as a Canadian residential address.
Response: DHS has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws
established by Congress, including the alien registration requirement.
See INA sec. 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a). Through the IFR and this final
rule, DHS created a new mechanism for aliens to comply with the
registration requirement. Creating exemptions to the requirement is
beyond the scope of this rule.
DHS notes that as part of the administration's communication
outreach, the U.S. Embassy in Canada has created a website with
additional guidance as a resource for Canadians traveling to the United
States. See U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Canada, ``What does the Alien
Registration Act mean for Canadians?'' (Mar. 25, 2025), https://ca.usembassy.gov/alien-registration-requirement/#canadians. Also, in
response to comments, DHS has prescribed additional forms that
constitute evidence of registration to the regulations. See Section IV
of this preamble.
c. Impacts to the Economy and Relations With Canada
Comment: Commenters wrote that Canadians travel to U.S. states like
Arizona and Florida, contributing significantly to local communities,
tourism, and the economy; commenters cautioned that the rule would
alienate Canadians or damage the United States' personal or economic
relations with Canada.
Commenters expressed concern that admissions at the northern land
border have already decreased, leading to negative implications for the
U.S. economy and U.S.-Canadian relations. While providing detailed
remarks to support this view, a commenter stated that applying the
general registration requirement to Canadian visitors would negatively
impact tourism to the United States. The commenter stated that Canada
is the largest international tourism market for the United States, with
annual spending exceeding $20 billion U.S. dollars, and that Canadians
represent almost 40 percent of all foreign visitors to Florida. The
commenter added that many local economies in the U.S. Sunbelt are
reliant on Canadian visitors and the tourism dollars they bring. The
commenter cited estimates from the U.S. Travel Association, writing
that a 10 percent reduction in Canadian visitation could result in 2
million fewer visits, or $2.1 billion in lost spending, and 14,000 job
losses. The commenter additionally voiced concern that policies such as
the registration requirement under the IFR have contributed to
decreases in cross-border travel, reasoning that the number of
travelers entering the United States in a passenger vehicle dropped
from 2,696,512 in February 2024 to 2,223,408 in March 2025--the lowest
numbers since April 2022. The commenter characterized the IFR as ``a
step backward in bi-national relations and border security strategy,''
noting that there is no reciprocal registration required of U.S.
citizens temporarily visiting Canada. They concluded that the IFR
establishes an unprecedented registration requirement on Canadian
tourists, potentially subjecting them to civil and criminal penalties
if they do not timely register with USCIS.
A commenter further emphasized the significant economic
relationship between the United States and Canada, and the long-
standing, mutually beneficial streamlined procedures for Canadian
visitors. The commenters cited Canadian government statistics showing
that at the end of 2024, 60 percent of Canada's foreign financial
assets and 53 percent of international liabilities were in the United
States, with Canadian investors' holdings of U.S. securities increasing
by 270 percent over the prior 10 years to $3,044.8 billion.
Response: DHS welcomes all visitors to the United States who follow
the appropriate procedures for entry into the United States and
appreciates their positive impact and economic contributions.
DHS has the obligation to faithfully execute the laws established
by Congress, including the alien registration requirement. See INA sec.
103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a). The statute requires most aliens, regardless
of country of citizenship or nationality, present in the United States
who remain for 30 days or longer to register and with some exceptions
based on age or nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted. DHS, with the
IFR and this final rule, has not created these requirements or modified
the duties established by Congress for aliens. This rule is consistent
with E.O. 14159 and the alien registration requirements in sections 262
through 265 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1305, and establishes a
general registration option available to all unregistered aliens
regardless of immigration status. By having prescribed a free, online,
convenient, and easily accessible general registration option, DHS
hopes to improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens.
d. Feedback and Other Recommendations Related to Canadians
Comment: Commenters questioned whether visa-exempt Canadian
children who enter the United States under the age of 14 would be
subject to the requirement to register and be fingerprinted when they
turn 14.
Response: Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th
birthday, all previously registered aliens must apply for re-
registration and to be fingerprinted. If an alien does not have any
other pathway to register and to be fingerprinted, the alien may file
the Form G-325R to comply with their duty under section 262 of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1302.
Comment: A commenter wrote that Canadian citizens with a valid
NEXUS card should not be subjected to checks, reasoning that they have
already been vetted, their biometric information is already on file
with the U.S. Government, and NEXUS is linked to passports. Another
commenter similarly wrote that many Canadian visitors who are frequent
border crossers (and, therefore, do not receive a Form I-94 or a Form
I-94W upon entry) and who would be subject to the rule possess NEXUS or
Global Entry. This commenter said that there is no good reason why
NEXUS would not count as valid registration. Another commenter thanked
DHS for ``taking [its] border security seriously'' and asked whether
Canadians with a NEXUS card would be required to complete the new
registration for Canadians staying for more than 30 days. A commenter
also questioned if members of the Canadian NEXUS trusted traveler
program who had already submitted fingerprints or biometrics would be
exempt from the registration requirement.
Response: DHS is aware that there are areas of the existing
regulations that could be improved, including amending the list of
forms constituted as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b). Based
on the comment relating to the Trusted Traveler Programs, and as part
of this final rule, DHS is updating 8 CFR 264.1(b), to include as
evidence of registration a CBP-approved document or its electronic
equivalent for the Trusted Traveler Programs, Global Entry, NEXUS,
SENTRI, and FAST and include the class of aliens who were last admitted
to the United States through

[[Page 39293]]

those programs. See new 8 CFR 264.1(b).
In regard to biometric collection, DHS has broad statutory
authority to collect biometric information when such information is
necessary or relevant to the administration of the INA, including for
the alien registration requirement under section 264(a) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1304(a). See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 8 CFR 103.16 and 17. However, an
alien who is a Canadian visitor and who files the new registration form
may be exempted from the fingerprint requirement under 8 CFR
264.1(e)(2), or, in more limited circumstances, 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1)
Finally, as part of this final rule, DHS is requesting comments on
certain proposals that could be finalized through a future rulemaking
to improve the usability of the regulations relating to the
registration requirement under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
See section V, Request for Comments, of this preamble.
4. Applicability to Aliens Seeking Humanitarian Relief
Comment: Multiple commenters requested that applicants for
humanitarian relief should be considered already registered under the
IFR and not be required to file Form G-325R. Specifically, should the
rule go into effect, VAWA, T, and U benefit requestors should be
considered already registered under 8 U.S.C. 1304 and should not be
required to file Form G-325R. The commenter also suggested all
immigrants with pending applications for relief who have already
supplied USCIS with the same or similar types of information as
collected on Form G-325R, should be considered already registered.
Another commenter similarly remarked that, at the very least, the IFR
should be amended to allow U, T, and VAWA pending applications to
satisfy the registration requirement, reasoning that by not doing so,
it would create confusion for applicants and additional legal barriers
that jeopardize approval of their pending applications. A commenter
said that any registration rule should create exceptions for survivors
of abuse, crime and human trafficking who may have failed to register
due to their fear of repercussions, violence, threats or coercive
control by their abuser.
A commenter questioned why this information would not be sufficient
to constitute registration, noting that many survivors with pending
VAWA, T, or U filings would face complex calculations to determine
whether they need to additionally register under the IFR. The commenter
stated that survivors of abuse already face significant barriers when
requesting legal status, including language access challenges, travel
difficulties, and fear of retribution from abusers and traffickers. The
commenter said that requiring these individuals to complete a separate
registration process wastes resources and exacerbates fear by
transforming USCIS from a benefit-granting agency into what they
characterized as another enforcement arm of DHS.
Numerous commenters expressed concern that applying the
registration requirements to applicants for humanitarian protection
would exacerbate barriers to legal protections, including by increasing
burdens, fear, and confusion. A commenter said that because the IFR
relies on the outdated 1940 Alien Registration Act, many immigration
applications, benefits, and standard forms updated in more recent years
are excluded from the IFR's purview, creating unnecessary confusion and
fear for immigrants who have come forward seeking established benefits
and protections. The commenter said that the IFR would cause ``immense
confusion,'' as those with DACA or TPS who have already provided
extensive information and biometrics to USCIS, may reasonably believe
that they have already registered, given the ambiguity and complexity
of the rule and the Department's limited public notice of the new
registration requirements. A few commenters expressed concerns about
the applicability of the registration requirement or a lack of clarity
in the IFR about DACA applicants. A commenter questioned why DACA
enrollment would not count as a form of registration if not accompanied
by an EAD, reasoning that DACA recipients already have submitted a
substantial amount of information to USCIS and, thus, should be
considered registered ``in all practical sense.'' Another commenter
expressed concern that the IFR would cause confusion, including for
those with DACA. The commenter said that determining whether a
``noncitizen'' needs to submit a G-325R is extremely complex and
depends on several factors including their manner of entry, whether
they have been in removal proceedings, whether they have ever filed a
Form I-485, whether they have a Form I-766, Employment Authorization
Document, and the ultimate decision in their cases. However, the
commenter said, the rule is silent on whether someone possessing a
regulatory ``form'' or ``evidence'' of registration but who was not
fingerprinted would have to use the new registration process, be
fingerprinted, or both in order to be registered.
Several commenters wrote that DHS did not provide sufficient
rationale for the exclusion of certain applicants for humanitarian
benefits from the IFR. A commenter wrote that while the IFR lists about
22 groups of persons who are already considered ``registered'' because
they have filed for a benefit and been fingerprinted by DHS, the rule
excludes additional groups of persons who have also filed for a benefit
and have been fingerprinted, including persons who have filed for U, T,
or VAWA benefits in addition to persons who filed for asylum or TPS.
The commenter stated that no rationale is provided for the exclusions
from this list. Another commenter also expressed concern that DHS seeks
to amend the provisions through this IFR to require TPS and asylum
applicants to comply with the registration requirement, stating that
DHS could easily have designated Form I-821 and I-589 as forms that
meet the registration requirement pursuant to this rule, reasoning that
these forms collect substantial amounts of biometrics and data about
the applicants\.\ Some commenters stated that the IFR inexplicably
fails to explain--or even address--the decision not to use these
existing forms for purposes of registration, ignoring the impact,
including the cost, it will have on these groups and the unnecessary
duplicity of the information collection of individuals who have already
submitted to DHS screening.
A commenter wrote that DHS did not consider the burdens the IFR
would impose on applicants for humanitarian relief, reasoning, for
example, that while some I-360 self-petitioners can file Form I-485
with their I-360, not all are eligible for simultaneous filing. While
providing detailed remarks and citing multiple studies on the impacts
of trauma among survivors, the commenter stated that the IFR would
place significant burdens on survivors, further exposing them to safety
risks, without taking into account the trauma that results from the
violence they have endured.
Commenters further questioned the intent behind the exclusion of
certain humanitarian groups, raising concerns of enforcement. A
commenter said that the omission of these forms makes it clear that the
``real intent of the IFR is not to `register' immigrants but instead to
criminalize them.'' Another commenter wrote that capturing data the
Federal Government already has and requiring aliens to submit to
biometrics when they have likely already done so,

[[Page 39294]]

is ``arbitrary and seemingly based on bias against these groups of
noncitizens who are politically disfavored.'' The commenter warned
that, whether intended or not, the consequence of this requirement is
that these groups would face another procedural hurdle in obtaining
legal status and criminal consequences if they fail to comply. Another
commenter said that, if the registration requirement of the IFR were
used as an immigration enforcement tool against VAWA, T, and U
applicants while their applications are pending, this would undermine
the congressional intent of VAWA and the TVPA. Another commenter also
remarked that the rule's applicability to VAWA, T, and U visa
applicants runs contrary to the IFR's purported law enforcement goals,
as these humanitarian relief programs already support law enforcement
efforts by encouraging survivors to engage with the justice system
Another commenter recommended that any registration process provide
flexibility to allow survivors of violence to correct inconsistencies
and consider how victimization may impact an individual's opportunity
to comply with the registration process prior to conducting enforcement
actions based on 8 U.S.C. 1306(a). The commenter cited a report
indicating that 97 percent of victim service providers reported that
victims who seek their services are being harassed, monitored, and
threatened by offenders misusing technology. They expressed concern
that abusers seeking to control, coerce, or intimidate victims might
manipulate the registration process by interfering or preventing
survivors from accessing the technology needed to complete
registration.
Similarly, a commenter wrote that the IFR increases opportunities
for bad actors to defraud immigrants and recommended that DHS rescind
the IFR. Another commenter wrote that the registration process may be
manipulated by abusers, traffickers against vulnerable populations,
citing past examples of abusers manipulating victims by using their
confusion over immigration forms or fraudulent actors who pose as law
enforcement to make money from registering aliens.
Response: DHS notes that the various existing protections in the
context of aliens who are applying for immigration benefits under a
humanitarian program were established by Congress through legislation.
While various pieces of legislation providing protections for aliens
have been enacted, Congress has not made any changes to sections 262
through 266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1306, regarding these
humanitarian programs and the alien registration requirement.
The IFR and this rule is limited in scope to establish a general
registration option available to all unregistered aliens regardless of
immigration status to improve registration outcomes for certain groups
of aliens. An alien who has been issued one of the documents designated
as evidence of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b) has already
registered, and an alien who has submitted one of the forms designated
at 8 CFR 264.1(a) and provided fingerprints (unless waived), but was
not issued one of the evidence of registration designated at 8 CFR
264.1(b), has complied with the registration requirement of section 262
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. If an alien does not have any other pathway
to register and to be fingerprinted, the alien may file the Form G-325R
to comply with their duty under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
In addition to the rulemaking actions to publicize information on
the alien registration requirement, USCIS established a dedicated
website with information on the ARR and an ARR Tool that may help
aliens determine whether they must register.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ See USCIS, ``Alien Registration Requirement,'' https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration (last updated May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS recognizes that the immigration processes can be complex and
that requestors, including registrants, may still be at risk of
becoming victims of scams or fraud. DHS encourages requestors to use
the information on the USCIS website to avoid becoming victims of
common scams, fraud and misconduct.\57\ DHS also notes an alien who
needs to correct an error on his or her Form G-325R should use the same
procedures for correcting errors on immigration benefit requests. DHS
recommends the alien to either contact the USCIS Contact Center for
live assistance or submit an e-Request through the USCIS self-service
tools.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ See USCIS, ``Scams, Fraud, and Misconduct,'' https://www.uscis.gov/scams-fraud-and-misconduct/scams-fraud-and-misconduct
(last visited June 24, 2025).
\58\ See USCIS, ``Case Inquiry,'' https://egov.uscis.gov/e-request/ (last visited on Jul. 18, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned elsewhere in this preamble, DHS is aware that there
are areas of the existing regulations that could be improved, including
amending the list of forms prescribed as registration forms in 8 CFR
264.1(a) and the list of forms constituted as evidence of registration
in 8 CFR 264.1(b). As part of this final rule, DHS is requesting
comments on various ways to amend the DHS regulation to improve
implementation of the registration requirement under section 262 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. See section V of this preamble.
5. Applicability to Other Immigrant Populations
a. Lawful Permanent Residents
Comment: Several commenters discussed concerns related to the
applicability of the IFR to LPRs. A couple of commenters expressed
concern that the E.O. does not specify which immigrant statuses it
would affect and, therefore, could be applied to all individuals with
immigrant status, including legal immigrants, permanent resident card
holders and returning permanent residents after they temporarily leave
and return to the United States, creating increased costs and
administrative burden for these individuals.
Another commenter similarly wrote that this provision affecting
LPRs lacks clarity and that DHS already has the requisite information
on LPRs, and they concluded that this section is seemingly outside of
the scope of this rule in addition to creating significant confusion
regarding whether LPRs fall under the requirement to register ``as if
they were an ``undocumented'' individual.'' Another commenter,
expressing similar concerns, said that 8 CFR 264.1(g)(1) requires LPRs
who are ``temporarily'' absent from the United States to apply for
registration upon their return to the United States, and asked what is
meant by ``temporarily absent.'' The commenter discussed the practical
implications of this regulation and said that it ``does not make
sense,'' reasoning that a temporary absence is not a permanent absence,
and LPRs should not need to register if their Green Card is already
proof of registration.
Response: The current regulation in 8 CFR 264.1(g)(1) applies to
LPRs who reach the age of 14 when temporarily absent from the United
States; the regulation requires such aliens to apply for registration
within 30 days of returning to the United States using the applicable
form instructions. For these cases, the alien would file the Form I-90
to register upon his or her return to the United States.\59\ LPRs who
are present in, or who reenter the United States after a temporary
visit abroad, have complied with the alien registration requirement
because they are in possession of a Form I-551 (``a green card'') and
are generally not

[[Page 39295]]

seeking admission to the United States. See INA sec. 101(a)(13)(C), 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ See USCIS, Form I-90, ``Instruction for Application to
Replace Permanent Resident Card,'' OMB No. 1615-0082 (expires Feb.
28, 2027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Spouses of U.S. Citizens
Comment: A commenter requested that spouses of U.S. citizens with
an I-130 and submitting I-601A waivers should not have to register,
reasoning that these individuals ``are trying to do things the legal
way.''
Another commenter asked for clarification from DHS regarding aliens
who are in the United States illegally but have a pending family
petition can stay in United States while waiting for their consular
interview. The commenter said that their I-601A waiver application
requires fingerprints. The commenter further asked whether registering
and opting for voluntary departure would provide any benefits during
the consular process, such as waiving the unlawful presence bar and
eliminating the need for an I-601A waiver.
The commenter stated that ``technically'' a person is registered if
they have applied for an I-601A waiver and have an alien number and
have provided the required documents (e.g., resident addresses, date of
arrival, existing police reports). The commenter urged DHS to reflect
that aliens who are in the process with the National Visa Center and
USCIS to attain legal status fulfill the registration requirement.
Response: Aliens who are spouses of U.S. citizens with an approved
immigration petition and have applied for a provisional waiver for
unlawful presence are not registered unless the alien has been issued
one of the documents designated as evidence of registration under 8 CFR
264.1(b). With regard to the question if registering would benefit an
alien during the consular process, DHS notes that registration is not
an immigration status, and registration documentation does not create
an immigration status, establish employment authorization, or provide
any other right or benefit under the INA or any other U.S. law.
c. Long-Term Residents
Comment: A commenter urged DHS to consider the unique status of
long-term residents. Specifically, the commenter requested that DHS
exempt from the registration and fingerprinting requirements law
abiding residents who have been present in the United States for over
20 years. The commenter also suggested that DHS develop a framework
that distinguishes between genuine security threats and those who have
made enduring, positive contributions.
Response: DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not changed
the existing statutory registration requirements established by
Congress for alien in section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. Because
the registration of aliens is required by statute, DHS does not have
the authority to categorically exempt such aliens or allow for special
considerations; only Congress has that authority. DHS notes that many
aliens who are present in the United States have already fulfilled
their duty to register through a variety of pathways identified in 8
CFR 264.1.

F. Specific Rule Provisions

1. Regulatory Structure of 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b)
Comment: A commenter raised concerns about the structure of 8 CFR
264.1, which the commenter said the IFR fails to remedy. Specifically,
the commenter expressed concern that 8 CFR 264.1(a) does not list
certain forms and applications that, when approved, result in the
issuance of documents listed in 8 CFR 264.1(b). The commenter remarked
that the regulatory text provides no guidance on whether individuals
already possessing a form constituting evidence of registration are
required to submit one of the prescribed registration forms if they
have not done so already. The commenter concluded that the IFR fails to
remedy this contradictory scheme and merely adds one newly created form
to each of the lists in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b).
A few commenters further discussed contradictory guidance in the
rule regarding whether asylum seekers with certain documents (like
EADs) are considered registered, creating confusion about compliance
requirements.
A commenter reasoned that when DACA is granted and a work permit is
issued, that work permit constitutes ``evidence of registration''
according to DHS's regulations. The commenter expressed discontent that
the IFR does not address this issue and added that USCIS website's new
guidance does not state whether DACA applicants must register using a
Form G-325R, while it says applicants for asylum and TPS must do so.
The commenter, therefore, requested that the IFR be revised to
expressly list Forms I-821D and I-765 as ``registration forms'' under 8
CFR 264.1(a), to relieve DACA applicants of any obligation to register
again by using the new Form G-325R, or at least make it clear whether
DACA applicants must register even though they have already submitted
documents that seemingly satisfy the statute's registration
requirements. A commenter articulated additional concern that the IFR
creates confusion by using outdated form names and not updating the
names of forms listed in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b). As an example, the
commenter cited Form I-590, ``Registration for Classification as
Refugee,'' and said that the regulatory text does not indicate whether
a successor form would be considered a registration form, which adds to
the confusion.
A commenter said that the rule is vague and confusing, as it
excludes certain groups from the list of immigration applications that
can serve as proof of registration. Specifically, the commenter noted
that applicants for U nonimmigrant status who have submitted Form I-918
and their biometrics, but have not yet received an EAD, presumably must
still register, despite having already given detailed information to
DHS. Another commenter expressed concern with the IFR's statement that
it would amend regulations to designate additional documentation
serving as evidence of registration.
Similarly, another commenter wrote that the rule leaves ``crucial''
questions unanswered, exposing individuals to criminal liability for
issues beyond their control. The commenter said that while the
regulations consider filing Form I-485 a form of registration, an I-485
receipt notice is not listed as an acceptable proof of registration.
Similarly, the commenter continued an individual admitted with an
immigrant visa would not have proof of their registration until
receiving their Permanent Resident Card, which they said could take 90
days from the date of their entry to the United States. The commenter
reasoned that individuals entering with immigrant visas are not always
issued physical I-94s, nor does the I-94 website reliably provide
copies of visa holders' I-94s. In such cases, the commenter said,
individuals who have complied with the registration requirement could
be subject to criminal liability for failing to carry proof of
registration.
A commenter recommended that DHS add receipt notices to 8 CFR
264.1(b) as proof of registration. Citing text from the ``Basis and
Purpose of the IFR,'' the commenter reasoned that individuals with
pending applications may not have evidence of registration, as ``the
acceptable evidence of registration at 8 CFR 264.1(b) is the result of
an approved application only.'' The commenter wrote that, since the IFR
is already revising 8 CFR 264.1(b) to add Form G-325R as a new proof of
registration, DHS should take the

[[Page 39296]]

opportunity to add receipt notices for other applications, such as
receipt notices for Form I-485 (application for Adjustment of Status).
The commenter reasoned that this would help to reduce paperwork, saving
those with pending Form I-485 applications from having to fill out
another form to comply with registration evidence requirements.
Another commenter, echoing these remarks, stated that the list of
proof of registration seems to be based on forms in existence in 1957,
which the commenter regarded as ``fundamentally unfair.'' The commenter
reasoned that anyone with an alien registration number is fingerprinted
and registered by definition. Furthermore, the commenter suggested that
anyone who has provided prints in any other immigration context or
assigned an alien number should be classified as already registered,
regardless of whether the form is on the list or whether their
application was denied or is pending.
A commenter suggested that the IFR be revised through normal
rulemaking procedures to expand the list of documents providing proof
of alien registration such that any foreign national who has provided
biometrics may be considered registered. They suggested that USCIS
should focus its resources on collecting biographic information and
biometrics from those who had not previously submitted applications or
attended biometrics appointments. The commenter reasoned that a
``simpler, more efficient solution'' would be to consider Biometrics
Appointment Notices (Form I-797C, Notice of Action) that have been
stamped and dated by a USCIS officer at an ASC as proof of registration
and include this form in 8 CFR 264.1. The commenter said that if the
government fears that foreign nationals will fail to provide
biometrics, it could be stipulated that a Form I-797 or Form I-797C
containing the applicant's name and alien registration number becomes
evidence of registration by function of law once biometrics are
completed. They further stated that DHS officers, when presented with
an individual's name and A-number, should be able to access all
required information about that individual through existing systems.
Thus, the commenter suggested that individuals who had already
submitted immigration applications should not be required to submit the
G-325R form, as this would represent an unnecessary duplication of
information already in the government's possession.
Commenters wrote that there is no recognition of receipts generated
via the Trusted Traveler Programs of CBP, such as Global Entry, as
registration documents.
Response: DHS is aware that there are areas of the existing
regulations that could be improved, including amending the list of
forms prescribed as registration forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and the list
of forms prescribed as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b).
Based on the comment relating to current Form I-590, and as part of
this final rule, DHS is updating 8 CFR 264.1(a), to correctly reflect
Form I-590's current title. See new 8 CFR 264.1(a).
In addition, in response to these comments DHS is proposing and
requesting comments on amending the regulation to improve
implementation of the registration requirement under section 262 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. See section V of this preamble. In addition to
proposing adding forms to 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b), DHS proposes to
modify references to specific form names and numbers from various
regulatory provisions that have been consolidated, discontinued or
modified. See section V of this preamble. For the reasons addressed in
section V of this preamble, DHS is not adding additional registration
forms to 8 CFR 264.1(a) at this time.
DHS notes that as soon as any alien who filed Form G-325R appears
and provides biometrics at an USCIS ASC, DHS issues an electronic copy
of proof of his or her registration to the alien's myUSCIS account. The
electronic copy of the evidence of registration satisfies an alien's
obligation to carry proof of registration on his or her person.
Although DHS appreciates the suggestion regarding other solutions for
proof of registration, DHS believes the electronic version of the proof
of registration (USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration) is an
efficient solution for an alien to satisfy his or her obligations after
providing biometrics.
Most aliens who have been issued one of the documents designated as
evidence of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b) have already registered
and are not required to submit one of the prescribed registration forms
in 8 CFR 264.1(a) if the alien has not already done so. However, an
alien who reaches age 14 years old is required to apply for re-
registration and to be fingerprinted.
Finally, DHS disagrees that the information in the IFR concerning
whether or not asylum applicants are considered registered was
confusing. DHS clearly outlined that asylum, TPS, and DACA applicants
who are issued a Form I-766 (EAD), are considered registered. See 90 FR
at 11795, FN 5 (March 12, 2025). USCIS has provided guidance on its
website, including an Alien Registration Requirement (ARR) Tool, that
may help with an alien's determination whether he or she is registered
or must register. See USCIS/DHS, Alien Registration Requirement,
https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration.
2. Submission Process
a. Process Is Overly Complex
Comment: Multiple commenters discussed the difficulties immigrants
would face in submitting documentation through the myUSCIS account
system. A couple of these commenters wrote that DHS had not considered
barriers to understanding and complying with complex rules on
documentation, particularly for those with limited English language
comprehension. A different commenter described the IFR as imposing
documentation challenges, while others described the rule as
``extremely convoluted,'' ``lacks clarity and will be inaccessible,''
and ``will likely be impossible for many noncitizens to complete.''
Response: With this IFR and final rule, as always, DHS strives to
be fair and efficiently execute the immigration laws established by
Congress. In addition to the rulemaking actions to publicize
information on the alien registration requirement, USCIS established a
dedicated website with information on the ARR and an ARR Tool that may
help aliens determine whether they must register.
Comment: A commenter raised concern about minors aged 14 being able
to make appointments to comply with registration requirements. The
commenter proposed using schools as registration sites to help both
citizen and alien minors establish proper ID. Specifically, the
commenter suggested incorporating alien registration and Green Card
renewals into school ID picture days alongside passport card
applications for citizens. The commenter reasoned that schools could
use existing student information (with parental consent) to streamline
the process. The commenter also wrote that this approach could assist
minors with meeting registration or ID requirements. The commenter said
that this approach would not single out students who lack legal status,
as it would be available to both citizens and ``noncitizens''.
Furthermore, the commenter reasoned, schools would protect minors from
being charged with illegal presence, thus reducing fear while ensuring
compliance.
Response: DHS declines the commenter's suggestion of using schools
as registration sites. The Form G-325R

[[Page 39297]]

application process is entirely electronic. Similar to other
applications and petitions that require the collection of biometrics,
USCIS will schedule the alien for a biometric services appointment if
biometrics are required to complete the registration. DHS notes that
USCIS ASCs are located throughout the United States with at least one
center located in each State, as well as the District of Columbia,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. If an alien is unable
to attend his or her scheduled biometric appointment for good cause,
the alien should contact the USCIS Contact Center to reschedule the
biometric appointment.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9); see also USCIS Contact Center,
https://www.uscis.gov/contactcenter (last updated Oct. 24, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Technical Issues for Attorneys and Representatives
Comment: A few commenters expressed concerns about the lack of
guidance in the rule on whether attorneys or accredited representatives
would be able to assist clients in the submission process. A commenter
noted that their attorneys have been unable to access Form G-325R
through their myUSCIS accounts and stated that it is essential for
lawyers to have the ability to register their clients. They added that
ensuring lawyers can access myUSCIS on behalf of their clients would
also benefit USCIS, as lawyers would be better equipped to file forms
without errors and respond efficiently to any issues flagged by USCIS.
The commenter recommended that the IFR be amended to clarify that
lawyers would be able to use myUSCIS accounts to complete Form G-325R
on behalf of their clients. Similarly, another commenter expressed
concern that registrants would lack necessary legal guidance,
increasing the risk of errors or omissions in registrations.
A commenter wrote that their staff would need to ensure clients
have completed submission through myUSCIS, adding significant
logistical challenges and financial strain for both clients and the
organization, and another commenter stated that the system is difficult
to navigate and often has system maintenance and outages.
Another commenter described personal experience assisting clients
with creating myUSCIS accounts to file applications such as the I-821,
I-821D, I-765, and I-90 and reported that the system frequently
crashes, permanently locks clients out of their accounts, delays for
hours before allowing clients to pay for applications, and otherwise
impedes clients from submitting required forms. The commenter stated
that experience suggests most ``noncitizens'' would find the process
prohibitively difficult and recommended that USCIS devote substantial
resources to improving accessibility in ELIS system including hiring
officials to improve the technical functioning of online systems,
particularly with myUSCIS accounts.
Response: Each alien who is registering with the Form G-325R must
complete and submit his or her own Form G-325R from the alien's
individual online account. The Form G-325R can only be submitted by the
named owner of the USCIS online account. A parent or legal guardian of
an alien under the age of 14 who needs to register creates a myUSCIS
account for the alien, and then completes and submits the G-325R on
behalf of the alien through the alien's myUSCIS online account. If an
alien is represented by an attorney or accredited representative for
the Form G-325R, the alien may upload the Form G-28, Notice of Entry of
Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, as additional
evidence or documents.
DHS also notes that if an alien, or parent or legal guardian of an
alien under the age of 14, needs technical support with an online
account, he or she can send a secure message through the alien's USCIS
online account or go to the website, my.uscis.gov/account/v1/needhelp.
3. Proof of Registration
Comment: A commenter expressed concerns about the ``Proof of Alien
Registration'' document that ``noncitizens'' would be required to
carry. The commenter said that unlike other USCIS forms, this document
has no identifying number in its title and has not been submitted to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) through the
PRA. The commenter questioned whether the government intends to issue
such documents as proof of registration, or if the registration process
is designed primarily to facilitate deportation. The commenter added
that DHS provides no guidance on how this form would be recognized as
compliant, or whether the ``unique identifier'' number would be an A
number or a different number categorization. In light of these
uncertainties, the commenter concluded that the IFR is arbitrary and
capricious in violation of the APA, and they urged that the rule be
rescinded immediately.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter. DHS notes that an alien
who registered using a Form G-325R and provided biometrics, if
required, will be provided an electronic copy of proof of his or her
registration (USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration) to the alien's
myUSCIS account. In the alien's account, he or she will be able to
download and print a PDF version of the notice. The proof of
registration contains the alien's name and alien registration number
and the Form G-325R receipt number. DHS notes that documents USCIS
issues as evidence of alien registration, including the USCIS Proof of
Alien G-325R Registration, are not subject to the PRA. Unlike public
forms published by USCIS for applicants to seek immigration benefits or
submit other requests (such as the Form G-325R), evidence of alien
registration do not contain an information collection. Therefore, these
documents are not required to be approved by OMB. There is no statutory
or regulatory requirement, including under the APA, that such documents
have a particular form number to be effective.
Comment: A commenter raised concerns that the IFR does not
acknowledge or provide an exception for individuals who are stopped
after completing the registration form but before it is processed,
before they have been given a fingerprint appointment, or before proof
of registration is received, which the commenter said could result in
the wrongful arrest and prosecution of such individuals.
A commenter, expressing general concerns about the carry
requirement under the IFR, said that possession of a registration form
is not an accurate indicator of one's status, reasoning that the form
can be stolen, destroyed, lost, or even misplaced, therefore subjecting
the individual to unfair criminal charges.
Response: DHS defers to its partners at DOJ regarding the
enforcement of criminal penalties. DHS notes that DHS agencies have
access to DHS databases to confirm whether the alien satisfied the
registration requirement. If evidence of registration issued by USCIS
is lost, stolen, or damaged, the alien should refer to the applicable
form and instruction to replace that evidence if it is a secure
identity document, such as the Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card, and
I-766, Employment Authorization Document.
Comment: A commenter expressed concern about the potential for
misuse of the new ``Proof of Alien Registration'' document. The
commenter characterized the new document as a ``de facto immigrant ID''
that other government agencies, employers, or local authorities may use
to demand proof of status.

[[Page 39298]]

Response: The USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration is used as
evidence of registration and does not provide proof of an immigration
status, establish employment authorization, or provide any other right
or benefit under the INA or any other U.S. law.
Comment: A commenter asked whether laminating proof of registration
would void it. The commenter additionally asked whether the proof of
registration could be used as an ID. Finally, the commenter asked
whether the proof of registration would include information such as the
alien registration number on it or the picture of the registrant, or
whether it would need to be ``matched'' with another form of ID.
Response: Aliens who are issued evidence of registration
electronically by DHS, including Form I-94, and the USCIS Proof of
Alien G-325R Registration, may laminate the printed copy; it does not
void the copy. Certain evidence of registration does not include a
picture of the alien but contains biographical information about the
alien that DHS agencies can confirm through DHS databases to determine
if the alien satisfied the registration requirement.
Comment: Another commenter suggested that an optional ``full''
biometric services fee could be offered for a fraud-resistant, ID-
worthy card that would serve as proof of registration. The commenter
suggested such a card would be provided to those presenting a foreign
passport or other proof of identity that could be linked for future
consular reporting and other actions. The commenter reasoned that this
could help match individuals in cases of supervised release and be
included in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system,
so it is clear whether an individual qualifies for any type of benefit.
The commenter stated that with paper it is possible that people would
share registration forms, and suggested future regulations ``regarding
capturing the alien registration number to an Employer Identification
Number or other such forms.''
Response: DHS notes that registration is not an immigration status,
and registration documentation does not create an immigration status,
establish employment authorization, or provide any other right or
benefit under the INA or any other U.S. law. Aliens who apply for
registration using the Form G-325R receive only an electronic copy of
proof of registration in their myUSCIS account. Regarding the
suggestion that DHS create a separate ID card to serve as proof of
registration after an ``optional `full' biometric service fee'', is
outside the scope of this rulemaking, but DHS may consider such an
option at a future date.
Comment: A commenter requested that DHS explain how those who
previously registered but no longer have physical proof (e.g., those
who lost their temporary visa) can obtain new proof.
Response: For evidence of registration issued by another
Department, DHS defers to that Department's procedures for replacing
lost or stolen documentation. However, if evidence of registration
issued by USCIS is lost, stolen, or damaged, the alien should refer to
the applicable form and instructions to replace that evidence if it is
a secure identity document, such as the Form I-551, Permanent Resident
Card, and I-766, Employment Authorization Document. If the alien was
issued an electronic Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, by DHS, the
alien may obtain a copy of it by visiting the U.S. CBP I-94 website:
Travel Records for U.S. Visitors. An alien who cannot access his or her
electronic Form I-94 records and needs a replacement may generally
request one by filing Form I-102, Application for Replacement/Initial
Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document.

4. Biometrics Process

a. Burdens on Immigrants
Comment: Many commenters stated that the requirement to appear in-
person for biometrics collection would create an undue hardship on
immigrants. Another couple of commenters wrote that requiring millions
to register would impose significant burdens. A few other commenters
specifically described unaffordable financial burdens from completing
the biometric requirements. A couple of commenters wrote that
immigrants would also be navigating ancillary costs and would find
compliance with the requirement difficult or unattainable. A commenter
wrote that many of the ASCs that process biometrics are geographically
inconvenient, providing an example that no such centers exist within
the city proper of Chicago, only in the Chicago suburbs. Another
commenter remarked that the requirement forces immigrants to avoid
criminality by keeping themselves updated on confusing and fast
changing legislation.
Other commenters described the burdens of biometric collection for
specific groups of immigrants. Other commenters discussed concerns for
survivors of abuse, writing that their abusers might keep them from
biometrics appointments. In light of these concerns, they recommended
flexibility in the requirement and its enforcement toward survivors. A
few commenters expressed concern for the burden of biometric compliance
on those lacking childcare or transportation. A commenter wrote that
the biometric collection requirement would particularly burden those
with disabilities. Commenters expressed concern for the time and
distance burdens of traveling to ASCs, particularly for those in rural
areas. Another commenter stated that the IFR creates a discriminatory
impact on aliens who live in rural areas and cannot afford to travel to
complete the registration requirements. The commenter stated that these
individuals would be ``criminalized'' for being unable to afford to
travel.
One commenter articulated that forcing biometric identification on
immigrants encroaches on the rights to privacy, the right to free
movement set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and that the criminal penalties violate the right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. The commenter further stated
that the requirement is a frightening precedent in that it criminalizes
vulnerable people.
Response: The statute established by Congress requires certain
aliens applying for registration to provide fingerprints. If an alien
is required to provide fingerprints after applying for registration,
USCIS will schedule the alien for a biometric appointment. If an alien
is unable to attend his or her scheduled biometric appointment for good
cause, the alien should contact the USCIS Contact Center to reschedule
the biometric appointment.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ USCIS Contact Center, https://www.uscis.gov/contactcenter,
(last updated Oct 24, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With this IFR and final rule, DHS strives to be fair and
efficiently execute the immigration laws established by Congress. The
goal is to ensure that aliens understand their duty under the law and
have a path to satisfy that duty through the new general registration
process and form. DHS notes that USCIS ASCs are located throughout the
United States with at least one center located in each State, as well
as the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
b. Burdens on USCIS and Legal Advocates
Comment: A few commenters questioned whether USCIS had adequately
identified the administrative costs of processing biometrics. A
commenter wrote that the current numbers of ASCs that can process

[[Page 39299]]

biometrics are already insufficient and reasoned that the
implementation of the biometrics requirement would lead to significant
delays and inefficiencies, similar to past experiences attempting to
implement biometrics requirements for populations more limited than the
population the IFR would involve. The commenter also expressed concern
that the biometrics requirement would cause delays in providing
verification of registration and would likely not provide greater
knowledge of criminal records as the IFR anticipates, describing
similar alleged failures of the NSEERS program. One of the commenters
questioned whether USCIS has the capacity to fingerprint large numbers
of law-abiding, legally admitted aliens without delays that could
unfairly criminalize them. Another commenter recommended expanding
biometric processing locations and increasing staffing. Similarly, a
commenter wrote that the enforcement of the biometric requirements
would add significant logistical and financial strain to their
organization in order to serve their immigration clients.
Response: The statute requires an alien to provide fingerprints,
unless waived, as part of the registration process. In general, USCIS
has not seen any significant delays or inefficiencies in biometric
collection services for registrants and immigration benefit requestors.
Further, USCIS regularly monitors the capacity of Application Support
Centers and assesses biometrics collection processes to identify areas
to improve biometric operations and processing.
c. Concerns of Biometric Data Collection
Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about data security and
privacy surrounding sensitive biometric data, recommending DHS
implement robust security measures to protect personal information. One
of these commenters specified that centralizing personal information
without safeguards or public awareness was concerning. Similarly,
another commenter stated that no citizens should be required to give
biometric information to the government. A different commenter warned
that the requirement could set a dangerous precedent for U.S. citizens
and residents. Another commenter urged strong child registration
safeguards to prevent trafficking.
Without providing further support, one commenter stated that the
government already has access to data for everyone, including
immigrants.
Commenters expressed concern that the logistics of the biometric
appointment could be counterproductive and unlikely to encourage
compliance with registration, undermining the original purpose of the
IFR. Similarly, a commenter described how filing Form G-325R would
trigger a biometric appointment with USCIS for fingerprinting and
stated that many ``undocumented'' immigrants would decide not to
register, concluding that the policy goal of the IFR would not be
reached.
A commenter described the biometric requirement as part of a
registration process that does not provide immigration status or any
``forbearance or relief from deportation or removal.'' One commenter
stated that visiting foreign citizens already register and agree to the
rules of their visit and concluded that requiring biometrics is
unnecessary and intrusive. Similarly, a different commenter wrote that
with no clear justification, little transparency, and only limited
oversight, the requirement is not administrative compliance or public
safety policy but surveillance infrastructure.
Response: Similar to other applications and petitions that require
the collection of biometrics by USCIS, the agency has a legal
responsibility to safeguard biometric information collected,
disseminated, used, or maintained as part of the G-325R process. DHS
notes that DHS agencies may collect and store for present or future
use, by electronic or other means, the biometric information submitted
by an individual. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 103.16 & 17. DHS may use this
biometric information to conduct background and security checks,
adjudicate immigration and naturalization benefits, and perform other
functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and
naturalization laws. See 8 CFR 103.16(a).
USCIS will schedule a biometric services appointment for an alien
who files a Form G-325R if biometrics are required to issue evidence of
registration. Registration is not an immigration status, and
registration documentation does not create an immigration status,
establish employment authorization, or provide any other right or
benefit under the INA or any other U.S. law. An alien who was issued an
immigrant or nonimmigrant visa and at his or her most recent arrival
was admitted into the United States using that visa is registered.
However, the regulation provides limited circumstances where an alien
who was issued and admitted to the United States using a nonimmigrant
visa may be required to provide biometrics. See 8 CFR 264.1(e)(2).
Comment: One commenter criticized the rule for establishing a 30-
day deadline for registration and fingerprinting and enforcing the
deadline with criminal penalties when USCIS controls the scheduling of
fingerprinting. Another commenter asked if scheduling an appointment
within 30 days would be sufficient even if the appointment occurs later
and suggested linking existing fingerprint records or IDs to streamline
registration.
Response: If an alien filed Form G-325R and is required to provide
biometrics, USCIS will schedule the alien for a biometric services
appointment at a USCIS ASC. If an alien is encountered while waiting
for the scheduling of a biometric services appointment, DHS agencies
have access to DHS databases to confirm whether the alien is working
toward satisfying the registration requirement.
With regard to the comment on linking existing fingerprint records
with a registration, DHS has broad statutory authority to collect
biometric information when such information is necessary or relevant to
the administration of the INA, including for the alien registration
requirement under section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a). See also
8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 8 CFR 103.16 and 17. For the registration
requirement, fingerprint collection is a requirement under section 262
of the INA, and generally, USCIS does not reuse biometrics that are
associated with an application, petition, or other benefit request to
satisfy the registration requirement. The alien must provide biometrics
that are associated directly with the registration application unless
DHS waives the requirement of fingerprinting. Title 8 CFR 264.1(e)
provides a list of circumstances when fingerprints are waived for an
alien applying for registration.
Comment: A commenter stated that the IFR does not clearly state
whether individuals need to provide only fingerprinting or a full set
of biometrics for compliance, nor the rationale or authority for the
requirement, concluding that the IFR should be withdrawn. The commenter
added that requiring more than fingerprints would be inconsistent with
other means of satisfying the registration requirement.
Response: As explained in the IFR (90 FR 11793, 11796 (Mar. 12,
2025)), DHS has the broad statutory authority to collect biometric
information, if such information is necessary or relevant to the
administration of the INA, including under sections 103(a), 262, and
264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), 1302, 1304(a).

[[Page 39300]]

Additionally, pursuant to 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 103.16, and 17, DHS may
collect, use, and store biometrics, including fingerprints, for
purposes of conducting background and security checks, adjudicating
benefits and performing other functions related to administering and
enforcing immigration laws.\62\ The IFR, and the Form G-325R clearly
address the biometric services collection and the need for biometrics,
including fingerprinting and the biometric services appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ See, in particular, 8 CFR 103.16(a), which states that
``[a]n individual may be required to submit biometric information by
law, regulation, Federal Register notice or the form instructions
applicable to the request type or if required in accordance with 8
CFR 103.2(b)(9). DHS may collect and store for present or future
use, by electronic or other means, the biometric information
submitted by an individual. DHS may use this biometric information
to conduct background and security checks, adjudicate immigration
and naturalization benefits, and perform other functions related to
administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization
laws.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Biometric Requirement Exceeds Statutory Authority
Comment: A commenter critiqued the statutory interpretation of the
IFR, writing that the IFR refers to the collection of ``fingerprints''
in 8 U.S.C. 1302(a), while naming the statutory authority for the
registration requirement itself, and referring to a ``biometrics''
appointment when discussing the application of the IFR. The commenter
wrote that 8 U.S.C. 1302 has no language regarding ``biometrics,'' and
reasoned that the difference in terminology was significant. The
commenter stated that if the IFR is intended to collect additional
forms of biometrics, the IFR exceeds DHS's statutory authority and
fails to explain the basis for collecting additional biometrics.
Response: In recent years, DHS has adopted the practice of
referring to fingerprints as ``biometrics,'' ``biometric information,''
or ``biometric services,'' and has amended some of its regulations
replacing fingerprints with biometrics. See, e.g., 8 CFR 103.2(a)(9)
and (13), and 8 CFR 103.16 and 17. In this rulemaking, DHS generally
uses the term biometric when discussing the collection and service
appointment. As explained in responses throughout this section, DHS has
broad statutory authority to collect biometric information when such
information is relevant or necessary to the administration of the INA,
including section 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304(a).
5. Filing Fee
Comment: A commenter expressed support for having aliens pay for
registration. Many other commenters voiced opposition to the potential
$30 fee. Some of these commenters, without providing additional
rationale, stated that people should not be required to pay a $30
registration fee. Another commenter said the potential $30 fee was
``egregious.'' A different commenter, who objected to the potential
costs of implementing the rule, called the $30 fee a ``joke'' and said
that it would cost much more to properly file, store, and allow access
to the database.
Other commenters said that, in their experience, even a modest fee
can be an insurmountable barrier for many low-income families and
immigrants. A commenter stated that the fee would serve as a de facto
tax on immigrant poverty, particularly for those who lack work
authorization and are therefore more likely to be low-income.
Commenters added that the proposal would create a barrier to complying
with a legal requirement, as requiring a registration fee for those
without the ability to work in the United States means that individuals
are either forced to pay a fee they cannot afford or face additional
penalties or imprisonment for not registering. Another commenter wrote
that the proposed fee increase comes at a time when many are already
facing economic hardships, and the fee would make it more difficult for
low-income and vulnerable populations to afford necessary immigration
services. A commenter said that the fee requirement adds an undue
burden to people attempting to attain legal status.
Other commenters said that the $30 fee under consideration would
further burden vulnerable populations such as UACs, asylum seekers, and
victims of human trafficking and other serious crimes. Another
commenter added that applicants for asylum are prohibited from being
issued an EAD until the application has been pending for at least 180
days, a $30 fee would be prohibitive for many asylum seekers and many
would miss the 30-day filing fee for lack of funds.
A commenter expressed concerns about the accessibility of the
registration requirement, stating that the proposed $30 fee would
create a financial barrier. Similarly, a commenter stated that some
nonimmigrants may not have access to the financial services, such as a
bank account, checks, or a credit card, needed to pay the fee,
requiring them to pay by mail with a money order. The commenter said
that this would create delays in paying the fee that would hinder USCIS
operations and leave individuals susceptible to Federal criminal
penalties. Another commenter said that unless DHS offers a paper
registration form, the proposal creates a process of entrapping many
individuals who do not have a bank account or credit card to be able to
make a payment through an online account. Another commenter stated that
the mechanism for collecting the fee is unclear, and individuals
subject to the fee may not be able to make online payments if they do
not have a credit card or access to the internet.
Another commenter stated that registrants who are unable to pay the
$30 would have no option to apply for a fee waiver when registering
online. Commenters further noted that if individuals need to separately
file Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver, USCIS would need a mechanism
to connect that application to the $30 biometric fee, the creation of
which would be an unnecessary expenditure of government resources.
A few commenters wrote that there is no justification for imposing
a fee. A commenter wrote that USCIS acknowledges that the registration
system can operate without a fee, showing that the fee serves no
legitimate purpose other than to create an obstacle for immigrants who
are required to register. Similarly, a commenter remarked that the rule
claims that the costs for collecting, storing, and using the biometrics
will be borne by DHS, the rule gives no assurance that the cost will
not be passed down to the applicant in the form of a $30 registration
fee. Another commenter cited the 2024 final fee rule in which USCIS
stated that there ``will be no separate biometric service fee for most
applicants.'' The commenter added that most forms related to
immigration enforcement do not require a biometric services fee. Other
commenters said that USCIS fees are generally for benefits requests or
for services, such as to acquire or improve one's legal status, but
``noncitizens'' applying for registration do not receive any benefit or
service.
A commenter expressed concern that, while the future $30 biometric
fee is presented as a hypothetical, it signals an intent to ``commodify
compliance.'' Another commenter, expressing concern with the
registration requirement, wrote that a $30 fee would be costly and
warned that registration would proliferate ``notario fraud.''
Response: DHS has carefully considered the comments. DHS has
determined that it will not impose a biometric services fee for
registration

[[Page 39301]]

applicants as part of this final rule. The approach does not diminish
in any way the goals of the IFR, the registration process and outcome,
and the implementation of the Administration's directive as articulated
in E.O. 14159. This approach provides DHS with additional time to fully
assess the effects of the registration implementation, including
workload and operational effects. DHS may adopt, in a future rulemaking
action, a biometric services fee or any other fee necessary to cover
the implementation cost of the registration process. For example, DHS
may implement a fee structure for purposes of the registration process
in the future as part of USCIS' comprehensive fee review and fee
schedule update.
DHS disagrees that there is no justification for imposing a
biometric services fee or that the fee would create an obstacle for
aliens who are required to register. As outlined in detail in the IFR
(90 FR 11793, 11796 (Mar. 12, 2025)), DHS has broad statutory authority
to collect biometric information when such information is necessary and
relevant to the administration of the INA, including to conduct
background and security checks. Collecting the information is warranted
as a matter of national security and public safety of the United
States.\63\ Under the existing statutory and regulatory regime, USCIS
may require the payment of a biometric services fee. See INA sec.
286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 103.7, 103.17; 8 CFR part
106. Registration under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, is a
statutory requirement and as such, the Executive is tasked with
faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ See E.O. 14159 sec. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter said that the IFR does not clarify whether the
new process would involve additional fees, which they said further
increases uncertainty for those affected. A different commenter
remarked on increased administrative costs for DHS--citing costs of $66
to $96 million for biometric processing--and a lack of a fee structure
to offset these costs. The commenter recommended that DHS secure
funding or introduce phased implementation with fee waivers for low-
income applicants. A commenter suggested that the illegal aliens
already in the United States should pay the fees for people who have
already gone through the process to enter the country legally.
Response: For the reasons stated in the previous responses, DHS has
determined that it will not impose a biometric services fee or any
other fee for registration applicants as part of this final rule.
Comment: A commenter said that USCIS has a history of adding fees
without justification, stating that H-1B petitioners must pay an asylum
fee even though the beneficiaries of H-1B petitions are not seeking
asylum. The commenter asked what checks and balances exist to ensure
that current fees are justified before imposing new fees.
Response: Consistent with section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1356(m), DHS is authorized to charge fees for adjudication and
naturalization services at a level to ensure recovery of the full costs
of providing all such services, including similar costs of services
provided without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants. See
INA 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). Furthermore, as explained in the IFR, DHS
has broad statutory and regulatory authority to collect biometric
information, including under sections 103 and 264(a) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1103, 1304(a), 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) and 8 CFR 103.16 and 17.
However, for the reasons stated previously, DHS and USCIS decided
against implementing a biometric services fee for purposes of this
final rule.
6. Registration Validity
Comment: A commenter said that the registration requirement for
certain populations is redundant, such as those with F or J visas,
because they would have been admitted to the country in nonimmigrant
status as described on their Form I-94. However, the commenter said
that the IFR seems to require re-registration if a person turns 14
while in the United States, even if they have previously been issued a
nonimmigrant visa and have a valid I-94 showing their nonimmigrant
status. The commenter asked DHS to clarify the necessity to re-register
at age 14 for nonimmigrants with F or J visas. Finally, the commenter
said that requiring certain people to re-register would create
confusion and burden government adjudicators with unnecessary
paperwork.
Response: The IFR and final rule has not changed this statutory
requirement but fills a gap in the regulation by adding an option for
these aliens to now comply with the existing statutory registration
requirements. Within 30 days of reaching his or her 14th birthday, all
previously registered aliens must apply for re-registration and to be
fingerprinted, including most aliens who were issued a nonimmigrant
visa and were admitted into the United States using that visa. See INA
sec. 262(b), 8 U.S.C. 1302(b). Aliens who were admitted using an F or J
visa and reached 14 years old after admission may use the new form to
register if they have no other pathway to satisfy this requirement.
Comment: Another commenter questioned the 30-day timeframe, noting
that the United States typically permits 90-day stays for various
purposes. The commenter suggested aligning implementation with this 90-
day period, as opposed to a 30-day period.
Response: DHS notes that the statute requires aliens in the United
States for 30 days or longer to apply for registration and to be
fingerprinted before the expiration of the 30 days. The IFR does not
change this statutory requirement established by Congress but fills a
gap in the regulation by adding an option for these aliens to comply
with the existing statutory registration requirements.

G. Other Issues Relating to the Rule

1. Confidentiality/Privacy of Registration and Fingerprinting
a. General Privacy Concerns
Comment: A few commenters expressed general data privacy and
surveillance concerns. The commenters remarked on the risk of misuse of
personal data and lack of clear restrictions, while one commenter
expressed skepticism about the government's ability to manage such
information responsibly, emphasizing the need for scrutiny by citizens
and the international community.
Many commenters expressed privacy and data security concerns
related to form submissions. Several commenters said the collection and
storage of biometric data, and lack of protections stipulated in the
IFR, raise concerns about data security and privacy and urged DHS to
implement robust security measures and safeguards to protect this
information from unauthorized access or misuse. A commenter said that
the rule exacerbates concerns related to data privacy and engagement
with government agencies. The commenter added that the rule does not
specify how information would be used or whether information collected
would be securely stored with the proper privacy and oversight. Another
commenter expressed concern that the IFR would be used to ``track,
control, and subjugate an already disfavored group.'' The commenter
remarked that Form G-325R would require registrants to provide
extensive personal information, including contact details, addresses
for the past 5 years, biographic information,

[[Page 39302]]

and details about their family and activities. The commenter added that
this level of detail is seen as ``overly intrusive and designed to
enhance government surveillance capabilities.'' A commenter stated that
past breaches of government databases make the centralization of
personal information concerning without stronger protections or public
awareness.
Commenters discussed the consequences of potential security
breaches and data misuse, including identify theft, improper data
sharing, and potential misuse by law enforcement agencies, including
racial profiling and civil rights violations. A commenter expressed
particular concern that the rule would require immigrants to turn over
personal information to the government without due process or concern
for privacy or confidentiality, while another expressed concern about a
lack of due process before personal information would be shared with
ICE.
A commenter said that, unlike programs such as DACA, in this
registration process ``the government makes no promises that the data
collected through this process will not be used for enforcement
purposes.'' A commenter suggested that DHS include a provision in the
IFR to restrict the use of registrants' information for immigration
enforcement purposes. The commenter reasoned that reasonable policy
governing the use of this information would mitigate fears that
individuals required to register might face referral to removal
proceedings and deportation. The commenter further suggested that DHS
propose an information usage policy that protects registrants'
information from disclosure to ICE for immigration enforcement, except
in cases of fraud, national security, criminal offenses, and public
safety.
Commenters noted that the Form G-325R cited systems of record
notices and privacy impact assessments (PIAs) related to Computer
Linked Application Information Management System 3, ELIS system, and
the Benefit Request Intake Process. The commenter further noted that
each PIA highlighted privacy risks due to over-collection of
information, violating the Privacy Act's data minimization
requirements. However, the commenter added that DHS claimed these risks
were mitigated through negotiation and approval by OMB during PRA
information collection reviews. Similarly, a commenter urged DHS to
publish a PIA in order to specify data access limitations and guarantee
that registrants' information would not be shared with ICE or law
enforcement without due process.
Another commenter stated that Form G-325R solicited more
information than what is outlined in section 264(a) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1304(a), raising privacy concerns. The commenter remarked that
the Data Quality Act helps ensure the accuracy of information that the
government disseminates but does not address privacy issues. The
commenter further remarked that government surveillance based on ethnic
classification and citizenship status raises constitutional issues, and
the IFR lacks transparency and consent mechanisms for data use.
Response: The information requested on Form G-325R includes the
information required under section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a),
including the date and place of entry of the alien into the United
States, activities in which the alien has been and intends to be
engaged, the length of time the alien expects to remain in the United
States, the police and criminal record of the alien, if any, and any
additional matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary. The questions
on Form G-325R are also used for identity verification purposes,
similar to other applications and petitions that require the collection
of information by USCIS.
The submissions provided by alien registrants on a Form G-325R will
be collected, protected, and stored through ELIS.\64\ The information
provided is contained and safeguarded within established databases
similarly to the other form types collected by USCIS. DHS notes that
the information collected through Form G-325R is stored in ELIS, and
that our partners at CBP and ICE have long had read-only access to
USCIS systems, including but not limited to ELIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ USCIS' Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) serves as an
internal case management system for electronically filed benefit
request forms and certain paper forms, along with providing service
and system interconnections. This rule also does not change
procedures, practices or requirements of DHS agencies to protect
against the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable
information that it collects, disseminates, uses, or maintains in
accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974. See DHS Privacy Notice and
documents cited therein on Form G-325R Instructions and in
applicable system of records notices (SORNs) at https://www.dhs.gov/system-records-notices-sorns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS declines the commenters' suggestions to add a provision to the
IFR and publish a PIA to limit data access and restrict the use of
alien registrants' information for immigration enforcement purposes.
Under section 264(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(b), all registration and
fingerprint records ``shall be confidential, and shall be made
available only'': (1) pursuant to section 287(f)(2) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1357(f)(2) (i.e., the provision cited by the commenter); and (2)
to such persons or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary.\65\
The statute does not direct USCIS alone to register aliens and
prescribe registration forms, or to hold alien registration records
confidential. The statute vests these authorities in the Secretary, in
whom all authorities of USCIS, ICE, and other DHS components are
vested.\66\ As mentioned previously in this preamble, it would make
little sense to interpret the confidentiality provision to require the
Secretary to hold alien registration information confidential as
against ICE and CBP, particularly in light of the Secretary's plenary
authority to make alien registration and fingerprint records available
``to such persons or agencies'' as he may designate. In any event, the
IFR did not change DHS practices related to the maintenance,
collection, and use of the information, including alien registration
information; such information was available to ICE and CBP before the
IFR under existing DHS information sharing policy,\67\ and many aliens
who provide information to comply with the alien registration
requirements are not covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, by law or
policy.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ As of March 1, 2023, in accordance with the HSA any
reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the INA
describing functions that were transferred from the Attorney or
other DOJ official to DHS by the HSA, are deemed to refer to the
Secretary of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. 557; see also 6 U.S.C.
542 note; 8 U.S.C. 1551 note.
\66\ 6 U.S.C. 112(a)(3).
\67\ See DHS, ''DHS Policy for Internal Information Exchange and
Sharing'' (Feb. 1, 2007), https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=469772.
\68\ See DHS, '' Privacy Policy and Compliance,'' Instruction
Number 047-01-001, Revision 00.1 (Feb. 3, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/25_0205_mgmt-047-01-001-Privacy-Policy-Compliance-Instruction.pdf. Alien registration has
typically been covered by a DHS SORN published pursuant to the
Privacy Act of 1974, in particular the A-File SORN. See 82 FR 43556
(Sept. 18, 2017) (SORN for Department of Homeland Security/U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection--001 Alien File,
Index, and National File Tracking System of Records). Alien
registration information may also be covered by other DHS systems of
records, as noted on the registration form used to collect such
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Privacy Concerns Related to Survivors
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the IFR would
negatively impact survivors of domestic abuse and human trafficking
because the rule fails to provide sufficient data security protections.
A commenter remarked that DHS does not provide clear information
regarding the privacy

[[Page 39303]]

impact of the IFR, making it difficult for individuals to understand
how their information would be used and shared in compliance with
existing law. The commenter expressed concern that the lack of clarity
affects those protected under 8 U.S.C. 1367, DACA recipients, and
survivors of violence and abuse, who may now need to disclose personal
information without assured confidentiality and privacy protections.
Multiple other commenters expressed concern that the IFR does not
outline how the registration process would comply with 8 U.S.C. 1367,
in which Congress codified special privacy and confidentiality
protections for survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and
other serious crimes to prevent abusers and traffickers from
weaponizing the immigration system against their victims. One of these
commenters stated that privacy and confidentiality are crucial for the
safety and healing of sexual assault survivors and survivors often face
significant barriers to seeking help due to fears about their
information being misused. The commenter urged DHS provide clear,
trauma-informed guidance on how it would comply with all statutory
privacy and confidentiality protections to ensure survivors' safety and
trust. A couple of the other commenters similarly urged DHS to provide
clear information on privacy impacts to ensure individuals understand
how their data would be used and shared in compliance with existing
laws.
Other commenters added that the rule's silence on confidentiality
protections would deter survivors of crimes from coming forward to
pursue visas and status. The commenters stated that the DHS Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) has the authority to provide
guidance and oversight on DHS's implementation of 8 U.S.C. 1367
confidentiality provisions. However, with recent staff dismissals at
CRCL, survivors have no recourse if their information is shared in
violation of these protections.
A commenter stated that mandatory registration, including of
current addresses, posed a threat to the right to privacy, and that the
threat was ``exacerbated by the IFR's imprecise placement of the new
registration system including the Form G-325R within legal obligations
imposed by the Privacy Act of 1974.'' The commenter stated that
``[i]nadequate proposed privacy protections for this information--
particularly stringent residence registration requirements--is not only
troublesome in the abstract but poses real potential considerations for
the safety of both minors and survivors of domestic abuse.'' The
commenter stated that DHS must provide adequate privacy protections,
including clear statutory restrictions on how information provided on
the Form G-325R must be provided before the IFR can be safely
implemented.
Other commenters stated leaving an abusive relationship is often
the most dangerous time for survivors, and many rely on address
confidentiality programs to stay safe. Another commenter also expressed
concern that the IFR does not adequately explain how individuals can
use safe addresses or ensure confidentiality of their physical location
from abusers, and does not address confidentiality protections provided
for at 8 U.S.C. 1367.
Response: The IFR and this rule filled the gaps in the regulatory
regime by prescribing an available registration form, in addition to
other forms already available to individuals, that may be used to
comply with the statutory registration requirement of section 262 of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. This rulemaking does not change the current DHS
procedures or USCIS practice of the maintenance, collection and use of
information, to include the statutory confidentiality protections,
provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1367, affording protections pertaining to
certain aliens who are eligible for and recipients of victim-based
immigration relief (specifically, VAWA self-petitioners as well as
applicants and petitioners for, and recipients of, T and U nonimmigrant
status (protected person)).
This rule also does not change procedures, practices or
requirements of DHS agencies to protect against the unauthorized
disclosure of personally identifiable information that it collects,
disseminates, uses, or maintains in accordance with the Privacy Act of
1974. See DHS Privacy Notice and documents cited therein on Form G-325R
Instructions and in applicable system of records notices (SORNs) at
https://www.dhs.gov/system-records-notices-sorns. Moreover, CRCL
continues to perform its statutory functions and to review complaints
under 8 U.S.C. 1367.
Form G-325R both requires the provision of a physical address and
allows aliens to provide a safe address. As with all USCIS forms in
which an alien may provide a safe address, if USCIS contacts the alien
through the mail it will use the safe address that he or she provides.
However, the G-325R process is entirely electronic at this time. All
notices sent from USCIS to an alien are uploaded to the alien's USCIS
online account. None of the notices correlating to a Form G-325R are
issued via mail. Therefore, not only may aliens provide a safe address,
consistent with longstanding USCIS practice, USCIS does not at this
time send any documents through the mail in connection with Form G-
325R.
2. Implementation Timeline
Comment: A commenter requested clarification regarding the
registration period and whether the period would be long enough to
allow for registration. A commenter stated that the IFR ``does not
provide a process for what to do but goes into effect in 3 days'' from
the date of their comment.
Some commenters expressed similar concern that the IFR would not
provide a clear and appropriate timeframe to facilitate compliance. One
commenter stated that the registration form was first published to the
USCIS website on February 25, 2025, where it directed the public to
apply before the IFR was drafted.
Similarly, a commenter stated that because statutory alien
registration requirements have not been enforced in decades, ``many if
not most affected individuals are already in violation of the
statute.'' The commenter further remarked that ``even if they register
on April 11, the day the requirements go into effect, noncitizens have
no control over how soon fingerprinting will be completed. Essentially,
there appears to be nothing to prevent DHS from initiating roundups of
noncitizens on April 11 based on non-compliance, even though these
individuals would not have had an opportunity to comply.'' The
commenter added that DHS has not provided sufficient notice to the
affected public to facilitate compliance with the IFR.
Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR ``does not provide a process
for what to do.'' The IFR designated the G-325R and explained the
registration process. 90 FR 11793, 11795-96 (Mar. 12, 2025). USCIS also
established a dedicated website with information on the Alien
Registration Requirement (ARR) and an ARR Tool that help aliens
determine if they must register.\69\ The tool poses a series of
questions to aliens and based on an alien's responses, may help an
alien determine if they must register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ See USCIS, ``Alien Registration Requirement,'' https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration (last updated May 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding public notice, the IFR had an effective date of April 11,
2025, and thus provided at least 30 days for aliens to register prior
to the rule's effective date. The IFR also advised the public of the
enforcement priority pursuant to E.O. 14159, which itself was published

[[Page 39304]]

in the Federal Register in January 2025. See 90 FR 11793 (Mar. 12,
2025); 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025); see also DHS, Press Release,
``Secretary Noem Reminds Foreign Nationals to Register under
Longstanding Federal Law or Face Legal Penalties,'' (Apr. 11, 2025),
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/11/secretary-noem-reminds-foreign-nationals-register-or-face-legal-penalties (advising aliens present
without registration evidence as of April 11, 2025 to register
immediately via USCIS).
3. Other Issues Related to the Rule
Comment: A commenter asked whether a new registration process for
aliens who entered illegally could be considered an application for
admission under the provisions of the IIRIRA. The commenter further
questioned whether registrations should be linked to an application for
admission, even if the registration occurs within the U.S. interior,
rather than at a border or port of entry.
Response: With some exceptions, an alien who arrives at a port of
entry and presents himself or herself for inspection is considered an
applicant for admission.\70\ Through the inspection process, a CBP
officer at a port of entry determines whether the alien is admissible
and may enter the United States under all applicable provisions of
immigration laws. The registration requirements are separate provisions
that provide no immigration status, and the registration documentation
does not create an immigration status, establish employment
authorization, or provide any other right or benefit under the INA or
any other U.S. law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ See INA sec. 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter stated that the IFR provides criminal
penalties and fines for ``willful failure or refusal'' to comply with
the requirements of registration, but provides no notice to affected
noncitizens on what qualifies as ``willful.'' The commenter stated that
``this is an essential term that should be defined in the regulation
before it becomes final and is effective on individuals.'' The
commenter stated that this lack of definition resulted in a lack of
adequate notice and understanding of the criminal liabilities and
therefore violated due process because individuals could not ``guide
their behavior accordingly.'' The commenter noted that DHS has
previously defined and provided examples of ``willful'' in other
contexts involving merely civil (vice criminal) consequences for non-
compliance, such as in the policy manual for inadmissibility due to
willful misrepresentation in section 212(a)(6)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(6)(C).
Response: The rule does not implement the current statutory regime,
including the scheme related to the consequences of an alien's failure
to register and the failure to carry evidence of registration pursuant
to sections 265 and 266 of the INA, U.S.C. 1305 and 1306. Defining the
phrase ``willful failure'' contained in section 266(a) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1306(a) is outside the scope of this rulemaking. At any rate,
the consequences for the failure to register also do not bear on an
alien's duty to register in the first place. Therefore, DHS disagrees
that ``willful failure'' is an essential phrase in the IFR, and that
the lack of defining the phrase fails to give the individual adequate
notice to guide his or her behavior accordingly, such that aliens
cannot adequately understand or comply with the registration
requirement. The alien has a statutory duty to register, irrespective
of the consequences for the failure to register.
Comment: A commenter urged DHS to recognize that ``families with
over 20 years of residence who have consistently demonstrated loyalty
and commitment to the American dream deserve to be spared from the full
weight of these new registration and fingerprinting requirements.'' In
connection with this proposal, the commenter recommended that DHS
engage with community leaders and civil liberties advocates to improve
the IFR, '' so that it secures our nation without compromising the
fundamental rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence.''
Response: DHS acknowledges the commenter's suggestions for DHS to
distinguish between classes of aliens when determining whether they are
subject to the registration requirement; however, DHS is tasked with
faithfully implementing the law passed by Congress. When creating the
registration requirement in section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302,
Congress did not create a separate category for such aliens, as is
suggested by the commenter, and DHS cannot add such criteria. Also,
although not obligated to do so under the APA, DHS has been engaging
with the public by seeking public comments to improve the IFR for the
community to provide the necessary input to improve the rule.
Comment: A commenter stated that from a public health and social
services perspective, the rule would disrupt care, reduce service
access, and deepen mistrust between immigrant communities and public
institutions. The commenter urged DHS to delay implementation, provide
a grace period, and fund multilingual outreach and legal assistance.
Response: DHS is tasked with faithfully implementing the law passed
by Congress. Congress has already instructed DHS to implement the
statute, and the President has assigned a high priority to
implementation. As such, DHS declines to further delay implementation
and provide a further grace period. In addition to the rulemaking
actions to publicize information on the alien registration requirement,
USCIS established a dedicated website with information on the Alien
Registration Requirement (ARR) and an ARR Tool that may help aliens
determine whether they must register.

H. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

1. Administrative Procedure Act
a. Procedural Concerns Regarding the Administrative Procedure Act
Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the IFR violates the APA
by bypassing the notice-and-comment rulemaking process and indicated
that DHS should withdraw the rule and go through notice and comment
rulemaking. Some commenters stated that the IFR violated the APA
because DHS failed to show why it was in the public interest to
implement this rule immediately. Others stated that because failure to
comply would be treated as a civil and criminal enforcement priority,
which--contrary to DHS's assertions--constitutes a substantive value
judgment, the rule was not procedural in nature. Some wrote that the
IFR was creating new registration obligations with criminal penalties
and thus, should have been classified as a ``legislative'' or
``substantive'' rule requiring full APA compliance. Some commenters
expressed general concerns for inadequate procedural protections
through the rule's lack of prior notice and comment and said DHS should
therefore engage in a full notice-and comment rulemaking process. A
commenter said that DHS's failure to update outdated form names, such
as Form I-590, ``Registration for Classification as Refugee,'' in the
IFR demonstrates that DHS has failed to consider important aspects of
the problems and has not articulated a reasoned explanation for the
decision to issue the IFR as drafted.
Many commenters indicated that the IFR impacts millions of people,
and for the first time in eight decades, DHS was imposing new
registration requirements with potential criminal penalties, including
imprisonment and fines.

[[Page 39305]]

Therefore, they stated, DHS's claim that the IFR would merely add
another compliance method without altering rights or interests was
inaccurate, and proper notice and an appropriate opportunity for
comment should have been provided. Several commenters stated that the
imposition of a universal alien registration requirement fundamentally
alters the individual rights and interests of a significant number of
``noncitizens'' and citizens.
A commenter characterized the IFR as a ``substantive rule in a
procedural mask,'' remarking that historical interpretations contradict
DHS's claim that the IFR is procedural, as many of the registration
requirements were previously contained in subpart A to 8 CFR part 264,
which was titled ``Substantive Provisions.'' A commenter wrote that the
IFR violates the APA because it ``revives a comprehensive registration
scheme that neither the Executive nor Congress has seen fit to
implement in 75 years and affects the substantive rights of millions of
people.''
Several commenters referenced specific decisions by the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals to support their position. Multiple commenters
remarked that if a rule ``affects the public to a degree sufficient to
implicate the policy interests animating notice-and-comment
rulemaking,'' it is not procedural. Similarly, a commenter noted that
courts have found that even when a Federal agency has deemed protocols
to be ``procedural,'' if the change substantively affects the public to
a degree sufficient to implicate the policy interests animating notice-
and-comment rulemaking, the rule has ``the hallmark of a substantive
rule'' and is not entitled to the APA's exception for procedural rules.
Citing Mendoza v. Perez, this commenter also wrote that when agencies
impose supplementary strict and specific obligations to implement a
broad statutory command, rather than merely reminding parties of
preexisting duties under a statute, courts have deemed these actions
not to be interpretative rules.
A commenter stated that the procedural rule exception is a ``
`narrow procedural exemption'. . . [and that] [w]ith this IFR, USCIS
cannot show that the `default assumptions of the APA [that a rule is
substantive] have been properly displaced' because the IFR is directed
at internal processes.'' Another commenter stated that the IFR, while
impacting DHS's operations, also has direct, substantive impacts on
newly regulated parties, which they said dilute the IFR's procedural
nature. A commenter stated that the IFR satisfies at least two elements
used by courts to determine whether a rule is legislative: it provides
the basis for enforcement actions and explicitly invokes rulemaking
authority.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ The commenter cited to D.C. Circuit's four-factor test used
in Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association v. United
States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 67 F. Supp. 3d 373, 416
(D.D.C. 2014) (citing to Am. Mining Cong. v. Mine Safety & Health
Admin., 995 F.2d 1106, 1112 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). The test described in
this case is sometimes utilized by courts to distinguish between
interpretive rules--which are also exempt from notice-and-comment
procedures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)--and legislative rules
that are subject to notice and comment. The IFR was a procedural
rule--a different exception pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)--and as
such, the four-factor test does not apply in this context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A commenter stated that the NSEERS went through the public notice-
and-comment process under the APA before being finalized in August
2002. Commenters reasoned that, instead of an IFR, an NPRM would have
enabled stakeholders and the public to weigh in and help DHS avoid
arbitrary, capricious, and unduly burdensome questions from being
implemented.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' characterization of
the IFR as a rule subject to notice and public procedures under the APA
as a substantive or legislative rule. DHS explains below why the IFR
was a procedural rule. At the outset, however, DHS notes that it has
now considered all comments received on the IFR and responded to them
in this preamble, thereby providing the notice and comment that
commenters sought.
The APA generally requires agencies to publish notice of a proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register and allow for a period of public
comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). However, the APA provides for specific
exemptions from the notice and public procedure requirement, including
an exemption for rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice
(i.e., procedural rules), or when the agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (B). Invoking any one
of the exceptions is sufficient to bypass the advance notice and
comment process. Thus, DHS was not required to show when invoking the
procedural rule exemption that it was in the public interest to
implement the rule immediately within the meaning of the APA, although
DHS certainly believes that implementing the law faithfully for the
protection of the public, as addressed in E.O. 14159, is always in
public interest.
The IFR is a procedural rule under the terms of the statute and
under D.C. Circuit case law. First, under the terms of the statute,
which applies to ``rules of agency organization, procedure, or
practice,'' the IFR is plainly procedural: the IFR designates a
procedure for aliens to fulfill their separate substantive obligation,
under the statute, to apply to register and be fingerprinted.
Second, in the D.C. Circuit, a procedural rule is one that is
``primarily directed toward improving the efficient and effective
operations of an agency.'' AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 57 F.4th 1023, 1034 (D.C.
Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). Under this case law, a critical feature of the
procedural rule exception is that it covers agency action that does not
alter the rights and interests of parties, although it may alter the
manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to
the agency. See id.; see also JEM Broad. Co., Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320,
326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707
(D.C. Cir. 1980)). Additionally, although a procedural rule generally
may not ``encode[ ] a substantive value judgment or put[ ] a stamp of
approval or disapproval on a given type of behavior,'' Am. Hosp. Ass'n
v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1987), ``the fact that the
agency's decision was based on a value judgement about procedural
efficiency does not convert the resulting rule into a substantive
one,'' James V. Hurson Assocs. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277, 282 (D.C.
Cir. 2000).
As explained in the IFR, DHS merely filled the gaps in the
regulatory regime by prescribing another available registration form,
in addition to other forms already available to aliens, that may be
used to comply with the statutory registration requirement of section
262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. By prescribing a form in regulation that
satisfies the registration requirement under 8 CFR 264.1(a) and
evidence of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b), the agency neither
altered any existing legal duty to register nor the legal consequences
resulting from a failure to comply with the requirement--to the
contrary, the legal duty and obligation was imposed by Congress and has
existed for over 80 years. For years, DHS and the former INS have
prescribed registration forms in the regulations at 8 CFR part 264.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ See 90 FR 11793 (Mar. 12, 2025) (describing the historical
background on the alien registration requirement under the INA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding to the regulations another means for registration did not
encode any value judgement about an individual's conduct--it merely
provided a process for DHS to

[[Page 39306]]

efficiently register millions of unregistered aliens consistent with
statutory requirements. See 90 FR 11795 through 11797 (Mar. 12, 2025).
Congress, not DHS, encoded the value judgement when prescribing
registration obligations, as well as civil and criminal consequences
for the failure to comply will result in civil and criminal
enforcement. See INA sec. 266(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1306(a).
Furthermore, how many individuals are affected, or how extensive
the impact is, is not determinative when assessing whether a rule is a
procedural rule. See Glickman, 229 F.3d at 281 (``But even if the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's elimination of face-to-face did impose a
substantial burden on food processors, that burden would not convert
the rule into a substantive one.''). Because the IFR merely improved
existing agency processes by making available an additional method to
register regardless of an alien's individual status, the IFR was
primarily directed toward the manner by which the alien presents
himself or herself to the agency and as such was a procedural rule. See
Glickman, 229 F.3d at 280; see also Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. (EPIC) v.
U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (even ``a
rule with a `substantial impact' upon the persons subject to it is not
necessarily a substantive rule''); Lamoille Valley R. Co. v. ICC, 711
F.2d 295, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that an order changing the
schedule for an adjudication, including when parties were to submit
briefing, was a procedural rule); Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 244
(D.C. Cir. 1961) (while holding that a rule was procedural, noting that
``no substantive rights were actually involved by the regulation
itself'' even if ``failure to observe it might cause the loss of
substantive rights'').
Moreover, this is not a procedural rule in which notice and comment
are needed to safeguard the policies underlying the APA's notice and
comment requirements.\73\ Section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, is
clear--it unequivocally imposes a duty on aliens present in the United
States of more than 30 days to register. It follows that, a rule
prescribing a form that individuals may use to comply with the
statutory obligations is not a substantive rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ See JEM Broad. Co., 22 F.3d at 327; EPIC, 653 F.3d at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not the first time that DHS, or its predecessor, has invoked
the procedural rule exception to bypass notice-and-comment procedure
under the APA when amending 8 CFR 264.1 in a similar manner. For
example, in 1960, DOJ added the Form I-590, Registration for
Classification as a Refugee--Escapee to 8 CFR 264.1(a) without engaging
in notice-and-comment procedures.\74\ In 1970, DOJ added Form I-485A,
Application by Cuban Refugee for Permanent Residence.\75\ Adding Form
G-325R is not materially different from these past efforts, and the use
of the procedural rule exception is well documented. DHS acknowledges
that for purposes of NSEERS, the agency went through the public notice
and comment process before finalizing the rule. See 67 FR 40581 (June
13, 2002) (NPRM); 67 FR 52584 (Aug. 12, 2002) (final rule). Unlike
NSEERS, which established criteria for the special population being
addressed, the IFR and this final rule merely identify a new
registration form and evidence of registration. Even if the rules were
similar, DHS notes as a general matter that a previous decision on how
to approach a rulemaking does not obligate DHS to proceed in the same
manner in a future rulemaking; prior approaches do not attach any
weight to an agency's varied approaches in similar rules.\76\ At any
rate, DHS has provided an opportunity to comment on the IFR and has
considered and responded to those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ See 25 FR 10495 (Nov. 2, 1960) (``This order shall become
effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register.
Compliance with the provision of section 4 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (60 Stat. 238; 5 U.S.C. 1003) as to notice of proposed
rule making and delayed effective date is unnecessary in this
instance because the rules prescribed by the order relate to the
agency procedure and management.'').
\75\ See 35 FR 12268, 12268-69 (July 31, 1970) (invoking the
procedural rule exception under the APA). Other rules that modified
8 CFR 264.1 by invoking the procedural rule exception under the APA
include78 FR 18457 (Mar. 27, 2013) (adding online I-94 based on
exception for ``rules of agency organization, procedure, or
practice''); 30 FR 13862, 13863 (Nov. 2, 1965) (amending listing of
Forms I-90 (Application by Lawful Permanent Resident Alien for Alien
Register Receipt) and I-102 (Application by Nonimmigration alien for
Replacement of Arrival Document or for Alien Registration) under 8
CFR 264.1(b) without notice and comment as ``relat[ing] to agency
procedure''); 25 FR 10495 (Nov. 2, 1960) (added the Form I-590
(Registration for Classification as Refugee-Escapee) to 8 CFR 264.1
without notice and comment as ``relat[ing] to agency procedure and
management.'').
\76\ See, e.g., Hoctor v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 82 F.3d 165,
171-72 (7th Cir. 1996) (observing that there is nothing in the APA
to forbid an agency to use notice-and-comment procedures even if not
required under the APA and that courts should attach no weight to an
agency's varied approaches involving similar rules); see also Indep.
Living Res.v. Oregon Arena Corp., 982 F. Supp. 698, 744 n.62 (D. Or.
1997) (observing that agencies may voluntarily elect notice-and-
comment procedures for a variety of reasons even though not
required); cf. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 101-02
(2015) (noting that agencies may grant additional procedural rights
in the exercise of their discretion, including notice and an
opportunity to comment when not otherwise required by the APA, but
also noting that ``reviewing courts are generally not free to impose
[additional procedural rights] if the agencies have not chosen to
grant them'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. The Good Cause and Foreign Affairs Exceptions to the Administrative
Procedure Act
Comment: A commenter expressed concern that the IFR violated the
APA by failing to provide adequate notice and comment, noting that
DHS's ``good cause'' claim was unjustified as no emergency existed to
bypass public input. Two commenters stated that DHS failed to
demonstrate ``good cause'' for bypassing notice-and-comment procedures,
and therefore, the IFR must be subjected to pre-enforcement notice-and-
comment to be valid.
While remarking on the foreign affairs exception, the commenter
noted that on March 14, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a
determination published in the Federal Register asserting that
immigration policies constitute foreign affairs functions of the United
States and are therefore exempt from the APA's notice-and-comment
requirements. The commenter further noted section 553(a) of the APA
that exempts certain rulemaking from notice-and-comment requirements
when the rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States.
However, the commenter reasoned that the foreign affairs exception is
not justified for an immigration rule because the government was not
able to show that adhering to notice-and-comment procedures ``will
provoke definitely undesirable international consequences.'' The
commenter remarked that the IFR would impact millions of individuals
residing within U.S. borders and would have had little impact, if any,
on foreign relations. As such, the rule could not be insulated from
judicial review or public accountability on the basis of the foreign
affairs exception.
Response: DHS issued the IFR without prior notice and an
opportunity to comment under the procedural rule exception under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Although DHS believes that the rule could meet the
foreign affairs exemption pursuant to State's determination, DHS did
not invoke the foreign affairs exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(a). DHS did
also not invoke the good cause exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Therefore, these comments are out of scope.
c. Assertions That the Rule Is Arbitrary and Capricious
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern that the IFR is
arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

[[Page 39307]]

A commenter wrote that ``the rule is so vague, contradictory,
inconsistent, irrational, and poorly drafted that it is arbitrary and
capricious.'' Another commenter said DHS failed to provide a reasoned
explanation for its decision or consider reasonable alternatives.
Another commenter stated that when an agency changes course, it ``must
be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious
reliance interests that must be taken into account,'' and failure to do
so is arbitrary and capricious. The commenter added that DHS failed to
consider several important aspects of the problems inherent in forced
immigrant registries, including the dark history associated with
forcing disfavored minority groups to register with the government, the
prevalence of racial profiling, the impact on U.S. citizens of color,
Fifth Amendment concerns about self-incrimination, and the true
administrative burdens of a coercive immigrant registry.
Similarly, a union added that the IFR is arbitrary and capricious
because it lacked a credible explanation for departing from
longstanding agency practice and failed to consider its constitutional
implications, impact on freedom of association, labor rights
enforcement, workplace standards, DHS resources; and other
ramifications for ``noncitizens''. A commenter wrote that the IFR is
``arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion'' and thus
prohibited under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The commenter added that
this is because DHS departed from longstanding policy without
articulating a reasoned explanation for doing so, did not take central
aspects of the problems created into account, and failed to consider
reasonable alternatives. They also wrote that the rule is not in
response to wartime threat nor national security, and thus also
``arbitrary.'' A commenter said that the IFR is arbitrary and
capricious due to DHS's failure to account for the difficulties and
risks faced by survivors and applicants of humanitarian relief in
complying with this rule.
Response: DHS disagrees that the rulemaking lacked explanation or
is arbitrary and capricious. The IFR was promulgated to provide an
additional registration pathway for aliens required to register under
the existing statutory framework prescribed in sections 261 through 266
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306. See 90 FR 11793, 11795. Section
7 of E.O. 14159 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, among other
things, to ensure that all previously unregistered aliens in the United
States comply with the registration requirement. See 90 FR 11793,
11795. In the IFR, DHS clearly outlined why it is appropriate to
designate Form G-325R as a general registration form to improve the
registration outcome for certain groups of aliens, consistent with the
E.O. See 90 FR 11793,11795 (Mar. 12, 2025). The rule is reasonably
related to its stated objectives and is not arbitrary and
capricious.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (``The scope of review
under the `arbitrary and capricious' standard is narrow and a court
is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and
articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a
`rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'
'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Reliance Interests
Comment: Some commenters addressed the issue of reliance interests,
expressing concern that the IFR would disrupt the expectations and
dependencies that individuals have developed based on existing
immigration policies. For example, a commenter stated that by forgoing
notice-and-comment rulemaking, DHS ignored the reliance interests of
the public. The commenter added that the affected community is not
accustomed to registering, as it has never been required before, and
now millions would need to comply with a new registration requirement.
The commenter stated that when a prior policy has engendered serious
reliance interests, a government agency must provide a detailed
explanation for changes. Sudden shifts, especially with criminal
penalty implications, require sustained outreach to all stakeholders,
not a surprise announcement. Similarly, a commenter stated that, in
issuing the IFR, DHS has ignored the settled expectations and reliance
interests of millions of people who have not had an obligation to
register with the Federal Government.
Response: DHS disagrees that DHS failed to consider reliance
interests of applicants and that the obligation to register comes as a
surprise announcement. The existing statutory registration requirement
is over 80 years old and since 1952, has been incorporated by Congress
into the INA, as amended. The longstanding statutory requirements
appear, it is current form, at sections 261 through 266 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1301 through 1306. Over time, administrations prescribed the
forms through which aliens could comply with the statutory requirement
at 8 CFR 264.1. DHS did not change the scope of the statutory
requirement; DHS merely provided aliens with another means to
efficiently comply with the registration requirement.
Even if the government failed to capture the group of aliens in the
past, whose registration outcome is improved through this rule by
adding an additional means to register, DHS does not believe that these
aliens have a significant and legitimate reliance interest in the
government's failure to enforce the law. It is the duty of the
Executive, under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, to faithfully
execute the law.\78\ Nevertheless, the agency considered the affected
population, as well as the costs and time burden to the affected
population. See 90 FR 11793,11797 (Mar. 12, 2025). DHS currently
provides the registration service free of charge and it will not, at
this time, charge a biometric services fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ A historical practice itself does not inform what the law
requires. The government cannot be estopped from fulfilling the duty
to protect the public interest in accordance with the law and by
enforcing the law. See Moran Mar. Assocs. v. U.S. Coast Guard, 526
F. Supp. 335, 342 (D.D.C. 1981), aff'd sub nom. Moran Mar. Assocs.
Am. Waterways Operators, Inc. v. U.S. Coast Guard, 679 F.2d 261
(D.C. Cir. 1982) (``The Court agrees that prior inaction by the
Coast Guard does not now bar the agency from implementing the clear
mandate of the regulation and its authorizing statute.''); Warshauer
v. Chao, No. 4:06-CV-0103, 2008 WL 2622799 at *31 (N.D. Ga. 2008),
aff'd, 577 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2009) (``Courts repeatedly have held
that the government cannot be estopped from enforcing the law even
if the Government did not enforce the law in the past.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS also carefully considered the benefits of the registration
rule, including the improved DHS law enforcement efficacy and the
significant public safety aspects (such as that an increase in
compliance with the fingerprinting requirement would provide DHS with
additional information about an alien's criminal record). See 90 FR
11793, 11797 through 11798 (Mar. 12, 2025). While the obligation to
register is outside of this rule's purview as it is set by law, DHS
clearly provided reasonable explanations for prescribing an additional
form and the continued implementation of this important congressional
mandate, as recognized by the President in E.O. 14159, clearly
outweighed the interests of aliens required to register. See 90 FR,
11793, 11797 through 11798 (Mar. 12, 2025).
e. Length of Comment Period
Comment: Numerous commenters remarked that the 30-day comment
period is not long enough to ``meaningfully comment'' on such a
significant policy change. A commenter referenced a decision of the
U.S. Court

[[Page 39308]]

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which established that Government
agencies must afford ``interested persons a reasonable and meaningful
opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.'' A commenter
expressed concern that 30 days is insufficient time for the public to
comment on a significant change to immigration law. A commenter stated
that the truncated 30-day comment period was particularly problematic
since they had to dedicate resources to educating the immigrant
community about the IFR. Other commenters remarked that the due date
for comments on the IFR was April 11, 2025, the same day the rule
becomes operational, creating the perception that public comments would
not be meaningfully considered. Another commenter recommended that DHS
not ``fast-track'' the IFR and instead consider every public comment
thoughtfully and carefully.
Numerous commenters recommended that the Department either rescind
the IFR, reissue it with a longer comment period, or both, and
suggested the new comment period be at least 60 days. A commenter
stated that E.O. 12866 specifies that rulemaking ``in most cases should
include a comment period of not less than 60 days,'' and E.O. 13563
states that agencies should provide ``a comment period that should
generally be at least 60 days.'' A commenter requested that the comment
period be extended to 60 days as provided by previous E.O.s. A
commenter urged DHS to withdraw the IFR and instead publish a proposed
rule that fully complies with the requirements of the APA, including a
60-day period for public comments.
The same commenter remarked that if DHS had given the proper notice
and published the rule as an NPRM, they would have been able to submit
a more comprehensive comment to the rule.
Response: DHS disagrees that the public was not provided with a
reasonable and sufficient comment period. Adding Form G-325R to the
regulation as an additional means to register is a procedural rule, not
subject to the notice-and-comment requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and
(c). Therefore, DHS was under no obligation to provide a notice-and-
comment period. Nevertheless, DHS provided a 30-day period for post-
promulgation comment and public input. The APA does not specify a
minimum comment period. On January 20, 2025, the President issued E.O.
14159, which put the public on notice that alien registration
requirements would be a priority of the current Administration. See 90
FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025). In addition, the IFR itself was posted for
public inspection on March 7, 2025. 90 FR 11793, 11800 (Mar. 12, 2025).
Commenters therefore had 47 days from the date of the E.O. until they
first had access to the IFR in order to familiarize themselves with the
existing statute and regulations, and 36 days from the date of public
inspection until the comment deadline to submit their comments on the
NPRM. And the secondary comment period for purposes of the information
collection closed on May 12, 2025, 67 days after the IFR was posted for
public inspection. DHS believes that this was a reasonable time period
given the clarity of the statute and straightforward purpose of the
IFR.
f. Other Comments Related to the Administrative Procedure Act
Comment: A commenter remarked that anonymous comments should not be
considered valid, questioning the right of individuals to demand
others' personal information if they are unwilling to provide their
own. On the other hand, a commenter expressed concern about submitting
their comment with their name attached due to potential retaliatory
actions by the Administration against opponents. A commenter urged DHS
to ignore comments from United We Dream.
Response: As outlined in the IFR, DHS welcomes and considers any
and all comments submitted in accordance with the instructions provided
in the IFR.

2. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Costs, and Benefits (E.O. 12866 and E.O.
13563)

a. Underestimated and Insufficiently Assessed Costs to Federal
Government
Underestimated or Insufficiently Addressed Costs
Comment: Many commenters objected that DHS has underestimated and
insufficiently assessed the costs of processing Form G-325R and
associated biometrics. A few commenters specifically voiced concern
that processing millions of new registrations and biometrics would
require a substantial allocation of DHS resources and that the
estimated $30 cost per applicant for biometric services, while
seemingly small, would amount to a significant expense when multiplied
by millions of individuals. Several commenters acknowledged that, while
the IFR provides a limited assessment of biometrics processing costs,
it makes no mention of the cost implications of adding an entirely new
form to be used by potentially millions of ``noncitizens''. A few
commenters, wrote that the Department did not adequately identify and
assess administrative costs, writing that the cost discussion of
biometrics processing was insufficient and there was no discussion of
needed personnel, materials, and overhead costs. A commenter described
the estimated $10 million annual financial cost of the NSEERS program
in the first years of its use as an instructive example due to
wastefulness. One commenter expressed concern that DHS did not provide
clarity around how it would manage the ``massive'' influx of
registrations. A commenter stated that the rule would cost
approximately $72 million to advance what they characterized as an
``unnecessary scheme.'' One commenter stated that the IFR ``omits any
reference'' to the OMB Supporting Statement for Form G-325R and its
estimated $71,960,000 in government costs related to the form.
Response: The analysis provided in the IFR addressed the direct
effects of increased compliance as a result of the rule, including the
PRA estimates on the opportunity cost of the collection of information,
recognizing the rule did not impose any new obligations for
registration, insofar as such obligations have long been contained in
the INA. The unit costs are discussed in this final rule related to
submitting forms and the burden to the Agency related to biometrics as
well as the opportunity cost of time for aliens to complete Form G-
325R.
As mentioned previously in this preamble, DHS has determined that
it will not impose a biometric services fee for registration applicants
as part of this final rule. DHS also notes that USCIS has not generally
seen any significant delays or inefficiencies in biometric collection
services. As part of the upcoming USCIS fee schedule rulemaking, USCIS
will reassess its needs and determine whether more resources are
necessary to address processing Form G-325R and whether that justifies
a change in the related fee.
Assessment of Enforcement Costs
Comment: Many commenters stated that DHS failed to adequately
assess the costs of enforcing the rule. Several of the commenters
critiqued the statement in the IFR that any anticipated compliance-
related costs are due to the statute rather than the rule itself. These
commenters noted that implementation and enforcement of the rule would
require civil and criminal law enforcement efforts, which contemplates
significant costs, including personnel, training, and materials. A
commenter similarly remarked that the IFR simply states that the costs
are ``inherent to compliance

[[Page 39309]]

with the statute and are not a result of this rule,'' which they
characterized as intentionally vague and not explaining the true
economic costs. A commenter wrote that the ``amorphous nature of `self-
deportation' contemplated in the IFR'' would incur costs and resource
needs not considered within the IFR. A commenter criticized the lack of
discussion of the burden of ``prioritized'' registration violation
cases.
Similarly, a commenter stated that the IFR fails to provide any
calculation or comparison of the claimed ``improved DHS law enforcement
efficacy,'' with the inherently increased costs of Federal immigration
enforcement and local law enforcement in enforcing this new scheme and
its criminal penalties across the country.
Response: The rule does not require DHS to undertake additional
enforcement of the existing statute. The purpose is to improve the
registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens to ensure that all
previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply with the
statutory requirements in sections 261 through 266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1301 through 1306. The rule allows those aliens that have not
registered through other pathways to register using Form G-325R. E.O.
14159 directs DHS, in coordination with DOJ and State, to ensure that
failure to comply with the alien registration requirements of the INA
is treated as a civil and criminal enforcement priority.
Unconsidered Costs to DOJ
Comment: A few commenters criticized the IFR for not addressing
associated costs to DOJ, which would be tasked with enforcing the
Federal criminal statutory penalties and adjudicating removal processes
for ``noncitizens'' charged with such through information discovered in
the registration process.
Response: The enforcement of related statutory provisions and the
costs associated with them for DOJ are separate from this rulemaking.
DHS has considered the possibility that this rule, perhaps in
combination with other policies, could have some of the indirect
effects as raised by commenters, however, we do not have sufficient
information to quantify these effects. DHS believes that DOJ costs are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
b. Assessment of Affected Population and Costs
Comment: Several commenters remarked on the rule's discussion of
the affected population and costs to those who would use the general
registration form designated under the rule. The commenters stated that
the IFR's analysis of the affected population appears to significantly
underestimate the associated costs. A couple of other commenters wrote
that the estimated impact of the IFR to 2.2 million to 3.2 million
individuals would place a significant logistical burden both on
individuals and DHS. The commenters added that, while the G-325R form
is currently free, the time needed to complete the form, the travel
time, and the time spent at an ASC are all costs that would be borne by
the affected population. Commenters stated that the confusion created
by the IFR generates an increase in demand for immigration legal
consultations from individuals seeking legal advice on how this IFR
impacts them, whether they need to register, or whether they already
have, with a commenter writing that legal consultations and legal
research by attorneys can cost significant amounts of money. Another
commenter noted that between legal aid, biometric filing fees, and re-
filings to correct errors or report relocation, the IFR might impose
direct and indirect costs upon the ``noncitizen'' population exceeding
tens of millions of dollars. Similarly, a commenter wrote that the IFR
does not mention or analyze ``easily foreseeable costs'' to
individuals, ``pretending'' that the cost of the IFR and corollary
criminal statutes would be limited to increased biometric procedures.
A commenter, citing requirements under E.O.s 12866 and 13563 and
providing detailed remarks on the rule, said DHS did not fully assess
the costs of the rule, while overestimating its benefits. The commenter
stated that DHS estimates the rule would impact between 2.2 million and
3.2 million people, most of whom are living in the United States
without lawful status but are otherwise law-abiding and contributing
members of their communities that do not pose a public safety threat.
Specifically, the commenter cited Office of Homeland Security
Statistics (OHSS), which found that, in April 2024, 79 percent of
unauthorized aliens in the United States had lived in the country for
more than 15 years, reasoning that these individuals are long-term,
contributing residents who are not criminals or public safety threats.
While critiquing DHS's cost estimates, the commenter discussed
practical challenges for registrants, including the time required to
complete forms and travel to ASCs for biometric collection, reasoning
that some individuals would need to travel significant distances to
reach the closest ASC, as some States have only one center. The
commenter mentioned, for example, Georgia, Kentucky, and New Mexico as
states with only one ASC, which the commenter said would require hours
of travel for many registrants. The commenter also noted that in
Hawaii, which has only one ASC in Honolulu, registrants from other
islands would need to purchase flights to attend appointments,
potentially facing complications due to REAL ID requirements.
Furthermore, the commenter stated that DHS failed to acknowledge
additional costs incurred as part of traveling to an ASC, including
taking time off work, finding childcare, purchasing meals, and other
burdens that may arise in the process. They concluded that these costs
were not adequately considered in DHS's assessment.
A commenter expressed a need to consider costs to ``noncitizens''
with language barriers such as limited English proficiency, writing
that the additional time, effort, and translation needed to
successfully support these individuals to compliance with the
registration requirement were not considered in the IFR. The commenter
stated that the IFR does not account for translation of Form G-325R,
biographical information, or the rule itself. A commenter noted without
further explanation that the IFR would make ``undocumented'' persons
choose between registering, being searched for and removed, or not
registering, being fined and imprisoned, and then being removed.
Response: The requirement to register is not new; such costs have
long been inherent in the alien registration requirements of the INA.
The IFR did acknowledge there is a burden associated with registration,
and the burden was estimated in the supporting statement of the PRA.
The analysis also includes a discussion of the paperwork burden such
as, the burden to submit forms, and to submit biometrics, which
includes average travel costs to an ASC. This methodology is used
across multiple USCIS rules and accounts for those individuals that
would travel long distances and those who would make a short trip. See
78 FR 535 (Jan. 3, 2013). These burdens also include the opportunity
cost of time the registrant incurs during this period. See section
VI.B.3 of this preamble. DHS has considered the possibility that this
rule, perhaps in combination with other policies, could have some of
the indirect effects as raised by commenters, however, we do not have
sufficient information to quantify these effects.

[[Page 39310]]

c. Unconsidered Costs to State and Local Governments
Comment: Several commenters stated that the rule fails to assess
costs to U.S. communities, including State and local governments, for
implementation and enforcement of civil and criminal penalties. A few
commenters wrote that State and local governments would likely incur
increased costs from defending against litigation as people sue State
and local police for unlawful discrimination arising from the racial
profiling inherent in the enforcement of the carry requirement. A
commenter wrote that if DHS shifts the priority of USCIS to register
millions of people, it would create further backlogs and would
financially impact states like New York, where many migrants have made
a home and are seeking asylum and work authorization. Another commenter
expressed concern that the IFR does not consider costs to State and
local governments impacted by economies diminished by less
participation from frightened immigrants.
Response: This rule implements a process for statutorily required
registration of aliens in the United States who are not registered via
other means. The rule is not intended to impose a burden on other
governmental entities, and any such burden would be, at most, based on
external factors not linked to this rule, or a consequence of other
policies or activities that states have voluntarily pursued. Lawsuits
arising from the hypothetical behavior of law enforcement or
registrants would be a result of that behavior and not a direct result
of complying with statutorily required registration. Other governmental
and non-governmental entities are not required to reprioritize their
behavior or distribution of their limited resources as a result of this
rule.
d. Costs to the Economy
Comment: Commenters wrote that the IFR would cause harm to the
national economy. Other commenters wrote that there would be impacts to
local economies. Commenters raised concerns that the IFR would cause
economic harm and wrote that the rule would cause economic loss for
small businesses.
A couple of commenters wrote that immigrants contribute to the
economy and pay taxes without receiving any benefits, with a different
commenter saying that the vast majority of aliens are peaceful,
upstanding, and hard workers who pay hundreds of billions of dollars in
taxes annually. Another commenter warned that aliens may be discouraged
from paying taxes if the Internal Revenue Service data could be used to
investigate registration noncompliance; the commenter stated that
aliens contributed over $50 billion in Federal taxes in 2023. Providing
an additional example by a non-governmental organization, a commenter
wrote that the National Academy of Sciences estimates that immigrants
contribute more in tax revenue than they receive in Federal benefits,
and that net benefits over a 75-year horizon exceed $326,000 for each
immigrant and their descendants. Speaking to personal experience, a
commenter described themself as a hardworking taxpayer and called for
policies that recognize the contributions of millions who make the
United States great. Other commenters agreed, writing that immigrants
make America great.
A commenter wrote that the ``policy'' creates uncertainty among
immigrant communities and negatively impacts U.S. citizens who are
trying to hire competent workers. Employers may struggle to find
qualified candidates if individuals lack work authorization documents
or the necessary status for employment. A commenter stated that the
economic implications of removing millions of people from the workforce
would create a further strain on resources. Multiple commenters wrote
that immigrants carry out many jobs that U.S. citizens will not.
Another commenter wrote that the IFR fails to account for devastating
social and economic costs to U.S. communities.
Different commenters were opposed to the government penalizing
immigrants who contribute to the economy. A few commenters remarked
that the rule would increase the chilling effect on immigrant workers
and students afraid to go to work and school for fear of exposing
themselves and their families to separation, detention, deportation, or
criminalization. Commenters stated that this lack of participation
would impact employers, businesses, and schools by shrinking local
economies and making communities less stable. Citing research, the
commenter described the chilling effect as ``well documented'' and
likely to make the nation less stable. The commenter further wrote that
the reduction in workforce engagement would stall vital infrastructural
projects while simultaneously increasing labor costs.
Many commenters expressed concern that the IFR would lead to
negative impacts to State economies, with one commenter writing that
this administration ``imperils'' the economic benefits immigration has
brought to the United States. Echoing concerns about impacts to State
economies, a couple of commenters urged DHS to protect the United
States from financial harm by not implementing the rule. More
specifically, commenters emphasized economic disruptions to essential
jobs, efforts to close labor shortages, and critical industries that
depend on labor, such as construction, education, healthcare,
childcare, households, agriculture, hospitality, mutual aid,
infrastructure, labor unions, long term care, community organizers, and
food processing, which could lead to higher business costs, difficulty
for businesses to grow, reduced tax contributions, slow economic
growth, economic instability, decrease in entrepreneurs, and reduced
tourism. A commenter wrote that a lack of participation of alien
communities would be followed by a decrease in the availability of
businesses and services, with another commenter saying the significant
new workload demands of this rule would harm workers, businesses, and
the overall economy. Another commenter expressed that aliens contribute
to States' population growth and tax revenue.
With specific regard to tourism, a commenter expressed concern
about Canadian travelers who may be deterred from traveling to the
United States, with another adding that the U.S. Travel Association
estimates that even a 10 percent reduction in Canadian visitation could
mean 2 million fewer visits, $2.1 billion lost in spending, and 14,000
job losses. With regard to annual spending, the commenter said that
Canada is the largest international tourism market in the United
States, with spending in excess of $20 billion, and in Florida,
Canadians represent almost 40 percent of all foreign visitors to the
State. According to a commenter, the Canadian government has updated
its travel advisory for Canadians visiting the United States, and
Canadian media has raised concerns about the ``show-your-papers''
impacts, which they said may lead to increased scrutiny and penalties
for noncompliance and heavily impact tourism. Further, the commenter
wrote that immigration, especially by Latinos, has driven all U.S.
population growth from 2022 to 2023, and that immigrants are essential
in key sectors and start more small businesses than U.S.-born citizens,
aiding economic resilience. Restrictions on interstate movement could
worsen economic impacts, and removing millions of immigrant workers
would have significant economic consequences.
Emphasizing the deep integration of alien families into their own

[[Page 39311]]

community, a commenter wrote that their local economy depended on
tourism and hospitality. They noted that many Latino immigrants
contributed significantly to the local economy through employment in
restaurants and hotels. A commenter said that asking for additional,
mandatory registration documents from ``noncitizens'' would have a
chilling effect on the U.S. tourist economy.
A couple of commenters discussed the economic impact of similar
policies in the past. Specifically, they cited Arizona's SB 1070, with
one of the commenters adding that between 2007 and 2016, the
``undocumented'' population dropped from 500,000 to 275,000,
contributing to an annual 2-percent decline in the State's Gross
Domestic Product between 2008 and 2015 and a 2.5-percent drop in its
workforce. Commenters said that the requirement would harshly punish
aliens who are contributing to and enriching communities.
A commenter stated that other countries do not implement similar
registration policies and warned that maintaining this policy could
damage the United States' relationship with allies. Expressing
opposition, a commenter stated that ``good'' Americans would be
alienated more than they already are by the resources spent ``hunting
down immigrants.''
While remarking on the cost analysis, a commenter expressed
additional concern about broader potential cost impacts on employers,
institutions, the economy, and communities throughout the United
States. The commenter stated that the rule would lead to compliance
costs for businesses whose employees or customers are required to
register and submit biometrics. The commenter said that registrants
would likely need to request time off work, including potential delays
for key business functions and the diversion of resources to hire
temporary replacements. The commenter also wrote that businesses whose
customer base is impacted might suffer costs due to reduced spending
power among registrants. The commenter additionally remarked that
educational institutions, churches, and other organizations could be
burdened with tracking updates to the registration requirement and
providing advice to affected individuals. They suggested that costs
could ripple throughout the U.S. economy and communities, particularly
if registration information is used for immigration enforcement
purposes.
Response: This rule does not directly regulate or impact businesses
or other organizations, but rather it directly regulates individual
aliens. As explained in the IFR,\79\ DHS recognizes that there are
costs to aliens to comply with the INA's alien registration provision.
But, because this rule does not impose any new alien registration or
biometrics obligation separate from those already contained in the INA,
these costs are inherent to compliance with the statute by an alien and
are not a direct result of this rule. Correspondingly, any broader
potential indirect or secondary cost impacts on employers, businesses,
institutions, the economy, communities, and persons throughout the
United States would be a result of the policy choice made by Congress
when requiring aliens who are in the United States to register.
However, DHS has considered the possibility that this rule, perhaps in
combination with other policies, could have some of the indirect
effects described above. We do not have sufficient information to
quantify these effects. The IFR's analysis assessed the impact
associated with the implementation of a process for statutorily
required registration by aliens in the United States who were not
registered via other means, including the burden of travel and time to
fill out the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ See 90 FR 11793, 11796-11798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Benefits Assessment
Comment: While responding to DHS's assessment of benefits of the
IFR, a commenter expressed strong disagreement with DHS's statement
that ``access to more comprehensive registration data'' for immigration
enforcement purposes would constitute a benefit. The commenter said
that removing hundreds of thousands or millions of ``undocumented''
individuals who are otherwise law-abiding and contributing members of
communities would be disruptive to families, the economy, and society.
The commenter added that this would create a chilling effect across
immigrant communities and discourage immigrants without legal status--
who they said pay almost $100 billion in Federal and State taxes
annually--from interacting with any government agencies. The commenter
concluded that DHS's assessment of the benefits from the registration
obligation is ``misguided'' and, at best, ``incomplete,'' stating that
DHS failed to acknowledge the disruption that would result from a
significant increase in arrests and deportations as a result of using
the registration data for immigration enforcement purposes.
Similarly, a commenter critiqued the IFR as providing ``no
analysis'' to illustrate that additional registration is needed or that
expanded requirements would improve public safety. A separate commenter
further discussed how it is ``highly questionable'' that the IFR would
achieve its stated objectives, through its purported benefits.
Response: The rule does not obligate additional enforcement of the
existing statute. The rule establishes that those aliens that have not
registered through other means should register using Form G-325R. The
rule is expected to improve DHS law enforcement efficacy to (1) provide
more comprehensive information about the location of aliens in the
United States to make it easier and safer for DHS to enforce the law
and (2) increase compliance with statutory fingerprinting requirements
to provide DHS with additional information about an alien's criminal
record, including whether the alien is a known or suspected terrorist.
f. Compliance With E.O. 14192
Comment: Commenters raised concerns about the IFR's compliance with
President Trump's E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation.'' The commenter wrote that this E.O. requires that
whenever a Federal agency promulgates a new regulation, the agency
``shall identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed,''
which the commenter stated DHS has failed to do in this case. The
commenter also remarked that DHS failed to fulfill the second
requirement of the E.O., to offset ``any new incremental costs
associated with new regulations'' with ``the elimination of existing
costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.'' The commenter
reasoned that the IFR meets the E.O.'s definition of ``regulation'' or
``rule,'' adding that the IFR states that it ``amends DHS
regulations,'' and that the E.O. applies to all Federal agencies and
all regulatory actions.
The commenter reasoned that while the IFR is exempted from APA
notice-and-comment procedures on the grounds that the IFR is only ``a
rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice,'' this does not
``encode a substantive value judgement or put a stamp of approval or
disapproval on a given type of behavior.'' The commenter concluded that
if the rule is a purely procedural one, as DHS claims, rather than a
rule issued with respect to the immigration-related function of the
United States, the E.O. should apply. Concluding that the E.O.'s
requirements do apply to the IFR, the commenter remarked that this
represents either a

[[Page 39312]]

lack of attention to the administration's regulatory policies or a
deliberate attempt to circumvent the requirements of E.O. 14192.
Response: Pursuant to the definitional section 5(a) of E.O. 14192,
a regulation or rule issued with respect to a military, national
security, homeland security, foreign affairs, or the immigration-
related function of the United States is not considered a regulation or
rule for E.O. 14192 purposes.\80\ The IFR's primary direct purpose, and
this rule's primary direct purpose, is to implement or interpret the
immigration laws of the United States (as described in section
101(a)(17) of the INA, 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). For this reason, and additionally because the IFR and
this final rule are also issued with respect to national security,
homeland security, and foreign affairs functions of the United States,
the requirements of E.O. 14192 do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ See E.O. 14192, sec. 5 (``Definition. For purposes of this
order, the term ``regulation'' or ``rule'' means an agency statement
of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to
implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the
procedure or practice requirements of an agency, including, without
limitation, regulations, rules, memoranda, administrative orders,
guidance documents, policy statements, and interagency agreements,
regardless of whether the same were enacted through the processes in
the Administrative Procedure Act, but does not include: (a)
regulations issued with respect to a military, national security,
homeland security, foreign affairs, or immigration-related function
of the United States . . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
a. Family Assessment
Comment: A couple of commenters remarked that the Family Assessment
inaccurately states that there would be no impact to family unity,
reasoning that law enforcement actions taken against aliens would
separate families. The commenters urged DHS to provide further analysis
and explanations for the reasons why aliens, including those with
mixed-status families, would be required to report themselves with such
a consequence. Another commenter said that the cost of increased
surveillance and requirement for juveniles to register would adversely
affect individuals and families due to the travel required for
biometrics submission and monetary hurdles.
Commenters said that the rule violates section 654 of the Treasury
General Appropriations Act of 1999 as the family separations that would
ensue as a result of detentions and deportations would impact the
stability or safety of the family, impacts the authority of parents in
the education, nurture, and supervision of their children, and fails to
help the family perform its functions. Several commenters wrote that
the rule violates this statute in that it would impact family well-
being, autonomy, and integrity through the requirement for children to
independently register upon turning 14 years of age and the requirement
for parents and legal guardians to register their children under the
age of 14. A commenter remarked that DHS provided no information on the
analysis it conducted to reach the conclusion that the rule would not
impact family well-being or the autonomy and integrity of the family as
an institution. A commenter said that USCIS must conduct a proper
family assessment of this rule or face litigation.
A commenter presented data specific to Massachusetts, noting that
approximately 26 percent of the ``undocumented'' population in the
State have at least one minor U.S. citizen child, and 13 percent are
married to U.S. citizens. The commenter stated that registration would
effectively mean volunteering to separate families. The commenter
challenged the IFR's analysis regarding the Treasury General
Appropriations Act of 1999, specifically disputing the claim that the
regulation ``will not negatively affect family well-being and will not
have any impact on the autonomy and integrity of the family as an
institution.'' The commenter wrote that the forced separation of
families through deportation has well-documented negative impacts on
family well-being. Furthermore, the commenter criticized the government
for failing to provide information on how they ``systematically
reviewed the criteria'' or justification for their conclusion that the
IFR would not negatively impact family well-being, autonomy, or
integrity.
Commenters stated that imposing registration requirements on
adolescent children would impact the safety and stability of families
and interfere with parents' autonomy in the education and supervision
of their children. The commenters stated that the rule fails to examine
the relationship between parental responsibility under the law for
children under 18 and the requirement assigning independent
responsibility to children between 14 and 18 years old. Regarding the
requirement for parents and legal guardians to complete registration
for children under 14, the commenters remarked that this would impact
family safety and stability. The commenters stated that the rule
requires parents to provide information about their children that could
expose them to civil immigration enforcement, including detention and
deportation. The commenters concluded that these measures clearly
impact family well-being, safety, stability, and the authority of
parents to direct the education, nurture, and supervision of their
children.
Response: The IFR amended DHS regulations to designate a new
registration form, Form G-325R, as an additional option for aliens to
comply with statutory alien registration and fingerprinting provisions.
The obligation is a longstanding obligation that has existed for over
80 years. DHS disagrees with the commenters that the IFR adversely
affects families. The registration is free of charge and a significant
number of aliens are already registered through the visa process, or
through other encounters with the government. Congress imposed the
requirement, and DHS is faithfully executing the law.
As stated in the IFR, DHS has determined that the implementation of
this regulation will not negatively affect family well-being in
accordance with section 654 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999 \81\ and will not have any impact on the
autonomy and integrity of the family as an institution. See 90 FR
11793, 11799 (Mar. 12, 2025). The means of registration or prescribing
the additional form in DHS regulation neither impact the stability or
the safety of the family, particularly in terms of the marital
commitment, nor the well -being of a family overall. To the contrary,
as outlined in President Trump's E.O., enforcing the Nation's
immigration laws is critically important to the national security and
public safety of the United States and individuals present within the
United States. See E.O. 14159, sec. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ See Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
Comment: A commenter wrote that this rule requires an NPRM and,
therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) before the rule can move forward. The commenter
added that, due to the rule's impacts on small entities, it affects the
general public in addition to individuals, opening the door to a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
Multiple commenters discussed the impacts of the IFR on small
entities and commented that USCIS wrongly ignored these economic
impacts. A couple of

[[Page 39313]]

commenters said that the omission of any translation of Form G-325R
obscures the impact on small entities and organizations that serve
limited English proficiency and low-income communities, as well as
people with disabilities, and implicates Federal government obligations
under sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Commenters said that there has
already been a significant drop in international arrivals compared to
last year, especially Canadian visitors, hurting the tourism industry
in many States both near and far from the border. A commenter added
that businesses in Michigan have suffered revenue loss due to immigrant
workers and students being afraid to go to work or school for fear of
detention and deportation, a situation that it said would only be
exacerbated by this IFR. Another commenter said that this effect would
be seen across the United States. A commenter stated that many small
businesses would be impacted due to registrants needing to take time
off to attend their biometrics appointment at an ASC, which they said
could be several hours away.
Response: The IFR was published as an interim final rule, based on
the procedural rule exception under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, and DHS was
not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking under
the APA or under any other law. As such, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, was not required, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
604(a), and is also not required for this final rule. Nonetheless, DHS,
as part of the IFR and this final rule, has determined that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations and small
governmental jurisdictions). As DHS noted in the IFR, this rule
directly regulates individual aliens. However, the RFA's regulatory
flexibility analysis requirements apply only to small entities subject
to the requirements of the rule.\82\ The individual aliens subject to
the alien registration requirements of the INA are not small entities
as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government
Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act at 22
(Aug. 2017), https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All USCIS forms are in the English language and must be submitted
in English, with the exception of Form I-9 for employers in Puerto
Rico. As explained throughout this preamble, USCIS complies with all
statutory obligations for purposes of access and accommodations. DHS
understands that there may be an impact on previously unregistered
aliens, such as on those who visit the United States and that certain
aliens may no longer opt to visit the United States. However, Congress
considered the registration of aliens necessary; DHS is faithfully
executing the law and, with this rule, is neither imposing new
registration nor fingerprinting obligations in addition to those
required by Congress.
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Comment: A commenter said that the IFR would impose an unfunded
mandate on USCIS, which they said is already facing backlogs in its
attempt to meet its core functions.
Response: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is
intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded
Federal Mandates on State, local and Tribal governments. USCIS is not a
State, local or Tribal government--it is part of the Executive branch.
d. E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Comment: A commenter said that the IFR would have Tribal
implications under E.O. 13175, stating that the implementation and
enforcement of the IFR would require law enforcement to request proof
of compliance with registration from anyone who may appear to be a
``noncitizen''. The commenter said that many Tribal members already
experience this type of enforcement and this IFR would only increase
the number of those encounters.
Response: DHS is sensitive to enforcement issues. The registration
requirement applies to aliens only. Additionally, consistent with 8
U.S.C. 1359, DHS interprets the registration and fingerprinting
requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1302 to exclude American Indians born in
Canada who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American
Indian race who are present in the United States under the authority of
8 U.S.C. 1359. This interpretation is based on construing 8 U.S.C. 1302
and other provisions of subchapter II of chapter 12, title 8 of the
U.S. Code as consistent with the right of such American Indians to pass
the borders of the United States. Similarly, members of the Texas Band
of Kickapoo Indians are not required to register. See Texas Band of
Kickapoo Act, Public Law 97-429, sec. 4(d).
Therefore, the IFR and this final rule do not have Tribal
implications, as addressed in E.O. 13175, because it would not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes.

I. Out of Scope

This section summarizes some of the many comments that were outside
the IFR's scope. Although, in an abundance of caution, DHS has
summarized and responded to some of the below comments earlier in this
preamble, DHS notes that it views the below comments (among others) as
generally falling outside the scope of the IFR, as they tend to
communicate objections to (for instance) clear statutory requirements
that the IFR did not create or change or enforcement activities that
are generally unrelated to this rule.
1. Registration Requirements Under Pre-Existing Statute and Regulations
a. Legal/Statutory Concerns and DHS Compliance With Statute
Comment: A commenter suggested that USCIS and the Attorney General
implement a waiver policy for the statutory registration requirements.
Others indicated that registration requirements have been viewed as
contrary to American values and that the former INS had begun
dismantling its registration apparatus by 1947, eliminating the
registration requirements for Canadians and subsequently transitioning
registration into regularized immigration applications and enforcement,
thus marking an intentional departure from the sweeping process the IFR
was seeking to implement.
Several commenters opposed the Alien Registration Act, with some
commenters indicating it did little to address national security, and
instead it became a tool to stifle and target political dissent and
specific ethnic groups. Commenters discussed the historical context of
the Act, with one commenter stating that the Alien Registration Act's
original purpose was to monitor foreign nationals for national security
concerns during wartime, not as an immigration enforcement tool. Some
commenters called for the withdrawal of the Alien Registration Act.
Comments also addressed the registration of free Black people in
pre-Civil War southern States and Chinese immigrants during the Chinese

[[Page 39314]]

Exclusion Era. Commenters stated that this type of immigration policy
is grounded in a troubled history of white supremacy; that it is
another step taken toward fascism by this Administration; and that it
mirrors other shameful historical efforts, such as Nazi Germany's
documentation requirements that were used to discriminate against
individuals of Jewish ancestry.
Another commenter said that the ``sweeping generalization'' of whom
E.O. 14159 affects is unfair and unconstitutional, because immigrants
who have entered the country legally and have complied with the law
should not be targeted by the law. Another commenter added that
constitutional protections should apply to all people within the United
States' jurisdiction, not just citizens or those ``in favor with the
administration.'' Another commenter suggested that the government might
eventually require registration for residents with green cards, for
naturalized citizens, or ``for anyone who doesn't pledge undying,
uncritical loyalty to this administration. Without additional context,
a commenter stated that even U.S.-born citizens are not safe from the
impacts of this law, as according to the commenter ICE has already
detained people in defiance of federal judges.
Response: The overall purpose of the statutory scheme established
by Congress falls outside the scope of the rule. DHS has the obligation
to faithfully execute the laws established by Congress, including the
alien registration requirement. See INA sec. 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a).
DHS has continued over the decades to ensure that aliens generally are
registered by providing pathways to do so. The new general registration
form added by the IFR is specifically designed to address a gap in the
existing regulatory regime relating to registration and allow all
aliens, regardless of their status, to fulfill their duty to register
under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. Regarding the comment
about E.O. 14159, DHS did not issue the E.O. The IFR did not propose to
change the terms of E.O. 14159 and could not have done so.
A U.S. citizen is not considered an alien under the INA. See INA
sec. 101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). The alien registration
requirements of the INA require aliens, not U.S. citizens, to register.
b. Evidence of Registration
Comment: Another commenter asked what would happen to those with a
previously issued employment authorization, but who are currently
ineligible to obtain or renew it. Similarly, the commenter asked about
those who were previously in removal proceedings, but whose proceedings
were terminated, and they remain here ``essentially undocumented.'' A
commenter stated that it is unclear whether immigrants who have already
registered would be required to re-register, and added that criminal
charges for failing to register would only increase the stress for
those communities. Commenters wrote that the list of documents that
serve as evidence of registration, regardless of expiration, is
confusing. The commenter said that some of the documents on the list
include a statement to say that they count as registration even if they
are expired, but the website does not repeat this for all of the
documents so it is unclear whether any of the remaining documents can
be used if they are expired. A commenter said that the website
describes Green Card holders as ``lawful permanent residents'' rather
than following the regulation and listing ``I-551 Permanent Resident
Card,'' so there is no opportunity to address whether expired Green
Cards would be considered ``registration.''
Response: In DHS's view, aliens who are 14 years of age or older
and are issued evidence of registration have complied with their duty
under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, including expired forms
that constitute evidence of registration. Similarly, an alien who is
placed in removal proceedings via Form I-862, Notice to Appear, has
complied with the registration requirement, regardless if the removal
proceedings were administratively closed, terminated, or withdrawn.
However, DHS notes that compliance with the registration requirement
does not create an immigration status, establish employment
authorization, or provide any other right or benefit under the INA or
any other U.S. law.
Comment: A commenter requested clarification about whether
immigrants who applied for Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place
for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, and
were specifically eligible under its provisions, would be considered
``registered'' under the IFR.
Response: The Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for
Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, is not a
prescribed registration form designated at 8 CFR 264.1(a). DHS notes on
November 7, 2024, USCIS ceased the adjudication and intake of the Form
I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses
and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens. This program was vacated and
cancelled in compliance with a court order.\83\ For aliens who have no
other pathway to register, they may submit a Form G-325R to satisfy
their obligation under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ See State of Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, 24-
cv-306 (E.D. Tx Nov. 7, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: While expressing general support for the rule, another
commenter suggested a modification to require all aliens, including
those with visas and Green Cards, to register every year. The commenter
suggested that those who fail to register or renew ``without a
reasonable cause'' could be charged with a crime of moral turpitude for
immigration purposes, which the commenter said would make it easier for
those who do not register to be removed.
Response: The comment is beyond the scope of the IFR, which filled
a gap in the regulation by adding an option for these aliens to comply
with the existing statutory registration requirements.
c. Carry Requirement
Comment: A commenter expressed support for the ``carry''
requirement, stating that it would provide equal treatment similar to
how citizens can be looked up through their ID. The commenter suggested
that registered immigrants should have a similar process for identity
verification with reasonable time to retrieve documentation if needed.
Opposing the carry requirement, a few commenters stated that no
person in the United States should be required to carry proof of
registration, others stated it was an ``unnecessary burden'' and comes
with a ``huge and unfair cost.'' Another commenter stated that
requiring all aliens to register and carry proof of registration is
inconsistent with human dignity, makes aliens vulnerable to human
trafficking by those who steal their proof of registration, and will
result in racial profiling by law enforcement personnel and
``vigilantes'' demanding to see proof of registration. The commenter
demanded a justification for the IFR ``[o]ther than someone with a
desire to have more power over others, and terrorize.''
Other commenters expressed concern that the requirement to carry
proof of registration would become a pretext for arbitrary stops,
detentions, and law enforcement encounters, which could
disproportionately impact those who law enforcement perceive as
foreign. Similarly, some commenters wrote that the implementation of
the proposed enforcement of criminal penalties for

[[Page 39315]]

failing to carry proof of registration could lead to wrongful arrests
affecting both citizens and ``noncitizens.''
Many commenters stated that this carry requirement would risk
misidentification of U.S. citizens as immigrants; lead toward
establishing a totalitarian government; raise concerns about fairness,
due process, and respect for human rights; harm individuals with
disabilities; and have a chilling effect on First Amendment-protected
speech, particularly for those challenging potentially discriminatory
policies, and would disproportionately impact Black and Brown people
regardless of citizenship. Another commenter wrote that the IFR does
not account for the burden placed on U.S. citizens, as according to the
commenter every person in the United States would have to carry proof
of their immigration status. The commenter said that if an alien must
carry proof of registration to avoid arrest by DHS officers or to pass
through increasingly common DHS checkpoints, then U.S. citizens would
likewise have to prove that they are exempt from DHS registration
requirements by carrying their own proof of status. Further, they
stated that as DHS has ``engaged in aggressive enforcement measures,''
even before this rule came into effect, there are increasing numbers of
U.S. citizens being erroneously and unlawfully arrested.
Commenters also raised concerns that the carry requirement could
have on individuals with mental health, developmental, and cognitive
disabilities, stating the IFR does not consider ``reasonable
accommodations'' for individuals with disabilities whom this provision
would affect. Multiple commenters also raised concerns that the
requirement to carry proof of registration at all times would
disproportionately harm survivors of violence--including child
survivors--or place them at risk of criminalization. A commenter wrote
that sexual assault survivors, especially those working in seasonal
agriculture and janitorial industries, often lack access to safe,
stable housing, reliable transportation, or secure places to store
important documents. Another commenter, echoing the previous concerns
about the inability of survivors to carry proof of registration at all
times as required under the IFR, encouraged DHS to consider factors
such as emergencies, victimization, and health conditions, among
others, in its criminal, civil, and immigration enforcement actions of
8 U.S.C. 1304(e).
One commenter stated that since registration information is
electronically available, it would be more efficient to provide
alternatives to physical documentation, reasoning that officers can
easily access the required information electronically through myUSCIS
accounts or the CBP I-94/I-94W URL address, which could encourage more
compliance.
Response: These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
DHS notes that the law requires aliens who are issued evidence of
registration and over the age of 18 to carry such evidence on their
person at all times. The regulation at 8 CFR 264.1(b) provides a list
of evidence of registration, which includes the Form I-551, Permanent
Resident Card. The comments regarding the enforcement of section 264(e)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e) are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Comments regarding racial profiling and effects on vulnerable
populations are addressed in section III.D.3.e. of this preamble. DHS
also notes that it considers an electronic copy of the evidence of
registration to satisfy an alien's obligation to carry proof of
registration on his or her person.
DHS is aware that there are areas of the existing regulations that
could be improved, including amending the list of forms prescribed as
registration forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and the list of forms constituted
as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b). As part of this final
rule, DHS is requesting comments on various ways to amend the DHS
regulation to improve implementation of the registration requirement
under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. See section V, Request for
Comments, of this preamble.
Finally, DHS reiterates that the alien registration requirements of
the INA require aliens--not U.S. citizens--to register.
d. Address Change Requirement
Comment: A commenter expressed concern that the expectation for
people with disabilities to comply with address change requirements
imposes a significant burden, and the absence of a safe address option
exposes these clients to potential adverse outcomes. A commenter noted
that it is particularly difficult for victims of domestic violence to
update their address as they may flee their homes to escape violence,
often moving frequently to stay safe, and that the requirement to
update change of address penalizes every victim of human trafficking
and domestic or sexual violence, including those with lawful
immigration status. Another commenter stated that the requirement to
document every place an individual would visit is unfair and onerous,
and would burden potential visitors, reasoning that people enjoy
freedom of movement both in Canada and the United States. A commenter
remarked that while the existing change-of-address requirements allow
individuals to demonstrate that noncompliance was not willful or was
reasonably excusable, the IFR requirement provides no such flexibility.
Another commenter noted that change-of-address update requirements
could impede immigrants' ability to navigate the court system, while
bureaucratic backlogs might incorrectly label mobile immigrants as
noncompliant with registration requirements.
Response: DHS notes that the law established by Congress requires
that aliens who are required to register update their address with the
government within 10 days of moving.
Aliens filing a Form G-325R do not qualify as protected alien under
8 U.S.C. 1367 by virtue of such filing, however, if an alien designated
as a protected alien on another basis, USCIS would maintain the same
protection for the safe address included on the G-325R. On the Form G-
325R, an alien may provide a safe address. As with all USCIS forms in
which an alien may provide a safe address, if USCIS contacts the alien
through the mail it will use the safe address that they provide.
However, the Form G-325R process is entirely electronic at this time.
All notices sent from USCIS to an alien are uploaded to the alien's
USCIS online account and none of the notices associated with the Form
G-325R are issued via mail. Therefore, not only may aliens provide a
safe address, consistent with longstanding USCIS practice, USCIS does
not send any documents through the mail in connection with Form G-325R.
While DHS defers to its partners at DOJ regarding the enforcement
of criminal laws, DHS agencies enforcing the carry and change of
address requirements may access DHS databases that contain information
about whether DHS has issued evidence of registration and whether an
alien has complied with the change of address requirements.
2. Enforcement of Criminal Provisions
Comment: Without specifically mentioning the IFR, multiple
commenters criticized the current approach to immigration in the United
States and the enforcement of criminal and immigration provisions,
including ICE referrals to DOJ. Another commenter remarked that people
that the government is reasonably interested in tracking--those
involved in criminal

[[Page 39316]]

activities--would not register, while innocent people who do register
would be caught in a system of ``administrative errors.'' Another
commenter stated that the government is instilling fear in
``undocumented'' immigrants by presenting them with two options: either
not registering and facing criminal charges, fines, and deportation, or
registering and still getting deported. A commenter stated that the
enforcement mechanisms are unnecessarily harsh, with threatened fines
that could further marginalize already vulnerable populations and
others indicated, opposing the E.O., that it was ``absurd to prioritize
enforcement for aliens who fail to register.''
Response: DHS defers to its partners at the DOJ regarding the
enforcement of the criminal provisions under the registration
requirements. DHS notes that the IFR merely added another method for
compliance with the existing statutory registration requirements to
improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens.
Comment: A commenter asked how soon after registration individuals
would be required to depart, and whether the time period would be
similar to the 160-day period for voluntary departure orders. The
commenter additionally asked whether failure to register would be an
inadmissibility for adjustment or consular process.
Response: The law requiring most aliens present in the United
States who remain for 30 days or longer to register and, with some
exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted, does
not have a departure requirement. In regard to the comment on failure
to register and inadmissibility for adjustment of status, DHS notes
that registration itself is not an immigration benefit and has no
direct impact on an alien's eligibility for other immigration benefits
that they may seek.
Comment: While agreeing with what the commenter characterized as
the prior Administration's targeted and discretionary use of
enforcement resources rather than a blanket approach, a commenter
suggested that ICE prioritize enforcement and removal efforts on
individuals who pose significant threats, rather than detaining
``foreign nationals'' without criminal records.
A commenter expressed opposition for ``labeling what should be a
civil offense as a criminal offense, in order to criminalize and
demonize immigrants.'' Another commenter requested justification for
the ``proposed measures'' making noncompliance a criminal offense,
rather than a civil one, and imposing penalties such as a $5,000 fine
and 1 month of imprisonment. Commenters also stated that the expense of
enforcing penalties and the economic implications of removing millions
of people from the workforce would create a further strain on U.S.
resources.
Response: While Congress has established civil and criminal
penalties for a variety of offenses relating to immigration, the
comments are outside the scope of this rule. This rule does not
establish any such enforcement of the statute, consequences, or
offenses. The criminal penalties for a failure to register or meet the
other associated requirements under sections 262 to 265 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1302 through 1305, were established by Congress and also fall
outside the scope of this very limited rule. DHS notes that the
information collected by USCIS through Form G-325R is stored in ELIS,
and that USCIS' partners at CBP and ICE have long had read-only access
to USCIS systems, including but not limited to ELIS. Regarding comments
related to costs of enforcement, DHS notes it has an obligation to
faithfully execute laws established by Congress. See INA sec. 103(a); 8
U.S.C. 1103(a).
3. Other Out of Scope (Not Related to Registration Requirements)
Comment: Several commenters made remarks not related to
registration requirements including criticizing the United States for
allowing illegal immigration to escalate, asking for meaningful
immigration reform, requesting the immediate abolishment of ICE,
suggesting taxing billionaires, ``and bring[ing] back the hope that
made this country promising at one point.''
Some commenters offered alternative approaches to immigration
policy, such as advocating for clear legal pathways to citizenship for
refugees and DACA recipients, and calling for targeted deportation of
violent offenders and a path to legal status for long-term contributing
immigrants. A commenter said because ``undocumented'' immigrants
contribute billions of dollars in taxes each year, jails are
overcrowded, and it is expensive to deport people, there should be
immigration reform or a pathway to citizenship. Without discussing
registration requirements, multiple commenters discussed their support
for the fair treatment of immigrants, the benefits immigrants have on
communities, and the U.S. economy.
Other commenters recommended that DHS correct other regulatory
provisions, such as 8 CFR 235.1(h) to make land-, sea-, and air-issued
Forms I-94 valid for multiple entries by default. The commenters noted
that currently only a Form I-94 issued at land borders is a multiple-
entry document by default. The commenters also stated that the
regulatory language does not account for the electronic I-94 system and
still contemplates physical surrender of the Form I-94 for compliance.
Response: As previously discussed, the purpose of the IFR and this
final rule is to improve the registration outcomes for certain groups
of aliens to better ensure that all previously unregistered aliens in
the United States comply with the statutory requirements in sections
261 through 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C.
1301 through 1306. Comments that do not relate to the registration
requirements are outside the scope of the IFR and this final rule.
Comment: A commenter asked whether children of nonimmigrants
attending public schools would be considered a visa violation under the
INA and requested more details about the relief for voluntary departure
mentioned in the E.O. to avoid mandatory bars.
Response: This comment about children of nonimmigrants attending
public school, and visa violations, is outside the scope of the IFR.

IV. Additional Changes in the Final Rule

The IFR was limited in scope, amending 8 CFR 264.1 to designate a
new general registration form and a new form of evidence of
registration. See 8 CFR 264.1(a); see 8 CFR 264.1(b). In this Final
Rule, the Department is making additional changes that are outside the
scope of the IFR, but are technical and procedural in nature and thus
are not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of
the APA at 5 U.S.C. 553. DHS is not seeking comments on these changes.
As part of this final rule, and after carefully considering the
comments received, DHS realized that aspects of the 8 CFR part 264,
including 8 CFR 264.1, are outdated and would benefit from improvement.
DHS is making these technical amendments in 8 CFR 264.1 to reduce
confusion, improve the usability of the regulations, enhancing
readability of the regulations, and more accurately describe the
current procedures. These modifications are not intended to be
substantive and do not change eligibility criteria or evidentiary
standards or confer new rights or obligations upon any party.
Additionally, any modifications in this rulemaking that remove outdated
prescribed registration forms or evidence of registration will not
affect any alien who has satisfied his

[[Page 39317]]

or her obligation to register using these forms or who has been issued
such evidence.

A. Changes to the Prescribed Registration Forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a)

1. Removing Prescribed Registration Forms
DHS is eliminating the following outdated forms from the list of
prescribed registration forms found in 8 CFR 264.1(a):
I-67, Inspection Record--Hungarian Refugees;
I-691, Notice of Approval for Status as a Temporary
Resident; and
I-700, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident.
In 1958, Congress authorized permanent residence status to certain
Hungarian refugees who were paroled into the United States after
October 23, 1956, under section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182.
See Public Law 85-559, 72 Stat. 419 (1958). The former INS used Form I-
67, Inspection Record, to examine and inspect these refugees for
admission as lawful permanent residents. Once admitted as an LPR, the
former INS issued a Form I-151, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as
proof of registration and evidence of LPR status. In 1960, the former
INS added Form I-67 as a prescribed registration form in 8 CFR 264.1(a)
and for immigration benefits in 8 CFR 299.1. See 25 FR 7180 (Jul. 29,
1960). In 1988, the former INS removed I-67 in 8 CFR 299.1 as a form
that was no longer accepted and used by the Service. See 53 FR 33443
(Aug. 31, 1998).
The former INS prescribed Forms I-691 and I-700 as registration
forms as part of the implementation of section 201 and 302 of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) \84\ that provided
certain aliens who entered the United States before January 1, 1982,
and Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs) LPR status after obtaining
temporary resident status. See 52 FR 16190 (May 1, 1987). Upon the
filing of a nonfrivolous Form I-687, Application for Status as a
Temporary Resident, or I-700 and after having interviewed the
applicant, the former INS granted to the applicant employment
authorization on Form I-688A or Form I-688B. See INA secs. 210(d)(2)
and 245A(e)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1160 and 1255a; 8 CFR 210.4(b)(2) and
245.2(n)(2)(ii). Upon the grant of temporary resident status, the alien
was issued Form I-688, Temporary Resident Card. See 8 CFR 210.4(b)(3)
and 245a.2(n)(3). Forms I-688 and I-688A/B also constituted evidence of
registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b). See 52 FR 16190, 16194 (May 1, 1987)
and 61 FR 46534 (Sept. 4, 1996). Eventually, because Form I-688, and
Forms I-688A and I-688B were no longer issued, and USCIS issued Forms
I-766 to those who formerly received Forms I-688, I-688A and I-688B,
references to these forms removed from different parts of the
regulations and other documents, including 8 CFR 264.1(b).\85\ The
former INS used Forms I-687, I-691 and I-700 for aliens to apply for
temporary resident status under the Legalization programs. The former
INS in turn used the Form I-691 to notify an applicant that his or her
Form I-687 or I-700 was approved,\86\ and once these aliens satisfied
the eligibility requirements as a temporary resident, they would adjust
status to a permanent resident either under section 210 or 245A of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1160 or 1255a and received a permanent resident card, now
the Form I-551.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ See Public Law 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (1986).
\85\ See 73 FR 76505, 76508 (Dec. 17, 2008) (``DHS notes that
Form I-688, ``Temporary Resident Card,'' and Forms I-688A and I-
688B, ``Employment Authorization Cards,'' are no longer issued and
has determined that any such documents that were previously issued
have expired. Therefore, this rule removes these documents from List
A and any references to the documents in the receipt provision at 8
CFR 274a.2(B)(1)(vi)(C). USCIS now issues Forms I-766 to those who
formerly received Forms I-688, I-688A, or I-688B. The Form I-766
remains on List A. 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A)(4).''); see also, e.g.,
76 FR 53764 (Aug. 29, 2011) (removing the entries ``I-688'', ``I-
688A'' and ``I-688B'' from the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b)).
\86\ 86 In 1994, the former INS no longer used Form I-691 and
removed it as a prescribed form in 8 CFR 299.1. See ``Immigration
and Nationality Forms,'' 59 FR 25555 (May 17, 1994). Form I-700 was
accepted between June 1, 1987, and November 30, 1988 for aliens who
were eligible under the SAW legalization program, before the sunset
date of the application period for temporary resident status on
December 1, 1988. See Pub. L 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, 3417 (1986).
\87\ 87 Form I-551, as the exclusive alien registration card for
the use of permanent resident aliens replaced Form I-151 and prior
registration documents, such as Forms AR-3 and AR-103. See
Establishment of Form I-551, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as the
Executive Form of Registration for Lawful Permanent Resident, 58 FR
48775 (Sept. 20, 1993). The rule invalidated these documents and
bearers of Form I-151 or a prior registration document were directed
to replace that document with the current Form I-551. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since DHS no longer uses or accepts or issues Form I-67, I-691, and
I-700, eliminating these forms and modifying 8 CFR 264.1(a) reduces
confusion and improves usability of the regulations. These regulatory
changes are effective prospectively, such that if an alien properly
submitted one of these forms while the form was designated as a
registration form under 8 CFR 264.1(a), the alien will have satisfied
their obligation to register.
2. Updating Prescribed Registration Form Names, Numbers, and Related
Classes
In response to comments indicating that the regulation is outdated
and confusing, DHS is updating the following form names and numbers
from the list of prescribed registration forms found in 8 CFR 264.1(a)
with the intention to reduce confusion and improve the usability of the
regulations:
I-94, Arrival-Departure Record;
I-485, Application for Status as Permanent Resident;
I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee--
Escapee; and
I-817, Application for Voluntary Departure under the
Family Unity Program.
DHS is adding Form I-94A/94W to the Form I-94 entry to reduce
confusion about the effect of Form I-94A, Departure Record and Form I-
94W, Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record. Form I-94A is
the paper version of the electronic Form I-94 and used by aliens to
report their arrival/departure and admission and parole information to
DHS. See 8 CFR 1.4. Form I-94W relates to aliens who are admitted to
the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. See 8 CFR 217.2(c)(2).
While these forms are, and always have been, subcategories of Form I-
94, DHS is adding Forms I-94A and I-94W to clarify that these forms are
also prescribed registration forms.
Furthermore, DHS is revising the form title for Form I-485 to
``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, or its
predecessor or successor form.'' The form name in the registration
regulations has not been updated since the reference was first added to
8 CFR 264.1(a) in 1965. See 30 FR 13862 (Nov. 2, 1965).
Similarly, DHS is updating the form title of Form I-590 to
``Registration for Classification as Refugee.'' Form I-590 was added to
8 CFR 264.1(a) in 1960 as ``Registration for Classification as Refugee-
Escapee.'' See 25 FR 10495 (Nov. 2, 1960). The entry has not been
updated since although refugee processing has changed, as explained
later in this section. DHS is also updating the form title of Form I-
817 to ``Application for Family Unity Benefits or its successor form,
or its predecessor form.'' The form title in the registration
regulations has not been updated since the reference was first added to
8 CFR 264.1(a) during the implementation of Form I-817 in 1992 (57 FR
6457 (Feb. 25, 1992)) and was not updated when the former INS renamed
the form in 2001. See 66 FR 29661 (June 1, 2001). DHS's modification of
these form titles

[[Page 39318]]

ensures that form names are accurately reflected, which reduces
confusion and improves usability of the regulations.
In addition to the changes to the above form numbers and names, DHS
is updating the following class of aliens related to the list of
prescribed registration forms found in 8 CFR 264.1(a):
I-94, Arrival and Departure Record;
I-181, Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful
Permanent Residence; and
I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee--
Escapee.
DHS is removing the entry referring to the class of ``aliens whose
claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924 cannot be verified, they having
satisfactorily established residence in the United States since prior
to July 1, 1924'' from the Form I-94 entry. DHS is removing this class
from the regulation since this population would at this point be over
100 years old, making this entry obsolete.
DHS is also revising the class entry in Form I-181, which currently
reads ``Aliens presumed to be lawfully admitted to the United States
under 8 CFR 101.1'' to ``Aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence during a temporary visit abroad admitted without a
visa under 8 CFR 211.1(b).'' The existing class description is no
longer an accurate representation of which aliens use Form I-181 to
receive evidence of registration, Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card.
The DHS revision reduces confusion and improves usability of the
regulations.
The current class of aliens of Form I-590, ``Refugee-escapees
paroled pursuant to section 1 of the INA of July 14, 1960,'' is no
longer an accurate description of the Form I-590, as it was added in
1960 and has not been updated since. See 25 FR 10495 (Nov. 2, 1960).
The Refugee Act of 1980 established a uniform procedure for the
admission of qualifying aliens as refugees under section 207 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157. See Public Law 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (Mar. 17,
1980). Under section 207 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157, aliens who are
admitted to the United States as refugees through an approved Form I-
590 are granted refugee status on the date they are admitted. See INA
sec. 207(c), 8 U.S.C. 1157(c). Aliens qualifying as refugees often were
paroled into the United States prior to the Refugee Act, and aliens
generally are no longer paroled as refugees. See INA sec. 212(d)(5)(B),
8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B). DHS thus revises the class description for the
entire entry to read ``I-590, Registration for Classification as
Refugee or its successor form, or its predecessor form--Applicants
under section 207 of the INA and Refugee-escapees paroled pursuant to
section 1 of the Act of July 14, 1960.'' This modification reduces
confusion and improves the usability of the regulations. Other than the
modifications described in this section, DHS is not making additional
changes and is republishing any entry in 8 CFR 264.1(a) not described
in this section without changes.

B. Changes to Forms Constituting Evidence of Registration in 8 CFR
264.1(b)

DHS and former INS have periodically updated the list of forms
which constitute evidence of registration, found in 8 CFR 264.1(b).
Prior to the publication of the IFR, the most recent amendments to the
list were the addition of a note in 2013, and addition and deletion of
some forms in 2011.\88\ Other than the modifications described in this
section, DHS is not making additional changes and is republishing any
entry in 8 CFR 264.1(b) not described in this section without changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ See Definition of Form I-94 To Include Electronic Format,
78 FR 18457 (Mar. 27, 2013), and Immigration Benefits Business
Transformation, Increment I, 76 FR 53764 (Aug. 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Updating Form I-94 as Evidence of Registration
DHS is making the same updates to the entry relating to Form I-94
in 8 CFR 264.1(b) as those that were made in 8 CFR 264.1(a). See
section IV.A. 2 of this preamble. DHS is adding Form I-94A/94W to the
Form I-94 entry to reduce confusion about the effect of Form I-94A and
Form I-94W, and is removing the entry referring to the class of
``aliens whose claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924 cannot be verified,
they having satisfactorily established residence in the United States
since prior to July 1, 1924.'' DHS is removing this class from the
regulation since this population would at this point be over 100 years
old, making this entry obsolete.
2. Updating Form Names and Numbers Related to Border Crossing Cards
DHS is removing the form numbers and titles of the Form I-185,
Nonresident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card (BCC) and Form I-186,
Nonresident Alien Mexican (BCC) and adding ``DSP-150, B-1/B-2 Visa and
Border Crossing Card or its successor form, or its predecessor form.''
DHS is retaining the class description for the Form I-186 entry, as it
is still accurate. DHS is not retaining the class description for the
Form I-185 entry, because it no longer applies.
In 2002, the former INS eliminated Form I-185, Nonresident Alien
Canadian Border Crossing Card, and Form I-186, Nonresident Alien
Mexican Border Crossing Card (67 FR 71443 (Dec. 2, 2002)) in order to
meet the biometric requirements in the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996.\89\ The former INS
determined that these BCCs did not meet the biometric requirements and
as a result prohibited the use of those two cards and stated that they
would no longer be accepted for admission into the United States on or
after October 1, 2002. See 8 CFR 212.6(c); see also 67 FR 71443, 71443-
71444 (Dec. 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\89\ See Public Law 104-828, sec. 104 (Sept. 24, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issuance of Form I-185 ceased on April 1, 1998, and the
government did not replace the Canadian BCC. The former INS highlighted
the longstanding regulation that aliens who are Canadian citizens are
permitted to travel temporarily to the United States without a visa.
See 8 CFR 212.1(a); see also 67 FR 71443, 71445.
Prior to the elimination of the Form I-186, State published
regulations on application procedures and criteria for border crossing
cards, including the creation of a new card, Form DSP-150, B-1/B-2 Visa
and Border Crossing Card, to satisfy the biometric requirements in
IIRIRA and replace the Form I-186. See 64 FR 45163 (Aug. 19, 1999).
Generally, an alien who is a citizen and resident of Mexico files an
electronic nonimmigrant visa application on a Form DS-160, Online
Nonimmigrant Visa Application to request a Form DSP-150, B-1/B-2 Visa
and Border Crossing Card. See 8 CFR 212.6 and 22 CFR 41.32. Once duly
executed, the alien satisfies the registration requirements \90\ and
may use the Form DSP-150 as evidence of registration. DHS's technical
update of replacing Form I-186 with Form DSP-150 in 8 CFR 264.1(b)
accurately describes the current procedures on border crossing cards,
reduces confusion, and improves usability of the regulation. The update
does not substantively impact who is considered duly registered.
Additionally, this update is similar to technical updates made in this
section when the former INS replaced Form I-151 as evidence of
registration with Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card, to reflect the
current practice and procedures. 45 FR 52143 (Aug. 6, 1980). The
elimination of references to outdated and expired

[[Page 39319]]

forms, particularly when those forms were replaced with successors, is
common in former INS and DHS procedural rules updating 8 CFR 264.1 over
many years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\90\ See INA sec. 221(b); 22 CFR 41.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Adding Forms That Constitute Evidence of Registration
DHS is adding the following forms and class of aliens that
constitute evidence of registration to the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b):
I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal--Aliens who
have been determined to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or
(7) of the Act and ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) of the Act;
I-871, Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Order--
Aliens who reentered the United States illegally and whose prior order
of removal has been reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Act; and
CBP-approved document or electronic equivalent for the
Trusted Travel Programs NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, and Global Entry--Aliens
who were last admitted to the United States through NEXUS, SENTRI,
FAST, or Global Entry facilitated processing.
First, DHS is adding ``I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited
Removal'' with the class of aliens who are subject to the expedited
removal provisions, and ``I-871, Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate
Prior Order'' with the class of aliens who are subject to reinstatement
of a prior expedited, deportation, or removal order, as evidence of
registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b). Similar to the Form I-862, Notice to
Appear, and Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, the
forms relate to various types of removal proceedings under the INA.
Both of these additional forms reflect a level of direct interaction
with DHS officers engaged in immigration enforcement, including the
collection of biometrics, that is similar to the already prescribed
Forms I-862 and I-863. These forms constitute evidence of registration
as of June 29, 2026 whether these forms were issued to the alien
before, on, or after June 29, 2026.
This technical update reduces confusion and improves usability of
the regulation.
Second, DHS is also adding to 8 CFR 264.1(b), ``CBP-approved
document or its electronic equivalent for the Trusted Traveler Programs
NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, and Global Entry--Aliens who were last admitted to
the United States through NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, or Global Entry
facilitated processing.'' An alien who is accepted as a member into one
of these Trusted Travel Programs (TTP) \91\ after completing an
electronic application,\92\ providing fingerprints, and undergoing
vetting by CBP is either issued a CBP-approved document or may view
membership details on his or her TTP online account. When an alien
seeks admission into the United States either by air, land, or sea as a
member under one of the TTPs, he or she is processed for admission
using the facilitated processing designated for that program. The CBP-
approved document for these TTPs or electronic membership information
from an alien's TTP online account will serve as evidence of
registration for aliens who were last admitted to the United States
using facilitated TTP processing. As an alien cannot satisfy the
registration requirement of section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, by
applying for one of these programs after entering the United States, it
would not make sense to add the related application forms to 8 CFR
264.1(a). Similar to aliens who register through the nonimmigrant or
immigrant visa process with State, to be registered through a TTP, an
alien must apply for and receive that evidence, either the CBP-approved
card or its electronic equivalent, before using it to apply for
admission in order for it to serve as evidence of registration. This
update reduces confusion and improves the usability of the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST are cross-border Trusted Travel
Programs that facilitate land border crossing of prescreened low-
risk travelers and commercial truck drivers through exclusive
dedicated lanes. Members in these voluntary programs must meet
certain eligibility requirements and pay a 5-year membership fee.
NEXUS (the northern border program) and SENTRI (the southern border
program) are for drivers and passengers; FAST (Free and Secure Trade
for the northern and southern borders) is the commercial equivalent
for truck drivers. Global Entry is an international trusted program
to expedite clearance of pre-approved, low-risk air travelers into
the United States. See DHS, ``Trusted Traveler Programs,'' https://ttp.dhs.gov/.
\92\ The TTP electronic applications collect basic biographic
information and information required by section 264(a) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1304(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Remove the Word ``Form'' in 8 CFR 264.1(b)
DHS is removing the word ``Form'' for the I-862, Notice to Appear,
and for the I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge to improve
the readability and make it consistent with the other entries related
to the form that constitute evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b).

C. Changes to Fingerprint Waiver in 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1)

DHS is removing the language waiving the fingerprinting
requirements for ``nonimmigrant aliens admitted as foreign government
officials and employees; international organization representatives,
officers and employees'' from 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) because the statute
exempts the registration requirement completely for these aliens,
``until the alien ceases to be entitled to such a nonimmigrant
status.'' See INA secs. 101(a)(A), (G), 263(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(A),
(G), 1303(b). DHS is retaining the existing fingerprint waiver for
holders of diplomatic visas \93\ while they maintain such status, 8 CFR
264.1(e)(1). Other than A and G nonimmigrant visas (which are exempt
from fingerprinting under the INA, see section 263, 8 U.S.C. 1303),
diplomatic visas include visas issued in the B, F, J, or other
nonimmigrant categories to those classes of aliens eligible to receive
diplomatic visas. See INA sec. 101(a)(11), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(11), and 22
CFR 41.26, 9 FAM 402.3. Consistent with 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) and new 8 CFR
264.1(e)(2), USCIS will continue to waive fingerprinting for such
diplomatic visa holders if such an alien would complete Form G-325R to
register. See new 8 CFR 264.1(e)(2). DHS reminds the public that this
rule is limited to making non-substantive and clarifying modifications
to DHS's regulation at 8 CFR 264.1(e) as part of the alien registration
requirement under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 while the alien
is in the United States. The DHS exemption from the fingerprinting
requirement is independent of exemptions or waivers of fingerprinting
requirements by State pursuant to section 221 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ See 22 CFR 41.26(a)(2). ``Diplomatic visa means any
nonimmigrant visa, regardless of classification, which bears that
title and is issued in accordance with the regulations of this
section.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, DHS is adding language to clarify that the
attendants, servants, or personal employees of North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) representatives, officers, and employees (NATO-7
nonimmigrants) are not themselves eligible for the waiver because they
are not and have never been classified as NATO representatives,
officers, or employees or their immediate family members. See 8 CFR
214.2(s)(1)(i). DHS is amending this part of the regulation to reduce
confusion.
All NATO nonimmigrants, those who are NATO representatives,
officers, and employees, their immediate family members as well as the
attendants, servants, or personal employees of those NATO
representatives, officers, and employees, are subject to the alien
registration requirement. The existing language of 8 CFR 264.1(e)
clearly states

[[Page 39320]]

that nonimmigrant aliens who are the representatives, officers, and
employees of NATO have a waiver of the fingerprinting requirement of
section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. These aliens fall into the NATO-
1 through NATO-6 nonimmigrant visa categories.
The language does not directly address the attendants, servants, or
personal employees of such aliens, who fall into the NATO-7
nonimmigrant category. However, since those NATO-7 nonimmigrants are
not themselves representatives, officers, or employees of NATO, DHS
finds that the existing regulatory language excludes these NATO-7
nonimmigrants from the fingerprinting waiver. In order to clarify this
for the public, DHS is adding a parenthetical making the exclusion
explicit. See 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1). This approach is consistent with State
policy concerning biometrics collection for NATO nonimmigrant visa
applications. State waives biometric requirements for aliens applying
for nonimmigrant visas in the NATO-1-6 categories. State requires
aliens applying for nonimmigrant visas as attendants, servants, or
personal employees of NATO representatives, officers, and employees in
the NATO-7 category to provide biometrics.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ U.S. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, ``Waiver
of Personal Appearance/Interviews,'' 9 FAM 402.3-4(E) (Mar. 26,
2025), https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040203.html#M402_3_4_E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the previously noted procedural rule changes, DHS is
restructuring paragraph (e)(1) of 8 CFR 264.1 to separate the three
fingerprint waivers addressed in that paragraph into three paragraphs
and adding ``she'' or ``her'' where appropriate. See new 8 CFR
264.1(e)(1) through (5). DHS is redesignating current paragraphs (e)(2)
and (3) as paragraphs (e)(4) and (5). See new 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) through
(5). Correspondingly, the reference to current paragraph (e)(1)
contained in current paragraph (e)(2) is updated in the newly
designated paragraph (e)(4) to reflect that paragraph (e)(4) is
exclusive of the aliens described in new paragraphs (e)(1) through
(e)(3). See new 8 CFR 264.1(e)(4). DHS is also making minor editorial
changes by adding ``she'' and ``her'' where appropriate, throughout the
entire paragraph (e). See new 8 CFR 264.1(e). The restructuring and
adding ``she'' or ``her'' will add clarity to the provisions and
simplify the regulatory text. These changes are technical in nature and
nonsubstantive, and they are designed to make it easier for the public
to identify and understand the requirements by enhancing the
readability of the regulation.

D. Updates to 8 CFR 264.1(g) and (g)(1)

DHS is amending regulations at 8 CFR 264.1(g) to reduce confusion,
to enhance readability, and to more accurately describe the current
procedures. DHS is adding ``or by law'' after ``under the Act.'' See
new 8 CFR 264.1(g). The modification accounts for any further
exemptions to registration by any law in the future that does not amend
the INA.
Additionally, DHS is eliminating the language in 8 CFR 264.1(g)(1)
that suggests a permanent resident alien who reaches the age of 14
while temporarily absent from the United States must submit a
photograph when applying for registration after turning 14. See current
8 CFR 264.1(g)(1) and new 8 CFR 264.1(g)(1). Such aliens are applying
for registration under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, by
replacing their permanent resident cards under 8 CFR 264.5. Because of
technological advances, a physical photograph is no longer needed in
association with his or her request for a new permanent resident card
under 8 CFR 264.5.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ Physical photos are not required evidence when filing to
replace a permanent resident card. See USCIS, Form I-90,
``Instruction for Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card,''
OMB No. 1615-0082 (expires Feb. 28, 2027) and USCIS Policy Manual
Volume 11, ``Travel and Identity Documents,'' Part B, ``Permanent
Resident Cards,'' Chapter 2, ``Replacement of Permanent Resident
Card,'' Section D, ``Documentation and Evidence,'' Subsection 4,
``Required Evidence'' 11 USCIS-PM B.2(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-11-part-b-chapter-2 (last updated Dec. 22,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS is also adding clarification in 8 CFR 264.1(g)(1) that an LPR
must apply for registration within 30 days of his or her return to the
United States in accordance with applicable form instructions and with
the fee specified in 8 CFR 106.2 to replace a permanent resident card.
This is consistent with current 8 CFR 264.5(a), which requires that
aliens seeking to replace a permanent resident card must file the
request in accordance with the appropriate form instructions and with
the fee specified in 8 CFR 106.2. This amendment to 8 CFR 264.1(g)(1)
makes it clear that these LPRs must also submit the applicable form to
replace a permanent resident card for registration purposes, consistent
with 8 CFR 264.5.
DHS is eliminating ``if a lawful permanent resident of the United
States'' in the second sentence of paragraph (g)(1) and after ``the
alien.'' This language is duplicative, and other text in paragraph
(g)(1) already limits the applicability of the provisions to LPRs. DHS
is adding ``she'' or ``her'' where appropriate in paragraph (g)(1).

E. Changes to Temporary Evidence of Permanent Resident Status in 8 CFR
264.5(h)

DHS is amending 8 CFR 264.5(h) to state that USCIS may issue
temporary evidence of registration and LPR status to a ``lawful
permanent resident or conditional permanent resident alien who has
properly filed an application for a replacement permanent resident card
or for naturalization, petitioned for the removal of the conditions on
his or her residence using the form prescribed by USCIS, or as
otherwise determined by USCIS in accordance with the form
instructions.'' See new 8 CFR 264.5(h).
The existing regulation in 8 CFR 264.5(h) is no longer consistent
with USCIS' approach to the issuance of temporary evidence of lawful or
conditional permanent resident status. If an alien needs temporary
evidence of permanent resident status (and, by extension,
registration), a USCIS field office may issue a temporary I-551 stamp
\96\ in his or her passport or issue Form I-94 with a temporary I-551
stamp. The current language in 8 CFR 264.5(h) is very narrow and only
mentions providing temporary evidence of permanent residence and
registration when: (a) an alien has a pending application for a
replacement permanent resident card and (b) the alien is departing
temporarily from the United States and USCIS cannot issue the
replacement card before the alien's departure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\96\ Also known as an ADIT Stamp. See USCIS Policy Manual,
Volume 11, ``Travel and Identity Documents,'' Part B, ``Permanent
Resident Cards,'' Chapter 2, ``Replacement of Permanent Resident
Card,'' Section F, ``Temporary Evidence of Permanent Resident
Status,'' 11 USCIS-PM B.2(F), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-11-part-b-chapter-2 (last updated June 13, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not account for circumstances in which an alien requires
temporary evidence of permanent residence but does not have a pending
application to replace a permanent resident card, or situations in
which the alien needs temporary evidence of permanent residence and
registration for purposes unrelated to foreign travel, such as evidence
of status for employment or business purposes. In practice, USCIS may
issue temporary evidence of registration when the alien has a pending
naturalization application or petition to remove conditions on his or
her residence.\97\ USCIS also does not

[[Page 39321]]

limit issuance of temporary evidence of permanent residence and
registration to situations involving the need for travel outside of the
United States. DHS is also clarifying that the temporary evidence of
registration placed by USCIS in the alien's passport does not need to
be surrendered to USCIS by the alien when the alien is issued a new
Form. These amendments in 8 CFR 264.5(h) reduce confusion and are
consistent with current practice of DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ See USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6 ``Immigrants,'' Part I,
``Family-Based Conditional Permanent Residents,'' Chapter 2, ``Terms
and Conditions of CPR Status,'' ``Evidence of CPR Status,'' 6 USCIS-
PM I.2(C), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-i-chapter-2 (last updated June 13, 2025); USCIS Policy Manual, Volume
12 ``Citizenship and Naturalization,'' Part D, ``General
Naturalization Requirements,'' Chapter 2, ``Lawful Permanent
Resident Admission for Naturalization,'' ``Evidence of LPR Status,''
12 USCIS-PM D.2(A)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter-2 (last updated June 13, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Change Related to the Application for a Nonimmigrant Arrival-
Departure Record in 8 CFR 264.6

DHS is amending regulations in 8 CFR 264.6 by making technical
editorial updates. The update is in 8 CFR 264.6(a)(3) to remove an
obsolete regulatory reference to paragraph 8 CFR 235.1(h)(1)(vi) in 8
CFR 264.6(a)(3). This change reduces confusion and enhance readability.

V. Request for Comments

As part of this rulemaking, and after carefully considering the
comments received, DHS realized that aspects of the 8 CFR part 264,
including 8 CFR 264.1 are outdated and would benefit from improvement.
Thus, in this section, DHS requests comments on the proposals described
in this section that could be finalized through a future rulemaking.
These proposed amendments would improve usability and reduce the need
for conforming changes in the future, if finalized in a future
rulemaking. The modifications would not change the alien registration
requirements under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. DHS invites
comments on these changes during the public comment period.

A. Prescribe Additional Registration Forms To Align With DHS
Information Collections and Ensure Screening and Vetting to a Uniform
Baseline

While 8 CFR 264.1(a) has been periodically updated by USCIS and
former INS over the years to eliminate references to outdated forms
that can no longer be submitted by an alien to fulfill their duty under
section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, and to prescribe additional
registration forms, DHS has not completed a general update to the
regulation since at least 2011. See 76 FR 53764 (Aug. 29, 2011). Many
commenters noted that there are existing DHS forms that may be suitable
for registration purposes that are not listed in 8 CFR 264.1(a).
Prescribing certain existing forms with information collection and
thorough biometric-based screening and vetting for use by aliens to
fulfill their duty to register under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1302, would improve registration outcomes for certain populations of
aliens while increasing efficiency and reducing burden for the public
and the government. However, many of the forms suggested by commenters
or otherwise considered by DHS for inclusion do not currently collect
all of the information required by section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1304(a). In addition, some of the forms considered currently do not
collect biometrics from aliens as required by section 262 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1302, for the purposes of registration. Therefore, to prescribe
these additional registration forms, DHS would have to take additional
actions, including amending information collections in accordance with
the PRA. For these reasons, DHS is not prescribing those additional
forms for registration in 8 CFR 264.1(a) in this final rule.
However, DHS may prescribe additional registration forms in the
future, accompanied by appropriate action under the PRA and updates to
those forms and processes to ensure that they collect the required
information, include biometrics collection, and meet the uniform
baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures. DHS may
prescribe additional forms without prior notice and comment under the
APA because doing so would be a rule of agency organization, procedure,
or practice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). As DHS considers prescribing
additional registration forms, it welcomes input from the public on the
topic to help guide its deliberations. For this reason, DHS requests
comments on its proposal to add additional forms to the list of
prescribed registration forms found in 8 CFR 264.1(a). DHS also
requests comments from the public relating to the potential addition of
other forms to the list. These other forms and conforming changes would
be as follows:
Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\98\ Form I-90 is already used as a registration form for aliens
who are LPRs over the age of 14 in accordance with the instructions
of the Form I-90. See USCIS, Form I-90, ``Instruction for
Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card,'' OMB No. 1615-0082
(expires Feb. 28, 2027), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-90instr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form I-102, Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant
Arrival Departure Document--Aliens admitted as nonimmigrants and not
issued Form I-94/94A/94W at the time of admission
Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal
Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition--Alien
beneficiary in the United States
Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence--
Conditional permanent residents who reached age 14 and are requesting
to remove conditions on residence.
Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status
Form I-829, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence -
Conditional permanent residents who reached age 14 and are requesting
to remove conditions on residence.
Form I-854A, Inter-Agency Alien Witness and Informant Record
Form I-881, Application for Suspension of Deportation or
Special Rule Cancellation of Removal
Form I-914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status
Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

B. Ensuring That Evidence of Registration Is Provided to Aliens Who
Have Registered and Been Screened and Vetted to a Uniform Baseline

As with the list of prescribed registration forms, DHS and former
INS have periodically updated the list of forms that constitute
evidence of registration, found in 8 CFR 264.1(b). Prior to the
publication of the IFR, the most recent amendments to the list were the
addition of a note in 2013, and addition and deletion of some forms in
2011. 78 FR 18457 (Mar. 27, 2013) and 76 FR 53764 (Aug. 29, 2011).
1. Eliminate Certain Prescribed Evidence of Alien Registration Forms
From 8 CFR 264.1(b)
DHS is considering removing Form I-766, Employment Authorization
Document, from the list of evidence of registration.
The use of Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document, as
evidence of registration is problematic for certain categories of
aliens. The former INS first prescribed a registration form related to
employment authorization in 1987, after the enactment of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

[[Page 39322]]

(IRCA).\99\ In that rule, former INS amended 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b)
``to include documents relating to the Legalization and Special
Agricultural Worker (SAW) programs as registration forms and evidence
of registration.'' \100\ Notably, former INS added Form I-688A,
Employment Authorization Card, to 8 CFR 264.1(b). The former INS also
added the legalization and SAW application forms to 8 CFR 264.1(a),
prescribing them as registration forms.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ See Applicant Processing for Special Agricultural Worker
and Legalization Programs; Conforming Amendments, etc., 52 FR 16190
(May 1, 1987).
\100\ Id.
\101\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form I-688A was a card issued to applicants for legalization or SAW
legalization after they had submitted their application, completed an
initial interview, and provided their biometrics. It served as evidence
of employment authorization under section 245A(e)(2) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1255a(e)(2), during the period between the presentation of a
prima facie application for lawful temporary resident status and the
final determination on that application. It served a similar purpose
for applicants for SAW legalization for an alien who presented a
nonfrivolous application for legalization until a final determination
on the application was made, under section 210(d)(2) of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1160(d)(2). Again, Form I-688A was only issued after submission
of a form prescribed in 8 CFR 264.1(a) with significant information
collection, initial review of the form and interview of the alien by
former INS, and the provision of biometrics.
The former INS made further updates to 8 CFR 264.1(b) relating to
employment authorization documents in 1996. See 61 FR 46534 (Sept. 4,
1996). These updates were related to the introduction of a new, more
secure form (the Form I-766, or EAD) and the phasing out of the old
Form I-688A (issued to legalization and SAW legalization applicants)
and the Form I-688B (produced locally at former INS field offices and
issued to aliens as evidence of employment authorization under certain
provisions of 8 CFR 274a.12). The former INS explained in the rule that
because Form I-766 would eventually replace Form I-688A, it was
amending 8 CFR 264.1(b) to include Form I-766. See 61 FR 46534, 46535.
The former INS also added Form I-688B, which had never previously been
considered evidence of registration, to 8 CFR 264.1(b). See 61 FR
46534, 46535. It did so writing that ``because an employment
authorization document is considered an alien registration document for
purposes of identity and employment eligibility (List A) of the Form I-
9, the Service is amending part 264 to add Forms I-688B and I-766.''
See 61 FR 46534, 46535.
However, upon reviewing the information that USCIS collects to
issue Form I-766 and the related fingerprint collection requirements,
certain paths that aliens can take to obtain Form I-766 may not meet
the statutory requirements for alien registration. By contrast, the
Form I-688A was evidence of registration issued under section 264(d) of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(d), after an alien had appeared in person and
filed a registration form prepared as directed in section 264(a) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a) and designated under 8 CFR 264.1(a), and the
alien had been fingerprinted.
This issue does not call into question the validity of current Form
I-766 as evidence of identity and employment authorization as a List A
document under section 274A(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1324a(b)(1)(B)(ii). Form I-766 falls within the category of some
``other document designated by the Attorney General'' that meets the
three statutory requirements.\102\ Form I-766 does not have to be
prescribed as evidence of registration for it to serve, as it
historically has, as evidence of employment authorization, identity,
and immigration status for any purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ The relevant statutory text states that among the
documents establishing both employment authorization and identity is
a ``resident alien card, alien registration card, or other document
designated by the Attorney General, if the document'' (emphasis
added) contains ``a photograph of the individual and such other
personal identifying information relating to the individual as the
Attorney General finds, by regulation, sufficient for purposes of
this subsection,'' is ``evidence of authorization of employment in
the United States,'' and ``contains security features to make it
resistant to tampering, counterfeiting, and fraudulent use.'' INA
sec. 274A(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Form I-766 was added to the list of forms constituting
evidence of registration in 1997, former INS and then DHS expanded the
categories of aliens to whom they issue Form I-766. Form I-766 is
issued to many aliens who have not submitted a form prescribed in 8 CFR
264.1(a) or even a form that meets the requirements of section 264(a)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a), without being prescribed. As a result,
Form I-766 is issued to many aliens who have not provided the basic
information mandated by Congress for registration. Form I-766 is also
issued to many aliens who are not fingerprinted as a part of that
process (and may not have provided fingerprints during previous
encounters with immigration agencies), whereas the statute requires
fingerprinting before being issued evidence of alien registration. See
INA sec. 264(d), 8 U.S.C. 1304(d) (``Every alien in the United States
who has been registered and fingerprinted . . . under the provisions of
this chapter shall be issued'' (emphasis added) evidence of
registration.). In addition, the different paths that an alien may take
to request a Form I-766 have widely varying background checks
associated with them. This means that aliens issued Form I-766 may have
undergone different screening and vetting standards and procedures
(including, as noted, potentially not providing fingerprints at all),
rather than the uniform baseline of screening and vetting that
logically should be applied to all aliens registering under section 262
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
If DHS were to remove Form I-766 from the list of evidence of
registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b), the effect would be that those aliens
who have not already registered in some way and obtain a Form I-766 for
purposes of employment and identity verification would still separately
need to apply for registration and provided fingerprints (unless
waived) as required under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.
However, DHS notes that many aliens who seek a Form I-766 are already
registered in some way, and that prescribing the additional forms as
proposed in Section V.A. would result in the registration of most such
aliens.
For these reasons, DHS proposes removing Form I-766 from the list
of forms prescribed as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b).
Any changes to the ability of Form I-766 to serve as evidence of
registration would be forward-looking. That is to say, whether Form I-
766 is removed from 8 CFR 264.1(b) or the classes of aliens who may use
the form as evidence of registration are limited, it would not affect
the ability of Form I-766s issued before the effective date of that
future rulemaking to serve as evidence of registration.
This proposal is meant to be implemented in concert with the
addition of other registration forms to 8 CFR 264.1(a) as discussed in
section V.A.1 of this preamble, and the issuance of evidence of
registration prescribed in 8 CFR 264.1(b) as described in section V.B.
of this preamble.
DHS also considered alternatives to the proposal to remove Form I-
766 from the list of evidence of registration. For example, in the
alternative, DHS could limit the classes of aliens for whom Form I-766
can serve as evidence of

[[Page 39323]]

registration to those aliens who have submitted a registration form
prescribed in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and provided their biometrics (unless
waived), or who were registered and fingerprinted under section 221(b)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(b).
Another alternative, DHS could prescribe any and all forms that can
result in the issuance of a Form I-766 as registration forms under 8
CFR 264.1(a), including Form I-765, Application for Employment
Authorization. DHS notes that this update would require significant
additions to DHS forms, and a significant increase in the number of
aliens required to provide biometrics. Millions of aliens who are
already registered or not required to register submit those forms
annually to USCIS and would face the burden of the expanded information
collection and biometrics requirements.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ For example, in FY 2024 USCIS received approximately
600,000 Form I-765s filed by applicants for adjustment of status.
More than 700,000 were filed by aliens paroled into the United
States. More than 280,000 were filed by nonimmigrant students. More
than 65,000 were filed by H-4 nonimmigrant spouses. More than 60,000
were filed by aliens granted asylum. More than 20,000 were filed by
aliens with a final order of deportation or removal. More than 1.6
million Form I-765s were filed by aliens with pending asylum
applications, many of whom are already registered because they are
in removal proceedings, or because they were admitted or paroled
into the United States. See USCIS, ``Form I-765, Application for
Employment Authorization, Eligibility Category and Filing Type FY
2024,'' https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/i765_application_for_employment_fy24.xlsx (last updated Dec. 16,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS welcomes public comments on these proposals, or other comments
from the public about how it should address the inadequacy of Form I-
766 as evidence of registration under the existing regulations.
2. Updates to the Classes of Aliens for Whom Form I-94 Constitutes
Evidence of Registration Under 8 CFR 264.1(b)
DHS also proposes to add those classes of aliens issued Form I-94
upon the approval of those newly prescribed registration forms to the
classes of aliens from whom Form I-94 serves as evidence of
registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b). While Form I-94 is prescribed as a
registration form, the classes of aliens for whom it serves as evidence
of registration are limited. Only aliens admitted as nonimmigrants,
aliens paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), and aliens granted permission to depart
without the institution of deportation proceedings \104\ are listed as
classes for whom the Form I-94 serves as evidence of registration.
However, there are other aliens to whom DHS issues Form I-94, sometimes
after those aliens submit forms: (1) that collect most, if not all, of
the information required under section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1304(a); (2) that have a biometrics requirement; and (3) whose
processes include screening and vetting that meet a high uniform
baseline. DHS requests public comment on its proposal to add the
following classes of aliens to those for whom Form I-94 serves as
evidence of registration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ The existing regulation also includes ``aliens whose
claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot be verified, they having
satisfactorily established residence in the United States since
prior to July 1, 1924,'' but in light of the passage of time, this
is now outdated, and DHS is removing it in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aliens granted asylum under section 208 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1158.
Aliens granted extension of stay or change of status by
USCIS pursuant to 8 CFR 214.1 and section 248 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1258, and 8 CFR part 248.
Aliens granted nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(T) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T).
Aliens granted nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(U) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U).

C. Issuance of Evidence of Registration Prior to Adjudication of
Related Benefit Request

DHS requests comment on potential ways in which it can provide
evidence of registration that is not tied to the final adjudication of
a separate immigration benefit request in a timely manner to those
aliens who have fulfilled their duty under section 262 of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1302, by submitting a benefit request to USCIS and providing
their biometrics (unless waived).
The Form G-325R process is a registration-only form. There is no
immigration benefit associated with registration under section 262 of
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, or this new form. An alien fulfills his or her
duty to register under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, by
submitting the application for registration, and providing biometrics
(unless waived). USCIS sends evidence of registration to the alien
through the alien's myUSCIS account as soon as the alien provides their
biometrics. If the alien is not required to provide biometrics, USCIS
sends evidence of registration immediately after assessing whether the
alien must register.
The same may not be true for other pathways to registration that
existed prior to publication of the IFR. For example, Form I-485,
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, is
prescribed as a registration form in 8 CFR 264.1(a) but is also used by
aliens to apply for lawful permanent residence. If an alien submits
Form I-485, and provides biometrics (if required), they have complied
with their duty to register under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1302. However, they are not immediately (or sometimes ever) provided
with evidence of registration. While DHS would issue an alien granted
adjustment of status a Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card, an alien
whose adjustment application was administratively closed, withdrawn, or
denied, would not receive evidence of registration based on filing that
prescribed form.
Using immigration benefit requests forms as registration forms
saves aliens the time and burden of submitting multiple forms that may
be duplicative of information collected, while DHS only processed and
adjudicates the one form. However, as described above, it may present
challenges for aliens who have registered and yet were not issued
evidence of registration, as well as for law enforcement agencies
verifying whether an alien has registered. Furthermore, since certain
pending immigration benefit requests can serve as temporary evidence of
registration under 8 CFR 264.6(c), aliens would likely not have
evidence of a pending request and a law enforcement officer would need
to validate that claim in DHS systems.
For these reasons, DHS requests comment on potential ways in which
it can provide evidence of registration unrelated to immigration
benefit requests. Among the options that DHS is considering and on
which it would appreciate public comments are the following:
Creating a new, general form that would serve as evidence
of registration and that would be delivered either electronically or
through the mail \105\ whenever an alien submits an immigration benefit
request prescribed as a registration form under 8 CFR 264.1(a) and has
provided their biometrics (unless waived).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\105\ Electronic delivery of the evidence would be preferred,
though if the alien lacked a myUSCIS account then issuance of a
physical document may be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renaming and slightly modifying the current ``USCIS Proof
of Alien G-325R Registration'' and issuing it not only to those who
have fulfilled their duty to register through the Form G-325R process,
but also to those who have submitted other prescribed

[[Page 39324]]

registration forms and providing their biometrics (unless waived).
Designating certain notices that USCIS issues prior to the
final adjudication of various benefit requests as evidence of
registration. For example, such evidence of registration could include
an appointment notice for a biometric services appointment associated
with a particular benefit request that has been endorsed by USCIS to
show that the alien had provided the required biometrics.

D. Updating Outdated Waivers of Biometrics Requirement for Certain
Nonimmigrants

1. Eliminate or Replace the Fingerprinting Waiver for Certain
Nonimmigrant Aliens
DHS requests public comment on its proposal to eliminate or
potentially replace the fingerprinting waiver for certain nonimmigrant
aliens. The final sentence of existing 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) currently
waives fingerprinting for ``other nonimmigrant aliens, while they
maintain nonimmigrant status, who are nationals of countries which do
not require fingerprinting of United States citizens temporarily
residing therein.'' 8 CFR 264.1(e). This language has been in the
regulations for decades. However, DHS had not previously needed
identify these countries or define what ``temporarily residing
therein'' means for purposes of the waiver.
Until DHS added the Form G-325R to 8 CFR 264.1(a), there were no
prescribed registration forms to which it applied the nonimmigrant
biometric waivers found in 8 CFR 264.1(e), including this one. All of
the other prescribed registration forms have biometrics collection
requirements unique to each benefit request.
As a potential replacement, DHS proposes that fingerprinting for
purposes of registration be waived for nonimmigrant aliens, while they
maintain nonimmigrant status, who are nationals of Canada or nationals
of a Visa Waiver Program designated country as described in 8 CFR
217.2(a).
DHS notes that any changes to 8 CFR 264.1(e) would not affect the
biometrics requirements associated with those prescribed registration
forms or processes that are not within DHS authority or are also
immigration benefit requests with their own biometrics requirements.
Amendments to 8 CFR 264.1(e) have no effect on biometrics requirements
for nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applicants with State, or on
prescribed registration forms that are also immigration benefit
requests.
2. Clarify ``Not Previously Fingerprinted'' in 8 CFR 264.1(e)(2) and
(3)
Certain nonimmigrant aliens benefit from waivers of the
fingerprinting requirement associated with registration under 8 CFR
264.1(e), but must provide their biometrics when certain triggering
events occur. The requirement to provide fingerprints upon a triggering
event applies to nonimmigrant aliens ``not previously fingerprinted.''
However, the current regulation does not explain or define which aliens
are considered not previously fingerprinted and would have to be
fingerprinted under 8 CFR 264.1(e)(2) or (3) due to a triggering event.
DHS requests public comment on a proposal that would clarify that
aliens are considered ``not previously fingerprinted'' for purposes of
8 CFR 264.1(e) when a registered alien had not been fingerprinted by
either by DHS or State. Specifically, a registered alien who was not
fingerprinted by DHS in association with the submission of a prescribed
registration form listed in 8 CFR 264.1(a) or when issued evidence of
registration listed in 8 CFR 264.1(b) is considered ``not previously
fingerprinted'' by DHS. A registered alien who was not fingerprinted by
State in association with their application for a nonimmigrant visa
under section 221(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(b), which served as the
basis for their most recent admission to the United States as a
nonimmigrant, is considered ``not previously fingerprinted'' by State.
Under this proposal, an alien that is registered but ``not previously
fingerprinted'' by DHS or State, would be required to provide
fingerprints for purposes of 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) or (2) based on a
triggering event. The lack of an explanation could leave aliens
confused as to whether or not they have been previously fingerprinted,
and as a result uncertain as to their duty to apply for fingerprinting
upon a triggering event.

E. Updates to 8 CFR 264.1(g)(2)

DHS requests comment on amending paragraph (g)(2) of 8 CFR 264.1(g)
to state that aliens who reach 14 years old and who must apply for
registration must surrender any prior evidence of alien registration
that is invalid or expired, unless such evidence was issued in a
digital format, or such evidence of alien registration is associated
with exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings and that USCIS will
issue the alien new evidence of alien registration.
Under the proposal, an alien's evidence of registration may also
serve as identification, proof of immigration status, or eligibility
for employment authorization in the United States. Under the proposal,
8 CFR 264.1(g)(2) would read as follows:
``Others. In the case of an alien who is not a lawful
permanent resident, the alien must surrender any prior evidence of
alien registration. USCIS will issue the alien new evidence of alien
registration.'' USCIS no longer annotates an alien's previously issued
registration document as evidence that they fulfilled their obligation
under the second sentence of section 262(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1302(b). This amendment will make the regulatory text consistent with
USCIS practice.

F. Requirement To Apply for Replacement Permanent Resident Card When
Alien Reaches 14 Years Old

DHS proposes to amend 8 CFR 264.5(b)(8) to require any permanent
resident who reaches the age of 14 to apply for the replacement of his
or her Permanent Resident Card.
Pursuant to 8 CFR 264.5(b)(8), a permanent resident must apply for
the replacement of the Permanent Resident Card ``[w]hen the bearer of
the card reaches the age of 14 years, unless the existing card will
expire prior to the bearer's 16th birthday.'' DHS believes the phrase
``unless the existing card will expire prior to the bearer's 16th
birthday'' was included in the regulation in 1993 so that the fee
waiver provision in the regulation could cite to this paragraph (along
with paragraphs (b)(7) and (9)).\106\ Since the fee waiver provision is
now codified at 8 CFR 106.2(a)(1)(iii), DHS believes this language is
no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\106\ See Establishment of Form I-551, Alien Registration
Receipt Card, as the Executive Form of Registration for Lawful
Permanent Residence, 58 FR 48775 (Sept. 20, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Administrative Procedure Act

With this final rule, DHS is finalizing the IFR with additional
procedural and technical changes to the regulatory text at 8 CFR 264.1,
264.5 and 264.6. Many of these changes are informed and supported by
comments.
1. Procedural Rule Exception and Good Cause Under 5 U.S.C. 553
This rule's primary function is to consider and respond to comments
on the IFR. DHS issued the IFR without prior notice and comment as a
rule of agency organization, procedure, or

[[Page 39325]]

practice (``procedural rule'') under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). See
90 FR 11793, 11796 (Mar. 12, 2025). As explained in the IFR, the
procedural rule exception covers agency actions that do not alter the
rights or interests of parties, although it may alter the manner in
which the parties present themselves or their viewpoint to the agency.
See JEM Broad. Co., Inc v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see
also Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1023-24 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Am.
Hosp. Ass'n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Following
review of the public comments received on this IFR, DHS is now
finalizing the IFR in this final rule and permanently adopting the
provisions of the IFR without changes to those provisions. In addition,
after thorough and careful consideration of the comments, DHS is adding
additional forms to the registration table in 8 CFR 264.1(b). These
forms relate to removal proceedings, similar to Form I-862, Notice to
Appear, and reflect a level of direct interaction with DHS officers
engaged in immigration enforcement including the collection of
biometrics. DHS is also designating the CBP-approved documents or its
electronic equivalent for the Trusted Traveler Programs NEXUS, SENTRI,
FAST, and Global Entry as evidence of registration because these
document holders undergo a complete application process and robust
vetting by CBP. Finally, DHS is updating the existing regulation at 8
CFR 264.5(h) as the language is outdated and inconsistent with current
USCIS approach of issuing temporary evidence of lawful or conditional
permanent resident status, to avoid confusion. These changes are
procedural only and do not change eligibility criteria or evidentiary
standards, nor do those additions alter the rights and interests of
parties or encode a substantive value judgment on a given type of
private behavior.
In addition, after careful consideration of the comments, DHS also
decided to make additional minor technical changes to 8 CFR 264.1, by
updating the names of the registration forms listed at 8 CFR 264.1(a)
and (b), and by making technical updates to 8 CFR 264.1(e) and 8 CFR
264.6. In addition, DHS is making editorial and procedural updates in 8
CFR 264.1(g) by removing redundant text, adding clarifying text, and
addressing the outdated procedures specified in 8 CFR 264.1(g) related
to photographs and the annotation of registration documents. These
changes are also procedural in nature for the reasons described above.
Moreover, DHS has good cause to make the changes without notice and
comment.
An agency may forgo notice-and-comment rulemaking and a delayed
effective date when the agency ``for good cause finds . . . that notice
and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). In particular,
notice-and-comment procedures are unnecessary if the matter addressed
by the agency is minor and technical in nature so that it is not of
particular interest to the public. See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682
F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (``This prong of the good cause inquiry is
`confined to those situations in which the administrative rule is a
routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and
inconsequential to the industry and to the public''') (citing to Util.
Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir.
2001)).
DHS has for good cause found that notice-and-comment procedures are
unnecessary here. Commenters indicated that the regulation is confusing
because of outdated form names, such as Form I-590. Thus, USCIS is
updating 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) by updating the listed form numbers and
names to reflect the forms' correct number and current names. Some
forms listed in 8 CFR 264.1 also no longer exist and can no longer be
submitted to USCIS or DHS components, such as Form I-67, Inspection
Record--Hungarian Refuges. DHS is therefore removing them to reduce
confusion. Additionally, DHS is removing regulatory text that was
superseded by legislative changes or is confusing, and DHS is also
making grammatical or restructuring changes without changing the
substantive nature of the provisions, such as in 8 CFR 264.1(e) related
to fingerprint waivers, and 8 CFR 264.6.
These changes and updates are minor, procedural, and technical in
nature and do not substantively impact the regulated public or change
whether aliens are considered registered. The changes provide clarity
about the applicability of the registration requirement, enhance the
readability of the regulations, and are responsive to commenters'
concerns. DHS is not required to engage in notice and comment under 5
U.S.C. 553 for these types of changes as they are covered by both the
procedural rule exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and the good cause
exemption of the APA at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
2. Delayed Effective Date
This final rule is also exempt from the APA's delayed effective
date requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because DHS has for good
cause found that it is unnecessary to delay implementation of this
final rule.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ DHS also notes that the changes made by this rule do not
render it a ``substantive rule'' within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553(d). The changes are not considered substantive for the same
reasons that the rule qualifies as ``procedural'' with respect to
notice-and-comment requirements. The rule adopts as final the IFR--
which was itself a procedural rule--and makes technical changes to
the names of forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the good cause exception for the 30-day effective date in
5 U.S.C. 553(d) mirrors the ``good cause'' language of 5 U.S.C. 553(b),
the good cause exception from the 30-day effective date requirement is
easier to meet because these provisions have different purposes. See
Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir. 1992);
see also U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283, 289-90 (7th Cir. 1979)
(good cause more easily found as to 30-day waiting period). Unlike the
notice-and-comment requirement, which is designed to ensure public
participation in rulemaking, the 30-day waiting period is intended to
give affected parties time to adjust their behavior before the final
rule takes effect. See Riverbend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1485. Additionally,
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the delay in effective date does not apply if
the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
It is unnecessary to delay this final rule's effective date for
multiple reasons. First and foremost, a delayed effective date is
unnecessary because the IFR has been in effect since April 11, 2025.
Additionally, the changes, such as prescribing additional forms that
serve as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b) alleviate the need
for certain aliens to register by submitting Form G-325R and thus
relieve a restriction. There is no need to give affected parties
additional time to adjust their behavior before this final rule takes
effect. Thus, a delayed effective date serves no purpose.
For the previously stated reasons, this final rule is effective
immediately.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\108\ On February 21, 2025, the Secretary of State determined
that all efforts, conducted by any agency of the Federal Government,
to control the status, entry, and exit of people and the transfer of
goods, services, data, technology, and any other items across the
borders of the United States, constitutes a foreign affairs function
of the United States under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553. See 90 FR 49 (Mar.
14, 2025). The registration of aliens under section 262 of the INA
thus relates to the foreign affairs function of the United States
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as outlined in the Secretary of
States' determination and therefore, the APA's notice and public
procedures, as well as any delayed effective date does not apply.

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

[[Page 39326]]

B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14192

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if a regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the
private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and
provides that ``any new incremental costs associated with new
regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the
elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior
regulations.''
This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been
reviewed by OMB.
This rule is not an E.O. 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
section 101(a)(17) of the INA, 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 E.O. 14192, titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation' ''
(Mar. 26, 2025).
1. Summary
DHS is amending existing regulations to make available another
method for aliens to comply with the alien registration requirements of
the INA. The rule does not impose any new registration or
fingerprinting obligations separate from the obligations already
contained in the INA.
DHS has assessed the compliance costs and benefits of this rule as
required by E.O.s 12866 and 13563. The direct costs of the rule include
the opportunity cost of time to complete and file a registration form
as well as the opportunity cost of time to submit biometrics. DHS and
new registrants will incur compliance costs due to the activities from
submitting forms and the collection of biometrics. DHS estimates
current registration and biometrics submissions under this rule have
cost aliens approximately $21.3 million.\109\ The estimated burden to
USCIS is $0.6 million from collecting and processing biometrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ As of May 7, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 provides a summary of the regulatory changes and the
estimated costs and benefits associated with the expected impacts.

Table 2--Summary of Estimated Impacts of the Rule, FY 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the change to provision Expected impact of the rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend existing regulations to make Quantitative:
available another method for aliens Benefits
to comply with the alien None.
registration requirements of the
INA.
Costs
$21.3 million to aliens
in registration costs.
$0.6 million to USCIS in
biometric costs.
Qualitative:
Benefits
The rule is expected to
result in increased alien
registrations that are consistent
with provisions of the INA
Costs
Technical changes are
expected to have a de minimis
effect on costs
Indirect costs of the
rule may include increased legal
costs for those who choose to
seek legal assistance and
potential workforce impacts.
Public comments identified these
and other potential indirect
effects, which are difficult to
quantify.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis.

Table 3--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement
[$ millions, 2025]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39327]]

Table 3--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement--Continued
[$ millions, 2025]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of analysis: FY 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate Maximum estimate Source citation
(RIA, preamble, etc.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, costs...... N/A RIA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified) costs.................... Technical changes are expected to have a de minimis effect on costs. RIA
Indirect costs of the rule may include increased legal costs for those
who choose to seek legal assistance and potential workforce impacts.
Public comments identified these and other potential indirect effects,
which are difficult to quantify.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSFERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers: ``on budget''....... N/A N/A N/A RIA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From whom to whom?.................................. RIA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers: ``off-budget''...... N/A N/A N/A RIA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From whom to whom?..................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous analyses/category Effects Source citation
(RIA, preamble, etc.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on State, local, and/or Tribal governments.. None. RIA
Effects on small businesses......................... None. RFA
Effects on wages.................................... None. RIA
Effects on growth................................... None. RIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Affected Population
As previously discussed, this rule provides another method for
aliens to comply with the alien registration requirements of the INA.
Affected aliens may have other options to comply in addition to this
rule. The following estimate present a maximum potential population. In
addition, the estimate does not consider the effect on the status of
unregistered aliens from other DHS activities; such activities may have
resulted in additional aliens being registered by other means (such as
the issuance of Form I-862, Notice to Appear, and the I-863, Notice of
Referral to Immigration Judge), or self-deporting from the United
States.
In the IFR, DHS explained that the potential population impacted by
the IFR included those who are currently unregistered and who may use
the general registration form designated under this rule. DHS estimated
the potential affected population to be between 2.9 million and 3.5
million,\111\ after accounting for groups who have engaged with DHS and
have previously filed one of the designated registration forms
discussed in the preamble (requirements under 8 CFR 264.1(a) or 8 CFR
264.1(b)).\112\ See 90 FR 11797 (Mar. 12, 2025). DHS explained that the
affected population of those who remain in the United States for 30
days or longer includes, for instance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ The 2.9 million to 3.5 million is the corrected estimate
that is updated from the 2.2 million to 3.2 million in the IFR as
the latter figures were an earlier estimate and did not include the
estimated 500,000 Canadian visitors. DHS also notes that the
estimate of annual filing volume of 1,400,000 respondents for
purposes of the PRA and Form G-325R (and 779,600 for purposes of
biometric services associated with Form G-325R) is different from
the average of the estimated population discussed in this section.
See 30-day Federal Register Notice for Form G-325R at 90 FR 38655.
DHS uses a different method for estimating the average annual number
of respondents for the information collection over the 3-year OMB
approval of the control number, generally assuming more
registrations may be expected to occur in year one than in later
years. When the information collection request is nearing
expiration, USCIS will update the estimates of annual respondents
based on actual results in the submission to OMB. The PRA burden
estimates are generally updated at least every 3 years. Thus, the
PRA estimated annual respondents would be updated to reflect the
actual effects of this rule within a relatively short period after
this final rule takes effect.
\112\ Estimate calculated by OHSS. This estimate does not
include aliens who have already met one or more conditions for
registration, and accounts for changes to the alien population from
2022 through 2024 as well as emigration and mortality rates. Other
groups already considered registered for purposes of this analysis
and not part of the affected population include those who have been
issued an I-94 form, were paroled into the United States, were
issued an EAD, or were issued an NTA in section 240 removal
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aliens who are present in the United States without
inspection and admission or inspection and parole and have not yet
registered (i.e., have not yet filed a registration form designated
under 8 CFR 264.1(a), and do not have evidence of registration under 8
CFR 264.1(b)).
Canadian visitors who entered the United States at land
ports of entry and were not issued evidence of registration (e.g., Form
I-94).
An alien, whether previously registered or not, who turns
14 years old in the United States and therefore must register within 30
days after their 14th birthday.
DHS also recognized there could be additional aliens subject to
this rule in the future, and that relying on this estimate may somewhat
overstate those who need to fully comply as aliens under 14 years of
age are required to be registered but do not need to provide
fingerprints. See 90 FR 11797 (Mar. 12, 2025).
As noted in the previous paragraph, this rule applies to Canadian
visitors who entered the United States at land ports of entry and were
not issued evidence of registration (e.g., Form I-94).\113\ This
population is generally

[[Page 39328]]

exempt from having to submit biometrics. DHS believes approximately
500,000 Canadians who arrive by land visit the United States for 30
days or longer each year.\114\ These visitors may request Form I-94
from CBP during the admission process at the port of entry or apply for
a provisional I-94 before entering the country to comply with the
provisions of this rule.\115\ However, if these aliens are in the
country already, they will need to file Form G-325R but are not
required to provide biometrics as a part of that process. Canadian
visitors that are Trusted Traveler Program participants that enter as
nonimmigrants at land POEs using Trusted Traveler Program processing
(e.g., lanes) to gain admission without I-94 issuance would not need to
submit a Form G-325R under this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\113\ Other populations would also likely choose to register
using with the Form I-94 rather than the Form G-325R. These groups
would need to enter at a land Port of Entry: bearers of a Mexican
diplomatic or official passport who are military or civilian
officials of the Federal Government of Mexico entering the United
States for 6 months or less for a purpose other than on assignment
as a permanent employee to an office of the Mexican Federal
Government in the United States, and the official's spouse or any of
the official's dependent family members under 19 years of age,
bearing diplomatic or official passports, who are in the actual
company of such official at the time of admission into the United
States; nonimmigrant alien residing in the British Virgin Islands
who is admitted solely to the U.S. Virgin Islands as a visitor for
business or pleasure; and citizens of Bermuda entering the United
States as B1/B2 visitors. DHS believes are relatively small
populations and thus would little impact on the scale of the cost of
this rule.
\114\ OHSS Estimate of Population.
\115\ Most Canadian citizens visiting or in transit through the
United States do not need a Form I-94 but for those seeking to
register upon entry, they may seek one. See U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, I-94/I-95 Website Travel Record for U.S.
Visitors, OMB No. 1651-0111, https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of May 7, 2026, USCIS has accepted over 142,982 Form G-325R
receipts in the ARR electronic form submission process through myUSCIS
for individuals subject to this requirement.\116\ 78,944 receipts were
submitted by Canadians, approximately 55.2 percent.\117\ There have
been over 34,742 aliens scheduled for ASC appointments to collect
biometrics and over 20,302 ASC appointments have been completed.\118\
Approximately 93,318 registrations have been processed, and completed
ASC appointments.\119\ DHS uses the number of actual registrants to
monetize the compliance costs for aliens who have registered and
completed biometrics appointments under this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\116\ Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Performance and Quality, ELIS,
queried 05/2026, PAER0021329.
\117\ Calculation: 78,944 Canadian receipts/142,982 total
receipts = 0.552 (rounded) or approximately 55.2 percent.
\118\ ibid.
\119\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Changes in the Final Rule
In this Final Rule, DHS has made technical and procedural changes
after considering the comments received, most of these changes are not
substantive and will enhance readability of the regulations by more
accurately describing the current procedures.
A notable change in the Final Rule to 8 CFR 264.1(b) Evidence of
registration, is the addition of CBP-approved documents or its
electronic equivalent for the Trusted Traveler Programs NEXUS, SENTRI,
FAST, and Global Entry. It's unknown how the addition of these CBP
approved documents would impact the population estimate, but this could
reduce the number of aliens who have to incur costs related to
registration by submitting a form and biometrics.
3. Costs
DHS recognizes that there are costs to aliens to comply with
registration requirements in the E.O. and the INA's alien registration
provisions. The enforcement of related statutory provisions by Federal,
State, and local governments, such as activities related to the
prosecution for the willful failure of an alien to register under
section 266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1306, are separate from this
rulemaking. Correspondingly, any broader potential indirect or
secondary cost impacts on employers, businesses, institutions, the
economy, communities, and persons throughout the United States would be
a direct result of the policy choice made by Congress when requiring
aliens who are in the United States to register. However, DHS has
considered the possibility that this rule, perhaps in combination with
other policies, could have some of the indirect effects described
above. We do not have sufficient information to quantify these effects.
DHS also recognizes the agency will incur costs related to
processing forms and biometrics; these costs are considered later in
this section. DHS similarly assesses the benefits in the following
section.
(a) Registration Burden
Compliance costs to aliens may include the time to complete and
file a registration form, as well as time spent traveling to an ASC,
submitting fingerprints, and record retention. There is currently no
fee for applicants to file the prescribed form or to submit biometrics,
but applicants take on the burden of time to complete both, if
biometrics are required.\120\ We use the estimated mean travel time and
distance to an ASC that is frequently used in USCIS rules. See 78 FR
535 (Jan. 3, 2013). This will result in an overestimate of the burden
for some registrants and an underestimate for others. The total filing
burden for new registrations will include the cost of time to submit
biometrics and the time burden of registration using Form G-325R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\120\ The respondent burden to file Form G-325R is discussed in
the IFR at 90 FR 11793 (Mar. 12, 2025) and Paperwork Reduction Act
Notice at 90 FR 38655 (August 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional compliance with registration obligations will also
result in more aliens needing to maintain evidence of registration.
Aliens may also spend some marginal amount of time to become familiar
with the process and specific steps they should take to be compliant.
This final rule has the potential impact of increasing the
biometric activities for DHS, such as additional FBI Name checks,
fingerprinting, and support from ASC locations. The biometrics
activities are estimated to cost approximately $30 per applicant. This
is a cost to the agency and will be discussed later in this section.
Many of the costs associated with the IFR are opportunity costs of
time. We measure an alien's opportunity cost of time by estimating
their expected hourly total compensation. For the affected population,
we use the mean hourly wage of all occupations ($32.66).\121\ To
estimate total compensation we multiply the expected wage by the
compensation to wage ratio for civilian employees (1.46).\122\ This
results in an estimated mean hourly total compensation of $47.68.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\121\ See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL), ``Occupational Employment and Wages News Release--
Occupational Employment and Wages--May 2024'' Table 1. National
employment and wage data from the Occupation employment and Wage
Statistics survey by occupation, May 2024. All Occupations--Mean
Hourly Wage, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_04022025.htm (last updated Apr. 2, 2025).
\122\ See Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOL, Economic News
Release, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for civilian
workers by occupation and industry group,'' Table 2 (last updated
Sept. 12, 2025), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09122025.pdf.
Calculation: $48.05 total compensation for civilian workers/
$33.02 wages and salaries for civilian workers = 1.46 (rounded)
compensation-to-wage ratio.
\123\ Calculation: $32.66 mean hourly wage for all occupations *
1.46 compensation-to-wage ratio = $47.68 (rounded) estimated mean
total compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance costs to aliens include the time to complete and file a
registration form, as well as time spent traveling to an ASC,
submitting fingerprints, and record retention. To estimate the costs to
complete and file Form G-325R, we include time burden of 2.5 hours to
complete and submit the form.\124\ The opportunity cost of time to

[[Page 39329]]

complete the form is $119.20 at the total compensation rate.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\124\ Since publication of the IFR, USCIS made non-rule related
changes to Form G-325R that are unrelated to the final rule, in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.12, as this information collection is
already covered in existing regulation under the INA and 8 CFR part
264. The non-rule related changes resulted in an increase to the
estimated time burden to submit Form G-325R from 0.67 hours to 2.5
hours. This is an increase of 1.83 hours per alien registrant. The
estimated time burden to file Form G-325R can be found in Supporting
Statement A submitted with the revision package to OMB on August 22,
2025 at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202508-1615-002.
\125\ Calculation: 2.5 hours to file Form G-325R * $47.68 mean
hourly post-transfer compensation for all occupations = $119.20
(rounded) opportunity cost of time to file Form G-325R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate the costs of submitting biometrics, we consider the
time burden to submit biometrics, the time burden to travel to and from
an ASC, and the vehicle costs of traveling to and from an ASC. The
estimated time burden to submit biometrics is 1.17 hours.\126\ The
estimated opportunity cost of time to submit biometrics is $55.79.\127\
The estimated average travel distance to and from an ASC is 50 miles;
the expected total travel time is 2.5 hours.\128\ The estimated
opportunity cost of time to travel to and from an ASC is $119.20.\129\
The vehicle costs of traveling to and from an ASC are based on the
General Service Administration's per mile reimbursement rate for
traveling in a privately owned vehicle--currently $0.70 per mile.\130\
The estimated vehicle costs of traveling to and from an ASC are
$35.00.\131\ The estimated cost to submit biometrics at an ASC is
$209.99.\132\ Table 4 provides a breakdown of these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\126\ The estimated time burden to file Form G-325R can be found
in Supporting Statement A submitted with the revision package to OMB
on August 22, 2025 at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202508-1615-002.
\127\ Calculation: 1.17 hours to submit biometrics * $47.68 mean
hourly post-transfer compensation = $55.79 (rounded) opportunity
cost of time to submit biometrics.
\128\ These are the same parameters used in other USCIS rules.
See, e.g., ``Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of
Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives,'' 78 FR 536, 578
(Jan. 3, 2013).
\129\ Calculation: 2.5 hours to travel to and from an ASC *
$47.68 mean hourly post-transfer compensation = $119.20 (rounded)
opportunity cost of time to travel to and from an ASC.
\130\ For use of a privately owned automobile, see General
Services Administration, ``Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Mileage
Reimbursement Rate,'' https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates (last updated Dec. 30, 2024).
\131\ Calculation: $0.70 cost per vehicle mile * 50 miles to and
from an ASC = $35.00 vehicle costs to travel to and from an ASC.
\132\ Calculation: $35 vehicle costs to travel to and from an
ASC + $119.20 opportunity cost of time to travel to and from an ASC
+ $55.79 opportunity cost of time to submit biometrics = $209.99 to
submit biometrics at an ASC.

Table 4--Costs to Unauthorized Aliens To Submit Biometrics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetary
Type of cost value of
cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity cost of time to travel to an ASC................. $119.20
Opportunity cost of time to submit biometrics................ 55.79
Vehicle costs of traveling to an ASC......................... 35.00
----------
Total...................................................... 209.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis.

The estimated total per person compliance cost to register and
submit biometrics is $329.19.\133\ To monetize the compliance costs for
those who have registered and completed biometrics appointments we
apply the unit costs to the number of actual registrants, this includes
the population of ARR electronic form submissions, and completed ASC
appointments as of May 2026.\134\ Registrants' opportunity cost of time
is estimated at $17.0 million while the opportunity cost of time for
those who submitted biometrics is estimated at $4.3 million.\135\ The
estimated total cost to aliens is approximately $21.3 million as of May
2026.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\133\ Calculation: $119.20 to file Form G-325R + $209.99 to
submit biometrics at an ASC = $329.19 to register and submit
biometrics.
\134\ Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Office of Performance and Quality, ELIS,
queried 05/2026, PAER0021329..
\135\ Calculations: $119.20 to file Form G-325R * 142,982
receipts = $17,043,454 (rounded) or $17.0 million opportunity cost
of time to register.
Calculation: $209.99 to submit biometrics at an ASC * 20,302
completed ASC appointments = $4,263,217 (rounded) or $4.3 million
costs to submit biometrics at an ASC.
\136\ Calculation: $17.0 million opportunity cost of time + $4.3
million cost to submit biometrics = $21.3 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IFR increased biometric activities for DHS, including
additional FBI Name checks, fingerprinting, and support from ASC
locations. The biometrics activities are estimated to cost
approximately $30 per applicant.\137\ USCIS is not currently charging a
filing fee to file Form G-325R to cover these costs. The decision not
to assign a registration fee or require payment to for biometrics
collection could be reconsidered during a future fee review process or
in another future regulatory action by DHS. For the 20,302 ASC
appointments that have been completed, the estimated burden to the
Agency is $0.6 million.\138\ The total estimated cost of the rule is
approximately $21.9 million.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\137\ See 90 FR 11793, 11796 (Mar. 12, 2025).
\138\ Calculation: $30 to process biometrics for Form G-325R *
20,302 completed ASC appointments = $609,060 or $0.6 million to
process biometrics for Form G-325R.
\139\ Calculation: $21.3 million costs to submit Form G-325R and
biometrics + $0.6 million to process biometrics = $21.9 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Final Rule Impacts Relative to IFR
This final rule does not change any of the impacts relative to the
IFR.
The final rule implements technical changes relative to the IFR.
These technical changes are expected to have de minimis effects. These
changes clarify existing regulatory language or codify current
practice.
The other regulatory changes made in this rule may reduce, to some
extent, the population of aliens that may register via the Form G-325R
under the IFR.\140\ Due to factors contributing to a high degree of
uncertainty, DHS cannot estimate the number of applicants who will be
affected by this rule. These factors include, but are not limited to,
increased immigration enforcement, reduced border crossings, and
changing international travel behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\140\ USCIS made 5 CFR 1320.12 non-rule form related changes to
Form G-325R that are unrelated to the changes made to the rule
between the IFR and the final rule, in accordance with 5 CFR
1320.12, as this information collection is already covered in
existing regulation under the INA and 8 CFR part 264. This increased
the estimated time burden to submit Form G-325R from 0.67 hours to
2.5 hours. This is an increase of 1.83 hours per alien registrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted previously, we do not have an estimate of these visitors
who are currently in the country and, therefore, would need to submit
Form G-325R instead of Form I-94 to register. Our estimate of an upper
bound on the additional burden assumes each of the 500,000 Canadian
visitors submits a Form G-325R but would not need to submit biometrics.
Therefore, the upper bound estimate for these visitors is $59.6
million.\141\ The changes to Form G-325R will not affect Canadian
visitors who file a Form I-94 prior to entering the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\141\ Calculation: 500,000 Canadian visitors * $119.20
opportunity cost of time of 2.5 hours to submit Form G-325R = $59.60
million (rounded) additional burden to submit Form I-94 for Canadian
visitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Benefits
The benefit of this rule is the designation of a general
registration form option that will improve registration outcomes for
aliens, consistent with the requirements of the alien registration
provisions of the INA. This final rule provides a registration form
available to all unregistered aliens regardless of their status.
The final rule is also expected to improve DHS law enforcement
efficacy because law enforcement personnel

[[Page 39330]]

would have access to more comprehensive registration data. In addition,
increased compliance with fingerprinting requirements would provide DHS
with additional information about an alien's criminal record, including
whether the alien is a known or suspected terrorist. When DHS has more
information about potential targets of law enforcement, it can make
more efficient use of law enforcement resources and better protect
public safety and officer safety.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires an
agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions). The RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements apply only to those rules for which an agency is required
to publish a general NPRM pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law.
See 5 U.S.C. 604(a). DHS did not issue an NPRM for this action.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this
rule. Nonetheless, DHS has determined that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule directly regulates individual aliens. However, the RFA's
regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply only to small
entities subject to the requirements of the rule.\142\ The individual
aliens subject to the requirements of this rule are not small entities
as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Accordingly, DHS certifies that this
rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ 142 U.S. Small Business Administration, ``A Guide for
Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act'' at 22 (Aug. 2017), https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

UMRA is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of
imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal
governments. Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a
written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a
proposed rule, or final rule for which the agency published a general
NPRM, that includes any Federal mandate that may result in a $100
million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector.\143\ The inflation adjusted value of $100
million in 1995 was approximately $206 million in 2024 based on the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).\144\ No written
statement is required here, because DHS did not issue a general NPRM in
connection with this rule. In addition, this final rule does not
contain a Federal mandate as the term is defined under UMRA.\145\ The
requirements of title II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has
not prepared a statement under UMRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\143\ See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).
\144\ See BLS, ``Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, all items, by month,'' https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202412.pdf (last visited June 23, 2025). Calculation of inflation:
(1) Calculate the average monthly CPI-U for the reference year
(1995) and the current year (2024); (2) Subtract reference year CPI-
U from current year CPI-U; (3) Divide the difference of the
reference year CPI-U and current year CPI-U by the reference year
CPI-U; (4) Multiply by 100 = [(Average monthly CPI-U for 2024-
Average monthly CPI-U for 1995) / (Average monthly CPI-U for 1995)]
x 100 = [(313.689 -152.383) / 152.383] = (161.306/152.383) = 1.0586
x 100 = 105.86 percent = 106 percent (rounded). Calculation of
inflation-adjusted value: $100 million in 1995 dollars x 2.06 = $206
million in 2024 dollars.
\145\ The term ``Federal mandate'' means a Federal
intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2
U.S.C. 1502(1), 658(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This final rule is not a ``rule'' as defined by the Congressional
Review Act, enacted as part of the SBREFA, Public Law 104-121. See 5
U.S.C. 804(3)(C) (defining the term ``rule'' to exclude ``any rule of
agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties''). DHS will
nonetheless submit this final rule to both houses of Congress and the
Comptroller General before the rule takes effect.

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of E.O.
13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), 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 final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O.
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule was written to provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct and was reviewed carefully to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation
and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that
this final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3
of E.O. 12988.

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

This final rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

I. Family Assessment

DHS has assessed this final action in line with section 654 of the
Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999.\146\ Accordingly, DHS has
systematically reviewed the criteria specified by section 654(c)(1), by
evaluating whether this regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or
safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2)
impacts the authority of parents in the education, nurture, and
supervision of their children; (3) helps the family perform its
functions; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of families and
children; (5) only financially impacts families, if at all, to the
extent such impacts are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or
local government or by the family; or (7) establishes a policy
concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal
responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the agency
determines that regulation may negatively affect family well-being,
then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its
implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (Oct. 21, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As articulated in the IFR, DHS has determined that the
implementation of this regulation will not negatively affect family
well-being and will not have any impact on the autonomy and integrity
of the family as an institution.

[[Page 39331]]

J. National Environment Policy Act

DHS and its components analyze final 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''
(Directive 023-01) and ``Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 Revision 01,
Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act'' (Instruction
Manual) \147\ established the policies and procedures that DHS and its
components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental
Quality regulations for implementing NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\147\ 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.\148\ The Instruction Manual, Appendix A lists the DHS
Categorical Exclusions.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\148\ See 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 4336e(1).
\149\ 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.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\150\ Instruction Manual 023-01 at V.B(2)(a) through (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule responds to public comments provided in response to
the IFR, adopts the IFR as final, amends the regulations to adjust the
lists of forms and processes that may serve as registration forms and
evidence of alien registration under 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) and seeks
comments on other potential changes to the regulations relating to
alien registration and fingerprinting under 8 CFR 264.1(e) that may be
completed in a future regulatory action. This final rule also makes
minor and technical changes to 8 CFR 264.1(e), 264.5, and 264.6. This
final rule is strictly administrative and procedural. DHS has reviewed
this final 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 final rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this final 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 regulatory amendments are categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.

K. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, DHS must submit to OMB for
review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule,
unless they are exempt. This rule does not impose any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements under the PRA.
However, this rule requires the use of USCIS Form G-325R,
Biographic Information (Registration). This form has previously been
approved by OMB under the PRA. The OMB control number for this
information collection is 1615-0166. DHS requested comments on the OMB-
approved Form G-325R for the purposes of the 60-day Federal Register
notice under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. See 90 FR 11793, 11799
(Mar. 12, 2025). The comment period for purposes of the PRA ended on
May 12, 2025. Any public comment received on Form G-325R in response to
the 60-day Federal Register notice has been responded to in the 30-day
Federal Register notice published for purposes of obtaining OMB
approval of USCIS' request for extension and revision of Form G-325R
\151\ on August 11, 2025, at 90 FR 38655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\151\ DHS had requested, and OMB approved Form G-325R on an
emergency review basis pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR
1320.13, on March 5, 2025. See Notice of Action for OMB Control
Number 1615-0166 (Mar. 5, 2025), https://www.reginfo.gov. The
information collection was submitted to OMB on August 22, 2025 and
is pending OMB approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 264

Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, DHS amends
8 CFR part 264 as follows:

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

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

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1201, 1302-1305; 8 CFR part 2.

0
2. Section 264.1 is amended by:
0
a. Revising and republishing paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Revising paragraph (e);
0
c. Revising and republishing the heading and the introductory text of
paragraph (g); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (g)(1).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 264.1 Registration and fingerprinting.

(a) Prescribed registration forms. The following forms are
prescribed as registration forms:

Form No. and Class

G-325R, Biographic Information (Registration), or its successor
form.
I-94/94A/94W, Arrival-Departure Record--Aliens admitted as
nonimmigrants; aliens paroled into the United States under section
212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; aliens lawfully
admitted to the United States for permanent residence who have not been
registered previously; aliens who are granted permission to depart
without the institution of deportation or removal proceedings or
against whom deportation or removal proceedings are being instituted.
I-95, Crewmen's Landing Permit--Crewmen arriving by vessel or
aircraft.
I-181, Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent
Residence--Aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence during a temporary visit abroad admitted without a visa under
8 CFR 211.1(b).
I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust
Status, or its predecessor or successor form--Applicants under sections
245 and 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended, and
section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957.
I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee or its successor
form, or its predecessor form--Applicants under section 207 of the INA
and Refugee-escapees paroled pursuant to section 1 of the Act of July
14, 1960.
I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident--Applicants
under section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent

[[Page 39332]]

Resident--Applicants under section 245A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended.
I-817, Application for Family Unity Benefits or its successor form,
or its predecessor form.
(b) Evidence of registration. The following forms constitute
evidence of registration:

Form No. and Class

I-94/94A/94W, Arrival-Departure Record--Aliens admitted as
nonimmigrants; aliens paroled into the United States under section
212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and aliens granted
permission to depart without the institution of deportation or removal
proceedings.
I-95, Crewmen's Landing Permit--Crewmen arriving by vessel or
aircraft.
I-184, Alien Crewman Landing Permit and Identification Card--
Crewmen arriving by vessel.
DSP-150, B-1/B-2 Visa and Border Crossing Card or its successor
form, or its predecessor form--Citizens of Mexico residing in Mexico.
I-221, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing--Aliens against
whom deportation proceedings are being instituted.
I-221S, Order to Show Cause, Notice of Hearing, and Warrant for
Arrest of Alien--Aliens against whom deportation proceedings are being
instituted.
I-551, Permanent Resident Card--Lawful permanent resident of the
United States.
I-766, Employment Authorization Document.
I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal--Aliens who have been
determined to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or (7) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and ordered removed under
section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
I-862, Notice to Appear--Aliens against whom removal proceedings
are being instituted.
I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge--Aliens against whom
removal proceedings are being instituted.
I-871, Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order--Aliens
who reentered the United States illegally and whose prior order of
removal has been reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as amended.
USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration, or its successor form.
CBP-approved document or its electronic equivalent for the Trusted
Traveler Programs NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, and Global Entry--Aliens who
were last admitted to the United States through NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, or
Global Entry facilitated processing.
* * * * *
(e) Fingerprinting waiver. (1) Fingerprinting is waived for
nonimmigrant aliens admitted as NATO representatives, officers, and
employees pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(s)(1)(i)(A) and (B) (excluding the
attendants, servants, or personal employees of such nonimmigrants under
8 CFR 214.2(s)(1)(i)(C)) while they maintain such nonimmigrant status.
(2) Fingerprinting is waived for aliens who are holders of
diplomatic visas as defined in section 101(a)(11) of the Act and 22 CFR
41.26(a)(2) (other than those issued under section 101(a)(15)(A) and
(G) of the Act who are exempt from the registration and fingerprinting
requirements under section 263(b) of the Act) admitted on the basis of
such visas while they maintain such nonimmigrant status.
(3) Fingerprinting is waived for nonimmigrant aliens, while they
maintain nonimmigrant status, who are nationals of countries which do
not require fingerprinting of United States citizens temporarily
residing therein.
(4) Fingerprinting is waived for every nonimmigrant alien not
included in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section who departs
from the United States within one year of his or her admission,
provided he or she maintains his or her nonimmigrant status during that
time; each such alien not previously fingerprinted shall apply therefor
at once if he or she remains in the United States in excess of 1 year.
(5) Every nonimmigrant alien not previously fingerprinted shall
apply therefor at once upon his or her failure to maintain his or her
nonimmigrant status.
* * * * *
(g) Registration and fingerprinting of children who reach age 14.
Within 30 days after reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United
States not exempt from alien registration under the Act and this
chapter, or otherwise by law, must apply for registration and
fingerprinting, unless fingerprinting is waived under paragraph (e) of
this section, in accordance with applicable form instructions.
(1) Permanent residents. If such alien is a lawful permanent
resident of the United States and is temporarily absent from the United
States when he or she reaches the age of 14, he or she must apply for
registration within 30 days of his or her return to the United States
in accordance with applicable form instructions and with the fee
specified in 8 CFR 106.2 to replace a permanent resident card The alien
must surrender any prior evidence of alien registration, and USCIS will
issue the alien new evidence of alien registration.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 264.5 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec. 264.5 Application for a replacement Permanent Resident Card.

* * * * *
(h) Temporary evidence of registration. USCIS may issue temporary
evidence of registration and lawful permanent resident status to a
lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident alien who
has properly filed an application for a replacement permanent resident
card or for naturalization, petitioned for the removal of the
conditions on his or her residence using the form prescribed by USCIS,
or as otherwise determined by USCIS in accordance with the form
instructions. The alien must surrender such temporary evidence upon
receipt of his or her permanent resident card, unless that temporary
evidence was placed by USCIS into the alien's passport.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 264.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 264.6 Application for a nonimmigrant arrival-departure record.

(a) Eligibility. USCIS may issue a new or replacement arrival-
departure record to a nonimmigrant who:
(1) Seeks to replace a lost or stolen record;
(2) Seeks to replace a mutilated record; or
(3) Was not issued an arrival-departure record pursuant to 8 CFR
235.1(h)(1)(i), (iii), (iv), or (v) when last admitted as a
nonimmigrant, and has not since been issued such record but now
requires one.
* * * * *

Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2026-13057 Filed 6-25-26; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P