Responses to Public Comments

Public Comment Matrix - I-912.pdf

Request for Fee Waiver

Responses to Public Comments

OMB: 1615-0116

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1615-0116 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Comment Matrix

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory
Form.
Gener
al

Comment
by
(Link)
Magnolia
Zarraga

Form,
Part
7,
Item
#3

Gener
al

Jean
Public

Comment

Response

The form is overly complicated but especially when it uses two different
terms to describe the same thing.
The form first (Part 2) describes the primary applicant as a requestor and
then asks the requestor to list family members included in the fee waiver
(Part 4 item 2). Then the form (Part 9) asks for Additional requestor
signature certification etc, and each box in part 9 seems to want info for the
family members but calls them requestors....this is too complicated just call
them family members instead.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section. The word “requestor” is part of the
standard language for certifications and
signature. Words are added to each section
to clarify. Much of the revised Form I-912
increased length can be attributed to new
standard language and added white space to
improve the flow and readability of the
form.

Are you really going to want all applicants to submit copies of all their
monthly expenses? (Part 7 item 3)

Applicants are not required to provide all
monthly expenses if qualifying under the
means tested benefit or under 150% of
income guidance. As with the previous
form, monthly expenses are reviewed when
the basis for eligibility is financial
hardship, there is no change to the policy or
review by officers.

Having an officer sort thru mounds of monthly bills seems overly
burdensome, why not just request bills if pertinent to a claimed medical or
other financial hardship. The applicants are already listing their monthly
expenses and then signing under penalty of perjury. The vast majority of the
population has liabilities and monthly expenses and if they don't why are
they filling out a fee waiver request. We all have bills of some sort, but it
should only factor into a decision for a fee waiver if we are claiming our
bills are extraordinary in some way.
I oppose giving fee exemptions. those who don't pay mean those who do
pay, even at great cost, ae charged more. it is necessary that those who are
lawbreaking sneaking illegal immigrants should NEVER be given any right

No change is required based on this
comment.
1

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Form
Part 1

Comment
by
(Link)

Lynne
Weintraub

Comment

Response

to file any exemption from costs what should happen to them is that they be
deported asap. its time to stop the overwhelming attack on americans
wallets by thse sneaks sneaking in unlawfully. we have laws on the books
on how to come to America. we expect our laws to be honored and
respected. most americans do so. why are we allowing sneaks from other
countries to avoid and disrespect our laws because of a rogue president,
whose thinking is weird.
The current version of the form, helpfully, tells applicants which section
they need to fill out based on which of the three qualifications for a waiver
applies to them:

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

---Line 7.a. [ ] I am or a relevant member of my household is currently
receiving a means-tested benefit. (Complete Sections 4 and 7.)
---Line 7.b. [ ] My household income is at or below 150% of the Federal
Poverty Guidelines. (Complete Sections 5 and 7.)
---Line 7.c. [ ] I have a financial hardship. (Complete Sections 5, 6, and 7.)
The proposed new form eliminates this helpful information and makes it
unclear which sections the applicants must fill out. For example, if the
applicant receives a means-tested benefit, they will likely end up filling out
parts 4, 5, and 6 (and providing all of the accompanying documentation)
when in fact they only need to complete part 4 and send a copy of a benefits
letter.
In part 1, the proposed form instructs applicants to "select all applicable
boxes." Unless this is clarified, all applicants will select box C because if an
applicant receives a means-tested benefit (A), and/or has income below the
poverty guidelines (B), by definition, the applicant has a financial hardship.
The form should ask applicants to choose only ONE basis for eligibility,
2

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

and fill out ONE section (either 4, 5, or 6) that relates to it. It should be
made clear that the applicant only has to send documents related to that
ONE basis for eligibility.
4

Kristen
Jackson,
Public
Counsel
Instru
ctions
, Page
3

Full Comment Link
SIJ related comments

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section accordingly.

Summary of Comments/Edits:
Add approved, pending or concurrently filed SIJ-based I-360, to clarify SIJ
don’t need approved I-360 to qualify for fee waiver
Clarify that SIJ do not need to list foster home or group home income to
household size or income

Form
Part 6
and
Instru
ctions

Clarify that if the applicant has a status but not I-551 or I-94, should leave
status blank

Part
3m
Item
#1,
#2 ;
Instru
3

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

ctions
Page
3
Gener Karen
al,
Jackson
not
specif
ic to
form
Gener
al

Claudio
Alpaca

Comment

Response

My family lives below teh pverty level and I am a naturalized citizen. I
have been eveicted in a domestic violence relationship and I am working to
get myself off public assistance but in teh meantime I cannot afford to
replace my naturalization papes especially being attacked by Home land
security for not having it so I can get health insurance. I and my family will
benefit from teh fee waiver beause I can prove who I am now.

Fee waivers are available for Form N-600
to request replacement naturalization
documents. No change to Form I-912 is
required based on this comment.

There are no to add or modify for the document has examined and
documented all possible situations and cases and all are wel disciplined and
regulated. the matter is vaste and complexesse but, on my opinion, all has
bee objet of accurate normative claudio alpaca

No change is required based on this
comment.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory
Gener
al

Comment
by
(Link)
Brian
Holovach

Comment

I-912 and any fee should be waived for active duty military and veteran's
that are honorably discharged from the service.

Response

No change is required based on this
comment.
This would require a regulatory and policy
change that exceeds what can be made via
a form change. USCIS already exempts the
military members from the fee for Forms
N-336, N-400, and N-600.

Gener
al

Rosalinda
Fernandez

First, I suggest reducing the number of pages on the instruction form.
The penalities in the instruction form need to be included on the I-912 form
at the end where the applicant signs the form.
On the I-912 form, instead of instructing the applicant to write in the form
number in the List Forms box, add a listing of the applicable form numbers
and instruct applicant to circle the form number.

The number of pages on the instructions
have been minimized as much as possible.
USCIS has added the standard language in
the requestor and interpreter certification
sections which account for much of the
increased length. The space added also
increases readability.
The current instructions list forms for
which waivers are available and that list
was removed in the revised version to
decrease the number of pages. Listing the
5

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Gener
al

Comment
by
(Link)

Lyn Cator

Comment

I do not agree there should be Fee Exemptions and Waivers for those
who have already managed to get into the country ILLEGALLY and
benefit from our taxes.
Here is my reason as a LEGAL

Response

forms would require a form revision should
USCIS decide to add or remove a form
from fee waiver eligibility. Therefore,
Form Numbers are being moved from the I912 to the webpage.
No change is required based on this
comment.

My husband and I were LEGAL residents for over 8 years and prior to
that, we had to wait an additional 11 years to actually get our
application processed to get into the USA, since 1996. It cost us over
$2000 each for the initial green card and we had to go through all the
medicals/criminal background checks/costs, etc. and we finally arrived
in the USA in 2007. We have since become American Citizens at
another cost of $685 each and we are happy to be here. Are we going to
get our costs reimbursed, even though we did everything legally - I
don't suppose so for one minute? So, now you are proposing that all
taxes payers are going to have to pay for all those who can't be bothered
to go through the long process we did, to become American Citizens
legally.
I do not believe anyone should just be given a way into any country
without all the proper checks, etc. and if there are fees associated with
the process, then each person should be charged as my husband and I
have been. We have worked continually all the time we have been here,
contributed to the economy by paying our taxes, buying our home, etc
and become part of the American society.
6

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Illegals are burden on tax payers, if they want to become legal, they
should go through the correct channels and pay for the privilege of
being in a country that would welcome them legally.

Form
Part 1

Barbara
O’Brien,
ILS
Immigrati
on Legal
Services

Dear USCIS Officer:
I am an immigration attorney with IRIS-Integrated Refugee & Immigrant
Services. I represent refugees who have been invited by the U.S.
Government to resettle in Connecticut. Most of my clients are low-income
and receive mean-tested benefits.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

I urge USCIS not to change the language on the I-912 as suggested,
requiring applicants to include information about all potential grounds of
eligibility for a fee waiver. I urge USCIS to continue its longstanding
policy that if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit, that is sufficient
to establish eligibility for a fee waiver.
By definition, those applying for fee waivers are poor. They are thus more
likely to be unrepresented or represented by non-profits with limited
resources. Requiring the most vulnerable non-citizens to submit additional
paperwork about their income level and/or their financial hardship poses an
undue burden on them, making it more difficult for them to complete the
fee waiver and to file for important benefits such as naturalization, green
card renewals, and asylee adjustment. It puts an undue burden on nonprofit legal service providers which will have to gather superfluous
documentation about income and hardship. And it will result in the
unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who only need to see
proof of the means-tested benefit. Please do not change this section of the
7

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

form.
Thank you for your time and attention.

Form
Part 1

Deborah
Lee, Esq.
Sanctuary
for
Families

Good afternoon:
I am an immigration attorney with Sanctuary for Families. I urge USCIS
not to change the language on the I-912 as suggested, requiring applicants
to include information about all potential grounds of eligibility for a fee
waiver. I urge USCIS to continue its longstanding policy that if an
applicant receives a means-tested benefit, that is sufficient to establish
eligibility for a fee waiver.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

Form
Part 1

Claire
Valentin,
Children’s

I am an immigration attorney with Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts.
I represent immigrant children in desperate need of relief and stability in
their lives. I urge USCIS not to change the language on the I-912 as

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.
8

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)
Law
Center of
Massachu
setts

Comment

Response

suggested, requiring applicants to include information about all potential
grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver. I urge USCIS to continue its
longstanding policy that if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit, that
is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee waiver.
By definition, those applying for fee waivers are poor. The children I work
with are in crisis and gathering documentation is extremely difficult for the
children and their families. Requiring the most vulnerable non-citizens to
submit additional paperwork about their income level and/or their financial
hardship poses an undue burden on them, making it more difficult for them
to complete the fee waiver and to file for important benefits such as
naturalization, green card renewals, and asylee adjustment. It puts an undue
burden on non-profit legal service providers which will have to gather
superfluous documentation about income and hardship. And it will result in
the unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who only need to
see proof of the means-tested benefit.
Please do not change this section of the form.

Form,
Part 1

Mary
Dutcher
Apoyo
Legal
Migrante
Asociado
(ALMA)

I am an immigration attorney with a nonprofit agency, Apoyo Legal
Migrante Asociado (ALMA). I urge USCIS not to change the language on
the I-912 as suggested, requiring applicants to include information about all
potential grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver. I urge USCIS to continue
its longstanding policy that if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit,
that is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee waiver.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Gener
al

Anonymo
us

Gener
al

David
Khoperia

Comment

paperwork about their income level and/or their financial hardship poses an
undue burden on them, making it more difficult for them to complete the
fee waiver and to file for important benefits such as naturalization, green
card renewals, and asylee adjustment. It puts an undue burden on nonprofit legal service providers which will have to gather superfluous
documentation about income and hardship. And it will result in the
unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who only need to see
proof of the means-tested benefit. Please do not change this section of the
form.
Fee wavers should be approved. USCIS already collects a substantial
amount of money from families that are attempting to visit and/or
immigrate to the United States
Although I-912 form and its instructions cover many different scenarios
where fee waiver would be justified, there is at least one case that has not
been considered, it would, however, undoubtedly qualify for the fee waiver.
Consider naturalized U.S. citizen(s) in financial hardship, one who is
receiving a means tested benefit, who’s child(ren) would only confer
citizenship by derivation through naturalization of parent, based on Child
Citizenship Act, upon parent filing I-130 and consequent adjudication of I485. Since upon adjustment of status this child(ren) would confer
citizenship there would be no requirement to prove likelihood of becoming
a public charge. Furthermore, under the circumstances affidavit of support
is not required. Upon adjudication of his/her I-485 this child(ren) would
become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
I would suggest adding to the I-912 instructions, under item 5, Form I-485,
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, under
section “Which Applications and Petitions Will USCIS Consider for a Fee
Waiver,” the section that would describe such applicants.
There might not be that many, I hope

Response

No change is made based on this comment.

Regulations govern which Form I-485
filers may qualify for a fee waiver. No
change is made based on this comment.
Fee waivers are permitted by 8 CFR
103.7(c) only for certain Form I-485s.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Gener
al

Form,
Part 1

Comment
by
(Link)
Jeanette
Sayno

Benjamin
Schatz,
Catholic
Charities,
Archdioce
se of San
Antonio,
Inc

Anonymo
us (B.G.)

Comment

I recommend that fee waiver must be retained especially to low income
earners and there must also be a partial fee waiver for those earners whose
income has a small margin in the poverty guidelines. Please included
MEDICAL in the means-tested for fee waiver.

The new version of the form asks the applicant to complete all of the
relevant sections of the form, even for those who receive means-tested
benefits. A person who receives a means-tested benefit is below 150% of
the poverty level. That is how the person qualifies for means-tested
benefits. Furthermore, an applicant receiving means-tested benefits is
extremely likely to have some kind of financial hardship.
Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of San Antonio, strongly urges USCIS to
not require individuals who receive means-tested benefits to complete the
other two sections as well. Requiring that would be an unnecessary burden
on both our clients and our resource-limited organization, and it would be
of no value to USCIS.
1) Allow the fee to be adjusted on a sliding scale based on income but there
should be some "skin in the game"
(if there is no investment, there is no incentive on the part of the applicant
to meet the eligibility requirements

Response

No change is made based on this comment.
Partial fee waivers (discounts) require a
change in policy that exceed a form
revision. Fee waivers are already available
for requests when income is reduced by
major medical expenses.
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

No change is made based on this comment.
USCIS is not changing fee waiver policies
as part of this form revision.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

2) Allow only one fee waiver per individual per application.
otherwise, you encourage multiple filings with no incentive on the part of
the applicant to meet the eligibility
requirements, adding to the workload and slowing down the process for
those applicants who are eligible for the
benefit requested.

Response

USCIS appreciates the comment but
believes the current documentation and
review requirements for the Form I-912 are
sufficiently rigorous to determine inability
to pay.

For example, fee waiver application denied due to inability to pass language
or civics testing.
Applicant immediately files new application with fee waiver request
knowing they still do not qualify
3) Do not base waiver on
a) unverified tax returns i.e. multiple household members all claiming head
of household status with nonqualifying
dependents or
b) eligibility of one family member for government benefits such as state
subsidized medical assistance that is not need
c) Prior to grant of fee waiver, have individual complete entire form
including all income (wages or otherwise), expenses
(with verification) as well as explanation for hardship. Oftentimes, nothing
is submitted other than the benefit award
letter

Bernard
Garcia,

Since USCIS is almost entirely fee-based, the individuals requesting
benefits should have some investment
I would like if you review all the cases for waiver fee for all people because
there is a lot people disable or retired and they don't have money to pay the

As suggested, fee waivers are based on the
requestor’s financial condition, and all
12

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)
Iberoamer
icana
Immigrati
on Service

Comment

Response

fees for renew them green card or to applied for US citizenship and they
sent the application with the waiver and don't be accepted please I would
like to let you know if can you take little bit the time to review all those
applications. please

requests are reviewed. No change is
required based on this comment.

No change will be made based on this
comment on the current form. All
applicants requesting a fee waiver must
sign the form, therefore, a signature line is
provided based on the average number of
persons who may file within the same
package of requests. Multiple family
members may request a fee waiver
concurrent with applicant only when all
family members are requesting a waiver on
the same basis, e.g., means-tested benefits,
150% of federal poverty level.
The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section to clarify
this requirement.

Barbara
Valdes,
Aventura
Travel
Services,
Inc.

Current form has 5 pages, page 5 is for additional signatures of each person
applying for a fee waiver, those lines are too much.
Page 5 should be eliminated.
Section 2 Additional Information for Dependents Line 6 and Section 4
Means-Tested Benefits Line 8 could be combined.

Gerry
Chapman

I am the principal and owner of Chapman Law Firm, a private law firm in
Greensboro, NC. For several years, this firm has handled a steady number
of U visa cases for people who are often unable to afford filing fees that
otherwise would be required in a U case. In the strongest possible terms,
we urge USCIS NOT to change the language on the I-912 as the recent
notice suggested, i.e., requiring applicants to include information about
ALL potential grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver. USCIS should
continue its longstanding policy that if an applicant receives a means-tested
benefit, that is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee waiver.
Applicants who seek fee waivers are poor and need to preserve their
resources for daily critical needs such as food and medicine. Due to their

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

financial circumstances, they are very likely to be unrepresented or
represented by non-profits with very limited resources. When represented
by private counsel, the cost of representation to the applicant increases if
more time is required to prepare and file various parts of the case. It is clear
that the proposed change will require additional time and therefore it will
increase the costs to all applicants and their legal service providers, private
or non-profit where a fee waiver is submitted. Requiring the most
vulnerable non-citizens to submit additional paperwork about their income
level and/or their financial hardship poses an undue burden on them,
making it more difficult for them to complete the fee waiver and to file for
important benefits such as naturalization, green card renewals, U/T visa
applications, and asylee adjustment. This kind of change will place an
undue burden on applicants and legal service providers which will have to
gather superfluous documentation about income and hardship, when proof
of a means-tested benefit is already available and has been more than
sufficient for deciding if a waiver is appropriate. The proposed change will
also result in the unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who
only need to see proof of the means-tested benefit to approve the fee waiver
request. Submission of unnecessary materials of such paperwork will only
slow the adjudication process for applicants who are poor and urgently need
the adjudication of their applications, which in many humanitarian cases (U
visa, for example) will lead to work authorization.
We urge you not to change this section of the form. Proof of a means-tested
benefit alone is sufficient for adjudicators to waive the applicable fees.
Please do not place another burden and layer of complexity on this very
vulnerable population. The intent of Congress when it authorized the U
visa was to facilitate the filing of U visa cases, not to make them harder to
prepare and process.
14

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Form,
Part 1

Comment
by
(Link)

Aaron
Morris
Immigrati
on
Equality

Comment

Thank you for your consideration of these remarks.
I am the legal director of Immigration Equality, a national non-profit
organization offering free legal services to indigent immigrants. I urge
USCIS not to change the language on the I-912 as suggested, requiring
applicants to include information about all potential grounds of eligibility
for a fee waiver. I urge USCIS to continue its longstanding policy that if an
applicant receives a means-tested benefit, that is sufficient to establish
eligibility for a fee waiver.

Response

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. We will
adopt this recommendation by clarifying
the instruction language.

Instru
ctions
,
Hous
ehold
Inco
me

Hayley
Upshaw,
Legal
Services
for
Children

Summary:
•
•

Separate process for SIJ applicants
Clarification of household for SIJ

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
add language in the instructions as
suggested.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Form,
Part 1

Comment
by
(Link)
Ryan
Muennich

Comment

I am private immigration attorney who has submitted I-912 fee waivers on
behalf of clients. USCIS should not require applicants to fill out all three
methods of proving income. If the agency is satisfied that the applicant's
income is below 150% poverty guidelines or receives a means-tested
benefit, no additional information is gained by forcing the applicant to
provide a detailed accounting of income, expenditures, and hardship

Response

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and correct the
language in the pertinent section to be more
clear.

While a privately retained attorney may be able to guide an applicant
through this process, non-citizens applying on their own or through nonprofit organizations will find completing all sections extremely onerous.

Form,
Part 1

Maria
Romani
Quispe,
Make the
Road New
York

I urge USCIS to continue allowing applicants to establish eligibility for fee
waivers based on any of the three grounds alone.
I am an immigration attorney with Make the Road New York, a non-profit
community organization. I urge USCIS not to change the language on the I912 as suggested, requiring applicants to include information about all
potential grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver. I urge USCIS to continue
its longstanding policy that if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit,
that is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee waiver.

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section.

By definition, those applying for fee waivers are people with low income.
They are thus more likely to be unrepresented or represented by non-profits
with limited resources. Requiring the most vulnerable non-citizens to
submit additional paperwork about their income level and/or their financial
hardship poses an undue burden on them, making it more difficult for them
to complete the fee waiver and to file for important benefits such as
naturalization, green card renewals, and asylee adjustment. It puts an undue
burden on non-profit legal service providers which will have to gather
superfluous documentation about income and hardship. And it will result in
16

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

the unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who only need to
see proof of the means-tested benefit. Please do not change this section of
the form.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Multi
ple
sectio
ns

Comment
by
(Link)
Victoria
Neilson,
Immigrant
Justice
Corps

Comment

Response

Part 1, Question 1:
IJC strongly objects to the changes which require an applicant to include all
bases for a fee waiver; the current form asks the applicant to include
information on any basis for the fee waiver.

Part 1: The changes were to permit
information on any basis for a fee waiver
not require an applicant to include all bases
for a fee waiver. USCIS will adopt this
recommendation and fix the language.

Part 3, Questions 1-4:
It is confusing to have one box for “Unemployed” and another for “Not
employed.” Presumably the former is meant to be for those currently
seeking employment and the latter for those who are not, but if that is the
intent, the difference should be clearly spelled out. Moreover, the applicant
is instructed to only check one box although it is possible that someone
could be a “full-time student” and be employed part-time, or could be
retired (receiving retirement benefits) and employed part-time. We
recommend that the instruction to only check one box be eliminated.
Part 4, Questions 1 and 2:
We do not see any benefit in having separate tables for the primary
applicant and derivatives. Instead, we suggest a table which consolidates the
information from Part 4, Question 1, and incorporates additional relevant
information to the table proposed in Part 4, Question 2. The purpose of this
suggestion is to clearly lay out the applicants, forms, and bases for request
for each individual included in the Form I-912. Additionally, the proposed
table prioritizes clarity and versatility by accommodating a wide range of
possibilities for a family that is filing a Form I-912 on several different
bases.
Below is an example of what we believe would be a clearer table.

Part 3: USCIS has edited the form so there
is now one checkbox for “unemployed”
and “not employed.”

Part 5, Table
We suggest either eliminating the columns for “Date Benefit was Awarded”
and “Date Benefit Expires” and simply include the check-box “Is the
Benefit Being Received Now?”
Part 6, Question 1
Part 6 is very confusing and we strongly suggest you rework this entire

Part 4: USCIS combined the two tables into
one and edited the instructions to
incorporate this change.

Part 5: USCIS deleted the column for check
box (yes/no) is benefit being currently
received. Added separate column for type
of benefit.
18

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Part 6 Question 1: No change will be made
based on this comment. The instructions
explain how to determine who is a head of
household. USCIS reviews fee waivers and
determines inability to pay based on the
income of the entire household.

Part 6, Question 2
In preparing the applicant to fill out the table that accompanies Question 2,
the content of the questions makes reference to the applicant’s tax returns.
Part 6, Question 2, Table
We suggest that the third column state explicitly “Does Person Earn Income
Counted toward Household Income on Tax Returns

Part 6 Question 2: No change will be made
based on this comment. A person can earn
income that is not listed on a tax return (for
example they make too little to file a tax
return).

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Part 6, Question 3-6
To avoid these potential ambiguities the word “total” should be removed
from Question 3, the caveat “Excluding Yourself” should be added to
Question 4, and the clarification “not already included in Question 4 or
Question 5” should be appended to Question 5.
Furthermore, for question 5, it is unclear why only the additional income of
the requester is asked for in light of the fact that the fee waiver
determination hinges on a calculation of the household income.

Part 6, Question 3-6: USCIS made edits to
these questions clarifying which amounts
should be included in the individual
question.

Part 6, Question 8
What type of information would be relevant in this “Additional
Information” box that has not already been provided? Specific examples
should be included to in the instructions to provide guidance to applicants.

Part 6, Question 8: No change will be made
based on this comment. This section is not
required, and is just intended to give the
requestor an opportunity to provide any
further information that they believe may
be helpful to the adjudication. Specific
examples may confuse the issue further.

Part 7, Question 1
The Form I-912 Instructions should clarify that if multiple applicants are
included in the fee waiver request, the narrative and statement should be a
reflection of the experience and situation of all family members filing on
the financial hardship basis.

Part 7, Question 1: USCIS added
clarifying language to account for all
relevant members.

Instructions:

1: We strongly urge USCIS to continue to include the list of forms with fees
that may be waived. It is very helpful for applicants, especially those who
are unrepresented, to understand which forms’ fees may be waived.

1: Form Numbers are being removed from
the I-912 to the webpage because which
forms are eligible for a fee waiver may
change.
20

2: We strongly suggest that USCIS should maintain its current process of
first determining whether the applicant receives a means-tested benefit; if
the answer is yes, there should be no need for the applicant to submit

2: This process has not changed. USCIS
made edits to clarify this.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Form,
Part 1

Comment
by
(Link)
Anna
McLeod,
Chapman
Law Firm

Comment

Response

I am an immigration attorney with Chapman Law Firm, a private law firm
in Greensboro, NC. I urge USCIS NOT to change the language on the I-912
as suggested, requiring applicants to include information about ALL
potential grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver. I urge USCIS to continue
its longstanding policy that if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit,
that is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee waiver.

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section.

By definition, those applying for fee waivers are poor. They are thus more
likely to be unrepresented or represented by non-profits with limited
resources. When represented by private counsel, the cost of representation
to the applicant increases when more time is required to prepare and file the
case. It is clear that the proposed change will require additional time and
therefore cost and burden to all applicants and their legal service providers,
private or non-profit. Requiring the most vulnerable non-citizens to submit
additional paperwork about their income level and/or their financial
hardship poses an undue burden on them, making it more difficult for them
to complete the fee waiver and to file for important benefits such as
naturalization, green card renewals, U/T visa applications, and asylee
adjustment. It puts an undue burden on applicants and legal service
providers which will have to gather superfluous documentation about
income and hardship, when proof of a means-tested benefit is already
available and is sufficient. The proposed change will also result in the
unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who only need to see
proof of the means-tested benefit to approve the fee waiver request.
Submission of unnecessary submission of such paperwork will only slow
the adjudication process for applicants who are poor and urgently need the
adjudication of his or her application, which in many humanitarian cases (U
visa, for example) will lead to work authorization. Please do not change this
section of the form. Proof of a means-tested benefit alone is sufficient for
21

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Form,
Part 1

Jennifer
Kim, City
Bar
Justice
Center

Comment

adjudicators to waive the applicable fees. Thank you
I am a Program Director at the City Bar Justice Center in NY. I'm writing to
urge USCIS not to change the language on the I-912 as suggested, requiring
applicants to include information about all potential grounds of eligibility
for a fee waiver. As a non-profit legal service provider who works with low
income asylum seekers (and who also recruits and works with pro bono
attorneys), this proposed requirement is unnecessary, a waste of resources,
would require redundant adjudication, and prevent low-income immigrants
from obtaining important benefits. I therefore urge USCIS to continue its
longstanding policy that if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit, that
is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee waiver.

Response

USCIS will adopt this recommendation.
The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed.

By definition, individuals who apply for fee waivers are poor. They are thus
more likely to be unrepresented or represented by non-profits (like the
Justice Center) with limited resources. Requiring the most vulnerable noncitizens to submit additional paperwork about their income level and/or
their financial hardship poses an undue burden on them, making it more
difficult for them to complete the fee waiver and to file for important
benefits such as naturalization, green card renewals, and asylee adjustment.
It puts an undue burden on already overburdened non-profit legal service
providers who will have to gather superfluous documentation about income
and hardship. And it will result in the unnecessary submission of paperwork
to adjudicators who only need to see proof of the means-tested benefit.
Please do not change this section of the form.

Gener
al
Com

Anonymo
us (I.O.)

Thank you.
It is irrelevant whether or not someone is already already obtaining a means
tested benefit. Slumlords accept unlawful Section 8 payments, which is then
used to obtain TANF and other goodies, which is then submitted with the I-

No changes made based on this comment.
Fee waiver requests are adjudicated by
USCIS officers in accordance with
22

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

ment

Comment

912 to prove eligibility.
Evidence of being on a means tested benefit should not be acceptable
evidence because of the amount and nature of fraud that goes into obtaining
means tested benefits. As previously noted by another, there are many
people who are unlawfully filing as HOH and fail to disclose the number of
people they live with, and the total income for the household unit.

Response

regulations and agency policy. USCIS will
continue to rely on agencies with the
relevant expertise in determining if a
person is eligible for a means-tested benefit
based on their income.

It is the people who need the Form I-912 (students living away from home,
people who have been working for years but now find themselves out of
work and discriminated against) who are the least likely to use the Form I912 and are the ones who need it most.
There should be an independent review of the Form I-912 by USCIS' and
no deference should be given to other benefit granting agencies.
It is the very people who continually (and often fraudulently) collect public
benefits and who's 5-year limit is up that are abusing the Form I-912, in
order that they might continue to collect public benefits.

Form,
Part 1

David
Lash

There should only be one bite at the free apple.
It seems to me that the current method of qualification for a fee waiver is
adequate to protect the interests of all parties. Increasing the burden on
applicants seems a remedy to a problem that does not exist. Qualification
for this needs-based benefit is working fine. If extra hurdles are required,
the burden will fall on already-overwhelmed legal aid organizations and on
the indigent, the two populations who cannot afford to deal with such a
change. If there is an obvious reason to ask these populations to handle
extra time and money consuming tasks, I do not see it. Instead I see a future

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section. USCIS
will adopt this recommendation.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Form,
Part 1

Comment
by
(Link)

Jennifer
Colyer,
Fried,
Frank,
Harris,
Shriver &
Jacobson,
LLP

Andrea
Panjwani,
Immigrant
Defense
Project

Comment

Response

where fewer people will be able to avail themselves of the aspects of our
democracy that are most critical to them. This would be an unfortunate
result.
I am the Pro Bono Counsel in Fried Frank's New York office, and I am on
the Board of Directors of the Association of Pro Bono Counsel. I represent
hundreds of immigrants in that context, the great majority of whom are lowincome and qualify for fee waivers where they are available.

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section.

I urge USCIS not to change the language on the I-912 as suggested,
requiring applicants to include information about ALL potential grounds of
eligibility for a fee waiver. I urge USCIS to continue its longstanding policy
that if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit, that is sufficient to
establish eligibility for a fee waiver. Applicants who receive means-tested
benefits have already provided strict proof of need to government agencies,
and it is entirely reasonable for USCIS to rely on those processes to rest its
own fee waiver decisions. Moreover, requiring applicants who already have
means-tested benefits to provide voluminous documentation of income and
expenses and hardship will further tax the resources of the extremely
underfunded legal services organizations that represent these low income
immigrants.
I therefore urge USCIS to continue its policy of granting fee waivers to
individuals who can adequately prove that they qualify for a means-tested
government benefit.
I am the co-executive director of the Immigration Defense Project and the
former supervising attorney of African Services Committee’s immigration
legal services program. I urge USCIS to forbear from changing the
requirements of the I-912 by requiring applicants to include information
about all potential grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver, rather than just

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section. USCIS
will make the language clear on the I-912
24

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

33.

Cate
gory

Form,
Part 1

Comment
by
(Link)

Lynn
Neugebau
er,
Director,
Immigrati
on Law
Project,
Safe
Horizon

Comment

Response

one of the three categories as is currently the policy. To impose this
contemplated new requirement would be exceedingly burdensome to
applicants and their representatives.

to not require information about ALL
potential grounds of eligibility for a fee
waiver.

By definition, those applying for fee waivers are poor. They are thus more
likely to be unrepresented or represented by non-profits with limited
resources. Requiring the most vulnerable non-citizens to submit additional
paperwork about their income level and/or their financial hardship poses an
undue burden on them, making it more difficult for them to complete the
fee waiver and to file for important benefits such as naturalization, green
card renewals, and asylee adjustment. It puts an undue burden on nonprofit legal service providers which will have to gather superfluous
documentation about income and hardship. And it will result in the
unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who only need to see
proof of the means-tested benefit. We urge USCIS to continue its
longstanding policy of granting waivers to applicants who provide evidence
that they receive a means-tested benefit.

USCIS fee waiver policies are designed to
waive fees for those who have documented
that they are unable to pay.

As it is now, only the Vermont Service Center and only for U, T, and
VAWA related petitions, acts expeditiously and properly on fee waiver
requests. Our experience with every other Service Center has been dismal.
Clients who absolutely meet the fee waiver requirements and submit the
appropriate documentation are continually denied. Nonsensical and
extraneous demands for additional information are the rule of thumb. Loss
of time, energy, and a particularly onerous burden on the applicants and our
workers here is the way fee waivers are now processed. We exist to help
immigrants regularize their statuses as appropriate. USCIS has made our
jobs more difficult and time consuming. Now comes the proposed changes
to the fee waiver form.

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed or additional
information.

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Form,
Part 1

Comment
by
(Link)

Atim Otii

Comment

We urge USCIS not to change the I-912 language as suggested, requiring
applicants to include information about all potential grounds of eligibility.
The only purpose of the proposed change would be to create additional
streams of paperwork back and forth between the Service, applicants and
their pro bono providers. We see now how unnecessary demands for
additional information play out. This will lead to months of correspondence
between USCIS and the poor applicants. It has to cost the Government
money to engage in this kind of unnecessary business. We know it costs us
time that we could be helping other clients. We urge USCIS to continue its
present policy of allowing an applicant to choose one box to check. If an
applicant receives a means-tested benefit and can prove that, it should be
sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee waiver. After all, another part of
the Government, whether federal, state or city, has found the applicant to be
living below the poverty guidelines already. Why should an applicant then
be forced to provide documentation of 2 additional grounds? It absolutely
makes no sense for anyone
I am the Legal Services Director of the Immigration Legal Service program
for Lutheran Family Services Rocky Mountains. I urge USCIS not to
change the language on the I-912 that would require applicants to include
information about ALL potential grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver.
Like many other not for profit legal services programs, all our clients are
low income immigrants. Applicants who receive means-tested benefits have
already been screened by government agencies, for both state and federal
programs based on their income level, and therefore USCIS should be able
to rely on these governmental determinations to make their own fee waiver
decision. Moreover, requiring applicants who already have means-tested
benefits to provide voluminous documentation of income, expenses, and
hardship will create an undue and unnecessary burden on not for profit legal

Response

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language as suggested.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Form,
Part 1

Isaac
Wheeler,
The Bronx
Defenders

Form,
Part 1

Jessica
Mayo

Comment

service providers. It will unduly delay these providers' the ability to serve
the large number of low income immigrants who are not able to access
private and competent legal services in our communities. I strongly urge
USCIS to continue its longstanding policy that if an applicant receives a
means-tested benefit, that is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee
waiver
I am the legal director of immigration advocacy at The Bronx Defenders, a
holistic defender agency that serves indigent clients in New York City. The
proposed change to the I-912 that requires applicants to include information
about all potential grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver even if they
receive a means-tested benefit will impose a significant and undue burden
on our clients and legal staff. Our clients seeking affirmative benefits are
often in crisis and have difficulty obtaining paperwork about their income
level or financial hardship. The proposed change to the form needlessly
burdens them, our staff and USCIS adjudicators in cases where eligibility
for a fee waiver is clear. Please do not change this aspect of the current
form. Thank you for your consideration of this comment.
The Migrant and Immigrant Community Action (MICA) Project is a notfor-profit organization that serves the underrepresented, low-income
immigrant community in Eastern Missouri, Southern Missouri, and Illinois.
We urge USCIS to preserve the current language on the I-912 form and to
refrain from making the suggested change to require all applicants to
include information about ALL potential grounds of eligibility for a fee
waiver.
Our clients who apply for fee waivers do so because they are poor. The
proposed changes to the I-912 would work to create more hurdles for the
most vulnerable non-citizens to gain access to legal representation and
resources. The process of applying for a fee waiver would become more
arduous and it becomes that much more difficult for our clients to file for

Response

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
modify the language in as requested.

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
form instructions as requested.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

important benefits such as naturalization, green card renewals, and asylee
adjustment.
Our non-profit would also encounter increased difficulties, as the new form
would require the collection of superfluous documentation about income
and hardship and would force adjudicators to process an unnecessary
amount of information. The collection of this additional information is
excessive and unnecessary and would only serve to complicate a straightforward process and create more work for the client, his/her representative,
and the adjudicators.

Form,
Part 1

Rachel
Strong

Our organization already finds that many fee waivers are incorrectly
rejected. Upon resubmission with a request for supervisory review, they are
often accepted. But this lengthens the process, causes unnecessary work
and stress, and often delays critical cases. We had one client who had to
spend an extra month in a halfway house due to an erroneous denial.
Another client needed her naturalization certificate to have her 3-year-old
son come to the United States; an erroneous denial of her N-600 fee waiver
further delayed their reunification. Making the form more difficult to fill
out, and making adjudicators sift through additional evidence, will make
these denials more frequent.
Due to the fact that this adjustment would only serve to create more barriers
for an already underserved population and would make the process of
applying for a fee waiver inefficient for all parties, we ask you not to
change this section of I-912.

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section. The new
clearer form and instructions should resolve
many of the commenter’s concerns about
erroneous rejections.

I am the Pro Bono Counsel at a large law firm. We represent hundreds of
immigrants on a pro bono basis. Most of our clients apply for fee waivers. I
urge USCIS not to change the language on the I-912 to require applicants to
include information about ALL potential grounds of eligibility for a fee

The revised instructions do not require the
entire form to be completed. USCIS will
adopt this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section.
28

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

waiver. USCIS' longstanding policy of allowing a person who receives a
means-tested benefit to qualify for a waiver is sufficient for the purpose of
determining who is eligible for a fee waiver. Applicants who receive
means-tested benefits already have provided the strict proof of need
required by government agencies, and it is entirely reasonable for USCIS to
rely on those processes when making their own fee waiver decisions.
Requiring applicants who already have means-tested benefits to provide
voluminous documentation of income and expenses and hardship will
further tax the resources of the extremely underfunded legal services
organizations and pro bono lawyers that represent these low income
immigrants.
It also will further tax the resources of the USCIS employee who is
reviewing the fee waiver application, unnecessarily adding time to make a
determination that could reasonably be made quickly if the applicant is
receiving a means-tested benefit.

Multi
ple

The Legal
Aid
Society of
New York

I therefore urge USCIS to continue its policy of granting fee waivers to
individuals who can adequately prove that they qualify for only one of the
three bases, including those who prove that they qualify for a means-tested
government benefit.
Full Comment Link
Form Part 1:
Urge USCIS to continue its longstanding policy that if an applicant receives
a means-tested benefit, that is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee
waiver.

Form, Part 1: The revised instructions do
not require the entire form to be completed.
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.
29

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Form Part 3: Question 2:
Form, Part 3, questions 2 and 3:
Applicants who have neither an I-551 nor an I-94 but have a “status” will be USCIS has deleted these questions in
confused as how to answer this question. Clarify that if the applicant has a
response to other commenters concerns.
status but not I-551 or I-94, should leave status blank.
Form, Part 3 Question 3:
On the proposed form, only one status (employed, full time student etc.)
may be selected. However, an individual may be both employed and a full
time student. Propose changing the instructions from select only one to
select all that apply
Form, Part 4, Question 1:
There might be confusion between Form Number and Number of Forms.
We propose changing “Number of Forms” in column 2 to “How Many
Forms” or something else that is not so similar to “Form Number.”

Form, Part 4, Question 1: USCIS will adopt
this recommendation and modify the
language in the pertinent section.

Form, Part 5, Table:
Many clients will not know when their benefit expires or must be renewed.
We propose eliminating this column of the table.

Form, Part 5, Table:
Some benefits letters do have expiration
dates. A requestor needs to provide this
information to demonstrate that the benefit
is currently being received. Therefore, no
changes are made based on this comment.

Form, Part 6, Question 1.B.:
If the applicant and his/her spouse are separated, how would they be living
together in one household. Propose eliminating “or separated” from this
question.

Form, Part 6, Question 1.B.:
It is possible for spouses to be separated in
marital status, but still physically living in
the same household. No changes will be
made based on this suggestion was not
incorporated.
30

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Form, Part 8, question 1:
Section allows the applicant to either check that applicant can read and
understand English or has used an interpreter. The title (Requestor’s
Statement Regarding the Interpreter) assumes an interpreter. Propose
adding the words “If Any” at the end of the title.

Form, Part 8, question 1B:
In the normal course of preparing a form, we don’t translate all the
instructions to the client. Where an attorney or accredited representative is
assisting the client [sic] prepare the form, that attorney or accredited
representative would understand those instructions, and there should be no
need to review them in detail with the client. Propose eliminating the words
“and instructions” from this section.

Form, Part 8, Requestor’s certification: Propose eliminating the release
language altogether. Also propose adding the language “to the best of my
knowledge” to the end of the certification where applicant certifies, under
penalty of perjury, that the information in the request and any documents
submitted with the request are complete true and accurate.

Response

Form, Part 8, question 1:
No change will be made based on this
comment. Information about who reads the
form to applicant is a standard request in all
new and newly-revised USCIS forms. If
the applicant reads English and prepares
the form and uses no translator or
interpreter, then the preparer and interpreter
sections can be left blank.
Form, Part 8, question 1B:
No change will be made based on this
comment. Even when the information
collected on the form is completed by the
preparer using their own knowledge or selfevident reasoning, the information derives
from and is about the applicant. The
applicant must sign the form under penalty
of perjury, so the preparer should review
the answers that they provide. Therefore,
no changes will be made to the language.
Form, Part 8, Requestor’s certification:
No change will be made based on this
comment. As more USCIS forms are
available to be filed in an electronic,
paperless environment we are enhancing
31

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

forms language to combat immigration
fraud as requested by federal law
enforcement agencies. USCIS is also
utilizing the attestation process to meet its
identity-proofing and attribution
requirements established for electronic
identity authentication under federal
law. The language does not exceed
USCIS’ authority to make requests
necessary to complete case processing.
39

Multi
ple

Paul
Chandler,
World
Relief
Immigrati
on Clinice

List of Forms:
On the I-912, list the forms that are NOT eligible for a fee waiver. (I realize
this list changes over time, and also involved other factors, but it would still
be helpful to have the basic info printed directly on the form.)

List of Forms:
Form Numbers are being removed from the
I-912 to the webpage to avoid revising the
form when forms eligible for the fee waiver
change.

Means tested benefits:
In section 4, when identifying Means-tested benefits, please add a set of
check boxes, so an applicant can indicate what type of benefit they
currently receive: DSS-SNAP, SSI- disability, Other... This would also be
a way that you can identify which types of Means-tested benefits make an
applicant eligible for a fee waiver.

Means-tested benefits:
In Part 5 of the Form, there is space to
provide the information about the meanstested benefits a requestor receives. The
requestor is also directed to use Part 12 to
add, if needed, to provide more about the
means-tested benefits received. No
changes will be made based on this
comment.

Form, Part 6:
In section 5, when identifying household income, in addition to the question

Form, Part 6:
Part 6 of the form, question 2 contains a
32

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

"how many depend on the stated income" please add a clarifying question,
such as: "how many household members can be
listed as dependents for tax purposes" OR "regardless of you
dependents listed in Section 2, how many household members depend on
the stated income." To clarify "average montly wage" you could ask
"how much household income was earned during the past month" and then
ask again "during the past 12 months". You can then compute an average
income, and also guage whether the recent month is representative of
average income.

Multi
ple

Kate
Voigt, The
American
Immigrati
on
Lawyers
Associatio
n (AILA)

Response

table where the requestor would list all of
the people that would be counted as part of
the requestor’s household size. This would
include dependents on the tax returns.
Therefore, no changes will be made based
on this comment.
Also, Part 6 is focused on determining
annual income in relation to the poverty
guidelines. While evidence demonstrating
monthly income can help determine the
annual income, the suggested question does
not aid in determining if the requestor is
eligible for the fee waiver. No changes will
be made based on this comment.

Full Comment Link
Forms, Part 1:
USCIS has deleted the language that appears in the current instructions
which says that applicants who have provided sufficient evidence that they
are receiving a means-tested benefit will normally be approved “and no
further information will be required.” AILA strongly urges USCIS to keep
the language on the current Form I-912, and to continue its longstanding policy
to consider proof that the applicant receives a means-tested benefit sufficient to
establish eligibility for a fee waiver. In addition, USCIS should amend the
parenthetical that currently reads “Select all applicable boxes” to “Select one or
more of the following boxes.”

Forms Part 1:
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section accordingly..

Form, Part 2:
33

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

USCIS should add a question to elicit whether the requestor’s spouse
resides within or outside the United States and, as a follow up, a yes/no
question as to whether the requestor receives any financial support from the
spouse.

Form, Part 2:
Part 6 of the form already contains a
question that asks if the spouse lives in the
requestor’s household. An additional
question asking whether the spouse resides
abroad or in the US is not needed because
either way, the spouse is not counted as
part of the household size, plus income
determines if a requestor is unable to pay,
not where they reside. There is also space
to provide additional income provided to
the household from people outside the
household. This includes a spouse living
abroad that contributes money to the
household. Therefore, USCIS will not add
these questions.

Form, Part 3:
AILA recommends deleting this section, because the applicant’s
immigration status is not relevant when determining eligibility for a fee
waiver and is already provided in the underlying benefit application. It is
intimidating for an undocumented applicant to have to disclose their status
in the fee waiver application, and will deter needy applicants, especially
when read with the new language in Requestor’s Certification section about
releasing information for enforcement purposes.

Form, Part 3:
USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part, deleting the questions in part 3
relating to immigration status and will
modify the language in the pertinent
section.
USCIS will retain the employment status
questions as this information is relevant to
the determination of inability to pay and
this information is not necessarily available
from information provided on other forms.
34

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Form, Part 6
Under “Household Income” on the form and in the instructions, the
household should be more clearly defined. Under “Additional Income or
Financial Support,” the form makes it clear that any income received from
another person, including dependents and others residing in the household,
should be disclosed. However, it is unclear how a roommate who is not
contributing income and who is in fact dependent on the fee waiver
requestor – who may be a family member or friend who is not a child,
spouse, or parent and thus not a “dependent” for tax purposes – should be
treated.

The instructions in part 6 specify who is
considered part of the household. USCIS
does not consider a roommate income as
part of the total household income. We will
clarify this in our filing tips on our website.

Instructions, Part 5:
The instructions say that a child’s receipt of a means-tested benefit cannot
be used to establish fee waiver eligibility. We believe this is an error, and
that USCIS should consider whether the requestor’s child is receiving a
means-tested benefit when adjudicating a fee waiver request.

Instructions, Part 5:
There is no error. Current policy provides
that if a child or grandchild is receiving a
means-tested benefit, parents or other
family members will not necessarily
qualify for a fee waiver. USCIS reviews
the parent’s household income for
eligibility. The language “will not
necessarily qualify” has been confusing for
immigration service officers to review and
consider when adjudicating a fee waiver
request. Therefore, USCIS clarified,
consistent with the 2011 fee waiver policy
memo, that the means tested benefit receipt
is only for actual applicant. If the child is
receiving a means tested benefit, the parent
may still apply or qualify under other
35

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

income guidelines.
Instructions, Paperwork Production Act:
USCIS lists the estimated burden for completing the form at 2 hours. AILA
estimates that completing the revised and expanded form would take
between 2.5 and 3 hours total, including the time for reviewing instructions,
gathering the required documentation and information, completing the
request, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, and
submitting the request.

Instructions, Paperwork Reduction Act:
Every requestor does not have to fill out all
sections of the Form I-912, as commenter
had believed was now the policy.
Clarifying language is added to avoid this
misconception and should alleviate the
concerns about the extra burden of filling
out the form.

Certifications and Acknowledgements:
Part 11—Preparer’s Certification
AILA remains concerned with the expanded language of the preparer’s
certification. The proposed language reads: By my signature, I certify,
swear, or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that I prepared this request on
behalf of, at the request of, and with the express consent of the requestor. I
completed this request based only on responses the requestor provided to
me. After completing the request, I reviewed it and all of the requestor's
responses with the requestor, who agreed with every answer on the request.
If the requestor supplied additional information concerning a question on
the request, I recorded it on the request.
This language is repetitive, confusing, and imposes a burdensome and
unnecessary process for preparing and reviewing this form.

Certifications and Acknowledgements:
No change will be made based on this
comment regarding certifications and
acknowledgements.

Any concerns about fraud detection and prevention are more than adequately
covered in the existing regulations cited above. Moreover, it is beyond the
authority of USCIS to stipulate a specific review procedure for attorneys and
their clients and require that it be followed.

USCIS is adding language to combat
immigration fraud as requested by federal
law enforcement agencies. USCIS is also
utilizing the attestation process to meet its
identity-proofing and attribution
requirements established for electronic
remote authentication under federal
law. USCIS does not believe the language
is overly long, repetitive or that it adds
excessive burden on respondents.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

As such, AILA urges USCIS to revise the “Preparer’s Certification” to read as
follows:
By my signature, I certify, swear, or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that I
prepared this form on behalf of the applicant, or another individual authorized
to sign this form pursuant to form instructions. I prepared this form at his or
her request, and with his or her express consent, and I understand that the
preparation of this form does not grant the requestor any immigration status or
benefit.

Page 6, Part 8 – Requestor’s Certification
This section, allowing USCIS to access “any and all of my records that
USCIS may need,” is overly broad, and may violate privacy laws. While we
agree that USCIS has the authority to obtain records related to the requestor
that are maintained by other agencies within the Department of Homeland
Security and the State Department, this statement seems to go beyond the
acceptable parameters. We do not believe that the applicant should be
compelled to allow USCIS to retrieve non-public information or release the
applicant’s information to any branch of the U.S. government, private
companies, or the governments of foreign countries. We strongly object to
this provision, and ask that it be revised to protect the privacy interests of
the applicant.
41

Form
s,
Part 1

Kate
Webster
African
Services
Committe
e

I am an immigration attorney with African Services Committee, a
community based organization serving the African and Caribbean
immigrant population in the greater New York City Area. I urge USCIS not
to change the language on the I-912 as suggested, requiring applicants to
include information about all potential grounds of eligibility for a fee
waiver. I urge USCIS to continue its longstanding policy that if an applicant
receives a means-tested benefit, that is sufficient to establish eligibility for a

The information that USCIS may access is
limited to information USCIS may need.
This is a simple rephrasing of current legal
requirements and authorities that
previously have not been included in the
signature section because affirmative
approval for such disclosures and records
access is not required under the law for
USCIS to obtain access during its
adjudication.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language to make clear that
applicants do not need to include
information about all potential grounds of
eligibility for a fee waiver.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

By definition, those applying for fee waivers are poor. They are thus more
likely to be unrepresented or represented by non-profits with limited
resources. Requiring the most vulnerable non-citizens to submit additional
paperwork about their income level and/or their financial hardship poses an
undue burden on them, making it more difficult for them to complete the
fee waiver and to file for important benefits such as naturalization, green
card renewals, and asylee adjustment. It puts an undue burden on non-profit
legal service providers which will have to gather superfluous
documentation about income and hardship. And it will result in the
unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who only need to see
proof of the means-tested benefit. Please do not change this section of the
form.
I am an immigration attorney who regularly compiles fee waivers on behalf
of clients. I urge USCIS not to change the language on the I-912 as
suggested, requiring applicants to include information about all potential
grounds of eligibility for a fee waiver. I believe USCIS should continue its
longstanding policy that if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit, that
alone is sufficient to establish eligibility for a fee waiver.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language to make clear that
applicants do not need to include
information about all potential grounds of
eligibility for a fee waiver. Many people
who request for fee waivers may be lowincome, but documentation of their income
must be provided to show inability to pay.

fee waiver.

Form
s,
Part 1

Elaine
Fordyce

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language to make clear that
applicants do not need to include
information about all potential grounds of
eligibility for a fee waiver.

By definition, those applying for fee waivers have limited resources. They
The act of applying does not define their
level of resources. They must document
are more likely to be unrepresented or represented by non-profits with
their eligibility.
limited resources. Since almost by definition a person who receives a
means-tested benefit is below 150% of the poverty level and is also likely to
have some kind of financial hardship, this change will mean that fee waiver
applications which were once easy for unrepresented individuals, or those
working with non-profits, to complete will become much more onerous and
difficult.
38

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Requiring the most vulnerable non-citizens to submit additional paperwork
about their income level and/or their financial hardship poses an undue
burden on them, making it more difficult for them to complete the fee
waiver and to file for important benefits such as naturalization, green card
renewals, and asylee adjustment. It puts an undue burden on non-profit
legal service providers which will have to gather superfluous
documentation about income and hardship. And it will result in the
unnecessary submission of paperwork to adjudicators who only need to see
proof of the means-tested benefit. Please do not change this section of the
form.

Multi
ple
sectio
ns

Comment
Submitted
by Avideh
Moussavia
n,
National
Immigrati
on Law
Center

Page 3, Part 1. Basis for Your Request
Recommendation:
USCIS should keep the language from the current edition of the Form I-‐
912 (in Section 3) permitting the applicant To check “any” that apply.

Part 3, Part 1
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language to make clear that
applicants do not need to include
information about all potential grounds of
eligibility for a fee waiver.

Page 4, Part 5. Means-‐Tested Benefits

Recommendation:
The instructions should include the following Language after, “USCIS will
consider these state-‐funded Benefits as ‘means-‐tested’ benefits for
purposes of this fee waiver request.”: “Localities may also provide you with
means-‐tested public benefits. USCIS will consider these locally-‐funded
benefits as ‘means-‐tested’ benefits for purposes of this fee waiver
request.” The instructions should also include Examples of state and

No changes will be made based on this
comment. The instructions provide
information on means-tested benefits
including federal, state and locally funded
benefits.
39

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Current policy provides that if a child or
grandchild is receiving a means-tested
benefit, parents or other family members
Page 4, Part 5. Means-‐Tested Benefits, Item Number 2, 1. Family
Member’s Mean Tested Benefits
will not necessarily qualify for a fee
waiver. USCIS reviews the actual
USCIS should maintain its existing policy, which allows the agency to
immigration benefit applicant’s household
consider means-‐ tested benefits Received by an applicant’s spouse (even if income for eligibility and not the income or
documented lack of income of a relative or
the applicant and spouse are residing apart), child or grandchild, or parent
minor child who lives in the home with the
for purposes of the fee waiver request.
person filing the immigration benefit
request. In addition, the language “will not
necessarily qualify” has been confusing for
immigration service officers to review and
consider when adjudicating a fee waiver
request. Therefore, USCIS clarified,
consistent with the 2011 fee waiver policy
memo, that the means tested benefit receipt
is only for actual applicant. If the child is
receiving a means tested benefit, the parent
may still apply or qualify under other
income guidelines.
locally-‐funded benefits.

Page 4, Part 5. Means-‐Tested Benefits, Item Number 2, Validity of
Means-‐Tested Benefits
USCIS should not modify existing policies on the validity of means-‐tested
benefits, especially when such changes place onerous burdens and costs
onto applicants and government benefit granting agencies.

Page 4, Part 5. Means-‐Tested Benefits,
Item Number 2, 2. Validity of Means-‐
Tested Benefits
No changes in policy were proposed in this
form revision. USCIS will modify the
language to clarify.
40

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Page 7, Part 6. Income Below 150 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines, Household-size, Item Number 5, Provide Additional Income
Recommendation:
USCIS should maintain its clear and reasonable guidance that an applicant
living with another person must only include that person’s income in
household income if that person provides over 50% of household income
support to the applicant.

USCIS removed this provision to clarify
the difference between head of household
and household income as there was
confusion on this section.

Page 7, Part 6. Income Below 150 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines, Household Size, Item Number 7, Financial Hardship, Items
Number 1 and 2
Recommendation:
USCIS should explicitly state on the instructions and the form that assets
that “may be readily liquidated” or that “easily convert into cash” only
include “cash, checking and savings accounts, annuities, stocks, and
bonds.”
Elimination of the “Specific Information” Section

No changes will be made based on this
comment. The instructions provide
information on the type of assets petitioners
should include.
Elimination of the “Specific Information”
Section

Recommendation:
USCIS should keep the current advisory language on how applying for a fee No changes will be made based on this
waiver impacts a public charge determination.
comment. Information was moved to
website Frequently Asked Questions, as it
is not part of the form requirements.
Form

Form
41

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Page 1, Part 1. Basis for Your Request
Recommendation:
USCIS should keep the language from the current edition of the Form I-‐
912 (in Section 3) permitting The applicant to check “any” that apply. The
new form should also direct applicants to the specific sections of the form
they are expected to complete depending on the basis for which they are
applying.
Page 3, Part 5. Means-‐Tested Benefits, Table: Means-‐Tested Benefits
Recipients
Recommendation:
USCIS should eliminate the column titled, “Date Benefit Expires or Must
be Renewed.”

Page 4, Part 6. Income Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines, Question 5. Additional Income
Recommendation:
USCIS should maintain its current requirement that an applicant only needs
to document additional
Income or financial support from other persons living in their household if
that person provides over 50% of household income support to the
applicant.
Page 5, Part 7. Financial Hardship, Question 2, Liquid Assets
Recommendation: USCIS should explicitly state on the instructions and the

Response

Page 1, Part 1. Basis for Your Request
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
make sure the form clearly does not require
evidence for all three bases.

Page 3, Part 5. Means-‐Tested Benefits,
Table: Means-‐Tested Benefits Recipients
No changes will be made based on this
comment. The means-tested benefit must
be currently received. To reduce rejections
of fee waiver requests, the column was
added to collect the effective date
information.
Page 4, Part 6. Income Below 150 Percent
of the Federal Poverty Guidelines,
Question 5. Additional Income

USCIS removed this provision to clarify
the difference between head of household
and household income as there was
confusion on this section.
Page 5, Part 7. Financial Hardship,
42

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Multi
ple
Secti
ons

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment
Submitted
by Hasan
Shafiqulla
h, Esq,
The Legal
Aid
Society
Comment
Submitted
by Laura
PeraltaSchulte,
National
Catholic
Social
Justice
Lobby
(NETWO
RK)
Paul
Chandler,
World
Relief

Comment

Response

form that assets that “may be readily liquidated” or that “easily convert into
cash” only include “cash, checking and savings accounts, annuities, stocks,
and bonds.”

Question 2, Liquid Assets
No changes will be made based on this
comment. The instructions provide
information on the type of assets petitioners
should include.
Same as #38

Same as #38
The Legal Aid Society of New York

Same as #43
Comment Submitted by Avideh Moussavian, National Immigration Law
Center

Same as #43

On the I-912, list the forms that are NOT eligible for a fee waiver. (I realize
this list changes over time, and also involved other factors, but it would still
be helpful to have the basic info printed directly on the
form.)

Instructions Part 1
No changes will be made based on this
comment. Form Numbers are being
43

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Multi
ple
Secti

Comment
by
(Link)
Immigrati
on Clinice

Jacinta
MA,
Naturaliza

Comment

Response

removed from the I-912 to the webpage
because which forms are eligible for a fee
waiver may change. If a form is not on the
list, it is not eligible for a fee waiver.
In section 4, when identifying Means-tested benefits, please add a set of
check boxes, so an applicant can indicate what type of benefit they
currently receive: DSS-SNAP, SSI- disability, Other... This would
also be a way that you can identify which types of Means-tested benefits
make an applicant eligible for a fee waiver.

Part 4. The instructions provide
information on the type of benefits that
may be used for eligibility. Since there are
multiple programs in all the states, a
limited checklist may be confusing to the
public. No changes are made based on this
comment.

In section 5, when identifying household income, in addition to the question
"how many depend on the stated income" please add a clarifying question,
such as: "how many household members can be listed as dependents for tax
purposes" OR "regardless of you dependents listed in Section 2, how many
household members depend on the stated income." To clarify "average
montly wage" you could ask
"how much household income was earned during the past month" and then
ask again "during the past 12 months". You can then compute an average
income, and also guage whether the recent month is
representative of average income.

Part 5
Part 6 of the form, question 2 already
contains a table where the requestor would
list all of the people that would be counted
as part of the requestor’s household size.
This includes dependents on the tax returns.
Also, Part 6 is focused on determining
annual income in relation to the poverty
guidelines. While evidence demonstrating
monthly income can help determine the
annual income, the suggested question does
not aid in determining if the requestor is
eligible for the fee waiver.

Proposed Part 3, Information About Your Status
The proposed new section should not be added. An applicant’s immigration
status should be irrelevant to determining eligibility for a fee waiver and

USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part, deleting the questions in part 3
44

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory
ons

Comment
by
(Link)
tion
Working
Group

Comment

such information is already a part of the underlying application. Requesting
unnecessary additional information only makes the form more lengthy and
complicated. Specifically, this section may deter unauthorized immigrants
from filing out the form especially when considered with the proposed new
language in the signature section stating that information on the form can be
released to be used for enforcement purposes.

Response

relating to immigration status and will
modify the language in the pertinent
section.
USCIS will retain the employment status
questions as this information is relevant to
the determination of inability to pay and
this information is not necessarily available
from information provided on other forms.

Proposed Part 6, Income Below 150
Percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines
Proposed Part 6, Income Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines
The proposed changes are unclear and complex. This section should very
clearly define who is included as a member of a household and only ask for
the income of those who are a member of the household. Under the
proposed changes it is ambiguous who one should consider as a household
member and whether one needs to list the income or support of people such
as a roommate. The current March 2011 policy guidance is clear that
“household income” only includes the income of those included when filing
taxes and that when an applicant does not file a tax return, then household
income includes the applicant, spouse, parents, and certain unmarried
children. We believe that this policy guidance should continue to be
followed and that the income and support of those not included in
determining household income, such as roommates, should continue to be

No change will be made based on this
comment. The instructions explain how to
determine who is a head of household.
USCIS will provide clarification in the
website regarding roommates. USCIS does
not consider a roommate income as part of
the total household income.

Proposed Part 8, Requestor’s Statement,
45

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

excluded.
Proposed Part 8, Requestor’s Statement, Contact Information, Certification
and Signature
Under the proposed changes, it is unclear how to handle the circumstance in
which more than one family member over the age of 14 is included in the
application. There should be some additional signature lines. Also, we
recommend that only those individuals 18 or older should need to sign.

Response

Contact Information, Certification and
Signature. The instructions provide for all
requestors to sign the application. A parent
may sign on behalf of a child. Requests
with children between 14 and 18 who have
not signed are not rejected.

Comments on Proposed Instructions
We believe it would be helpful for USCIS to provide some guidance on the
situation when an applicant is homeless.

Instructions provide for applicants who are
homeless to indicate their circumstances in
the financial hardship section.

Page 2, Translations

We recommend that USCIS accept documents submitted in a foreign
language without a full English translation certified by a translator when the
Federal or state agency that issues the notice establishing eligibility for the
public benefit (e.g., eligibility for Medicaid, or for Food Stamps, or another
means-tested program) is required by Federal law to issue it in that foreign
language. It is impractical, and in some cases impossible, for applicants to
get the notice in English if the state agency is required to issue the notice in
another language because issuing the notice in English could put the agency
at risk of violating federal law. For some agencies, issuing even a single
notice in English makes a permanent change in the agency’s computer
system so that all future correspondence is issued in English as well.
Requiring applicants to translate these documents incurs an additional
burden that deters them from naturalizing. USCIS should work with the
relevant agencies to verify and translate those documents instead.

Providing translations into English is a
requirement under the regulations. 8 CFR
103.2 (b) (3). The U.S. government
agencies should be able to provide
documentation in English.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Page 2, Signatures for the Disabled
USCIS should clarify that “A designated representative may sign if the
applicant is unable to sign due to a physical, mental, or developmental
disability.”

Signature requirements accord with 8 CFR
103.2(a)(2). A legal guardian may sign on
behalf of incompetent applicants. An
individual who is unable to write in any
language may place an “X” or similar mark
in lieu of a signature.

Page 4, Family Members’ Mean Tested Benefits
The instructions state that an applicant may not use a child or grandchild’s
receipt of means-tested benefits to qualify for a fee waiver. Parents and
grandparents who are legal guardians should be able to use their
dependent’s eligibility for a means-tested benefit to qualify for a fee waiver
because the child’s eligibility is based on the parent’s financial situation.

Current policy provides that if a child or
grandchild is receiving a means-tested
benefit, parents or other family members
will not necessarily qualify for a fee
waiver. USCIS reviews the actual
immigration benefit applicant’s household
income for eligibility and not the income or
documented lack of income a relative or
minor child who lives in the home with the
person filing the immigration benefit
request. The language “will not necessarily
qualify” has been confusing for
immigration service officers to review and
consider when adjudicating a fee waiver
request. USCIS does not waive a fee for a
parent using their child’s benefit letter even
though the benefit may have been granted
the child based on the parent’s income.
Therefore, USCIS clarified, consistent with
the 2011 fee waiver policy memo, that the
means tested benefit receipt is only for
47

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

actual applicant. If the child is receiving a
means tested benefit, the parent may still
apply or qualify under other income
guidelines.

Jeanne M.
Atkinson,
CLINIC

Additionally, the agency should issue clear guidance that USCIS
application examiners must not re-adjudicate a finding by a state or Federal
agency that an individual qualified for a means-tested benefit.

USCIS does not re-adjudicate an
applicant’s means-tested benefit, however,
USCIS may question if the award letter
clearly qualifies as sufficient evidence.

Page 4, Validity of Means-Tested Benefits

Moreover, the requirement that the letter granting the means-tested benefit
must have an expiration date or indicate the length of the benefit, is overly
burdensome and will likely deter individuals from naturalizing. Many of the
letters do not provide this information, and the agencies issuing the letters
are often unable or unwilling to provide a letter with the requested
information. We believe that so long as the letter has been issued within in
the last 12 months that should be sufficient to demonstrate their eligibility
for a waiver.

One of the requirements is that the meanstested benefit is currently being received.
Some benefits letters do have expiration
dates. Guidance in the instructions
provides for requestors to provide letters
that were issued within 12 months. To
clarify and avoid rejections of the fee
waivers, the column was added to allow the
applicant to provide the information. No
changes will be made based on this
comment.

The Proposed Form
Part 1. Basis for Your Request
instruction should either be revised to say, “Select the box that best
describes your situation” or the text, “Select all applicable boxes” should be
deleted.

Part 1
USCIS will adopt this recommendation in
part and modify the language in the
pertinent section.
48

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

In addition, USCIS should keep the language in the current form that refers
applicants to the relevant parts of the form for each criterion.

The current instructions list forms for
which waivers are available and that list
was removed in the revised version to
decrease the number of pages. In addition,
listing the forms would require a form
revision should USCIS decide to add or
remove a form from fee waiver eligibility.
Therefore, Form Numbers are being moved
from the I-912 to the webpage.

Part 3. Information About Your Status
The applicant’s immigration status is not relevant when determining
eligibility for a fee waiver. There is no need to request this information in
Part 3. This information is already available in the underlying benefit
application or the applicant’s A-file.

Part 3
USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part, deleting the questions in part 3
relating to immigration status and will
modify the language in the pertinent
section.
USCIS will retain the employment status
questions as this information is relevant to
the determination of inability to pay and
this information is not necessarily available
from information provided on other forms.

Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits

Part 5:

Part 5 states, “If you answer ‘Yes’ to either Item Numbers 1 or 2” but it is
not clear which items 1 or 2 this clause is referring to. It should say, “If you
checked Box A in Part 1, complete this section.”

USCIS provided edits in Part 1 to clarify.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

The revised table is helpful.
The third column requests “Type of Benefit and Name of Agency Awarding
Benefit.” The type of benefit and the name of the agency awarding benefit
are two separate pieces of information and should be in separate columns.
Part 6. Income Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines
The heading has a typo and should state, “Income at or Below…” This typo
needs to be corrected on page 4 as well.
This section should have an instruction at the top that states, “If you
checked Box B in Part 1, complete this section.”

Part 6:
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the pertinent section.

The information requested in this section about household size and income
conflicts with the March 13, 2011 fee waiver policy guidance by referring
too broadly to “household members.” Household members could include
individuals such as roommates, who do not share bank accounts or other
finances with the applicant. Roommates are not counted in the household
size, so USCIS should not require information about roommates’ income.

Guidance is consistent with current policy.
The 2011 memo provides for applicant to
provide evidence of “Financial support or
subsidy may include monetary
contributions for the payment of monthly
expenses received from adult children,
dependents, and other people who are
living in the individual’s household, etc.”
USCIS is updating the forms and
instruction to indicate family members. In
addition, USCIS will clarify in the website
that roommate’s income is not required or
review of income below 150% of the FPG.

USCIS looks to the tax return listing the members of the household in
determining the household size. In the absence of a tax return, the policy

No changes will be made based on this
comment.
50

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

guidance specifies that only certain family members may be counted: a
spouse; parent(s) living with the applicant; and certain unmarried children
or legal wards. The form and instructions must clearly define who can be
counted in the household size, consistent with the policy guidance, and then
ask for only those persons’ income. Accordingly, the section instructions
for Part 6, Household Income should be changed to “Provide information
about your income and the income of family members counted in your
household.”
USCIS should add a question in this section about whether the applicant’s
spouse lives overseas, and if so, whether the spouse provides any financial
support to the applicant.
The proposed form requests the applicant’s “annual total income” rather
than “average monthly wage income” on the current form. This is an
improvement that makes it easier to determine an applicant’s eligibility for
a fee waiver, since the Federal Poverty Guidelines list annual, not monthly
income.

Part 7. Financial Hardship
This section should have an instruction at the top that states, “If you
checked Box C in Part 1, complete this section.”
Number 2 is an improvement because it requests information about liquid
assets and defines what they are. The current form only mentions assets. It

USCIS is modifying Part 1 to direct
applicants to the sections applicable to each
qualification.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

would be helpful for the instructions to give examples of some things that
are not considered liquid assets, such as a car or a house.
The monthly income information is presented in a series of boxes. The table
format in the current version of the form is better and easier to use. We
recommend maintaining the table format.

Unfortunately, USCIS is unable to update
the table formatting.

Part 8. Requestor’s Statement
The instructions state, “Each person applying for a fee waiver request must
sign and date Form I-912” and “should complete Part 9.” It is unclear what
to do in a situation where more than one family member age 14 or older is
included in the application. Part 9 only provides for one family member to
sign in addition to the requestor. For ease of use, we recommend keeping all
signatures on the same page.

Requestors Statement:

Furthermore, making children over 14 sign the lengthy statement and
certification in this proposed form does not make sense. They will not have
the knowledge of the family’s finances necessary to certify to the accuracy
of the information. Minors should either be excused from signing or given a
simpler statement to sign.
The requestor’s statement and certification is too lengthy and complex. This
language is not found on the current I-912, so there is no need to add it to
the proposed I-912. It adds significantly to the length of the proposed form,
along with the lengthy interpreter’s and preparer’s statements in Parts 10
and 11. We recommend replacing these attestations in Parts 8, 9, and 10
with more concise attestations that are less burdensome and easier to
understand.

No change will be made based on this
comment. As more USCIS forms are
available to be filed in an electronic,
paperless environment we are enhancing
forms language to combat immigration
fraud as requested by federal law
enforcement agencies. USCIS is also
utilizing the attestation process to meet its
identity-proofing and attribution
requirements established for electronic
identity authentication under federal law.
USCIS does not believe the language is
overly long, repetitive or that it adds
excessive burden on respondents. The
language does not exceed USCIS’ authority
to make requests necessary to complete
case processing.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Part 8 requires the applicant to certify, “I further authorize release of
information contained in this request, in supporting documents, and in my
USCIS records to other entities and persons where necessary for the
administration and enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.” This language
is overly broad and intimidating, especially when applicants are asked to
disclose if they are undocumented on page 2. This language could have a
chilling effect on needy applicants, especially if they have undocumented
family members living in their household, as many immigrant households
are mixed-status. We recommend retaining the language in the current fee
waiver form.

No change will be made based on this
comment. This language simply
acknowledges the authority USCIS already
has to obtain the information it needs to
adjudicate an immigration benefit request
and release information as provided in our
systems of records notices under the
Privacy Act. Removing it from the form
does not preclude the release.

Part 10. Interpreter’s Contact Information
We question the need for so much information about the interpreter. The N400 does not request this level of detail, only the interpreter’s name and
telephone number. The level of detail increases the length of the form
needlessly.

Part 10. USCIS is collecting more detail on
interpreters in case the interpreter must be
contacted in the future in connection with
the case.

The Proposed Instructions

Page 1, List of Forms to be Considered for a Fee Waiver
USCIS has removed the list of applications and petitions that will be
considered for a fee waiver, and refers applicants to the USCIS website
instead. This list is very helpful and should be retained. Many low income
applicants do not have easy access to a computer or the internet to view the
list of forms.
Page 2, Questions and Answers
The questions and answers that begin on page 2 of the current instructions

All form instructions are retained just
reformatted. Additional information will
53

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

and continue throughout are very helpful and should be retained. They have
been deleted from the revised instructions. If not in the instructions, they
should be placed in a Fact Sheet or FAQ sheet accompanying the form on
the USCIS website.

be available in updated website.

Page 3, Basis for Your Request
The instructions state, “Select an inability to pay at the time of filing by
selecting all that apply.” They also state, “You must provide additional
details, including evidence, as explained in each part below.” This language
is confusing and suggests that applicants must complete the entire form.

We have revised the instructions to remove
the confusion.

Page 4, Means-Tested Benefits
Paragraph 2 states, “For purposes of this fee waiver request only, USCIS
will consider federal public benefits that your household receives…” It
would be helpful to provide examples of the kind of benefits USCIS is
referring to here.

USCIS has no comprehensive list of
benefits that it could be referring to here.
Instructions provide examples for meanstested benefits that are eligible.

In paragraph 5, this sentence should be modified as follows: “Consult with
your benefit-granting agency or your legal advisor to determine whether
any federal, state, or local public benefit that you receive qualifies as a
means-tested benefit."

USCIS thinks it is unnecessary to advise
requestors that this course of action may be
helpful.

Number 1 states that an applicant may not use a child or grandchild’s
receipt of means-tested benefits to qualify for a fee waiver. We object to
this policy. A child or grandchild’s eligibility for a means-tested benefit is
based on the parent or grandparent’s low income..

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

documented lack of income a relative or
minor child who lives in the home with the
person filing the immigration benefit
request. In addition, the language “will not
necessarily qualify” has been confusing for
immigration service officers to review and
consider when adjudicating a fee waiver
request. Therefore, USCIS clarified,
consistent with the 2011 fee waiver policy
memo, that the means tested benefit receipt
is only for actual applicant. If the child is
receiving a means tested benefit, the parent
may still apply or qualify under other
income guidelines.
In number 2, the instructions state that the letter granting the means-tested
benefit must have an expiration date or indicate the length of the benefit. In
our experience, these letters do not contain this information.

Page 5, Income Below 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines
There is a typo in the heading above. It should say, “Income at or Below

Typo is corrected.
55

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

150 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.”
In the second to last paragraph, applicants are instructed to provide their
“total income before any deductions” as the annual total income. We have
been told by USCIS in the past that it looks at adjusted gross income on the
Federal tax return, which is the taxable income minus exemptions and
deductions. We strongly urge USCIS to continue looking at the adjusted
gross income, as this would be the most generous interpretation of the
poverty guidelines. For those who do not have a tax return and are
submitting pay stubs, we urge USCIS to look at the net income after taxes.
We note that many working poor families have total income that is slightly
above 150% of the poverty level, but still too low to afford the application
fees.

USCIS adjudicates fee waivers based on
total income. The language can be very
confusing, but we found that the poverty
guidelines and IRS use different definitions
for income. USCIS does not require
inclusion of income that is not required to
be reported to the IRS as taxable income.
USCIS will continue its policy of
reviewing total income which may include
the AGI on the federal income taxes and
net income along with additional income as
noted in the form.

Page 6, Documentation of Annual Income
There is a typo in number 4. Instead of “income at or above 150 percent of
the Federal Poverty Guidelines” it should say, “income above 150 percent
of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.” The same typo needs to be corrected in
number 4 at the bottom of this page.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

Page 7, Item Number 5
Item number 5 states, “If a person living with you contributes financial
support to your household, you must include this person’s income when
calculating household income.” These instructions are not consistent with
the March 13, 2011 policy guidance, which on page 6, Step 2 lists specific
family members. The policy guidance does not include roommates or other
relatives not specified. The Adjudicator's Field Manual (Chapter 10.9 (b)
(2) Step 2) also lists the specific family members to be counted in

Page 7, Item Number 5:
The 2011 memo stated that for purposes of
the 150% “Financial support or subsidy
may include monetary contributions for the
payment of monthly expenses received
from adult children, dependents, and other
people who are living in the individual’s
household, etc.” Therefore this is not
56

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Koula E.
GlarosKing,
Communit

Comment

Response

determining household size, consistent with the policy guidance. An
applicant may be living with a roommate who contributes to the rent, but
who does not share finances, such as bank accounts, car payments, or other
expenses with the applicant. In these situations, it does not make sense for
USCIS to request information about a roommate’s income such as tax
returns, and the roommate would likely be unwilling to share this personal
information. We recommend removing this instruction.

inconsistent and no changes will be made.

Page 7, Financial Hardship
In item number 1, the mention of medical expenses under financial hardship
is helpful.
The instructions should explain what to do specifically in cases where the
applicant is homeless. These cases are very compelling, but especially
difficult to get approved in our experience, due to the inability to obtain
documentation of income and expenses when the applicant has no job, no
rent, and no assets. USCIS should add a question to the proposed form in
Part 7 asking if the applicant is homeless, to better identify these vulnerable
applicants.

Part 7:
Information for homeless applicants is
available in the website. In addition, the
instructions provide for those who cannot
provide evidence of income or who have no
income.

Page 10, Requests for More Information
We have never seen USCIS request originals of copies submitted. This
appears to be something new. Given the problems we have seen with fee
waiver adjudications, we question USCIS’ ability to return original
documents from a fee waiver request in cases where the request is
approved.

No change will be made based on this
comment. This language simply
acknowledges the authority USCIS already
has to obtain the information it needs to
adjudicate an immigration benefit request.

I urge USCIS not to change Form I-912 and its instructions as proposed,
especially with regards to requirements for information for ALL three
grounds of eligibility for fee waiver.

USCIS is modifying Part 1 to direct
applicants to the sections applicable to each
qualification.
57

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)
y Legal
Aid
Service,
Inc.

Comment

Response

I also ask that USCIS keep the list of fee waivable forms in the instructions,
as elimination of the list encourages improper requests for any USCIS
benefit and substantially increases the volume of fee waiver rejection
correspondence.

I would instead propose that Form I-912 be evaluated for real effectiveness
in helping those with limited or no financial resources. Fee waiver requests
produce uneven results. I more frequently see USCIS rejections of the
current I-912 requested by truly destitute clients, despite having been
properly submitted, because they are asked to prove they have no
employment and money.

Jennifer
Chan,
National
Immigrant
Justice
Center

1. Allow parents to use their children’s receipt of means-tested public benefits
to qualify for fee waivers or exemptions.

2. Remove the requirement that proof of receipt of public benefits be
accompanied by either an expiration or renewal date.

USCIS added additional information to the
instructions and webpage for applicants
who are homeless.

Current policy does not provide for parents
to use a child’s means-tested benefit.
USCIS reviews the parent’s household
income for eligibility.
The means-tested benefit must be currently
received. Some benefits letters do have
expiration dates. Guidance in the
instructions provides for requestors to
provide letters that were issued within 12
months. To clarify and avoid rejections of
the fee waivers, the column was added to
allow the applicant to provide the
58

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

information. No changes will be made
based on this comment.
Noted
3. Reduce the paperwork for Form I-912
4. Modify language in the preparer’s certification.

Sioban
Albiol
Asylum
and
Immigrati
on Law

Provide a Clear List of Forms Which Qualify for the Fee Waiver in the
Instructions
One point of confusion regarding fee waiver requests is which immigration
forms may qualify for a fee waiver. We encourage US CIS to state more
explicitly in the instructions (as they are in the current instruction form) and

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)
Clinic
DePaul
College of
Law

Comment

to make this information more easy to find (particularly for pro se
applicants) on its website. The proposed revised Instructions under
“General Eligibility Requirements” briefly reference a list of US CIS filing
fees that may be waived and a link to applications that US CIS will consider
for a fee waiver. The link currently does not provide a list of US CIS
application forms for which fees are waivable. We recommend that US CIS
include clear, succinct language under “What is the Purpose of Form I-912”
that informs requests to “Follow the instructions below to complete the
Form I-912 if your application or petition is eligible for a fee waiver. Not
all US CIS application or petition forms are eligible.” Alternatively, we
suggest that this information be provided after the first sentence under
“Who Should File Form I-912?”
Similarly under “Who Should File Form I-912” in the Instructions, we
request that the applications and petitions which do not require a filing fee
be listed or that a link to these forms be provided following the sentence
“You do not need to file Form I-1912 for applications and petitions that do
not require a filing fee.”
Receipt of a means-tested benefit
The proposed revised form indicates that a parent or grandparent cannot
qualify for a fee waiver using the child’s or grandchild’s means-tested
public benefit letter. See Instructions, Part 5. Item 2.1. This instruction
contradicts the current instructions (which provide that parents or
grandparents will not necessarily qualify based on the child’s receipt of a
means-tested benefit) and also is inconsistent with a common-sense
approach to determining “ability to pay” including US CIS previously
stated position for reliance on means-tested benefits programs as evidence

Response

a form revision should USCIS decide to
add or remove a form from fee waiver
eligibility. Therefore, Form Numbers are
being moved from the I-912 to the
webpage.

Each form’s instruction will provide
whether or not the form has fee
exemptions.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

of inability to pay, that is, receipt of a means-tested public benefit
represents another agency’s independent assessment of economic
circumstances. See “CIS Ombudsman Teleconference: Fee Waivers: How
Are They Working for You? September 30, 2009.” Most if not all meanstested programs will require examination of the parent’s income in order to
determine a child’s eligibility for the benefit.

request. Therefore, USCIS clarified,
consistent with the 2011 fee waiver policy
memo, that the means tested benefit receipt
is only for actual applicant. If the child is
receiving a means tested benefit, the parent
may still apply or qualify under other
income guidelines.

Discounting a child’s or grandchild’s receipt of a means-tested public
benefit may in fact serve to prevent certain categories of immigrants from
availing themselves of the fee waiver. For example, a number of CBO
partners work with immigrant crime victims who require a form I-192
waiver of ground of inadmissibility for which the filing fee is $545. US
citizen children of these individuals may in fact qualify for means-tested
benefits whereas the parent seeking the immigration benefit would not. It is
very common for a child or children in a low income family to be the only
members of the household to receive Medicaid, TANF, or SNAP benefits
due to the immigration requirements or the income limits of the programs.
Children often have more expansive eligibility to federally means-tested
programs including higher income limits and more liberal immigration
requirements. Parents and Caretaker Relatives such as grandparents also
rely on these household supports to care for the child providing health care
coverage, food, income and sometimes subsidized housing and child care
assistance. Since all of these programs have eligibility requirements that
count parental and caretaker relative income into the eligibility
determination for the child which is indexed directly to the Federal Poverty
Limits (most often under 200% of the Federal Poverty Limits), receipt of
public benefits by a child in the household is often the most reliable
indicator of the household poverty level.
61

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

We urge you to consider receipt of means-tested benefit of the child when
adjudicating fee waiver requests.
We also note the need for clarity and transparency in the instructions as to
what proof of means-tested public benefits will be sufficient for
adjudication. Our CBO partners consistently have encountered issues in
adjudication of fee waiver requests—RFEs or rejections—related to proof
of receipt of a means-tested benefit. We appreciate US CIS’s attempt to
provide greater specificity here, see Instructions, Part 5, Item Number 2.2
regarding the need for current proof of receipt of public benefits, as long as
these accurately reflect the requirements that US CIS will rely on in
adjudications, that is, that receipt of public benefits as being current at the
time of filing.

Simplify the inquiry relevant to income and “ability to pay”
We encourage you to include a link on the Instructions form, Part 6
“Household Income” to the Form I-912P, so that a requestor can quickly
determine whether he or she qualifies based on income.
We also encourage a more streamlined, non-technical approach to
determination of household size and income for the requestor. The proposed
revised Instructions and Form include a number of questions and terms
without a clear relation as to how these answers and issues will be
considered in the determination of ability to pay. Additionally, there is not
a clear correlation between terms used by US CIS in the Form I-912 and
instructions and terms used by other agencies such as the IRS. For
example, the form I-912 employs the term “head of household,” which
62

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

might also be considered a tax term. It seems that as the term “head of
household” is employed in the instructions and forms, at least two different
meanings are possible: one is what is meant by the IRS, a complex and
confusing term in and of itself; and the second seems to be a reference to a
person who possibly lives with the family but isn't part of the family.
Reference to this term creates unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and
confusion as to who is considered in the household. See Part 6, Question 1.
For example at Part 6, Question Q.1.1 it is not clear whether spouse and
head of household should be referenced.
Similar concerns are present with regard to the use of “dependents,” that is,
whether in referring to this term US CIS intended it to encompass
“dependents” as used by the IRS and whether children who may not be
included as “dependents” under the IRS definition could still be included in
the household size for purposes of this fee waiver.
Further, it seems that the request for some of this information is redundant
and time consuming, for example the request for information about
dependents which presumably would be apparent from income tax return
forms which US CIS requests. While income and number of individuals
who depend on income are relevant to the ability to pay determination,
other information requested about dependents is not necessarily material to
this determination.

Avoid redundancies and confusion
Part 3 Question 3 requires the requestor to indicate employment status and
contains two boxes related to lack of current employment: “Unemployed
63

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

(currently seeking employment)” and “Not Employed.” These two
descriptions seem redundant. We suggest eliminating these boxes and
providing one box: “Not currently employed.”

Interpreter’s Contact Information, Certification and Signature
Part 10 includes a certification from the interpreter and makes reference to
penalties on the instructions. The form imposes new obligations on the
requestor and interpreter in relation to the role of interpretation, but
provides no guidance or standards with regard to what is expected of
interpreters. We urge a more thorough discussion and engagement over the
role of interpreters in the application process.

General Comments on the Form & Instructions

No change will be made based on this
comment. The number of pages on the
instructions have been minimized as much
as possible. USCIS has added the standard
language in the requestor and interpreter
certification sections which account for
much of the increased length. The space
added also increases readability.

Our group takes note that the instructions have increased in length and that
the proposed revised form is now double in length. The fee waiver form is
likely to be completed by individuals who may be filing pro se, at pro bono
workshops or with the assistance of low-cost legal services providers of
limited resources. This longer form, rather than streamlining the process
for the applicant and for US CIS, will require additional time to complete,
presenting additional obstacles to low-income immigrants and refugees in
accessing benefits. The length and complexity of the form may deter
potential applicants from pursuing benefits. We note that the fee waiver
requests in other contexts are limited in length. See, for example the
application form for waiving the filing fee employed by the US Tax Courts
at
64

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/forms/Application_for_Waiver_of_Filing_Fee.p
df

Nasim
Khansari,
Asian
Americans
Advancin
g Justice
Advancin
g Justice –
Los
Angeles.

As discussed above, some of the questions which add to the length of the
form create ambiguity and confusion rather than greater clarity regarding
standards for adjudication. While we appreciate some of the additional
specificity included in the instructions, we also note the increasing amount
of time it will take for both pro se applicants and immigrant services
providers dedicated to serving low-income immigrants and refugees, those
who are most likely to be impacted by the revisions, to complete the form.
Our comments not only address concerns of the immigrant-serving
community but also serve to reduce redundancies and confusion in the
proposed changes to the form.
General Comments
The proposed Form I-912 is 10 pages long, which is double the current
length. The proposed form is unnecessarily long and overly complex, will
discourage many eligible, indigent applicants from applying, and will likely
result in incorrect denials of fee waiver requests from applicants who
qualify for it. Furthermore, Asian Americans Advancing Justice is in
agreement with the comments submitted by the Immigrant Legal Resource
Center and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network with respect to the
undue burden of the proposed form on group processing events and the
difficulty our staff and clients would face in gathering this documentation.
These concerns are outlined below.
A majority of the applicants we help who apply for the fee waiver are
assisted in a group processing setting at naturalization workshops and
clinics. This has enabled Advancing Justice – LA and its partner
organizations to help thousands of people in a more cost-effective and timeefficient manner. We are deeply concerned about how this proposed form

The form has not actually grown in size in
terms of data collected. The forms have
been revised to add white space for easier
viewing and readability, and to format
questions for clarity. Form I-912 will be
more user-friendly for both the public and
USCIS officers, while bringing the form
up-to-date to reflect current standards. The
intent is that Form I-912 will be easier for
applicants to complete and will ensure
more accurate filings with required
evidence and fewer rejections.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

will impact our service delivery models and deter people from applying for
naturalization altogether. A 10-page form is overly burdensome to the
applicant as well as for the staff and volunteers who help them and yet
offers no substantial improvement in determining who is eligible for a fee
waiver or in establishing which documentation will be accepted. It will
greatly reduce our capacity to serve applicants.
Many applicants face language barriers and the complexity of the new form
is likely to lead to confusion and errors if completed without expert
assistance. Without free services from Advancing Justice – LA and our
community partners, many applicants would be discouraged and may give
up applying for naturalization altogether, particularly if we were not able to
advocate on their behalf regarding their eligibility for the fee waiver. A
reduction in the provision of free legal services may force applicants to seek
out the services of unauthorized “immigration consultants” and fall prey to
erroneous legal advice or fraud.
The increased documentation required by the proposed changes will also
create additional paperwork to be adjudicated by USCIS. We currently
experience a high volume of erroneous fee waiver rejections by USCIS on
the current 5-page form. These rejections cause a great deal of frustration
and anxiety for our clients, and force staff to expend additional time on a
fee waiver which had already been completed accurately. Advancing Justice
– LA has advocated on behalf of numerous applicants whose fee waivers
have been rejected in error by USCIS, and is concerned that the proposed
changes will increase the likelihood of erroneous rejections
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends that
USCIS keep the current, simpler version of the form while making
improvements to the instructions and adjudication process. By keeping the
form easy to understand and use, USCIS will improve accessibility to
critical immigration benefits, such as naturalization.
66

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Specific Comments regarding the proposed Form I-912
The comments below incorporate specific suggestions to help streamline
the proposed Form I-912 and instructions. We believe the relevant
information in the Form I-912 could be requested in a more effective, clear,
and concise way that remains accessible to the most vulnerable, low income
naturalization applicants.
[Page 1] Part 1. Basis for Your Request
The proposed text requires requestors to select boxes indicating “all
applicable” grounds of eligibility for the fee waiver request. The change in
language from the current “any that apply” suggests that applicants will be
required complete the entire form if all sections apply. This is contrary to
the current policy whereby an applicant only needs to meet one of the three
criteria to qualify for the fee waiver. The proposed language will make the
fee waiver process unduly burdensome for both applicants as well as for
USCIS adjudicators. Applicants for the fee waiver will be required to spend
a greater amount of time completing the fee waiver application and
gathering the necessary documentation. For instance, applicants who
receive means-tested benefits have already been assessed by a government
agency as being low-income and/or having financial hardships. Under the
current version of the form, if an applicant provides sufficient evidence of a
means tested benefit, the fee waiver request will “normally be approved and
no further information will be required.” The proposed language will
require such applicants to provide evidence of their income and hardships in
addition to documenting the benefits they receive. The change in language,
thus, will thus penalize needy applicants by making the fee waiver process
more complicated and time consuming.

Part 1
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
67

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

changing “Select all applicable boxes” to “Select the box that best describes
your situation.”
[Page 1] Part 2. Information About You (The Requestor).
Asian Americans Advancing Justice supports the addition of the “Other”
box under the marital status category in Question 7 of Part 2. Many
applicants are separated or estranged from their spouses but do not obtain a
formal divorce or legal separation. The current Form I-912 does not allow
married persons who have become estranged but who do are not “legally
separated” to apply for a fee waiver without including their spouse’s
income. This has been an unduly burdensome requirement for applicants
who are still legally married but who have been separated from their spouse
for a number of years. In many cases, applicants who are separated have
lost all contact with their former spouses (in particular, when that former
spouse lives in a foreign country) and are simply unable to provide
information regarding the estranged spouse’s income. In some cases, the
spouses are separated due to domestic violence, including cases where the
applicant is not applying for VAWA, T or U visa benefits as a battered
spouse or child. Advancing Justice – LA has advocated for such applicants
in the past, including cases where fee waivers were rejected several times
before being approved. By amending the form to allow applicants who are
separated without a formal order to apply for the fee waiver, USCIS is
improving the accessibility of the fee waiver.
Advancing Justice – LA has encountered many situations where married
couples are not separated but one of the spouses is living overseas, for
example where family-based immigration petitions are pending due to the
visa backlog. USCIS has frequently denied fee waivers in such situations
where evidence of the income of the overseas spouse was not provided.
Additionally, guidance from the Internal Revenue Service states that a

Part 2 Part 2 – no changes necessary based
on this comment

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

married person whose spouse is living overseas and does not have legal
status in the United States should file their tax return as a single person, but
the proposed instructions indicate that where a person’s tax filing status is
different from their marital status, they must submit evidence to explain the
difference.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends adding
a box to ask whether a spouse is living overseas and whether that spouse
provides financial support to the applicant.

[Page 2] Part 3. Information About Your Status
Asian Americans Advancing Justice would like to express our concern
regarding the inclusion of Questions 1 and 2 of Part 3. Under 8 CFR 103.7
(c), immigration status and class of admission are not relevant criteria to
meeting the eligibility requirements for a fee waiver. In addition,
information about the current status will already be provided in the
application for immigration benefits being submitted with the Form I-912.
Moreover, adding the two questions will only serve to confuse applicants
and many will not understand how to find this information. The changes
may deter indigent applicants from applying, force them to seek costly legal
representation or put them at risk to seek assistance from fraudulent

Response

If the spouse in the U.S. is the dependent of
the overseas spouse, then the overseas
spouse is the head of household and the
income counts. If it is a joint tax return,
then the total income counts for both of
them (so it is still included). It may be
different if they filed separately and neither
was a dependent on the other, but the
financial assistance provided by the
overseas spouse would count under
additional income. Therefore, no changes
made.
Part 3
USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part, deleting the questions in part 3
relating to immigration status and will
modify the language in the pertinent
section.
USCIS will retain the employment status
questions as this information is relevant to
the determination of inability to pay and
this information is not necessarily available
69

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

immigration providers.

Response

from information provided on other forms.

Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends that
the proposed Questions 1 and 2 of Part 3 be removed.
[Page 2] Part 4. Applications and Petitions for Fee Waivers.
Advancing Justice recommends improving the proposed language for
Question 2 of Part 4: “The following family members are filing forms
together with my request for a fee waiver. If no other forms are being filed
together with your request, type or print “N/A.”” The table in Line 6 of the
current Form I-912 is frequently filled out improperly because applicants
use it to list their children or family members even though those relatives
are not applying for any immigration benefit with the applicant. This leads
to confusion and unnecessary time being allocated to a section.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
amending the proposed language for Question 2 of Part 4 to “Only complete
the table below if there are family members who are filing forms with you
and are also seeking a fee waiver. If no family members are filing their
forms together with your request, type or print “N/A.”

Part 4

[Page 3] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefit Recipients
Many of the clients Advancing Justice – LA and our community partners
serve have difficulty obtaining verification of benefits letters from federal,
or state agencies and require assistance in explaining to social workers what
information is needed in the letter. Not all public benefits have expiration
dates, and many benefits are recertified annually. An expiration date or a
renew-by date may be information the federal or state agency cannot
provide and this would be significantly burdensome to the fee waiver
requestor. Creating additional requirements will only serve to complicate

Part 5

The two tables were combined and clarified
to only those applying for benefits.

No changes will be made based on this
comment. One of the requirements is that
the means-tested benefit is currently being
received. To clarify and avoid rejections of
the fee waivers, the column was added to
allow the applicant to provide the
70

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

the process for needy applicants.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
removing the column for “Date Benefit Expires or Must Be Renewed.”
It has been our experience that some requests for the fee waiver using the
current Form I-912 are rejected when they are based on state-issued rather
than federal means-tested benefits. For example, we have seen denials
based on California-issued “Medi-Cal” or “Section 8” benefits. The
rejection letters contain standard-form language which is vague and leads to
confusion for self-filing applicants who believe that their benefits are not
means-tested. When Advancing Justice - LA resubmits applications and
includes information from the State agency which states that the benefit is
means-tested, the resubmitted application is approved. Additionally, if a
different applicant applies for the fee waiver and does not include a
statement from the issuing agency, the fee waiver is denied, despite the fact
that USCIS has already been provided evidence regarding that benefit
before.

Response

information.

Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends that
(a) USCIS create a list of means- tested benefits issued by federal, state and
local government agencies so that applicants are not unduly burdened by
having to obtain and provide information from the State agency regarding
the nature of the benefits; (b) the denial letters clarify specifically what that
USCIS requires in order for the application to be approved so that indigent
immigrants who are receiving the benefits do not think that they are being
forced to pay the application fee; and (c) adjudicators at the lockbox facility
receive the appropriate training on means-tested benefits, including state
and local benefits, so that problems with erroneous denials do not arise
regularly, as they have for our clients.
71

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

[Page 3-4] Part 6. Income Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines
The proposed form and proposed instructions require that an applicant’s
income be “Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.” We
believe this is a typo that needs to be corrected.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
changing the proposed language to “Income at or below 150 Percent of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines”
This section should have instructions making it clear that only applicants
who are applying for a fee waiver on the basis of household income have to
fill out this section.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends adding
the following text to the beginning of the section: “If you checked B in Part
1, complete this section only. Then proceed to Section 7.”

Part 6

[Page 6] Part 8. Requestor’s Statement, Contact Information, Certification,
and Signature
Asian Americans Advancing Justice would like to express concern about
the addition of the proposed language “I further authorize release of
information contained in this request, in supporting documents, and in my
USCIS records to other entities and persons where necessary for the
administration and enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.” The language
regarding enforcement may discourage applicants from applying for the fee
waiver, especially if they are undocumented or live in a mixed-status
household where some family members are undocumented.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends the
removal of the proposed language regarding enforcement.

Form, Part 8, Requestor’s certification:

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

USCIS is modifying Part 1 to direct
applicants to the sections applicable to each
qualification.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

overly long, repetitive or that it adds
excessive burden on respondents. The
language does not exceed USCIS’ authority
to make requests necessary to complete
case processing.
[Page 8] Part 10. Interpreter’s Contact Information, Certification and
Signature
Advancing Justice – LA and other legal service providers sometimes utilize
telephonic interpreters to assist us in the provision of our services. The new
interpreter certification does section does not allow for the use of
interpreters who are not physically present.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends adding
a box to indicate that the interpretation was provided over the telephone and
that the interpreter is therefore unable to sign the certification.
Specific Comments regarding the proposed I-912 Instructions

Form, Part 10
No change will be made based on this
comment. Information about who reads the
form to applicant is a standard request in all
new and newly-revised USCIS forms. If
the applicant reads English and prepares
the form and uses no translator or
interpreter, then the preparer and interpreter
sections can be left blank.

Removal of the current section: Which Applications and Petitions Will
USCIS Consider for a Fee Waiver?
Asian Americans Advancing Justice disagrees with the decision to remove
the list of forms eligible for a fee waiver from the instructions to Form I912. Many poor applicants do not have access to computers and/or the
Internet, and many immigrants lack the education or skills required to
search for information online. By removing the list of applications from the
instructions, USCIS will limit access to the fee waiver.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
keeping the current section in future versions of the instructions.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

The revised form maintains the three step
process for reviewing fee waivers. The
Removal of the current section: Fee Waiver Request Review Process
updated form also have specific
The current version of the instructions to Form I-912 includes a simple step- instructions for the reader that instruct the
by-step guide to how fee waivers are adjudicated. This guide has been
reader part by part, question by question.
deemed helpful by many self-filing applicants. Recommendation: Asian
Therefore, no changes will made based on
Americans Advancing Justice recommends keeping the current section in
this comment.
future versions of the instructions.
[Page 4] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits
Asian Americans Advancing Justice disagrees with the change in the
proposed instructions whereby an applicant will no longer be able to use
their child’s or grandchild’s receipt of means-tested benefits to qualify for a
fee waiver. The current instructions state that parents “will not necessarily
qualify” but the language in the proposed form is stated in absolute terms. A
child’s receipt of public benefits is based on their household’s income,
which includes the income of their parent or grandparent caretaker. It is
unreasonable to preclude needy parents from a fee waiver simply because
their children receive means-tested benefits.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
amending the proposed language to state, “You may use your child’s or
grandchild’s receipt of means-tested benefits to qualify for a fee waiver, if
the child lives with you. “

[Page 4] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits
Current policy provides that if a child or
grandchild is receiving a means-tested
benefit, parents or other family members
will not necessarily qualify for a fee
waiver. USCIS reviews the actual
immigration benefit applicant’s household
income for eligibility and not the income or
documented lack of income a relative or
minor child who lives in the home with the
person filing the immigration benefit
request. In addition, the language “will not
necessarily qualify” has been confusing for
immigration service officers to review and
consider when adjudicating a fee waiver
request. Therefore, USCIS clarified,
consistent with the 2011 fee waiver policy
memo, that the means tested benefit receipt
is only for actual applicant. If the child is
receiving a means tested benefit, the parent
74

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

may still apply or qualify under other
income guidelines.

[Page 4] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits
[Page 4] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits
The change in the proposed instructions which states “You cannot use a
parent’s means tested benefits… even if he or she is living with you, as
evidence of eligibility for a fee waiver” is less clear than the language in the
current I-912 instructions which includes a reference to “an elderly parent
living with his or her adult child.” In addition, the proposed language is
confusing because it does not refer to the age of the applicant who may
wish to present evidence regarding the parent’s receipt of means-tested
benefits, while an earlier portion of the proposed instructions state. “Your
spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age living with you will
normally qualify for a fee waiver as part of your household if you are
receiving means-tested benefits.” The two parts of the instructions are
therefore conflicting.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
amending the proposed language to state “If you are over the age of 22 and
are not a student, you cannot use a parent’s means tested benefits… even if
he or she is living with you, as evidence of eligibility for a fee waiver.”

USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part and will modify the language in the
pertinent section.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

“can be included” as part of the household but the language in the proposed
form is stated in absolute terms. There are a variety of scenarios in which
direct family members living under the roof do not share their income. This
includes situations where adult children live with their parent, but do not
share their income or provide financial support. In many immigrant
communities, adult children feel culturally obliged to provide housing to
their adult parents, but may not be making sufficient money to support them
financially. USCIS seems to recognize this separation of finances when it
states in the instructions that adult children living with their parents may not
use the parent’s receipt of means tested benefits to qualify for the fee
waiver. It is contradictory for USICS to have that rule when it relates to
means tested benefits, but then to require adult children to include parents
as their household when income is not shared, or to have elderly parents
include their children’s income when the support provided by the child does
not extend beyond housing.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
amending the proposed language to state “Your parents who live with you
and for whom you support financially.”
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any
questions or concerns about our recommendations, please contact Nasim
Khansari, Citizenship Project Director at Advancing Justice – LA.
The form’s length should be reduced The proposed Form I-912 is twice the
length of the previous five-page form. Half of the new form is
made up of certifications, which are longer and more detailed than the
certifications in other recent forms, such as the revised I-821D DACA
application, and the additional information page. Based on this version
of the proposed revision, we recommend striking the “Information About
Your Status” and corresponding references in Form I-912.3 We encourage
USCIS to identify other strategies to shorten the length of the

Response

No changes will be made based on this
comment. The instructions provide for the
inclusion of family members that are
dependent upon the household income.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

form and eliminate redundant and unnecessary questions as well.
A 10-page form may intimidate and discourage many applicants. Our
organizations are concerned about the additional length because of its
implications for our application workshops. We have worked for years
to streamline an efficient process for assisting with applications and fee
waivers. A drastically lengthened form will render our current, successful
strategies unworkable and unwieldy. We will need more staff and
volunteers at each workshop, and we will need to add time to trainings and
workshops to cover the added inputs. Additionally, due to the form’s
complexity, our organizations may have to invest in more legal
capacity (lawyers and BIA accredited representatives), which is expensive
and inefficient. Each volunteer or staff person would need to spend more
time with each individual applicant, limiting the number of
applications we can process through our model.

Response

intent is that Form I-912 will be easier for
applicants to complete and will ensure
more accurate filings with required
evidence and fewer rejections.

3 Additional comments about this section below.
The proposed form should use clearer, less complex language Literacy
correlates strongly with economic status. This means that on top of income
barriers, low-income individuals who may qualify for the fee waiver tend to
have low-literacy rates. An overly complex form with confusing and
unnecessary inputs will undercut the goal of the fee waiver entirely,
establishing yet another barrier. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center
(ILRC) has thoroughly outlined in their comment the ways in
which language in the proposed Form I-912 could be clearer and less
complex. These recommendations generally cover our concerns with the
form. In particular, we recommend that USCIS simplify language
(i.e., “Family Name” to “First Name”) to move away from legalese and
towards terminology that will be easier for low-income immigrant
77

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

communities to understand. We urge USCIS to make all possible efforts
to apply a rigorous legibility standard to this and all other forms and
supplementary information.
Parts to complete
The form should more clearly instruct applications about which parts to
complete
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
The proposed I-912 deletes the directions in the current form guiding
modify the language in the pertinent
requestors to complete the section of the form that pertains to the bases of
section.
their request, e.g. “(Complete Sections 4 and 7)” on line 7.a. of the
current form. We are concerned that without these directions, the revised
form will lead requestors to believe that they need to complete every section
of the form, including those sections that are irrelevant to the basis of their
request. We suggest that Part 1 of the proposed form be moved back to
follow the Part 4 (“Applications and Petitions for Fee Waivers”) and
precede Part 5 (“Means-Tested Benefits”), and with each line describing the
basis for the request then instructing the requestor to go to the next part of
the form relevant to that basis. At the end of each of those parts, language
can be added directing the requestor to go to the next relevant part, i.e. “If
your request is also based on income below 150 percent of federal poverty
guidelines, go to Part 6. If your request is also based on financial hardship,
go to Part 7. Otherwise please go to Part 8.”

Status
An applicant’s status may be relevant to
whether they are eligible for a fee waiver.
In response to the comment, USCIS has
amended the pertinent section to clarify
that if an applicant is unsure of their status,
78

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Undocumented individuals are eligible for many of the benefits for which
fee waivers are available, including TPS, SIJS, suspension/ special rule
cancellation, registry, and T and U visas. Additionally, the requestor
certification requires the requestor to authorize the release of any
information on the form, any supporting documentation, or any other
information in the requestor’s immigration file for immigration enforcement
purposes. As it is, USCIS most likely has this information already in the
applicant’s A-file.

Response

the applicant can skip the question.

This language, combined with Section 3, will inevitably intimidate and
ultimately deter many potential applicants from submitting their requests
and seeking immigration benefits for which they are eligible.
Even if an applicant moves forward with the application, the individual may
not fully understand the complexities of his or her status. These questions
may be answered erroneously, or the applicant may need to consult a legal
professional, which would cause undue strain to a low-income individual.
Finally, Section 3 also asks about employment status. This is irrelevant for
the receipt of a means-tested benefit and for federal poverty line analyses.
An individual’s employment status has no bearing on whether or not they
qualify for a fee waiver if he or she meets one or both these standards.

The form should clarify standards for proving income
Questions 3 and 4 in Part 6 of the proposed form ask for “annual total
income,” which seems to ask for the requestor’s and household members’
entire income. But then Question 5 asks for details regarding
“additional income” and question 6 asks for the total. Questions 3 and 4

Instructions provide language for what
income to provide. Language was clarified
for what income is added in each box.
79

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Atim Otii

Eric
Garcetti,

Comment

Response

should be rephrased to ask for income from employment, not total income.
We note that Line 10 in Section 5 of the current form asks for “monthly
wage income” as distinct from the “other money received” that Line 11 asks
about. In addition to these recommendations, NPNA strongly encourages
USCIS to work with groups like ours to identify other strategies to shorten
the length of the form, eliminate redundant and unnecessary questions, and
reduce other barriers.
I am the Legal Services Director of the Immigration Legal Service program
for Lutheran Family Services Rocky Mountains.
Form Part I
I urge USCIS not to change the language on the I-912 that would require
applicants to include information about ALL potential grounds of eligibility
for a fee waiver. Like many other not for profit legal services programs, all
our clients are low income immigrants. Applicants who receive meanstested benefits have already been screened by government agencies, for
both state and federal programs based on their income level, and therefore
USCIS should be able to rely on these governmental determinations to
make their own fee waiver decision. Moreover, requiring applicants who
already have means-tested benefits to provide voluminous documentation of
income, expenses, and hardship will create an undue and unnecessary
burden on not for profit legal service providers. It will unduly delay these
providers' the ability to serve the large number of low income immigrants
who are not able to access private and competent legal services in our
communities. I strongly urge USCIS to continue its longstanding policy that
if an applicant receives a means-tested benefit, that is sufficient to establish
eligibility for a fee waiver.
I write to urge the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) to reconsider its proposed revisions to Form I-912, Request for

Form Part I
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

No changes will made based on this
comment. USCIS has added standard
80

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)
City of
Los
Angeles

Tara
Raghuveer
, National
Partnershi
p for New
Americans

Comment

Fee Waiver.
The proposed revisions to Form I-912 will double the length of the current
form – from five pages to ten – and make the process of requesting fee
waivers more burdensome. Grassroots organizations that have partnered
with the City of Los Angeles to help low-income Legal Permanent
Residents (LPR) through the naturalization process feel the proposed
application form will likely result in more applicant errors and discourage
potential applicants.
There are currently 8.8 million LPRs eligible to apply for citizenship,
350,000 in Los Angeles alone. Helping LPRs become naturalized citizens is
a priority for me. It is crucial for USCIS to make simplification and clarity a
priority in its application process. Given the benefits of citizenship, I
strongly encourage USCIS to reconsider the proposed application to ensure
that citizenship remains accessible.
The National Partnership for New Americans (NPNA) submits the
following comments in response to the notice of revisions to Form I-912
and corresponding instructions for Application for Fee Waivers and
Exemption, which was most recently published in the Federal Register on
March 17, 2015.

Response

requestor and interpreter certification
sections which account for much of the
increased length. The number of pages was
also increased due to the added white space
which is added to improve the flow and
readability of the form.

NPNA is a national non-profit that harnesses the collective power and
resources of the country’s 34 largest immigrant rights organizations in 29
states. Our aim is to achieve a vibrant, just, and welcoming democracy for
all. We believe America’s success is rooted in our ongoing commitment to
welcoming and integrating newcomers into the fabric of our nation, and to
upholding equality and opportunity as fundamental American values.
Immigrants are the soul of our organization, and immigrant communities
inspire, implement, and champion our work. We strongly believe that
81

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

immigrants should have the opportunity to gain legal status and become
U.S. citizens—including those immigrants with limited means who may not
be able to afford the USCIS application fees.
Our members combine scaled service delivery with advocacy and
movement building. NPNA runs coordinated campaigns to influence policy,
designs programs to provide needed services, and builds capacity for our
network by facilitating co-learning and by developing relationships with
national partners. NPNA has led the charge to stabilize the naturalization
fee and to streamline implementation of the naturalization fee waiver.
Additionally, since 2012 NPNA has assisted over 68,000 applications for
naturalization and DACA and over 12,700 fee waiver applications,
engaging around 25,000 volunteers in the process.
The proposed form should use clearer, less complex language
These recommendations generally cover our concerns with the form. In
particular, we recommend that USCIS simplify language
(i.e., “Family Name” to “First Name”).

The proposed form should use clearer,
less complex language

The form should more clearly instruct applications about which parts to
complete
The proposed I-912 deletes the directions in the current form guiding

The form should more clearly instruct
applications about which parts to complete

The current form simplifies these fields,
such as Family Name (Last Name) and
Given Name (First Name). The revised
form does not change that. Therefore, no
changes will be made based on this
comment.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

requestors to complete the section of the form that pertains to the bases of
their request, e.g. “(Complete Sections 4 and 7)” on line 7.a. of the
current form. We are concerned that without these directions, the revised
form will lead requestors to believe that they need to complete every section
of the form, including those sections that are irrelevant to
the basis of their request. We suggest that Part 1 of the proposed form be
moved back to follow the Part 4 (“Applications and Petitions for Fee
Waivers”) and precede Part 5 (“Means-Tested Benefits”), and with
each line describing the basis for the request then instructing the requestor
to go to the next part of the form relevant to that basis. At the end of each of
those parts, language can be added directing the requestor to go to the next
relevant part, i.e. “If your request is also based on income below 150
percent of federal poverty guidelines, go to Part 6. If your request is also
based on financial hardship, go to Part 7. Otherwise please go to Part 8.”

The updated form instructions have specific
instructions for the reader that instruct the
reader part by part, question by question.
Therefore, no changes will made based on
this comment.

The form should not ask about immigration status or employment status
We strongly urge USCIS to delete Section 3 of the proposed Form I-912
altogether. This section asks for information regarding the requestor’s
status. This information has no bearing on the requestor’s eligibility for a
fee waiver. It also needlessly lengthens the form, as mentioned previously.
Undocumented individuals are eligible for many of the benefits for which
fee waivers are available, including TPS, SIJS, suspension/ special rule
cancellation, registry, and T and U visas. Additionally, the
requestor certification requires the requestor to authorize the release of any
information on the form, any supporting documentation, or any other
information in the requestor’s immigration file for immigration
enforcement purposes. As it is, USCIS most likely has this information
already in the applicant’s A-file.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part, deleting the questions in part 3
relating to immigration status and will
modify the language in the pertinent
section.
USCIS will retain the employment status
questions as this information is relevant to
the determination of inability to pay and
this information is not necessarily available
from information provided on other forms.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)
Cori Hash,
Human
Rights
First

Comment

Response

Human Rights First and its Interest in this Issue
For over thirty years, Human Rights First—formerly the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights—has worked to ensure protection of the
rights of refugees, including the right to seek and enjoy asylum. Human
Rights First grounds its work on refugee protection in the international
standards of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its
1967 Protocol and other international human rights instruments, and we
advocate adherence to these standard in U.S. law and policy.
Human Rights First operates one of the largest and most successful pro
bono asylum representation programs in the country. With the assistance of
volunteer attorneys, we provide legal representation, without charge, to
hundreds of asylum applicants and asylees each year. This extensive
experience dealing directly with low-income refugees seeking protection in
the United States is the foundation for our advocacy work, and informs the
comments that follow below.
DHS should continue its longstanding policy of allowing an applicant to
assert ANY ground of eligibility for a fee waiver [Page 1, Part 1 (Basis
for Your Request)]
Human Rights First urges the Department of Homeland Security to retain
the current language on the Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) and to not
adopt the language, as proposed in Page 1, Part 1.1.A. (Basis for Request),
to require applicants to include information about all potential grounds of
eligibility for a fee waiver. If an applicant receives a means-tested benefit,
that has been and should continue to be sufficient to establish eligibility for
a fee waiver. An individual receiving a means-tested benefit has already
been determined to be indigent by a local, state or federal agency.
Requesting information and documentation of the individual’s financial
circumstances, including income and any financial hardships, is repetitive

DHS should continue its longstanding
policy of allowing an applicant to assert
ANY ground of eligibility for a fee
waiver [Page 1, Part 1 (Basis for Your
Request)]
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

and unnecessary. It places an undue burden on the applicant or his/her legal
representative to collect superfluous information and proof regarding the
applicant’s (and his or her household’s) income, expenses and liabilities, tax
returns and more to demonstrate financial hardship or income level. As
applicants seeking a fee waiver are more likely to be represented by nonprofit legal service providers, this additional burden will siphon away time
and resources from pro bono attorneys that could better be spent assisting
applicants with applications for immigration benefits. It may also
discourage pro se applicants from proceeding with applications for benefits
for which they cannot afford the filing fee. For example, asylees who are
eligible to apply for adjustment of status may choose not to do so because
they cannot afford the considerable filing fees and are unable to collect the
requested financial information and documentation required for the fee
waiver request on their own. On the other hand, an unrepresented asylee
who receives a means-tested benefit would likely be able to complete the
relevant section of the form regarding benefits received and submit a copy
of the benefit grant letter on his or her own. For these reasons, Human
Rights First strongly recommends the Department of Homeland Security
not change this section of the form.
DHS should continue its longstanding policy of soliciting information
regarding and considering the receipt of means-tested benefits by an
applicant’s dependent child(ren) when determining eligibility for a fee
waiver [Page 2, Part 5 (Means-Tested Benefits)]
Human Rights First urges DHS to maintain the language in the current
Request for a Fee Waiver (Form I-912) that solicited information and proof
of receipt of means-tested benefits by any member of the applicant’s
household. Furthermore, DHS should continue to consider the receipt of
any means-tested benefits by the applicant’s dependent children when

DHS should continue its longstanding
policy of soliciting information regarding
and considering the receipt of meanstested benefits by an applicant’s
dependent child(ren) when determining
eligibility for a fee waiver [Page 2, Part 5
(Means-Tested Benefits)]
Current policy provides that if a child or
85

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

determining the applicant’s eligibility for a fee waiver.
The proposed changes in Part 5 (Means-Tested Benefits) of the form
eliminate the language soliciting information about the receipt of meanstested benefits by household members and instead focus solely on the
receipt of benefits by the applicant’s spouse, the head of household or the
applicant herself. This change excludes other members of the household
who may be dependent on the applicant, including the applicant’s children.
Moreover, the instructions have been altered considerably to exclude any
means-tested benefits received by the applicant’s children from
consideration altogether.
This is a stark departure from the current policy and practice. Currently, any
means-tested benefits received by a dependent child may be considered,
although an applicant “will not necessarily qualify for a fee waiver,” on this
basis alone. The regulations allow for considerable discretion by the agency
in determining who may or may not qualify for an exemption from any
filing or biometrics fees based on an inability to pay. 8 C.F.R. §
103.7(c),(d). Current fee waiver policy allows for the consideration of the
receipt of means-tested benefits. The receipt of benefits by the individual,
his or her spouse, or the head of household will generally result in the
approval of a fee waiver request.1 However, as the current form reflects,
there is nothing that precludes a fee waiver based on the receipt of meanstested benefits by an applicant’s dependent child(ren) or other household
members.
Moreover, allowing for the consideration of any means-tested benefits
received by the applicant’s child is sound practice. Any dependent child
who seeks means-tested benefits from a local, state or federal agency must
provide information regarding the income and resources of the parent(s) and
other members of the household. A grant of means-tested benefits to a child
indicates that the child’s household (including the applicant) has been

grandchild is receiving a means-tested
benefit, parents or other family members
will not necessarily qualify for a fee
waiver. USCIS reviews the parent’s
household income for eligibility. The
language “will not necessarily qualify” has
been confusing for immigration service
officers to review and consider when
adjudicating a fee waiver request.
Therefore, USCIS clarified, consistent with
the 2011 fee waiver policy memo, that the
means tested benefit receipt is only for
actual applicant. If the child is receiving a
means tested benefit, the parent may still
apply or qualify under other income
guidelines..

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

determined to be indigent. Thus, the fact that a child receives benefits is
relevant and important information in determining an applicant’s inability
to pay and that information should continue to be solicited and considered
on the I-912.
DHS should eliminate the release of information clause in the
Requestor’s Certification [Page 6, Part 8 (Requestor’s Certification)]
Human Rights First strongly objects to the inclusion of the clause in the
Requestor’s Certification (and Additional Requestor’s Certification)
authorizing the release of information to outside individuals and agencies.
The clause is unnecessary, overbroad, and likely to dissuade indigent
applicants from seeking a fee waiver. Human Rights First urges DHS to
remove these clauses from the Request for a Fee Waiver (Form I-912).
The clause allows for the release of information contained in the request
and any supporting documents to other entities and unnamed persons
“where necessary for the administration and enforcement of U.S.
immigration laws.” Such a clause is unnecessary as the proposed form
already allows (in the prior paragraph) for the release of the applicant’s
information to determine his eligibility for the benefit he seeks. This clause
is also likely to dissuade many indigent applicants from seeking a fee
waiver who may be working without authorization or who are afraid of
providing private financial or identity information of household members
without knowing to whom it could be released.
The clause is also overbroad as it allows for the release of any information
provided with the Proposed Form I-912, including private, financial
information about the applicant to any individuals, private companies, other
agencies or foreign governments for almost any reason. Moreover, it allows
for the release of private, financial and identity information of household

DHS should reduce the burden on
applicants to collect unnecessary
information and documentation for the
proposed Form I-912 [Proposed
Instructions, Page 11, Paperwork
Reduction Act]

No change will be made based on this
comment. As more USCIS forms are
available to be filed in an electronic,
paperless environment we are enhancing
forms language to combat immigration
fraud as requested by federal law
enforcement agencies. USCIS is also
utilizing the attestation process to meet its
identity-proofing and attribution
requirements established for electronic
identity authentication under federal
law. USCIS does not believe the language
is overly long, repetitive or that it adds
excessive burden on respondents. The
language does not exceed USCIS’ authority
to make requests necessary to complete
case processing.
87

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

members who are not seeking any benefit from DHS and who have not
consented to such a release. Such an overly broad release may violate the
privacy rights of both the applicant and his or her household members. For
these reasons, DHS should exclude this clause from the proposed form.
DHS should reduce the burden on applicants to collect unnecessary
information and documentation for the proposed Form I-912 [Proposed
Instructions, Page 11, Paperwork Reduction Act]
Human Rights First urges DHS to reduce the onerous burden on applicants
and/or their legal representatives that is required to complete the proposed
Form I-912 and provide the requested documentation. On page 11 of the
Proposed Instructions, the estimated burden for completing the proposed form
is listed as 2 hours. This is an inaccurate estimate of the time required for most
applicants to review the form and instructions, gather the requested information
and documentation from the own files, members of their household or outside
entities, filling out the form and preparing it for submission. For example,
applicants may have to obtain from third parties, among other things, up-todate letters providing confirmation of receipt of means-tested benefits from the
benefit-granting agency, evidence of their unemployment from a social service
agency (unless they are receiving unemployment insurance benefits), proof of
income, including federal tax returns, for their household members and more.
This is a considerable burden on an indigent applicant and the gathering of all
of the requested documentation is unnecessary to determine many applicants
ability to pay. For this reason, Human Rights First urges DHS to retain the
information and documentation requirements provided in the current Form I912.

Fred Tsao,
Illinois
Coalition
for

DHS should reduce the burden on
applicants to collect unnecessary
information and documentation for the
proposed Form I-912 [Proposed
Instructions, Page 11, Paperwork
Reduction Act]

USCIS does not believe the language is
overly long, repetitive or that it adds
excessive burden on respondents. The
language does not exceed USCIS’ authority
to make requests necessary to complete
case processing.

The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) submits
the following comments regarding the proposed revision to the N-400
application for naturalization published on March 11, 2015.
ICIRR, a coalition of more than 100 member organizations throughout the
88

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)
Immigrant
and
Refugee
Rights
(ICIRR)

Comment

state of Illinois, advocates on behalf of immigrants and refugees on the state
and federal level. This work has included administrative advocacy with
USCIS (and before March 2003 with INS) regarding citizenship issues.
ICIRR advocated for reduction of processing backlogs, commented on
proposals to increase fees, and engaged in the recent redesign of the
naturalization test. In addition, we administer the New Americans Initiative,
a partnership with the State of Illinois to fund local partnerships that
promote citizenship, conduct outreach, and organize workshops to assist
long-term legal immigrants in completing their naturalization applications.
We strongly believe that immigrants should have the opportunity to gain
legal status and become US citizens—including those immigrants with
limited means who may not be able to afford the USCIS application fees.
The proposed form is too long
ICIRR is concerned with the length of the proposed form. At ten pages, the
revised form is more than double the length of the current I-912. Fully half
of the new form is made up of certifications (which are longer and more
detailed than the certifications in other recent forms, such as the revised I821D DACA application) and the additional information page. We believe
that a 10-page form might intimidate and discourage many applicants. We
are especially concerned that the additional length will make application
workshops, including those organized by our New Americans Initiative,
unwieldy and difficult to manage. A longer form will require more time for
each request and associated application, which in turn will either require
more application workers at each workshop or limit how many people we
can serve. ICIRR strongly urges USCIS to reconsider the length of this
form and to find ways to shorten it while still accomplishing its intended
functions.

Response

The proposed form is too long
No changes will made based on this
comment. USCIS has added standard
certification sections which account for
much of the increased length. The number
of pages was also increased due to the
added white space which is added to
improve the flow and readability of the
form.

The form should provide clearer guidance
regarding which parts to complete
89

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

The form should provide clearer guidance regarding which parts to
complete
The proposed I-912 deletes the directions in the current form guiding
requestors to complete the section of the form that pertains to the bases of
their request, e.g. “(Complete Sections 4 and 7)” on line 7.a. of the current
form. We are concerned that without these directions, the revised form will
lead requestors to believe that they need to complete every section of the
form, including those sections that are irrelevant to the basis of their
request. We suggest that Part 1 of the proposed form be moved back to
follow the Part 4 (“Applications and Petitions for Fee Waivers”) and
precede Part 5 (“Means-Tested Benefits”), and with each line describing the
basis for the request then instructing the requestor to go to the next part of
the form relevant to that basis. At the end of each of those parts, language
can be added directing the requestor to go to the next relevant part, i.e. “If
your request is also based on income below 150 percent of federal poverty
guidelines, go to Part 6. If your request is also based on financial hardship,
go to Part 7. Otherwise please go to Part 8.”
The form should not ask about immigration status
ICIRR strongly opposes the inclusion of Section 3 of the proposed form
asking for information regarding the requestor’s status. This information
has no bearing on the requestor’s eligibility for a fee waiver. We note that
undocumented individuals are eligible for many of the benefits for which
fee waivers are available, including TPS, SIJS, suspension/ special rule
cancellation, registry, and T and U visas. We furthermore note that the
requestor certification requires the requestor to authorize the release of any
information on the form, any supporting documentation, or any other
information in the requestor’s immigration file for immigration enforcement
purposes. This language, combined with Section 3, will inevitably deter

Response

The updated form instructions have specific
instructions for the reader that instruct the
reader part by part, question by question.
Therefore, no changes will made based on
this comment.

The form should not ask about
immigration status
USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part, deleting the questions in part 3
relating to immigration status and will
modify the language in the pertinent
section.
USCIS will retain the employment status
questions as this information is relevant to
the determination of inability to pay and
this information is not necessarily available
from information provided on other forms
90

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

many potential applicants from submitting their requests and seeking
immigration benefits for which they are eligible. We strongly urge USCIS
to delete this section from the form.

Jose
MaganaSalgado,
The
Immigrant
Legal
Resource
Center
(ILRC)

The question about total income is confusing
Questions 3 and 4 in Part 6 of the proposed form ask for “annual total
income,” which seems to ask for the requestor’s and household members’
entire income. But then Question 5 asks for details regarding “additional
income” and question 6 asks for the total. Questions 3 and 4 should be
rephrased to ask for income from employment, not total income. We note
that Line 10 in Section 5 of the current form asks for “monthly wage
income” as distinct from the “other money received” that Line 11 asks
about.
Founded in 1979, ILRC is a national resource center that provides training,
consultations, publications, and advocacy support to individuals and groups
assisting low-income persons with immigration matters. ILRC works with a
broad array of individuals, agencies, and institutions including immigration
attorneys and advocates, criminal defense attorneys, civil rights advocates,
social workers, law enforcement, judges, and local and state elected
officials.
A. Comments to Eligibility for Form I-912
1. Recommendation. 8 CFR 103.7(c)(3); Public Facing Guidance. Allow
requestors who hold a valid grant of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) to request a fee waiver using Form I-912 when requesting a
replacement for a lost or stolen employment authorization document (EAD).
B. Comments to Both Form I-912 and Form I-912 Instructions

Response

The question about total income is
confusing
USCIS will adopt this recommendation in
part, by deleting the word “total” as these
questions ask about the requestor’s annual
income, not total household income.

Recommendation A1
USCIS policy is that DACA recipients will
receive no fee waivers. If a DACA
recipient loses their EAD, they must pay
the Form I-765 fee. If USCIS changes this
policy in the future, we will note the
change on our website where we list the
forms eligible for a fee waiver.
Recommendation B1.
The current form simplifies these fields,
such as Family Name (Last Name) and
Given Name (First Name). The revised
form does not change that. Therefore, no
changes will be made based on this
comment.
91

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

1. Recommendation. Form I-912 and Instructions. Swap all references to: (a)
“Family Name” with “Last Name;” and (b) “Given Name” with “First Name.”

2. Recommendation. Form I-912 and Instructions. Change “Full Name” to
“Full Legal Name” throughout.

3. Recommendation: Form I-912, Part 3, Page 2 and Form I-912 Instructions,
Specific Instructions, Part 2. Strike Page I-912, Part 3, “Information About Your
Status” and corresponding references in Form I-912 Instructions.

Response

Recommendation B2.
The basic biographic information fields on
forms are standard language on forms. We
see no added value in specifying that the
requestors provide their “legal” name. We
assume most people won't use their
nicknames in a benefit request. No change
made based on this comment.
Recommendation B3.
USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part, deleting the questions in part 3
relating to immigration status and
classification of admission. USCIS will
retain the employment status questions as
this information is relevant to the
determination of inability to pay and this
information is not necessarily available
from information provided on other forms.
Recommendation B4
USCIS will adopt this recommendation.

B4. Adopted
92

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

4. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Part 6, Page 5. Make the
following changes:
“2. If you are applying for any immigration benefits (such as adjustment of
status) based on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) or based on T
or U nonimmigrant status under the Victims of Violence and Trafficking
Protection Reauthorization Act, or you otherwise do not have access to your
spouse’s income or income information because of a domestic violence
situation, do not provide your spouse’s income.”
7
5. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Part 6, Page 6. Make the
following changes:
“6. If you are filing Form I-485 . . . * * *
C. A copy of an approval notice on Form I-797, Notice of Action, for Form
I-360 filed for the SIJ.

Recommendation B5.
USCIS will modify language in instructions
based on the recommendation.
This question was already deleted based on
other comments.

If you include one of the above-listed forms of evidence in support of the I912 filed for a Special Immigrant Juvenile, you do not need to submit
additional evidence in support of the fee waiver request or provide
information regarding your income.”
On Form I-912, Part 6, Page 3, make the following changes:
“1. I am applying for a fee waiver on behalf of, or as a Special Immigrant
Juvenile (including an approved, pending, or concurrently filed Form I-360
for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status), and I have included one of the
forms of evidence listed in Part 6 of the Instructions for Form I-912. □ Yes
□ No
If you checked “Yes,” you do not need to complete the remainder of Part
6.”
93

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

6. Recommendation. Form I-912 and Instructions. USCIS should examine
a requestor’s after-tax income when comparing income to the federal
poverty guidelines. Alternatively, USCIS should clarify whether, when
reviewing a tax return, USCIS examines the requestor’s gross or net income
when comparing income to the federal poverty guidelines.

Recommendation B6.
USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part and will clarify the instructions
accordingly.

C. Comments to Form I-912
1. Recommendation. Form I-912. Ensure that the input fields automatically Recommendation C1.
resize text and employ a typeface that uses less space.
Formatting and spacing will be made
consistent with USCIS form standards.
2. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 1, Item Number 1. Make the
following changes (where “*” indicates the relevant section):
“1. I am unable to pay the filing fees of the applications or petitions because
(Select all the most applicable box or boxeses):
A. □ I am, or my spouse, or the head of household living in my household,
is currently received a means-tested benefit (Complete Parts * and * only).
B. □ My household income is at or below 150 percent of the Federal
Poverty Guidelines (Complete Parts * and * only).
C. □ I have a financial hardship (Complete Parts * and * only).”

Recommendation C2.

3. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 4, Item Number 1. Strike the
entirety of Item Number 1 and replace with the following:
“1. List the forms you are filing with this request with a number in
parenthesis after each form indicating the quantity of forms you are filing.
(For example, ‘N-400 (2), I-130 (1), and I-765 (1).’)

Recommendation C3.

USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part and will modify the language in the
pertinent section.

USCIS combined the two tables into one
and edited the instructions to incorporate
this change.
94

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

4. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 5, 6, and 7. Insert “(Only complete
if you checked Part 1, Item Number 1.*) (where “*” indicates the relevant
section previously selected) in the header of each part.

5. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 5. Strike the requirement that a
requestor provide the “Date Benefit Expires or Must be Renewed.”

6. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 5. Separate “Type of Benefit” and
“Name of Agency Awarding Benefit” into two separate columns.

Response

Recommendation C4.
USCIS made changes to adopt this
recommendation.
Recommendation C5.
No changes will be made based on this
comment. One of the requirements is that
the means-tested benefit is currently being
received. To clarify and avoid rejections of
the fee waivers, the column was added to
allow the applicant to provide the effective
date information.
Recommendation C6.
USCIS will adopt this recommendation.

7. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 5, Item Number 1 and 2. Make the
following changes:
“If you answer ‘Yes’ to Part 1., Item Number 1.A. either Item Numbers 1.
or 2., provide information in the table below and attach supporting
documentation. If you need extra space . . . .
1. Are you receiving any means-tested benefits? □ Yes □ No
2. Is your spouse or head of household living with you receiving a meanstested benefit? □ Yes □ No”

Recommendation C7.
The questions are separated to provide
clarity on the different people who can
receive a means-tested benefit. No changes
are made.

8. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 6. Make the following changes:

Recommendation C8.
95

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

“Part 6. Income at or Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines.”

USCIS will adopt this recommendation.

9. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 6, Item Number 1. Provide clearer
directions regarding who to include in household size.

Recommendation C9.
The instructions list who can be included in
household size, and the form asks for all
household members (and if yes to add
them). No changes will be made based on
this comment.

10. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 6, Item Number 5; and Part 7, Item
Number 3. Strike the entirety of Item Number 5 and 3 and replace with a
single input that asks requestors to input their total annual income and
monthly expenses and liabilities, respectively.

Recommendation C10.
These questions provide examples of the
income that can be counted. Not all
requestors know what to list. No changes
will be made based on this comment.

11. Recommendation (Alternate). Form I-912, Part 6, Item Number 5; and
Part 7, Item Number 3. Reformat text and input fields to be more compact
through the use of a table.

Recommendation C11.
The size of input fields are limited by the
software application used to develop the
forms based on information collection
mapping technology and longstanding
expertise in forms design and development.
They are designed to guide the applicant,
reduce document content space and
enhance reader experience. No changes
will be made based on this comment.

12. Recommendation (Alternate). Form I-912, Part 7, Item Number 3.
Strike “Rent” and replace with “Rent/Mortgage.” Strike “Mortgage” and

Recommendation C12.
A person can both pay rent and have a
96

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

replace with “Remittances.”

mortgage, therefore it may be confusing for
a reader to combine them. Also,
remittances can be included in “Other”. No
changes made based on this comment.

13. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 8 and 9. Strike the entirety of Part
9. Insert the following checkbox at the bottom of Part 8:
“□ This certification is for an additional requestor.”

Recommendation C13.
Each requestor must read and sign the
certification. Therefore, no changes will be
made based on this comment.

14. Recommendation. Form I-912, Part 9. Make the following changes:
“I furthermore authorize release of information contained in this request, in
supporting documents, and in my USCIS records to other entities and
persons where necessary for the administration and enforcement of U.S.
immigration laws.”

Recommendation C14.
No change will be made based on this
comment. This language simply
acknowledges the authority USCIS already
has to obtain the information it needs to
adjudicate an immigration benefit request
and release information as provided in our
systems of records notices under the
Privacy Act. Removing it from the form
does not preclude the release.

D. Comments to Form I-912 Instructions
1. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Page 2, General
Instructions. Make the following changes:
“Signature. Each request must . . . . A legal guardian may also sign for a
mentally incompetent person. A designated representative may sign if the
requestor is unable to sign due to a physical or developmental disability or

Recommendation D1.
No change will be made based on this
comment. See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(2) for
signature requirements.
97

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

mental impairment. A photocopy of a request containing an original
signature is acceptable.”
2. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Page 2, General
Instructions. Insert the following language:
“Other Disclosure Information
Information provided in this request is protected from disclosure to ICE and
CBP for the purpose of immigration enforcement proceedings unless the
requestor meets the criteria for the issuance of a Notice To Appear or a
referral to ICE under the criteria set forth in USCIS’ Notice to Appear
guidance (www.uscis.gov/NTA). The information may be shared with
national security and law enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP,
for purposes other than removal, including for assistance in the
consideration of this fee waiver, to identify or prevent fraudulent claims, for
national security purposes, or for the investigation or prosecution of a
criminal offense. The above information sharing policy covers family
members and guardians, in addition to the requestor.”
3. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Page 2, General Eligibility
Requirements. Restore the list of forms for which a requestor can have fees
waived. Alternatively, provide a direct link to 8 CFR 103.7(c)(3) and update
the link to http://www.uscis.gov/i-912 to more accurately direct requestors
to the list of USCIS filing fees that may be waived.

Recommendation D2
The commenter’s suggested language is
used on Form I-821D for reasons that are
specifically applicable to that form. It is
not necessary for Form I-912. Information
release related to the Form I-912 is covered
under the Privacy Act system of records
notice titled, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services Benefits Information
System published in the Federal Register
on September 29, 2008 at 73 FR 56596.

Recommendation D3.
The number of pages on the instructions
have been minimized as much as possible.
USCIS has added requestor and interpreter
certification sections which account for
much of the increased length. The space
added also increases readability.
The current instructions list forms for
98

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

which waivers are available and that list
was removed in the revised version to
decrease the number of pages. In addition,
listing the forms would require a form
revision should USCIS decide to add or
remove a form from fee waiver eligibility.
Therefore, Form Numbers are being moved
from the I-912 to the webpage.
4. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Page 2, General
Instructions. Make the following changes:
“Translations. If you submit . . . foreign language into English. An
example certification would read “I, [typed name], certify that I am fluent
(conversant) in the English and [language] languages, and that the
above/attached document is an accurate translation of the document
attached entitled [name of document].” The certification should also include
the date and the translator’s signature, typed name, and address.”
5. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Page 2, General
Instructions. Allow requestors to submit foreign-language documents
demonstrating receipt of means-tested benefits when those documents were
produced by the official federal, state, or county government agency
administering the benefit.

6. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions. General Eligibility
Requirements. Page 2. Bold or otherwise highlight: “For certain
immigration benefits, you may have only a limited period of time in which

Recommendation D4.
Translator certification and contact
language is being added to all USCIS forms
to combat immigration fraud. In the case
of a requestor who is being investigated
who contends that the translator entered
their answers erroneously it is important to
have the translator’s information. No
changes made.
Recommendation D5.
Providing translations into English is a
requirement under the regulations. 8
CFR103.2 (b) (3). The U.S. government
agencies should be able to provide
documentation in English.
Recommendation D6.
99

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

to resubmit your application or petition with the proper filing fee.”

7. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Part 5, Page 4. Allow
receipt of a means-tested benefit by a child or grandchild as prima facie
eligibility for a fee waiver. Alternatively, restore the broader language
regarding this eligibility from the current version of Form I-912.

8. Recommendation (Alternate). Form I-912 Instructions, Part 5, Page 4.
Make the following changes:
“You may not use your child’s or grandchild’s receipt of means-tested
benefits to qualify for a fee waiver. Parents or other family members cannot
qualify for a fee waiver using the child’s benefit letter. A child, as a primary
or additional requestor, may use his or her receipt of a means-tested benefits
to qualify.”

Response

This language is prefaced with “Important
Note” to highlight section. No changes will
be based on this comment.
Recommendation D7.
Current policy provides that if a child or
grandchild is receiving a means-tested
benefit, parents or other family members
will not necessarily qualify for a fee
waiver. USCIS reviews the parent’s
household income for eligibility. The
language “will not necessarily qualify” has
been confusing for immigration service
officers to review and consider when
adjudicating a fee waiver request.
Therefore, USCIS clarified, consistent with
the 2011 fee waiver policy memo, that the
means tested benefit receipt is only for
actual applicant. If the child is receiving a
means tested benefit, the parent may still
apply or qualify under other income
guidelines.
Recommendation D8.
USCIS will adopt this recommendation.

100

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

9. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Part 5, Page 4. Make the
following changes:
“Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits.
* * * USCIS will consider these state-funded benefits as “means-tested”
benefits for purposes of this fee waiver request. USCIS will not readjudicate a requestor's underlying eligibility for a means-tested benefit.”

Recommendation D9.
USCIS officers do not adjudicate whether a
person is eligible for a means-tested
benefit, officers determine whether a
requestor is currently receiving a means
tested benefit. Therefore this edit may be
misleading to readers. No changes made
based on this comment.

10. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Part 6, Page 6 and 7. Make
the following changes to bullet point 5 (on page 6) and bullet point 3 (on
page 7):
“If you do not have any income, financial support, or cannot provide
evidence of income, describe your particular situation in Part 6., Item
Number 8. If possible, you may submit affidavits from religious
institutions, non-profits, or community-based organizations, or other thirdparty individuals indicating that you are currently receiving some benefit or
support from them.”

Recommendation D10.
USCIS will adopt this recommendation.

11. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Part 6, Page 7. Make the
following changes:
“Enter any amount of money that you receive annually that . . . in your
household. Only include income that you actually receive. For example, do
not include child support amounts that are delinquent. Attach
documentation, if available.”

Recommendation D11.
The instructions provide for inclusion of
income that is received annually. The
applicant may provide additional
information in the space provided if he or
she needs to clarify. No changes made.

12. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Page 8. Make the

Recommendation D12.
101

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

following changes:
“NOTE: If this fee . . . each person identified in Part 34., Item Number 2.
Must sign the statement. Make additional copies . . . .”

USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

13. Recommendation. Form I-912 Instructions, Part 10, Page 8. Make the
following changes:
“Item Numbers 1. - 6. If you used . . . . The interpreter must sign and date
the request. In lieu of completing and signing this section, the interpreter
may provide information, through a sticker or other medium, indicating the
contact information of the clinic or workshop that interpreted the request.”

Recommendations D13 and D14
USCIS cannot accept stickers as signatures
and certifications. No changes will be
made based on these comments.

Form I-912 Instructions, Part 11, Page 9:
“Item Numbers 1. - 8. This section must . . . along with your request. In
lieu of completing and signing this section, the preparer may provide
information, through a sticker or other medium, indicating the contact
information of the clinic or workshop that prepared the request.”
60

Meeran
Mahmud,
Asian
Americans
Advancin
g Justice
(Los
Angeles)

Form
General Comments
The proposed Form I-912 is 10 pages long, which is double the current
length. The proposed form is unnecessarily long and overly complex, will
discourage many eligible, indigent applicants from applying, and will likely
result in incorrect denials of fee waiver requests from applicants who
qualify for it. Furthermore, Asian Americans Advancing Justice is in
agreement with the comments submitted by the Immigrant Legal Resource
Center and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network with respect to the
undue burden of the proposed form on group processing events and the
difficulty our staff and clients would face in gathering this documentation.

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

evidence and fewer rejections.
These concerns are outlined below:
A majority of the applicants we help who apply for the fee waiver are
assisted in a group processing setting at naturalization workshops and
clinics. This has enabled Advancing Justice – LA and its partner
organizations to help thousands of people in a more cost-effective and timeefficient manner. We are deeply concerned about how this proposed form
will impact our service delivery models and deter people from applying for
naturalization altogether. A 10-page form is overly burdensome to the
applicant as well as for the staff and volunteers who help them and yet
offers no substantial improvement in determining who is eligible for a fee
waiver or in establishing which documentation will be accepted. It will
greatly reduce our capacity to serve applicants.
Many applicants face language barriers and the complexity of the new form
is likely to lead to confusion and errors if completed without expert
assistance. Without free services from Advancing Justice – LA and our
community partners, many applicants would be discouraged and may give
up applying for naturalization altogether, particularly if we were not able to
advocate on their behalf regarding their eligibility for the fee waiver. A
reduction in the provision of free legal services may force applicants to seek
out the services of unauthorized “immigration consultants” and fall prey to
erroneous legal advice or fraud.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends that
USCIS keep the current, simpler version of the form while making
improvements to the instructions and adjudication process. By keeping the
form easy to understand and use, USCIS will improve accessibility to
critical immigration benefits, such as naturalization.
103

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

[Page 1] Part 1. Basis for Your Request
The proposed text requires requestors to select boxes indicating “all
applicable” grounds of eligibility for the fee waiver request. The change in
language from the current “any that apply” suggests that applicants will be
required complete the entire form if all sections apply. This is contrary to
the current policy whereby an applicant only needs to meet one of the three
criteria to qualify for the fee waiver. The proposed language will make the
fee waiver process unduly burdensome for both applicants as well as for
USCIS adjudicators. Applicants for the fee waiver will be required to spend
a greater amount of time completing the fee waiver application and
gathering the necessary documentation. For instance, applicants who
receive means-tested benefits have already been assessed by a government
agency as being low-income and/or having financial hardships. Under the
current version of the form, if an applicant provides sufficient evidence of a
means tested benefit, the fee waiver request will “normally be approved and
no further information will be required.” The proposed language will
require such applicants to provide evidence of their income and hardships in
addition to documenting the benefits they receive. The change in language,
thus, will thus penalize needy applicants by making the fee waiver process
more complicated and time consuming.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
changing “Select all applicable boxes” to “Select the box that best
describes your situation.”

Part 1
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

[Page 1] Part 2. Information About You (The Requestor).
Asian Americans Advancing Justice supports the addition of the “Other”
box under the marital status category in Question 7 of Part 2. Many
applicants are separated or estranged from their spouses but do not obtain a
formal divorce or legal separation. The current Form I-912 does not allow

Part 2 – no changes are made based on this
comment

104

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

married persons who have become estranged but who do are not “legally
separated” to apply for a fee waiver without including their spouse’s
income. This has been an unduly burdensome requirement for applicants
who are still legally married but who have been separated from their spouse
for a number of years. In many cases, applicants who are separated have
lost all contact with their former spouses (in particular, when that former
spouse lives in a foreign country) and are simply unable to provide
information regarding the estranged spouse’s income. In some cases, the
spouses are separated due to domestic violence, including cases where the
applicant is not applying for VAWA, T or U visa benefits as a battered
spouse or child. Advancing Justice – LA has advocated for such applicants
in the past, including cases where fee waivers were rejected several times
before being approved. By amending the form to allow applicants who are
separated without a formal order to apply for the fee waiver, USCIS is
improving the accessibility of the fee waiver.
Advancing Justice – LA has encountered many situations where married
couples are not separated but one of the spouses is living overseas, for
example where family-based immigration petitions are pending due to the
visa backlog. USCIS has frequently denied fee waivers in such situations
where evidence of the income of the overseas spouse was not provided.
Additionally, guidance from the Internal Revenue Service states that a
married person whose spouse is living overseas and does not have legal
status in the United States should file their tax return as a single person, but
the proposed instructions indicate that where a person’s tax filing status is
different from their marital status, they must submit evidence to explain the
difference.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
adding a box to ask whether a spouse is living overseas and whether that
spouse provides financial support to the applicant.

If the spouse in the U.S. is the dependent of
the overseas spouse, then the overseas
spouse is the head of household and the
105

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

income counts. If it is a joint tax return,
then the total income counts for both of
them (so it is still included). It may be
different if they filed separately and neither
was a dependent on the other, but the
financial assistance provided by the
overseas spouse would count under
additional income. Therefore, no changes
made.
[Page 2] Part 3. Information About Your Status
Asian Americans Advancing Justice would like to express our concern
regarding the inclusion of Questions 1 and 2 of Part 3. Under 8 CFR 103.7
(c), immigration status and class of admission are not relevant criteria to
meeting the eligibility requirements for a fee waiver. In addition,
information about the current status will already be provided in the
application for immigration benefits being submitted with the Form I-912.
Moreover, adding the two questions will only serve to confuse applicants
and many will not understand how to find this information. The changes
may deter indigent applicants from applying, force them to seek costly legal
representation or put them at risk to seek assistance from fraudulent
immigration providers.

Part 3
USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part, deleting the questions in part 3
relating to immigration status and
classification of admission.
USCIS will retain the employment status
questions as this information is relevant to
the determination of inability to pay and
this information is not necessarily available
from information provided on other forms.

Part 4
The two tables were combined and clarified
to only those applying for benefits.
106

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

together with my request for a fee waiver. If no other forms are being filed
together with your request, type or print “N/A.”” The table in Line 6 of the
current Form I-912 is frequently filled out improperly because applicants
use it to list their children or family members even though those relatives
are not applying for any immigration benefit with the applicant. This leads
to confusion and unnecessary time being allocated to a section.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
amending the proposed language for Question 2 of Part 4 to “Only
complete the table below if there are family members who are filing forms
with you and are also seeking a fee waiver. If no family members are filing
their forms together with your request, type or print “N/A.”
[Page 3] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefit Recipients
Many of the clients Advancing Justice – LA and our community partners
serve have difficulty obtaining verification of benefits letters from federal,
or state agencies and require assistance in explaining to social workers what
information is needed in the letter. Not all public benefits have expiration
dates, and many benefits are recertified annually. An expiration date or a
renew-by date may be information the federal or state agency cannot
provide and this would be significantly burdensome to the fee waiver
requestor. Creating additional requirements will only serve to complicate
the process for needy applicants.

Part 5
No changes will be made based on this
comment. One of the requirements is that
the means-tested benefit is currently being
received. To clarify and avoid rejections of
the fee waivers, the column was added to
allow the applicant to provide information
on the effective dates of their benefit
approval.

Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
removing the column for “Date Benefit Expires or Must Be Renewed.” It
has been our experience that some requests for the fee waiver using the
current Form I-912 are rejected when they are based on state-issued rather
than federal means-tested benefits. For example, we have seen denials
107

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

based on California-issued “Medi-Cal” or “Section 8” benefits. The
rejection letters contain standard-form language which is vague and leads to
confusion for self-filing applicants who believe that their benefits are not
means-tested. When Advancing Justice – LA resubmits applications and
includes information from the State agency which states that the benefit is
means-tested, the resubmitted application is approved. Additionally, if a
different applicant applies for the fee waiver and does not include a
statement from the issuing agency, the fee waiver is denied, despite the fact
that USCIS has already been provided evidence regarding that benefit
before.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends that
(a) USCIS create a list of means- tested benefits issued by federal, state and
local government agencies so that applicants are not unduly burdened by
having to obtain and provide information from the State agency regarding
the nature of the benefits; (b) the denial letters clarify specifically what that
USCIS requires in order for the application to be approved so that indigent
immigrants who are receiving the benefits do not think that they are being
forced to pay the application fee; and (c) adjudicators at the lockbox facility
receive the appropriate training on means-tested benefits, including state
and local benefits, so that problems with erroneous denials do not arise
regularly, as they have for our clients.

(a) USCIS does not have or know of a
complete list of means tested benefits that
would qualify the applicant for a fee
waiver.
(b) USCIS already strives to provide clear
reasons for denial in its notices.
(c) Lockbox case resolution unit
employees are trained to recognize or
research means tested benefits. Regardless,
while USCIS has decided to make receipt
of a means tested benefit one way to
demonstrate inability to pay, waiving fees
is always discretionary and receipt of a
means tested benefit does not entitle the
requestor to pay no fee. That USCIS does
not recognize the subject benefit as a means
108

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

tested benefit does not make the rejection
or denial erroneous, it only means that the
particular award letter does not meet the
necessary evidentiary standard.
[Page 3-4] Part 6. Income Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines
The proposed form and proposed instructions require that an applicant’s
income be “Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.” We
believe this is a typo that needs to be corrected.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
changing the proposed language to “Income at or below 150 Percent of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines” This section should have instructions making it
clear that only applicants who are applying for a fee waiver on the basis of
household income have to fill out this section.

Part 6
USCIS will adopt this recommendation and
modify the language in the pertinent
section.

Part 6

Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
adding the following text to the beginning of the section: “If you checked B
in Part 1, complete this section only. Then proceed to Section 7.”

USCIS is modifying Part 1 to direct
applicants to the sections applicable to each
qualification.

Form, Part 8, Requestor’s certification:
No change will be made based on this
comment. This language simply
acknowledges the authority USCIS already
has to obtain the information it needs to
adjudicate an immigration benefit request
and release information as provided in our
109

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

regarding enforcement may discourage applicants from applying for the fee
waiver, especially if they are undocumented or live in a mixed-status
household where some family members are undocumented.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends the
removal of the proposed language regarding enforcement.

systems of records notices under the
Privacy Act. Removing it from the form
does not preclude the release.

[Page 8] Part 10. Interpreter’s Contact Information, Certification and
Signature
Advancing Justice – LA and other legal service providers sometimes utilize
telephonic interpreters to assist us in the provision of our services. The new
interpreter certification does section does not allow for the use of
interpreters who are not physically present.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
adding a box to indicate that the interpretation was provided over the
telephone and that the interpreter is therefore unable to sign the
certification.

Form, Part 10
No change will be made based on this
comment. Information about who
translates the form for the requestor is
being added to all USCIS forms. If the
applicant reads English and prepares the
form and uses no translator or interpreter,
then the preparer and interpreter sections
can be left blank.

Instructions
Removal of the current section: Which Applications and Petitions Will
USCIS Consider for a Fee Waiver?
Asian Americans Advancing Justice disagrees with the decision to remove
the list of forms eligible for a fee waiver from the instructions to Form I912. Many poor applicants do not have access to computers and/or the
Internet, and many immigrants lack the education or skills required to
search for information online. By removing the list of applications from the
instructions, USCIS will limit access to the fee waiver.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
keeping the current section in future versions of the instructions.

110

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

Removal of the current section: Fee Waiver Request Review Process
The current version of the instructions to Form I-912 includes a simple stepby-step guide to how fee waivers are adjudicated. This guide has been
deemed helpful by many self-filing applicants.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
keeping the current section in future versions of the instructions.

Removal of the current section: Fee
Waiver Request Review Process

[Page 4] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits
Asian Americans Advancing Justice disagrees with the change in the
proposed instructions whereby an applicant will no longer be able to use
their child’s or grandchild’s receipt of means-tested benefits to qualify for a
fee waiver. The current instructions state that parents “will not necessarily
qualify” but the language in the proposed form is stated in absolute terms. A
child’s receipt of public benefits is based on their household’s income,
which includes the income of their parent or grandparent caretaker. It is
unreasonable to preclude needy parents from a fee waiver simply because
their children receive means-tested benefits.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
amending the proposed language to state, “You may use your child’s or
grandchild’s receipt of means-tested benefits to qualify for a fee waiver, if
the child lives with you. “The change in the proposed instructions which
states “You cannot use a parent’s means tested benefits… even if he or she
is living with you, as evidence of eligibility for a fee waiver” is less clear
than the language in the current I-912 instructions which includes a

Page 4] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits
Current policy provides that if a child or
grandchild is receiving a means-tested
benefit, parents or other family members
will not necessarily qualify for a fee
waiver. USCIS reviews the actual
immigration benefit applicant’s household
income for eligibility and not the income or
documented lack of income a relative or
minor child who lives in the home with the
person filing the immigration benefit
request. In addition, the language “will not
necessarily qualify” has been confusing for
immigration service officers to review and
consider when adjudicating a fee waiver
request. Therefore, USCIS has decided,
consistent with the 2011 fee waiver policy

The revised form maintains the three step
process for reviewing fee waivers. The
updated form also have specific
instructions for the reader that instruct the
reader part by part, question by question.
Therefore, no changes will made based on
this comment.

111

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

reference to “an elderly parent living with his or her adult child.” In
addition, the proposed language is confusing because it does not refer to the
age of the applicant who may wish to present evidence regarding the
parent’s receipt of means-tested benefits, while an earlier portion of the
proposed instructions state. “Your spouse and unmarried children under 21
years of age living with you will normally qualify for a fee waiver as part of
your household if you are receiving means-tested benefits.” The two parts
of the instructions are therefore conflicting.

memo, to restrict the means tested benefit
receipt policy to the actual applicant. If the
child is receiving a means tested benefit,
the parent may still apply or qualify under
other income guidelines.

[Page 4] Part 5. Means-Tested Benefits

Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
amending the proposed language to state “If you are over the age of 22 and
are not a student, you cannot use a parent’s means tested benefits… even if
he or she is living with you, as evidence of eligibility for a fee waiver.”

USCIS will adopt this recommendation, in
part and will modify the language in the
pertinent section.

[Page 5] Part 6. Income Below 150 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines
Asian Americans Advancing Justice disagrees with the change in the
proposed instructions whereby parents who live with their children must be
counted as part of the household. The current instructions state that parents
“can be included” as part of the household but the language in the proposed
form is stated in absolute terms. There are a variety of scenarios in which
direct family members living under the roof do not share their income. This
includes situations where adult children live with their parent, but do not
share their income or provide financial support. In many immigrant
communities, adult children feel culturally obliged to provide housing to
their adult parents, but may not be making sufficient money to support them
financially. USCIS seems to recognize this separation of finances when it

Page 5] Part 6. Income Below 150
percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines
No changes will be made based on this
comment. The instructions provide for the
inclusion of family members that are
dependent upon the household income.

112

I-912 Comments Matrix
#

Cate
gory

Comment
by
(Link)

Comment

Response

states in the instructions that adult children living with their parents may not
use the parent’s receipt of means tested benefits to qualify for the fee
waiver. It is contradictory for USCIS to have that rule when it relates to
means tested benefits, but then to require adult children to include parents
as their household when income is not shared, or to have elderly parents
include their children’s income when the support provided by the child does
not extend beyond housing.
Recommendation: Asian Americans Advancing Justice recommends
amending the proposed language to state “Your parents who live with you
and for whom you support financially.”

Summary of Major Comments and Response
A few commenters objected to the expanded length of the revised form and instructions, stating they believe this increases the burden on the public.
The form has not actually grown in size in terms of data collected. The forms have been revised to add white space for easier viewing and
readability, and to format questions for clarity. Form I-912 will be more user-friendly for both the public and USCIS officers, while bringing the
form up-to-date to reflect current standards. The intent is that Form I-912 will be easier for applicants to complete and will ensure more accurate
filings with required evidence and fewer rejections.
Many commentators also suggested that the form should continue to direct applicants to the section they need to fill out based on the criteria under
which they were requesting a fee waiver. Applicants are not required to provide evidence for each eligibility category and the language is updated to
clarify. USCIS will modify the language in the pertinent section as suggested and note that applicants may complete the whole form if they wish
USCIS to consider them for each category under which a fee waiver may be granted.

113

A few commentators suggested clarifications for Special Immigrant Juveniles on the household size and income inclusion. USCIS will modify the
language in the pertinent section in the instructions to clarify that special immigration juveniles do not need to count a foster or group home as part of
their household.
A few commentators objected to the inclusion of a section requesting the status of the applicant. That question on immigration status was added to
allow the applicant identify whether not they could qualify for a few waiver based on their status – specifically VAWA, SIJ, T and U status. The
question was removed and a note was added in the instructions for the special immigrants.
A few commentators suggested to remove the column titled, “Date Benefit Expires or Must be Renewed.” No changes will be made based on this
comment. One of the requirements is that the means-tested benefit is currently being received. To clarify and avoid rejections of the fee waivers, the
column was added to allow the applicant to provide the information.
A commentator suggested the use of net income instead of gross income and adjusted gross income from the tax returns. USCIS adjudicates fee
waivers based on total income. The language can be very confusing, but we found that the poverty guidelines and IRS use different definitions for
income. USCIS does not require inclusion of income that is not required to be reported to the IRS as taxable income. USCIS will continue its policy
of reviewing total income which may include the AGI on the federal income taxes and net income along with additional income as noted in the form.
A few commentators indicated that USCIS should allow a parent to use a child’s means-tested benefit for eligibility. Current policy provides that if a
child or grandchild is receiving a means-tested benefit, parents or other family members will not necessarily qualify for a fee waiver. USCIS reviews
the actual immigration benefit applicant’s household income for eligibility and not the income or documented lack of income of a relative or minor
child who lives in the home with the person filing the immigration benefit request. In addition, the language “will not necessarily qualify” has been
confusing for immigration service officers to review and consider when adjudicating a fee waiver request. Therefore, USCIS clarified, consistent
with the 2011 fee waiver policy memo, that the means tested benefit receipt is only for actual applicant. If the child is receiving a means tested
benefit, the parent may still apply or qualify under other income guidelines.
A few commentators suggested to reinstate the list of forms eligible for fee waivers. The current instructions list forms for which waivers are
available and that list was removed in the revised version to decrease the number of pages. In addition, listing the forms would require a form
revision should USCIS decide to add or remove a form from fee waiver eligibility. Therefore, form numbers are being moved from the I-912 to the
webpage. We believe the commenters concerns will be addressed by putting the fee waiver eligible forms on the USCIS website following 8 CFR
103.7(c), which also reduces the form instruction and form length and streamlines updates when necessary.
Commenters also suggested benefit requests that they feel should or should not qualify for fee waivers. No new fee waivers are added in this form
revision.

114

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	Public Comment Matrix - I-912
Subject	410
Author	Mumper, Matthew P
File Modified	2015-06-10
File Created	2015-06-10