rule

73292

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
8 CFR Parts 103, 204, and 205
[CIS No. 2577–15; DHS Docket No. USCIS–
2016–0001]
RIN 1615–AC09

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services Fee Schedule
U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is adjusting the fee
schedule for immigration and
naturalization benefit requests
processed by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS). The fee
schedule was last adjusted on November
23, 2010. USCIS conducted a
comprehensive fee review for the fiscal
year (FY) 2016/2017 biennial period and
determined that current fees do not
recover the full cost of services
provided. DHS has determined that
adjusting the fee schedule is necessary
to fully recover costs and maintain
adequate service. DHS published a
proposed fee schedule on May 4, 2016.
Under this final rule, DHS will
increase fees by a weighted average of
21 percent; establish a new fee of $3,035
covering USCIS costs related to
processing the Employment Based
Immigrant Visa, Fifth Preference (EB–5)
Annual Certification of Regional Center,
Form I–924A; establish a three-level fee
for the Application for Naturalization,
Form N–400; and remove regulatory
provisions that prevent USCIS from
rejecting an immigration or
naturalization benefit request paid with
a dishonored check or lacking the
required biometric services fee until the
remitter has been provided an
opportunity to correct the deficient
payment.

SUMMARY:

This rule is effective December
23, 2016. Applications or petitions
mailed, postmarked, or otherwise filed
on or after December 23, 2016 must
include the new fee.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph D. Moore, Chief Financial
Officer, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–
2130, telephone 202–272–1969.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

DATES:

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

A. Changes in the Final Rule
B. Corrections
C. Summary of Final Fees
IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
A. General Comments
B. Relative Amount of Fees
1. Proposed Fees Are Too High
a. Barrier to Family Reunification
b. Impact on Low-Income Individuals; Low
Volume Reallocation
2. Comments on Specific Fees and
Adjustments
a. Application for Certificate of
Citizenship, Forms N–600/600K
b. Adoption, Forms I–600/600A/800/800A
c. Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
Form I–129
d. Application To Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status, Form I–485,
and Interim Benefits
e. Application for Travel Document, Form
I–131
f. Students
g. Application for Replacement
Naturalization/Citizenship Certificate,
Form N–565
h. Petition for Alien Relative, Form I–130
i. Application To Replace Permanent
Resident Card, Form I–90
j. Genealogy, Forms G–1041/1041A
k. Petition To Remove Conditions on
Residence, Form I–751
l. Petition for Alien Fiance´(e), Form I–129F
m. Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or
Special Immigrant, Form I–360
n. Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I–
290B
o. Application for Civil Surgeon
Designation, Form I–910
p. Application for Advance Permission to
Enter as a Nonimmigrant, Form I–192,
and Application for Waiver of Passport
and/or Visa, Form I–193
C. Fee Waivers and Exemptions
D. Naturalization
E. Improve Service and Reduce
Inefficiencies
F. Premium Processing
G. Immigrant Investors
1. Application for Regional Center Under
the Immigrant Investor Program, Form I–
924
2. Immigrant Petition by Alien
Entrepreneur, Form I–526
3. Petition by Entrepreneur To Remove
Conditions on Permanent Resident
Status, Form I–829
H. Methods Used To Determine Fee
Amounts
1. Recovery of Full Cost Without
Appropriations
2. Exclusion of Temporary or Uncertain
Costs, Items, and Programs
3. Setting Fees by Benefit Type
4. Income-Based Fee Structure
5. Reduction in USCIS Costs
I. Dishonored Payments
J. Refunds
K. Visa Allocation
L. Credit Card Payments
V. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act—Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. A Statement of the Need for, and
Objectives of, the Rule
2. A Statement of the Significant Issues
Raised by the Public Comments in

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Response to the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, A Statement of the
Assessment of the Agency of Such
Issues, and A Statement of Any Changes
Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result
of Such Comments
a. Comments on Form I–129
b. Comments on Forms I–360 and I–485
c. Comments on Forms G–1041 and G–
1041A
d. Comments on Form I–924A
3. The Response of the Agency to Any
Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in Response to the
Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement
of Any Change Made to the Proposed
Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the
Comments
4. A Description of and an Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of
Why No Such Estimate is Available
a. Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
Form I–129
b. Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker,
Form I–140
c. Application for Civil Surgeon
Designation, Form I–910
d. Regional Center Designation Under the
Immigrant Investor Program, Form I–924
and I–924A
e. Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or
Special Immigrant, Form I–360
5. A Description of the Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Rule, Including an
Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities
Which Will Be Subject to the
Requirement and the Type of
Professional Skills Necessary For
Preparation of the Report or Record
6. A Description of the Steps the Agency
Has Taken To Minimize the Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities
Consistent With the Stated Objectives of
Applicable Statutes, Including a
Statement of the Factual, Policy, and
Legal Reasons for Selecting the
Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule
and Why Each One of the Other
Significant Alternatives to the Rule
Considered by the Agency Which Affect
the Impact on Small Entities was
Rejected
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
D. Congressional Review Act
E. Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
1. Background and Purpose of the Final
Rule
2. Amendments and Impacts of Regulatory
Change
a. Dishonored Payments
b. Failure To Pay the Biometric Services
Fees
c. Reduced Fee for Application for
Naturalization
d. Refunds
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
H. Family Assessment

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

I. Paperwork Reduction Act—Comments
on the Proposed Information Collection
Changes
1. Request for Reduced Fee, Form I–942
2. Annual Certification of Regional Center,
Form I–924A

I. Executive Summary
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is adjusting the fee
schedule for U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS). USCIS
conducted a comprehensive fee review
for the FY 2016/2017 biennial period,
refined its cost accounting process, and
determined that current fees do not
recover the full costs of services
provided. DHS has determined that
adjusting USCIS’ fee schedule is
necessary to fully recover costs and
maintain adequate service.
In this final rule, DHS will:
• Adjust fees by a weighted average
increase of 21 percent to ensure that fees
for each benefit type are adequate to
cover USCIS’ costs associated with
processing applications and petitions, as
well as providing similar benefits to
asylum and refugee applicants 1 and
certain other immigrants at no charge.
• Establish a new fee of $3,035 to
recover the full cost of processing the
Employment Based Immigrant Visa,
Fifth Preference (EB–5) Annual
Certification of Regional Center, Form I–
924A.
• Establish a three-level fee for
Application for Naturalization, Form N–
400. First, DHS will increase the
standard fee for Form N–400 from $595
to $640. Second, DHS will continue to
charge no fee to applicants who meet
the requirements of sections 328 or 329
of the Immigration and Nationality Act
of 1952 (INA) with respect to military
service and applicants with approved
fee waivers. Third, DHS will charge a
reduced fee of $320 for naturalization
applicants with family income greater
than 150 percent and not more than 200
percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines.
• Remove regulatory provisions that
prevent USCIS from rejecting an
immigration or naturalization benefit
request paid with a dishonored check or
lacking the required biometric services
fee until the remitter has been provided
an opportunity to correct the deficient
payment.
• Clarify that persons filing any
benefit request may be required to
appear for biometrics services or an
interview and may be required to pay
the biometrics services fee.
1 Although the President has announced an
increase in the refugee admissions ceiling to
110,000, the final fee structure includes costs for
only 100,000, which was the anticipated ceiling at
the time that the fee review was conducted.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

II. Background
DHS published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on May 4, 2016,
which proposed adjusting USCIS’ fee
schedule by a weighted average increase
of 21 percent. See U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services Fee Schedule;
Proposed Rule, 81 FR 26904. This final
rule establishes the first fee adjustment
since 2010. It is a result of a
comprehensive fee review conducted by
USCIS for the FY 2016/2017 biennial
period. During the fee review, USCIS
determined that current fees do not
recover the full costs of processing
immigration benefits. This final rule
reflects full cost recovery including
program costs that DHS excluded in the
2010 final rule. USCIS provided the FY
2016/2017 Immigration Examinations
Fee Account (IEFA) Fee Review
Supporting Documentation (supporting
documentation), which includes budget
methodology, and regulatory flexibility
analysis, in the public docket. See
http://www.regulations.gov, docket
number USCIS–2016–0001.
This final rule includes the addition
of fee surcharges applied to certain
immigration benefits to fully recover
costs related to the USCIS Refugee,
Asylum, and International Operations
Directorate (RAIO), the Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE)
program (to the extent not recovered
from users),2 and the Office of
Citizenship.3 In the 2010 final rule,
USCIS assumed it would continue
receiving funding for these programs
through congressional appropriations.
See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services Fee Schedule, 75 FR 58962,
58966 (Sept. 24, 2010). The 2010 final
rule removed asylum, refugee, and
military naturalization costs from the
fee structure and assumed that
immigration fees would not be used to
recover the costs of adjudicating
asylum, refugee, and military
naturalization requests, as well as costs
associated with the SAVE program and
2 The SAVE program was established in 1987 by
the Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub. L.
99–603, sec. 121(c) (Nov. 6, 1986), which required
the Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to ‘‘implement a system for
the verification of immigration status . . . so that
the system is available to all States by not later than
October 1, 1987.’’ SAVE uses an internet-based
service to assist Federal, state, and local benefitissuing and licensing agencies, and other
governmental entities, in determining the
immigration status of benefit or license applicants,
so that only those applicants entitled to benefits or
licenses receive them.
3 The USCIS Office of Citizenship was established
by section 451(f) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002. Pub. L. 107–296, sec. 451(f) (2002). The
statute tasks the office with ‘‘promoting instruction
and training on citizenship responsibilities for
aliens interested in becoming naturalized citizens.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73293

the Office of Citizenship. The final rule
removed all of these costs from the
USCIS fee structure, instead assuming
that these services would be funded
using appropriated funds. See 75 FR
58963. That budget request was not
fulfilled, and USCIS was left to fund the
cost of these programs after having
removed the surcharge. See Pub. L. 112–
10, sec. 1639 (Apr. 15, 2011).4
DHS issues this final rule consistent
with the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) section 286(m), 8 U.S.C.
1356(m) (authorizing DHS to charge fees
for adjudication and naturalization
services at a level to ensure recovery of
the full costs of providing all such
services, including the costs of similar
services provided without charge to
asylum applicants or other immigrants)
and the Chief Financial Officers (CFO)
Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901–03 (requiring
each agency’s CFO to review, on a
biennial basis, the fees imposed by the
agency for services it provides, and to
recommend changes to the agency’s
fees). The NPRM provides additional
information on the legal authority, nonstatutory guidance, and background on
the IEFA fees. See 81 FR 26906.
III. Final Rule
A. Changes in the Final Rule
This section details the changes made
in this final rule as compared to the
NPRM. These changes are summarized
as follows:
1. Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status, Form I–485.
DHS has revised the regulatory language
regarding the fee for the Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust
Status, Form I–485, to clarify that the
proposed $750 discounted fee is
available for all applicants under 14
years old who submit their Form I–485
with that of a parent. These revisions
accord the fee regulations with the
current Form I–485 instructions and
intake practices. See new 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(U)(2); 81 FR 26919. The
section later in this preamble entitled,
‘‘Adjustment of Status, Form I–485, and
Interim Benefits,’’ provides more details
about this change.
4 USCIS received $29.95 million of the requested
$248 million to fund a portion of the refugee and
asylum processing administered under the RAIO
Directorate and military naturalization processing
in Fiscal Year 2011. USCIS has not received any
substantial appropriations for these programs since
FY 2011. USCIS received $2.5 million for the
immigrant integration grants program in FY 2014
(Pub. L. 113–76) and FY 2013 (Pub. L. 113–6).
USCIS did not receive appropriations for the
immigrant integration grants program in FY 2015 or
FY 2016. Similarly, USCIS received no FY 2016
discretionary appropriations for the SAVE program
or for the Office of Citizenship. See DHS
Appropriations Act 2016, Pub. L. 114–113, div. F.
(Dec. 18, 2015).

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73294

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

2. Dishonored payments. DHS has
also clarified the regulations governing
USCIS actions when a check used to pay
the required fee is dishonored by the
remitter’s bank. Under this final rule,
USCIS will submit all initially rejected
payments to the applicant’s bank a
second time for it to clear or be rejected.
8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D). If the check is
rejected again following re-submission
by USCIS, it will reject the case for fee
non-payment. If the case has been
approved, USCIS will send a notice of
intent to revoke the approval. The
section later in this preamble entitled,
‘‘Dishonored Payments,’’ provides more
details about this change.
3. Application for Advance
Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant,
Form I–192, and Application for Waiver
for Passport and/or Visa, Form I–193.
DHS has made adjustments to the
proposed fees in the final rule for the
Application for Advance Permission to
Enter as a Nonimmigrant, Form I–192,
and the Application for Waiver for
Passport and/or Visa, Form I–193. For
the reasons outlined in section IV.B.2.p.
of this preamble, the fees that will be
charged for Forms I–192 and I–193 will
remain at $585, rather than the
proposed fee of $930 when such forms
are submitted to and processed by the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP). See new 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(P)–
(Q).
B. Corrections
DHS inadvertently listed Application
by Refugee for Waiver of Grounds of
Excludability, Form I–602, in the NPRM
preamble and the supporting
documentation. DHS listed Form I–602
in the NPRM as part of Waiver Forms
in section IV, Fee Review Methodology,
at 81 FR 26916 and tables 8 and 9 at 81
FR 26926–26927. USCIS referenced it
on pages 24, 47, 49, and 50 of the
accompanying supporting
documentation. The docket of this final
rule includes a corrected version of the
supporting documentation without
references to Form I–602. Form I–602
has no fee and DHS should not have
included it in these lists or tables. The
NPRM did not assume any fee-paying
workload for Form I–602; therefore,
removing it from the fee schedule does
not affect other fees. DHS continues to
not charge a fee for Form I–602.
DHS also inadvertently did not
include provisions for what would
occur if a benefit request was approved
before USCIS became aware that the fee
payment was dishonored by the remitter
institution. See proposed 8 CFR
103.2(a)(7)(ii), 103.7(a)(2); 81 FR 26936–
26937. Specifically, DHS proposed to
remove the requirement that USCIS

provide notification to the requester
whenever an instrument used to pay the
filing fee is returned as not payable,
with 14 days to cure the deficiency.
However, DHS neglected to propose the
necessary conforming change to 8 CFR
205.1(a)(2), which provides that the
approval of a petition or self-petition
made under INA section 204 is
automatically revoked if the filing fee
and associated service charge are not
paid within 14 days of the notification
to the remitter that his or her check or
other financial instrument used to pay
the filing fee has been returned as not
payable. The latter provision must be
revised to conform it to the proposed
change described previously. That
oversight has been corrected in this final
rule. New 8 CFR 103.7(a)(2)(iii),
205.1(a). This change is discussed in
more detail in the response to the public
comments regarding dishonored
payments.
C. Summary of Final Fees
The current USCIS fee schedule and
the fees adopted in this final rule are
summarized in Table 1. DHS bases the
final fees on the FY 2016/2017
estimated cost baseline as outlined in
the NPRM. The table excludes fees
established and required by statute and
those that DHS cannot adjust.

TABLE 1—NON-STATUTORY IEFA IMMIGRATION BENEFIT REQUEST FEES
Form No.5

Title

G–1041 ............................................
G–1041A ..........................................
G–1041A ..........................................
I–90 ..................................................
I–102 ................................................

Genealogy Index Search Request ............................................................
Genealogy Records Request (Copy from Microfilm) ................................
Genealogy Records Request (Copy from Textual Record) ......................
Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card ...................................
Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document.
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker ..........................................................
Petition for Alien Fiance´(e) ........................................................................
Petition for Alien Relative ..........................................................................
Application for Travel Document ...............................................................
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker ..........................................................
Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile.
Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant ...............
Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa ........................................
Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. After
Deportation or Removal.
Notice of Appeal or Motion .......................................................................
Petition for Amerasian Widow(er) or Special Immigrant ...........................
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status ..............
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (certain
applicants under the age of 14 years).
Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur .................................................
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status ................................
Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for
Advance Petition Processing of Orphan Petition.
Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative/Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country.
Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability ....................................
Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver .............................

I–129/129CW ...................................
I–129F ..............................................
I–130 ................................................
I–131 6/I–131A 7 ...............................
I–140 ................................................
I–191 ................................................
I–192 ................................................
I–193 ................................................
I–212 ................................................

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

I–290B ..............................................
I–360 ................................................
I–485 ................................................
I–485 ................................................
I–526 ................................................
I–539 ................................................
I–600/600A .......................................
I–800/800A .......................................

I–601 ................................................
I–601A ..............................................

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Current fee

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Final fee

$20
20
35
365
330

$65
65
65
455
445

325
340
420
360
580
585

460
535
535
575
700
930

585
585
585

8 585/930

630
405
985
635

675
435
1,140
750

1,500
290
720

3,675
370
775

720

775

585
585

930
630

585
930

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

73295

TABLE 1—NON-STATUTORY IEFA IMMIGRATION BENEFIT REQUEST FEES—Continued
Form No.5

Title

I–612 ................................................

Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement (Under
Section 212(e) of the INA, as Amended).
Application for Status as a Temporary Resident under Section 245A of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility ................................
Notice of Appeal of Decision .....................................................................
Application to Adjust Status From Temporary to Permanent Resident
(Under Section 245A of the INA).
Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence ..........................................
Application for Employment Authorization ................................................
Request for Action on Approved Form I–800A .........................................
Application for Family Unity Benefits ........................................................
Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition .................
Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions ......................................
Application for Civil Surgeon Designation .................................................
Application for Regional Center Designation Under the Immigrant Investor Program.
Annual Certification of Regional Center ....................................................
Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant ...............
Application to File Declaration of Intention ...............................................
Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings ..........
Application for Naturalization ....................................................................
Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes ..............
Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document ..........
Application for Certification of Citizenship/Application for Citizenship and
Issuance of Certificate under Section 322.
USCIS Immigrant Fee 11 ...........................................................................
Biometric Services Fee .............................................................................

I–687 ................................................
I–690 ................................................
I–694 ................................................
I–698 ................................................
I–751 ................................................
I–765 ................................................
I–800A Supp. 3 ................................
I–817 ................................................
I–824 ................................................
I–829 ................................................
I–910 ................................................
I–924 9 ..............................................

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

I–924A ..............................................
I–929 ................................................
N–300 ..............................................
N–336 ..............................................
N–400 ..............................................
N–470 ..............................................
N–565 ..............................................
N–600/N–600K ................................

5 Form, when used in connection with a benefit
or other request to be filed with DHS to request an
immigration benefit, means a device for the
collection of information in a standard format that
may be submitted in a paper format or an electronic
format as prescribed by USCIS on its official
Internet Web site. The term ‘‘Form’’ followed by an
immigration form number includes an approved
electronic equivalent of such form as made
available by USCIS on its official Internet Web site.
See 8 CFR 1.2 and 299.1. Therefore, the word
‘‘form’’ is used in this final rule in both the specific
and general sense.
6 As described in the NPRM, the United States’
obligations under the 1967 Protocol relating to the
Status of Refugees (incorporating by reference
Article 28 of the 1951 U.N. Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees) guide the Application for
Travel Document fees for a Refugee Travel
Document. The USCIS ABC model does not
calculate these fees. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(M)(2)
and (3).
7 On August 31, OMB approved Form I–131A,
Application for Travel Document (Carrier
Documentation). The new form will be used by
Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) who are
temporarily overseas and have lost their Permanent
Resident Card or Reentry Permit, to apply for a
Travel Document. See https://www.uscis.gov/i131a.
8 The fee for Form I–192 will remain $585 when
filed with and processed by CBP.
9 DHS removed the word ‘‘Pilot’’ from the form
title. See new 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(WW).
10 The current fee for applications filed on behalf
of a biological child is $600. The fee for an adopted
child is $550. There is no fee for any application
filed by a member or veteran of any branch of the
U.S. Armed Forces.
11 DHS changed the fee name to ‘‘USCIS
Immigrant Fee.’’ See new 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(D).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

Current fee

IV. Public Comments on the Proposed
Rule
DHS provided a 60-day comment
period following publication of the
NPRM; 436 comments were posted to
regulations.gov. Although 475
comments were received on the docket,
38 were not posted and one was
withdrawn. As noted in the proposed
rule, DHS may withhold information
provided in comments from public
viewing if it determines that such
information is offensive or may affect
the privacy of an individual. 81 FR
26905.
A. General Comments
DHS received comments from a broad
spectrum of individuals and
organizations, including refugee and
immigrant service and advocacy
organizations, public policy groups,
members of Congress, and private
citizens. Some commenters wrote that
they supported the fee changes while
others were critical of them. Many
commenters wrote that they were
generally unsupportive of the weighted
average increase; others commented on
specific form types. Some commenters
wrote about alternative methods to
reduce costs and inefficiencies.
DHS also received several comments
on subjects that are not related to the
proposed fees and are outside the scope
of the NPRM. With limited exception as
explicitly stated below, DHS has not

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Final fee

585

930

1,130

1,130

200
755
1,020

715
890
1,670

505
380
360
435
405
3,750
615
6,230

595
410
385
600
465
3,750
785
17,795

0
215
250
650
595
330
345
10 600/550

3,035
230
270
700
640
355
555
1,170

165
85

220
85

separately summarized or responded to
these comments.
B. Relative Amount of Fees
Most commenters stated opposition to
the fee increases. Some commenters
suggested that fee increases would
reduce the number of people seeking
immigration benefits. Some commenters
stated that the proposed fees did not
reflect the actual adjudicative workload
of particular benefit types. Several
commenters stated that proposed fees
were too low, but the clear majority
stated that the fees were too high.
Although DHS summarizes and
responds to these concerns in more
detail below, it emphasizes that, as an
initial matter and as articulated in the
NPRM, DHS needs to increase USCIS
fees by a weighted average increase of
21 percent to offset growing costs and
continue to provide an adequate level of
service, as provided by section 286(m)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), which
authorizes USCIS to ‘‘ensure recovery of
the full costs of providing all such
services, including the costs of similar
services provided without charge.’’ As
reflected in this provision, some USCIS
fees must exceed the cost of
adjudicating the respective benefit types
to cover those benefits provided without
charge, such as refugee benefits, asylum
benefits, and other fee-exempt, feewaived or fee-reduced workloads.
Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM,

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73296

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

‘‘DHS may reasonably adjust fees based
on value judgements and public policy
reasons where a rational basis for the
methodology is propounded in the
rulemaking.’’ See 81 FR 26907.
An example is the policy decision to
include a fee exemption for individuals
who are victims of a severe form of
human trafficking and who assist law
enforcement in the investigation or
prosecution of those acts of trafficking
(who may qualify for T visas), and
individuals who are victims of certain
crimes and are being helpful to the
investigation or prosecution of those
crimes (who may qualify for U visas).
The cost of processing those fee-exempt
visas must be recovered through fees
charged for other benefit requests. See
INA secs. 101(a)(15)(T), (U), 214(o), (p),
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T), (U), and
1184(o), (p); 8 CFR 214.11, 214.14,
103.7(c)(5)(iii); Adjustment of Status to
Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in
T or U Nonimmigrant Status, 73 FR
75540 (Dec. 12, 2008). Such a decision
would inevitably cause an
unsustainable reduction in fee revenue
unless DHS spread the cost of the fee
exemption among other fee-paying
applicants and petitioners. Accordingly,
consistent with section 286(m) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), DHS sets fees for
other fee-paying applicants and
petitioners at a level sufficient to
recover the full costs of providing all
such services.
Similarly, a decision to allow fee
waivers for a particular benefit request,
or a decision to allow a reduced fee, will
also have an impact on other fee-paying
applicants and petitioners. For instance,
when USCIS determines to hold a fee to
a smaller percentage increase than the
overall methodology suggests (in this
rule, DHS uses an 8 percent weighted
average increase for those benefits that
it determines should be held to a
smaller fee increase 12), there are
cascading effects on other fee-paying
applicants and petitioners. These feereduced immigration benefit requests
may not recover the full cost of their
associated workloads or the full cost of
their respective fee waivers. The portion
of costs that is not recovered is
reallocated to other immigration benefit
requests.
Correspondingly, when DHS sets a fee
for a given benefit request at the level
12 In this rule, USCIS applies this increase to a
number of benefit types, including the Application
for Naturalization, Form N–400; Application for
Employment Authorization, Form I–765; and
adoption-related applications, Forms I–600/600A/
800/800A. This smaller increase, which in this
rulemaking amounts to 8 percent, is the percentage
difference between the current fees and the model
output before reallocation, weighted by fee-paying
volume. See 81 FR 26915.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

suggested by the USCIS fee-setting
methodology, without further
adjustment, the associated immigration
benefit request absorbs a portion of the
additional costs associated with the
immigration benefit requests that are
held down to the 8 percent weighted
average increase. These fees recover the
full cost of their respective fee waivers,
plus some of the fee waiver costs for
immigration benefit requests that are
held down to the 8 percent weighted
average increase.13 These fees also
recover a greater portion of the cost of
fee-exempt services.
1. Proposed Fees Are Too High
The largest number of commenters
wrote in opposition to the overall
increase in fees. Several commenters
expressed concern over specific
populations (such as families or
potential adoptive families) that may be
particularly affected by the fee
increases. Some commenters believed
that a steep increase in fees would result
in increased illegal immigration,
particularly for individuals who may
not be able to afford increased costs
associated with existing legal avenues.
Some commenters suggested that the
increase in fees could discourage certain
individuals from attempting to work or
ultimately seeking lawful permanent
residence resident (LPR) status in the
country.
As an initial matter, DHS notes that as
stated in the NPRM, it attributes 17
percent of the 21 percent weighted
average fee increase to the reinstatement
of the surcharge needed to sustain
current operating levels of RAIO, the
SAVE program, and the Office of
Citizenship, as well as to account for a
projected loss in fee revenue resulting
from a significant increase in the
number of fee waivers currently
received (and which is expected to
continue throughout FY 2016/2017). See
81 FR 26911. The remaining 4 percent
is needed to recover the cost of
sustaining current operating levels and
to allow for limited, strategic
investments necessary to ensure the
agency’s information technology
infrastructure is strengthened. Such
strengthening is needed to protect
against potential cyber intrusions and to
build the disaster recovery and back-up
capabilities required to effectively
deliver on the USCIS mission. See 81 FR
26910. For comparison, the inflation
13 See Appendix Table 4, Cost Reallocation
column in the supporting documentation. These
figures represent all additional costs, including the
cost of forms that are held to the 8 percent weighted
average increase based on policy decisions, that
USCIS applies to fees to ensure full cost recovery.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

from July 2010 to July 2016 was 9.5
percent.14
DHS notes that fees do not merely
cover the cost of adjudication time. The
fees also cover the resources required
for intake of immigration benefit
requests, customer support, fraud
detection, background checks, and
administrative requirements.15 DHS also
reiterates that any further fee
adjustments would be zero-sum. Given
the need to recover the full cost of the
services provided, a decision reducing
the fee burden on one population of
beneficiaries will ultimately increase
the burden on others.
a. Barrier to Family Reunification
A number of commenters stated that
an increase in fees could potentially
prevent family reunification for certain
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents (LPRs), especially for
individuals seeking to reunite with
several family members. USCIS
understands the importance of
facilitating family reunification, as well
as the advantages that LPR status and
citizenship provide. DHS acknowledges
that certain individuals may need to file
multiple requests, and thus pay
multiple fees, depending on the number
of family members they seek to sponsor.
Nonetheless, USCIS filing fees are
necessary to provide the resources
required to do the work associated with
such filings. When fees do not fully
recover costs, USCIS is unable to
maintain sufficient capacity to process
requests. Inadequate fees may cause
significant delays in immigration
request processing, which can result in
the burden of longer separation from
family members.
DHS recognizes that fees impose a
burden on fee-paying applicants and
beneficiaries, and it takes steps to
mitigate that burden as appropriate.
Specifically, after USCIS applies its
standard fee-setting methodology to
identify the Activity-Based Cost
(ABC) 16 model output for each benefit
14 The semiannual average consumer price index
for all urban consumers (CPI–U) was 217.5 in July
2010 and 238.8 in July 2016. The change in the
Index over 9 years was 21.3 or 9.5 percent. See U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, All
Urban Consumers (CPI–U) Semiannual Average
tables, available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_
dr.htm. DHS has not recently adjusted IEFA fees by
CPI–U inflation, but provides this figure as a point
of comparison.
15 See Appendix Table 5: Activity Unit Costs by
Immigration Benefit Request After Cost Reallocation
of the supporting documentation. Pages 19–20
define the activities in the appendix table.
16 USCIS uses the ABC model to determine the
full cost of processing immigration benefit requests
and biometric services. This is the same
methodology used in the last four fee reviews and
the basis for the current fee structure. The ABC

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
request, USCIS evaluates the model
output and determines whether it
should be adjusted. DHS is mindful that
departures from the standard USCIS feesetting methodology result in lower fees
for some and higher fees for others. DHS
discusses these adjustments in more
detail in the remainder of this preamble,
including by reference to certain familybased benefit requests, such as the
Petition for Alien Relative, Form I–130.
b. Impact on Low-Income Individuals;
Low Volume Reallocation

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Several commenters stated that the
proposed rule would harm the ability of
low-income applicants and petitioners
to afford USCIS services. Some of these
commenters suggested that the proposed
overall fee increase would result in a
reduction in overall filings from lowincome applicants and petitioners.
Commenters discussed the importance
of maintaining an immigration system
that is accessible to people at all income
levels.
DHS is aware of the potential impact
of fee increases on low-income
individuals and is sympathetic to these
concerns. As a result, DHS not only
offers fee waivers, but also uses its feesetting discretion to adjust certain
immigration benefit request fees that
USCIS believes may be overly
burdensome on applicants, petitioners,
and requestors if set at the
recommended model output levels. As
discussed in the proposed rule and
supporting documentation, and
consistent with past practice, USCIS
proposed to limit fee adjustments for
certain benefit requests to a set
percentage increase above current fees.
USCIS determined this figure by
calculating the average percentage fee
increase across all model outputs before
cost reallocation. In this rule, that
calculated figure is 8 percent. This
methodology is referred to as Low
Volume Reallocation.
The use of Low Volume Reallocation
frequently results in lower fees for
certain low-income applicants and
petitioners, but always results in higher
fees for other benefit requests. This is
because USCIS relies almost completely
on fee revenue to support its operations.
DHS is therefore mindful to use low
volume reallocation only where
compelling circumstances counsel in
model is a business management tool that assigns
resource costs to operational activities and then to
products and/or services. These assignments
provide an accurate cost assessment of each major
step towards producing the individual outputs of an
organization. For additional information on the
ABC model, see pages 17–22 of the supporting
documentation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

favor of shifting costs from one benefit
request to others.
Nonetheless, as proposed, in this final
rule, DHS will continue applying Low
Volume Reallocation from the 2010 final
rule to the following forms:
• Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form
I–290B
• Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er)
or Special Immigrant, Form I–360
• Petition to Classify Orphan as an
Immediate Relative, Form I–600, and
Application for Advance Processing of
an Orphan Petition, Form I–600A
• Petition to Classify Convention
Adoptee as an Immediate Relative, Form
I–800, and Application for
Determination of Suitability to Adopt a
Child from a Convention Country, Form
I–800A
• Petition for Qualifying Family
Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant Form
I–929
• Application to File Declaration of
Intention, Form N–300
• Request for Hearing on a Decision
in Naturalization Proceedings, Form N–
336
• Application to Preserve Residence
for Naturalization Purposes, Form N–
470
Also as proposed, DHS will apply the
same calculated 8 percent weighted
average increase to the following benefit
types:
• Application for Provisional
Unlawful Presence Waiver, Form I–
601A
• Application for Employment
Authorization, Form I–765
• Request for Action on Approved
Form I–800A, Form I–800A Supplement
3
DHS believes that the use of Low
Volume Reallocation will mitigate the
potential burden of this final rule on
certain low-income applicants and
petitioners.17 DHS intends to continue
assessing the affordability of its fees in
future fee reviews. This may result in
continuing Low Volume Reallocation,
otherwise reallocating certain costs, and
identifying cost savings. For purposes of
this final rule, however, DHS has not
materially changed the proposed rule to
address the commenters’ stated
concerns with the proposed overall fee
increase.
2. Comments on Specific Fees and
Adjustments
While many commenters indicated
that they were opposed to the overall
increase in fees, some comments
17 DHS has not estimated the overall effect that
this final rule will have on filing volume from lowincome applicants. USCIS may consider exploring
options to collect and analyze this data in the
future.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73297

focused on increases to particular forms
or to specific groups of applicants,
petitioners, or requestors. Those
comments are addressed below.18
a. Application for Certificate of
Citizenship, Forms N–600/600K
In the NPRM, DHS proposed fee
increases for the Application for
Certificate of Citizenship, Form N–600,
and the Application for Citizenship and
Issuance of Certificate Under Section
322, Form N–600K. Under the proposed
rule, the current $600 fee for
applications filed on behalf of biological
children would be increased by $570, or
95 percent, to $1,170. The proposed rule
also would eliminate the current $50
discount on applications filed on behalf
of adopted children, previously codified
at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(AAA), thereby
effectively increasing fees for such
applications by $620, or 103 percent. Id.
A number of commenters stated that
DHS should reconsider the proposed fee
increases. Some commenters requested
additional information to explain the
increases. Certain commenters who
submitted comments through a form
letter campaign stated that the proposed
increases were troubling considering
that USCIS had not reported a
significant increase in application
volume or processing times.
Some commenters stated that the
proposed fee increase would result in a
significant additional burden for
potential adoptive families, who already
invest a great deal of time and money in
the adoption process. Some stated that
Forms N–600 and N–600K should be
free or discounted for adopted children,
or alternatively maintained at the
current fee. A commenter stated that the
Department of State (DOS) processes
derivative citizens’ requests for
passports in substantially the same
manner that USCIS processes Forms N–
600 and N–600K, yet DOS only charges
$120 for a passport book for a child
younger than 16 years of age. Other
commenters stated that many adopted
children automatically derive U.S.
citizenship from their parents when
they enter the United States, while other
children derive U.S. citizenship when
their adoptions are completed.19 Several
commenters noted that a passport may
be an effective alternative to the
certificate for naturalization.
18 DHS addresses the comments on specific
immigration benefit requests in approximate order
of the number of commenters who submitted
comments on that subject.
19 See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Before Your Child Immigrates to the United States
(11/18/2014), available at https://www.uscis.gov/
adoption/your-child-immigrates-united-states.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73298

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

As noted previously, USCIS based the
proposed fee increase for the Forms N–
600 and N–600K on the results of its
comprehensive biennial fee review, a
summary of which was available for
comment in the docket accompanying
the proposed rule. The biennial fee
review helps ensure that fees for USCIS
services cover the full cost of processing
immigration benefits. In the absence of
full cost recovery, USCIS would be
unable to sustain an adequate level of
service, let alone invest in program
improvements.
DHS recognizes that fees impose a
burden on fee-paying applicants and
beneficiaries, and takes steps to mitigate
that burden as appropriate. Specifically,
after DHS applies the standard USCIS
methodology to identify the model
output for each benefit request, DHS
evaluates the model output and
determines whether it should be
adjusted. In the NPRM, DHS proposed
to limit a small number of fees to an 8
percent weighted average increase for
one or more of the following three
reasons: (1) DHS determined that the
combined effect of cost, fee-paying
volume, and methodology changes since
the previous fee rule would otherwise
place an inordinate fee burden on
individuals requesting these types of
benefits; (2) DHS determined that an
adjustment was necessary to promote
citizenship and immigrant integration or
other policies; or (3) DHS lacked data on
which to base an appropriate fee. See 81
FR 26915. For example, DHS proposed
to limit to the 8 percent weighted
average increase to the Application for
Naturalization and the adoption petition
and application fees (explained in the
sections of this preamble that discuss
those requests).
DHS is mindful that departures from
the standard USCIS fee methodology
result in lower fees for some and higher
fees for others. DHS is careful to use its
fee setting discretion in a way that does
not result in unnecessary or
unjustifiable burdens for fee-paying
applicants and petitioners. Accordingly,
the proposed rule (like past fee rules)
would have set most fees above cost, in
adherence to the fee-setting
methodology. The fee for Forms N–600
and N–600K is one of those fees.
Setting aside the effect of cost
reallocation,20 DHS attributes the
20 At least one commenter indicated that the
RAIO surcharge seemed to be a large contributor to
the increase in the proposed fee for the Form N–
600. The commenter suggested that the RAIO
surcharge should be redistributed to all other forms
to reduce the financial burden of the proposed fee
increase on adoptive parents. As outlined in the
NPRM, Forms N–600 and 600K are not the only
forms that recover the cost of RAIO, the SAVE

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

proposed increase to the fee for Forms
N–600 and N–600K to a significant
increase in the number of fee waivers
granted for such forms.21 In the 2010
final rule, DHS assumed that every
applicant would pay the fee for Forms
N–600 and N–600K. However, the feepaying volume estimate for Forms N–
600 and N–600K decreased from 100
percent in FY 2010/2011 to 67 percent
in FY 2016/2017 due to applicants
receiving fee waivers. The standard feesetting methodology provides that the
costs of waived or exempted fees are to
be recovered from fee-paying applicants
submitting the same form(s) (in this
case, applicants filing Forms N–600 and
N–600K).22 See 81 FR 26922. The
previous fee for Form N–600 was set
under the assumption that 100 percent
of filers would pay the fee; as the NPRM
explained, however, a third of Form N–
600 filers are receiving fee waivers.
These waivers account for a large
portion of the costs that must now be
addressed through the proposed fee
increase. In short, the Form N–600 fee
in the proposed rule is the result of
consistent application of USCIS’s feesetting methodology. No adjustment was
made to the fee calculated under the
methodology based on other policy
considerations.
DHS is setting the fees for several
other forms at a level that is less than
their projected cost. If DHS similarly
limited the fee for an Application for a
Certificate of Citizenship, however, it
would need to raise other fees to recover
these expenses. USCIS estimates that
each such instance would increase other
fees between $5 and $210, with an
average increase of $21.
With respect to comments about the
potential impact of the proposed fee
increase on adoptive families in
particular, DHS notes that Forms N–600
and N–600K are not primarily used by
adoptive families. USCIS estimates that
adopted children represent less than 10
percent of the workload related to
Applications for Certificate of
Citizenship.23 Although DHS could
have established a separate fee for
adopted children, the cost of such a
departure from the standard fee-setting
program, and the Office of Citizenship. USCIS
currently distributes these costs to all form types
not set below projected cost. See 81 FR 26915.
21 See Appendix Table 4 of the supporting
documentation.
22 When DHS holds a fee below cost, the costs
that are not covered, including fee waivers, must be
paid by other fee paying applicants. Specifically,
other immigration benefits whose fees are not held
down recover the additional cost.
23 Based on FY 2015 actual revenue data, less
than 10 percent of fee-paying applicants for Forms
N–600 or N–600K paid the lower fee for adopted
children.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

methodology would be borne by other
fee-paying applicants and petitioners.24
Similarly, if DHS set the fee for this
benefit request at an equivalent level to
the DOS passport fee, DHS would be
required to substantially increase other
fees to ensure full-cost recovery. DHS
agrees with commenters that in many
cases, a passport will serve the same
purpose as a certificate of citizenship,
and for a lower cost to the applicant.
Finally, DHS notes that adjudicating a
Form N–600 for an adopted child is
similar in workload and difficulty to the
adjudication of an Application for
Certificate of Citizenship for a biological
child. There would be no cost-related
basis for establishing a separate fee for
adopted children.
For the reasons stated above, DHS has
not revised the proposed fee in this final
rule. Under this final rule, the fee for the
Application for Certificate of
Citizenship, Form N–600, and the
Application for Citizenship and
Issuance of Certificate Under Section
322, Form N–600K, will be $1,170.
b. Adoption, Forms I–600/600A/800/
800A
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the (1) Petition to
Classify Orphan as an Immediate
Relative, Form I–600; (2) Application for
Advance Processing of an Orphan
Petition, Form I–600A; (3) Petition to
Classify Convention Adoptee as an
Immediate Relative, Form I–800; and (4)
Application for Determination of
Suitability to Adopt a Child from a
Convention Country, Form I–800A. The
proposed increase would change the fee
for each of these forms from $720 to
$775. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(Y), (Z), (JJ)(2), (KK); 81 FR
26939. DHS proposed to hold the
increase for these benefit types (among
others) to an 8 percent increase because
the combined effect of cost, fee-paying
volume, and methodology changes since
the last fee rule would otherwise place
an inordinate fee burden on individuals
24 DHS will continue its policy of reducing fee
burdens on adoptive families in other ways. For
instance, DHS will continue to allow fee waivers for
the Form N–600. DHS will also continue to cover
costs attributable to the adjudication of adoption
petitions and applications (Forms I–600/600A/800/
800A) through the fees collected from other
requests. This policy is described in the following
section on ‘‘Adoption.’’ Note that in the NPRM, the
row for Forms I–600/600A/800/800A was labeled as
‘‘orphan petitions.’’ The term ‘‘orphan’’ only
applies to Forms I–600 and Form I–600A. The row
includes data for all of the adoption forms.
Therefore, DHS changed the label for Forms I–600/
600A/800/800A from ‘‘orphan petitions’’ to
‘‘adoption petitions and applications’’ in the final
rule and in several tables within the supporting
documentation. The changes only affect the labels
for the rows and do not represent a change in the
data or calculations.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requesting these types of benefits. For
example, if DHS did not maintain the
proposed fee for the Form I–600, this
benefit request would have a fee of at
least $2,258. DHS believes it would be
contrary to the public interest to impose
a fee of this amount on an estimated
15,000 potential adoptive parents each
year.
Some commenters wrote in
opposition to the proposed fee increases
associated with intercountry adoptions
or stated that DHS should reconsider
these fee increases. Commenters wrote
that all adoption-related fees should
remain at the current level, be lowered,
or be waived when adopting children
from foster care. Some commenters
stated that these fee increases would
lead to decreased intercountry
adoptions. At least one commenter
wrote that adoptive parents were
specifically targeted by the proposed fee
increases in the NPRM.
DHS greatly values its role in
intercountry adoptions and places high
priority on the accurate and timely
processing of immigration applications
and petitions that enable U.S. families
to provide permanent homes for
adopted children from around the
world. It also recognizes that the
financial costs, both foreign and
domestic, involved in intercountry
adoptions can have significant impacts
on these families. DHS has a history of
modifying policies to ease burdens
associated with international adoption.
Prior to 2007, USCIS required
prospective adoptive parents who had
not found a suitable child for adoption
within 18 months after approval of their
Application for Advance Processing of
Orphan Petition, Form I–600, to submit
a fee with their request to extend their
approval. Since 2007, USCIS has
permitted adoptive parents to request
one extension of their Form I–600
approval without charge, including the
biometric fee. See 72 FR 29864; 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(Z). Finally, DHS does not
charge an additional filing fee for an
adoption petition filed on behalf of the
first beneficiary child or birth siblings.
See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(Z) and
103.7(b)(1)(i)(JJ)(1).
DHS also has a history of setting
adoption-related fees lower than the
amount suggested by the fee-setting
methodology. In the 2010 fee rule, the
calculated fee for adoption petitions and
applications (Forms I–600/I–600A and
I–800/I–800A) was $1,455, based on
projected costs. See 75 FR 33461;
previous 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(Y), (Z),
(II), (JJ). Instead of using the model
output, DHS increased the fee by only
$50, to $720. See 75 FR 58972. As noted
previously, in the FY 2016/2017 fee

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

review, the model output for the Form
I–600 was $2,258.25 Nonetheless, DHS
proposed setting fees for adoption
petitions at $775. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(Y), (Z), (JJ), (2), (KK). The
$1,483 difference between the model
output and the final fee will be
recovered from other applications,
petitions, and requests. Shifting the
adoption petition and application costs
to other fees is consistent with past DHS
efforts and is in the public interest to
support parents of children adopted
abroad.
DHS recognizes that fees impose a
burden on individuals seeking
immigration benefits, and it takes steps
to mitigate that burden as appropriate.
At the same time, DHS must recover the
full costs of the services that USCIS
provides, or else risk reductions in
service quality, including potential
delays in processing. In this case, DHS
proposed to apply the reduced (8
percent) fee increase to these benefit
requests, for the reasons stated
previously and consistent with DHS’s
practice of holding a number of benefit
requests to this reduced fee increase.
DHS was mindful that although this
departure from the standard fee-setting
methodology results in lower fees for
adoptive families, it also results in
higher fees for others. 81 FR 26915. Any
further departure would only heighten
the effect on the rest of the fee schedule,
and would not be consistent with DHS’s
overall fee-setting methodology. DHS is
therefore finalizing the fee as proposed.
c. Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
Form I–129
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Petition for a
Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I–129,
from $325 to $460. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(I); 81 FR 26937. The
proposed fee increase was the result of
the application of the standard USCIS
fee-setting methodology to this benefit
request.
Several commenters objected to the
proposed fee increase. Most of the
comments on this subject were from
agricultural groups or farmers who
expressed that the new fee would be too
expensive for employers that employ H–
2A temporary agricultural workers for
seasonal labor. Other commenters
objected to the impact that the proposed
fee increase would have on performers
in the arts. Commenters representing
religious organizations also opposed the
increase, stating that it would pose a
25 Model output is reflected and further explained
in Appendix Table 4: Proposed Fees by Immigration
Benefit Request in the supporting documentation.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73299

burden to religious workers in small
communities.
Others submitted comments about
processing delays. Some commenters
noted that delays in processing Forms I–
129 affect the incomes of farmers and
performers. Some commenters stated
that DHS’s proposal to increase the
Form I–129 fee was undermined by
USCIS’ failure to process O and P visa
requests within the 14 days allotted by
statute for certain petitions. See INA
sec. 214(c)(6)(D), 8 U.S.C.1184(c)(6)(D).
Commenters stated that any fee increase
should be accompanied by
improvements in petition processing
and policies, particularly as related to
H–1B, L–1, O and P visas.26
As noted previously, DHS is
authorized to set fees at a level that
ensures recovery of the full costs of
providing immigration adjudication and
naturalization services. Because USCIS
relies almost entirely on fee revenue, in
the absence of a fee schedule that
ensures full cost recovery, USCIS would
be unable to sustain an adequate level
of service, let alone invest in program
improvements. Full cost recovery means
not only that fee-paying applicants and
petitioners must pay their proportionate
share of costs, but also that at least some
fee-paying applicants and petitioners
must pay a share of the immigration
adjudication and naturalization services
that DHS provides for vulnerable
populations on a fee-exempt, feereduced, or fee-waived basis. DHS is
therefore mindful to adhere to the
standard USCIS fee-setting methodology
as often as possible, and to avoid
overuse of DHS’s discretion to eliminate
or reduce fees for special groups of
beneficiaries.
The proposed fee for the Form I–129
resulted from application of the
standard USCIS fee-setting
methodology, because DHS did not find
a compelling reason to shift the burden
of the Form I–129 fee increase onto
other applicants. Following
consideration of the public comments,
DHS retains the fee level expressed in
the proposed rule. It is possible that in
a limited number of cases a reduced fee
would be more appropriate, but in the
interest of fairness to all applicants and
petitioners, as well as in the interest of
the administration, this final rule sets a
single fee for the Form I–129 at $460, as
proposed.27
26 For additional information, see the section
entitled, Improve Service and Reduce Inefficiencies.
27 The Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion in
the Statutory and Regulatory Requirements section
addresses comments regarding the effect of the rule
on small entities. As for processing delays, DHS has
further addressed the operational and efficiency

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

Continued

24OCR4

73300

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

d. Application To Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status, Form I–485,
and Interim Benefits
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
continue offering travel document and
employment authorization renewals free
of charge during the pendency of an
Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status, Form I–485,
so long as the applicant filed the
application with the appropriate fee on
or after July 30, 2007. See 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(M) (HH); proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(M), (II); 81 FR 26937. The
associated forms are the Application for
Travel Document, Form I–131, and
Application for Employment
Authorization, Form I–765. USCIS refers
to travel document and employment
authorization renewals as ‘‘interim
benefits’’ when they are associated with
a pending Form I–485. See 81 FR 26918.
DHS received several comments from
individuals who applied to adjust status
before July 30, 2007, and who thus do
not qualify for free interim benefits.
These commenters stated that their
Form I–485 applications have been
pending since before July 30, 2007, and
that because of the annual numerical
visa limits established by Congress, they
would likely need to request additional
travel document and employment
authorization renewals in the future.28
Some commenters stated that it is unfair
to charge applicants for interim benefits
while they are waiting for visas to
become available. Another commenter
noted that USCIS has recently started
requiring refugees and asylees to pay the
required fee associated with the
Application for Employment
Authorization when concurrently filed
with Form I–485. The commenter stated
that USCIS had not previously required
payment of a fee for such an
application.
USCIS acknowledges that under
current regulations and as proposed,
employment-based Form I–485
applicants who filed before July 30,
2007, must continue to pay fees
associated with interim benefits. Before
the USCIS 2007 fee rule, DHS did not
provide free interim benefits, and the
Form I–485 fee was calculated without
considering the potential costs of
providing such benefits. See 75 FR
58968, 58982.29 The 2007 final rule
comments in the section of this preamble entitled,
‘‘Improve Service and Reduce Inefficiencies.’’
28 The U.S. Department of State (DOS) manages
the allocation of visa numbers and Congress
establishes the annual visa numerical limits.
29 As explained in the 2007 proposed rule, the
decision to provide free interim benefits is intended
to restructure certain fee arrangements that some
perceived as providing disincentives for USCIS to
improve efficiency in processing. See 72 FR 4894.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

increased the Form I–485 fee from $325
to $905, or 178 percent, mostly due to
the decision to permit interim benefits
without additional fees. 72 FR 29861.
Because applicants for adjustment of
status who filed before July 30, 2007,
paid the lesser amount of $325 when
they filed their Form I–485, and because
a decision to provide free interim
benefits to this population would shift
additional costs to other fee-paying
applicants and petitioners, DHS has
decided to not provide free interim
benefits for those pending applicants.
USCIS has taken other actions to
alleviate the filing burden and fees on
those individuals whose applications
are still pending due to the lack of
available visas. For example, DHS now
provides Employment Authorization
Documents (EADs) with 2-year validity
periods, instead of previously issued 1year periods, which effectively reduces
the fee per year.30 In addition, USCIS
adopted a policy in December 2010
under which an applicant with a
pending Form I–485 that was filed
before August 18, 2007, may receive a
combination advance parole document
and EAD with a 2-year validity period.
See Policy Memorandum, Issuance of
Advance Parole Employment
Authorization Document (Dec. 21,
2010).31 These longer approval periods
have alleviated some of the burden
described by the commenters.
With regard to the comment that
USCIS is requiring refugees and asylees
to pay for Form I–765 when filing it
concurrently with Form I–485, current
regulations provide that Form I–765 has
no fee if filed in conjunction with a
pending or concurrently filed Form I–
485 that was filed with a fee on or after
July 30, 2007. See 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(M)(4). There is no fee for
a refugee who is filing Form I–485. See
8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(U)(3). Therefore,
although USCIS has waived the Form I–
765 fee for the first such application
filed by a refugee, a Form I–765 filed by
a refugee to renew his or her EAD
By bundling the Form I–485 and interim benefit
costs, USCIS ensured that an applicant for
adjustment of status will pay a single fee and will
not pay separate fees for interim benefits, no matter
how long the case remains pending. As a result, if
USCIS is unable to process the base application
within the established processing goals, an
applicant who needs to travel or extend his or her
employment authorization is not financially
disadvantaged by the delay.
30 USCIS may, in its discretion, determine the
validity period assigned to any document issued
evidencing an individual’s authorization to work in
the United States. 8 CFR 274a.12(b).
31 See https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/
USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2011/April/issuanceadvance-parole.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requires a fee.32 To renew interim
benefits, a refugee who is filing a Form
I–765 with Form I–485 must pay the
Form I–765 fee or submit a Request for
Fee Waiver, Form I–912. Similarly, if
the refugee’s employment authorization
document expires before the Form I–485
is approved, he or she must file Form I–
765 with a fee or request another fee
waiver. Contrary to the commenter’s
statement, there has been no change in
practice on this point.
Like almost all other applicants for
adjustment of status, asylees are
generally required to pay a fee for Form
I–485; if they pay this fee, they receive
free interim benefits as long as their
Form I–485 is pending with USCIS.
Asylees may request that both their
Form I–485 and Form I–765 fees be
waived. See 8 CFR 103.7(c)(3)(viii) &
(c)(4)(iii).33 However, if USCIS waives
the fee for the initial Form I–485,
subsequent Form I–765 filings (for
instance, to renew or replace a lost or
expired EAD) require a fee or a new fee
waiver request.34 Because fee waivers
are available, because refugees and
asylees are usually not subject to
lengthy waiting periods associated with
visa availability, and because of the
importance of ensuring full-cost
recovery, DHS did not find a compelling
reason to shift fee burdens onto other
fee-paying applicants and petitioners.
Accordingly, DHS has not revised this
policy in this final rule.
Finally, DHS also proposed to
increase the separate Form I–485 fee
that applies to a child under the age of
14 years who files a Form I–485
concurrently with the application of a
parent seeking classification as an
immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, a
family-sponsored preference immigrant,
or a family member accompanying or
following to join a spouse or parent.
DHS proposed a fee increase from $635
to $750, but did not propose any
substantive changes to eligibility for the
reduced fee. See 81 FR 26919.35 USCIS
received at least one comment
requesting that the proposed $750
discounted fee apply to all children
under the age of 14 at any time,
regardless of whether their Form I–485
32 See Instructions for I–765, Application for
Employment Authorization, available at https://
www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i765instr.pdf.
33 Both fee waivers may be requested on one
Request for Fee Waiver. See Instructions for Request
for Fee Waiver at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/
default/files/files/form/i-912instr.pdf.
34 An asylee in this situation, like all individuals
seeking to file a Form I–765, may still apply for a
fee waiver. See 8 CFR 103.7(c)(3)(viii).
35 Under the proposed rule and in this final rule,
the standard fee for a Form I–485 would increase
from $985 to $1,140.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

was filed concurrently with the
application of a parent. The commenter
noted that such children, like the
children who are currently eligible for
the reduced Form I–485 fee, cannot
work in the United States.
DHS proposed that the discounted
Form I–485 fee would only be available
when the Form I–485 is filed
concurrently with the application of a
parent seeking classification as an
immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, a
family-sponsored preference immigrant,
or a family member accompanying or
following to join a spouse or parent. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(U)(2); 81
FR 26938. DHS has considered the
commenter’s suggestion, but is unable to
adopt it. USCIS does not track the
completion rates (i.e., adjudication
times) for Form I–485 based on the age
of the applicant, so the agency does not
have data showing a difference in the
completion rate correlated to the
difference in applicant age. In addition,
USCIS does not know the volume of
individual Form I–485 filings by
children on which to base a separate fee.
To set that fee as suggested by the
commenter would require deviation
from the fee-setting methodology and, as
stated previously in this preamble,
require the costs for those applications
to be shifted to other benefit requests.
Therefore, DHS is not expanding the
child discount to all children in this
final rule.
Nevertheless, while the current and
proposed provisions limited the
reduced fee only to children who are
derivative applicants filing the Form I–
485 at the same time as their parent,
USCIS has in practice extended the
reduced fee provision to all immigrant
relative children under the age of 14
who file the Form I–485 at the same
time as their parent (i.e., mailed in the
same envelope), regardless of whether
they are filing as a derivative or a
principal applicant. Therefore, to make
the regulation text consistent with the
form instructions and USCIS practice,
this final rule sets the fee for Form I–
485 accordingly. See new 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(U)(2).
e. Application for Travel Document,
Form I–131
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Application for
Travel Document, Form I–131, from
$360 to $575. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(M); 81 FR 23937. The
proposed fee increase was the result of
application of the standard fee-setting
methodology to this benefit request.
Some commenters objected to the
proposed increase. Some commenters
noted that the forecasted fee-paying

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

volume for Form I–131 has not changed
significantly from the 2010 fee rule.36
Additionally, they pointed out that the
Form I–131 has one of the shortest
completion rates,37 indicating that it is
not a relatively complex adjudication.38
Some of these commenters wrote that
they have a pending Form I–485 that
was filed before July 30, 2007, and that
they are thus ineligible for free interim
benefits, including being permitted to
file Form I–131 without a fee while
waiting for an immigrant visa to become
available. See previous 8 CFR
103.2(b)(1)(i)(M)(4). Some commenters
stated that they have paid the Form I–
131 fee several times while waiting for
a visa to become available and that
applicants from countries with long visa
wait times must renew their travel
documents every year, sometimes for
multiple family members.39
As noted previously, the proposed fee
increase for the Form I–131 was the
result of application of the standard
USCIS fee-setting methodology to this
benefit request. When DHS departs from
the standard USCIS fee-setting
methodology to reduce fees for one
group, fees for other groups (including,
in this case, the fee for Form I–131)
must be increased to recover full cost.
With respect to the Form I–131 in
particular, the proposed fee increase
was also due in part to USCIS
improving its ability to fully account for
the costs of this benefit request. The FY
2016/2017 fee review included more
complete data on the Application for
Travel Document workload than was
included in the 2010 final rule. As
noted in the supporting documentation,
the latest fee review considered the
completion rates for work performed by
36 See 75 FR 26923 for overall workload in table
4 and 75 FR 26924 for fee-paying workload in table
5.
37 USCIS completion rates are the average hours
per adjudication of an immigration benefit request.
Adjudication hours are divided by the number of
completions for the same time period to determine
an average completion rate. For additional
information on completion rates, see Appendix
IX—Completion Rates on page 57 of the supporting
documentation.
38 See Appendix Table 7: Completion Rates
(Projected Adjudication Hours/Completions) on
page 58 of the supporting documentation.
39 Some commenters stated DHS should use a
validity period of 2 years instead of 1 year when
extensions of Form I–131 are approved for this
population. As noted earlier in this preamble,
however, USCIS may grant an applicant who has a
pending Form I–485 and interim benefits, such as
advance parole, an employment authorization
combination document with a 2-year validity
period if the immigrant visa is not currently
available. Adjudicator’s Field Manual ch. 55.3, par.
(a)(2). These longer approval periods have
alleviated some of the burden on applicants with
long-pending I–485 applications.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73301

International Operations,40 which
adjudicates some Applications for
Travel Documents, in the overall
completion rates for Applications for
Travel Documents. This information
was not available for the FY 2010/2011
fee review, but it was included in this
review to more accurately represent the
cost of adjudicating an Application for
Travel Document overseas. The
proposed fee increase was due in part to
USCIS including costs and time from
International Operations in the model
output for the Applications for Travel
Documents fee. Ultimately, the
proposed fee for Form I–131 represents
its proportion of USCIS operating costs,
as dictated by the standard USCIS feesetting methodology. If DHS held the fee
for Form I–131 below the amount
suggested by the FY 2016/2017 feesetting methodology, then the additional
costs would be transferred to other
immigration benefit fees.
Because DHS did not find a
compelling reason to transfer a portion
of the Form I–131 fee increase to other
applicants, DHS retains the fee
proposed in the NPRM. DHS recognizes
that this decision will affect different
applicants differently; some applicants
may file this application just once,
while others may file it multiple times.
But in the interest of fairness to all
applicants and petitioners, as well as in
the interest of sound and efficient
adjudications, DHS has decided to not
create additional levels of fees for the
Form I–131. This final rule sets a fee of
$575 for the Form I–131, with
appropriate exceptions for refugee travel
documents, as discussed below.
Nevertheless, Form I–131 requests for
parole filed on behalf of individuals
outside the United States, including
humanitarian parole, remain eligible for
a fee waiver. 8 CFR 103.7(c)(3)(iv).
Finally, at least one commenter
questioned why DHS did not propose a
new fee for refugee travel documents.
As noted in the NPRM, fees for a refugee
travel document are set at a level that is
consistent with U.S. obligations under
Article 28 of the 1951 Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees, as
incorporated by reference in the 1967
Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees. See 81 FR 26917. The fee
must remain set at an amount that is
consistent with U.S. obligations under
Article 28. Therefore, fees for refugee
travel documents will remain the same
as DOS passport book fees.41
40 See International Operations Cost Allocation
on page 26 of the supporting documentation.
41 The Refugee Travel Document fees are the same
as the sum of the U.S. passport book application fee

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

Continued

24OCR4

73302

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

f. Application for Employment
Authorization, Form I–765, and
Students
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Application for
Employment Authorization, Form I–
765, from $380 to $410. See proposed 8
CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(II); 81 FR 26938. DHS
proposed to limit the increase for these
benefit types (among others) to 8
percent for humanitarian and practical
reasons. Many individuals seeking
immigration benefits face financial
obstacles and cannot earn money
through lawful employment in the
United States until they receive an
Employment Authorization Document
(EAD). 81 FR 26916.
At least one commenter objected to
the potential effect of the proposed
Form I–765 fee increase on foreign
students seeking work authorization
under the Optional Practical Training
(OPT) program. The OPT program
allows an F–1 nonimmigrant student to
file a Form I–765 to request
authorization to work in the United
States in a position that is directly
related to the F–1 student’s major area
of study. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C).
OPT provides F–1 students with an
opportunity to apply knowledge gained
in the classroom to practical work
experience off campus.
DHS places a high value on its role in
attracting international students and
scholars to the United States. Among
other things, the contributions to U.S.
educational institutions provided by a
diverse international student body are
invaluable. In recognition of these goals,
USCIS devotes many resources to
delivering immigration benefits to
deserving students, including
expending substantial resources, which
DHS must recover, to adjudicate their
eligibility for EADs. In addition, DHS
limited the proposed EAD fee increase
in a manner consistent with a number
of other fees. See 81 FR 26916.
Moreover, F–1 students may request fee
waivers in cases in which they are
unable to afford the fee. In other cases,
USCIS will continue to charge the full
fee based on the effort and resources
expended to process this benefit. This
final rule therefore sets the fee at $410,
as proposed. See new 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(II).
g. Application for Replacement
Naturalization/Citizenship Certificate,
Form N–565
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Application for
plus the additional execution fee that the
Department of State charges for first-time
applicants.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship
Certificate, Form N–565, from $345 to
$555, or 61 percent. The proposed fee
increase was the result of application of
the standard fee-setting methodology to
this benefit request.
Commenters mentioned that some
people could lose proof of citizenship or
naturalization due to unforeseen
circumstances, such as natural disasters
or theft, and that a steep increase might
make it more difficult for certain
individuals to obtain replacement
documents. Other commenters noted
that citizens may need a certificate of
naturalization or citizenship due to a
name change. Commenters stated that
the more prohibitively expensive it
becomes for foreign-born U.S. citizens to
replace documentation of their
citizenship, the more difficult it will be
for them to work, vote, or pursue other
opportunities.
Commenters noted that the
completion rate for Form N–565
increased significantly since the 2010
final rule. Some commenters compared
the completion rate for Form N–565 to
that of the Application to Replace
Permanent Resident Card, Form I–90,
and stated that the two adjudications
should be similar. Those commenters
noted that the completion rate for Form
I–90 decreased since the 2010 final rule,
while the Form N–565 completion rate
increased by 64 percent. Some
commenters stated that USCIS should
further assess why the completion rate
for Form N–565 increased to this degree.
DHS acknowledges that the Form N–
565 adjudication time has increased
over the years, and attributes this
increase to the amount of research and
review necessary to adjudicate these
filings. Form N–565 adjudications
require USCIS to fully review A-Files
for security check purposes, including
discovering name variations or aliases.
To verify the naturalization of an
applicant, USCIS officers must research
all available systems. Yet many filings
involve individuals who were
naturalized decades ago and whose
information is not contained in
electronic systems, thus requiring
extensive paper-based review. USCIS
officers may also have to communicate
with the National Archives and Records
Administration or the Federal courts to
obtain evidence supporting
naturalization. In some cases, paper files
must be transferred to a field office to
conduct an interview of the applicant.
Changes in name, marital status, gender,
or other facts require evidentiary review
to support requested changes in USCIS
records. No filing fee is required in
cases where the Form N–565 is filed to
request correction of a certificate that

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

contains an error, but even such filings
require that USCIS fully review the
relevant A-Files. DHS further notes that
the processing of Form N–565 often
requires the same use of time and
resources by USCIS regardless of the
basis for the request.
Moreover, the fee for Form I–90
differs from the fee for Form N–565
because the adjudication of the two
forms differs. LPRs typically apply for
new permanent resident cards every 10
years. Their information is thus
generally up-to-date and readily
available in an electronic system, thus
eliminating the need for full A-File
reviews when adjudicating Forms I–90.
In addition, Form I–90 adjudication is
streamlined and partially automated
because the application exists in an
electronic environment. Filings that
involve information that is up-to-date
and available in an electronic system
generally require less processing time
than filings that require review of
physical records or multiple systems, or
that require the entry of new data.
As noted, the proposed fee for Form
N–565 resulted from application of the
standard USCIS fee-setting
methodology. Because DHS did not find
a compelling reason to shift the burden
of the Form N–565 fee increase onto
other applicants, DHS retains the
position expressed in the proposed rule.
This final rule sets the fee for Form N–
565 at $555, as proposed. Applicants
who cannot pay the fee may request a
fee waiver. 8 CFR 103.7(c)(3)(xv).
h. Petition for Alien Relative, Form I–
130
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Petition for Alien
Relative, Form I–130, from $420 to
$535. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(L); 81 FR 26937. The
proposed fee increase was the result of
application of the standard USCIS feesetting methodology to this benefit
request.
Several commenters stated that they
generally opposed the proposed
increase in the Form I–130 fee because
the increase, along with other proposed
increases, would result in a significant
financial burden for certain individuals,
especially for low-income immigrants
and their families. Some commenters
asserted that the proposed increase of
$115 would be disproportionate to the
current adjudication time of 45 minutes.
Another commenter suggested that fees
be higher for businesses in order to
offset the cost for family-based
applicants. The same commenter
referenced existing additional fees for
H–1B visas and asserted that DHS
should increase fees for O and P visas

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

to offset the cost of, and reduce the fees
for, family-based immigration benefit
requests. One commenter noted that
Form I–130 filings are not eligible for
fee waivers.
DHS appreciates the concerns of
commenters, but reiterates that because
USCIS is funded almost exclusively by
fees, it sets the USCIS fee schedule
based on a full cost recovery model.
This means that although there is a
relationship between the proposed fee
and the projected adjudication time of
45 minutes, DHS cannot set fees at a
level that would only recover costs for
an individual adjudicator’s time. In
order for USCIS to continue to fulfill its
mission, DHS must set fees at a level
that accounts for the total resources
required for intake of immigration
benefit requests, customer support,
fraud detection, background checks, and
administration. Moreover, because DHS
provides some immigration adjudication
and naturalization services (including
for families) on a fee-exempt, feereduced, or fee-waived basis, fee-paying
applicants and petitioners must at times
pay more than their directly attributable
share of costs.
In the case of the Form I–130, the
primary reason for the proposed fee
increase was the increase in USCIS’ cost
baseline for FY 2016/2017, and
specifically the need to cover the costs
of certain fee-exempt services. As noted
in the NPRM and in this final rule, the
FY 2016/2017 fee schedule adjusts fees
to recover the costs related to RAIO, the
SAVE program, and the Office of
Citizenship. See 81 FR 26910. In the FY
2010/2011 fee review, the model output
for Form I–130 was approximately $368
before cost reallocation. Cost
reallocation was smaller in the FY 2010/
2011 fee review because USCIS assumed
that appropriations would recover
surcharges related to RAIO, the SAVE
program, and the Office of Citizenship.
In the FY 2016/2017 fee review, the
model output for Form I–130, before
cost reallocation, was approximately
$383.42 As mentioned in the NPRM, in
the FY 2016/2017 fee review, USCIS
included RAIO, the SAVE program, and
the Office of Citizenship in the cost
baseline. As shown in the supporting
documentation, the fee includes $152
above the model output to ensure that
IEFA fees recover full cost.43 The $152
42 Projected cost refers to the model output
column of Appendix Table 4: Proposed Fees by
Immigration Benefit Request in the supporting
documentation.
43 The amount here is the difference between the
Model Output and the final fee. Amounts shown in
Appendix Table 4: Proposed Fees by Immigration
Benefit Request in the supporting documentation
are rounded to the nearest dollar and all IEFA fees

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

provides revenue for services that do
not otherwise generate revenue (e.g.,
refugee, asylum, and fee-waived
workloads) and for forms that are held
to the 8 percent weighted average
increase based on policy decisions (e.g.,
forms N–400 and I–600/600A/800/
800A).
DHS recognizes the burden that
proposed fee increases impose on
families and low-income individuals,
and takes steps to mitigate that burden
as appropriate. Specifically, after USCIS
applies its standard fee-setting
methodology to identify the model
output for each benefit request, USCIS
evaluates the model output and
determines whether it should be
adjusted. However, downward
adjustments for some groups result in
upward adjustments for other groups.
There are many benefit requests that are
used by families and low-income
individuals, and it would be
unsustainable and arguably unfair for
USCIS to consistently shift the costs of
all such requests to a completely
unrelated subgroup of business
immigration applicants and petitioners.
With that context in mind, and
following review of the public
comments received, DHS has
determined that the amount
recommended under the fee-setting
methodology was not inordinately high.
Thus, DHS is adjusting the fee for Form
I–130 in this final rule, as proposed.
Moreover, as stated in the ‘‘Fee Waivers
and Exemptions’’ section of this
preamble, fee waivers are not provided
for forms, such as Form I–130, that
require petitioners to have the ability to
support their intended beneficiary. DHS
believes that this is sound overall
policy, especially in light of the effects
of fee waivers on the fees paid by other
applicants and petitioners.
i. Application To Replace Permanent
Resident Card, Form I–90
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Application to
Replace Permanent Resident Card, Form
I–90, from $365 to $455. See proposed
8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(G); 81 FR 26937.
The proposed fee increase was the result
of application of the standard USCIS
fee-setting methodology to this benefit
request.
A number of commenters objected to
the proposed fee increase. Some
commenters stated that the proposed fee
was unjustified by the projected
completion rate of 13 minutes. The
are rounded to the nearest $5 increment. The sum
of the Model Output and the Cost Reallocation
columns may not equal the proposed fee because
of rounding.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73303

commenters noted that although the
proposed fee represents a significant
increase, the projected completion rate
had decreased slightly since the 2010
final rule. A commenter stated that the
proposed increase would impose an
unreasonable burden on many lowincome applicants, especially when the
reason for application may be out of
their control, such as owning a prior
edition of the card, expiration of the
card between the individual’s 14th and
16th birthday, a name change, or a
change in commuter status.
Some commenters stated that USCIS
guidance advises naturalization
applicants to file Form I–90 if their
permanent resident cards will expire
within six months of the filing of their
naturalization applications, and that
USCIS sometimes requires
naturalization applicants to file Form I–
90 before completion of the Form N–400
adjudication. These commenters
suggested that as a result, some
applicants may file a Form I–90 and a
Form N–400 in quick succession, and
that DHS should reduce the combined
fee burden for these two forms. The
commenters suggested that DHS provide
a discounted or partial fee for
naturalization applicants who are
required to file Form I–90.
As noted elsewhere in this preamble,
because USCIS is funded almost
exclusively by fees, DHS sets the USCIS
fee schedule based on a full cost
recovery model. This means that
although there is a relationship between
the proposed fee and the projected
adjudication time of 13 minutes, DHS
cannot set fees at a level that would
only recover costs for an individual
adjudicator’s time. In order for USCIS to
continue to fulfill its mission, DHS must
set fees at a level that accounts for the
total resources required for intake of
immigration benefit requests, customer
support, fraud detection, background
checks, and administration. Moreover,
because DHS provides some
immigration adjudication and
naturalization services on a fee-exempt,
fee-reduced, or fee-waived basis, feepaying applicants and petitioners must
pay more than their directly attributable
share of costs.
In the case of the Form I–90, the
primary reason for the proposed fee
increase is the increase in the USCIS
cost baseline for FY 2016/2017, and
specifically the need to cover the costs
of certain fee-exempt services. As noted
in the NPRM and this final rule, the FY
2016/2017 fee schedule recovers costs
related to RAIO, the SAVE program, and
the Office of Citizenship. See 81 FR
26910. In the FY 2010/2011 fee review,
the model output fee for Form I–90 was

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73304

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

approximately $321 before cost
reallocation. Cost reallocation was
smaller in the FY 2010/2011 fee review,
because USCIS assumed appropriations
that would recover the costs for RAIO,
the SAVE program, and the Office of
Citizenship. In the FY 2016/2017 fee
review, the model output fee for Form
I–90 was approximately $326, also
before cost reallocation.44 But, as
mentioned in the NPRM, USCIS
included the above mentioned programs
in cost reallocation to recover the full
cost of those programs. As shown in the
supporting documentation, the fee is
$129 above the model output fee to
ensure that IEFA fees recover full cost.45
The $129 provides revenue for services
that do not otherwise generate revenue
(e.g., refugee, asylum, and fee-waived
workloads) and for request types that
are held to the 8 percent weighted
average increase based on policy
decisions (e.g., Forms N–400 and I–600/
600A/800/800A).
DHS recognizes that the proposed
Form I–90 fee increase would impose an
additional cost burden on filers. But the
proposed fee increase results from
application of the standard USCIS feesetting methodology, and a downward
adjustment favoring all Form I–90 filers,
or a subgroup thereof, would result in
upward adjustment of other fees. DHS
has decided to impose this fee at the
level dictated by the standard USCIS
fee-setting methodology, as proposed. If
applicants cannot afford to pay the
increased Form I–90 fee, they may
request a fee waiver. 8 CFR
103.7(c)(3)(ii).
With respect to the comments
concerning naturalization applicants
who are required to file a Form I–90 if
their permanent resident card will
expire within six months of filing the
naturalization application, DHS notes
that this is not a change in practice.
LPRs are required to have valid,
unexpired Permanent Resident Cards,
Forms I–551, in their possession at all
times, see INA sec. 264(e), 8 U.S.C.
1304(e), and DHS regulations require
LPRs to file Form I–90 when those cards
are set to expire in six months, see 8
CFR 264.5(b)(2). For this reason, an LPR
with fewer than six months remaining
on his or her permanent resident card
must generally file Form I–90, with fee,
44 See Appendix Table 4: Proposed Fees by
Immigration Benefit Request in the supporting
documentation.
45 Amounts shown in Appendix Table 4:
Proposed Fees by Immigration Benefit Request in
the supporting documentation are rounded to the
nearest dollar and all IEFA fees are rounded to the
nearest $5 increment. The sum of the Model Output
and the Cost Reallocation columns may not equal
the proposed fee because of rounding.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

even if the LPR has applied for
naturalization.46 In other words,
applying for naturalization does not
eliminate the need to file Form I–90
when a permanent resident card is
about to expire. If Form I–90 is properly
filed, or if Form N–400 is filed at least
six months before the expiration of the
applicant’s permanent resident card, the
applicant can request an Alien
Documentation Identification and
Telecommunication (ADIT) stamp in
lieu of filing for a new card.
DHS observes that a permanent
resident card generally does not expire
until 10 years after it is received by the
LPR. For individuals who are familiar
with the regulatory requirements,47 this
should be sufficient time for the
applicant to take appropriate action,
including renewing the card or
naturalizing before the card expires.48
Generally, LPRs become eligible to
naturalize after 5 years of obtaining LPR
status, see, e.g., 8 CFR 316.2(a)(3), and
the average processing time for an
application for naturalization is
approximately 6 months. Therefore,
individuals who receive LPR status have
ample time during which they may save
for fees, gather documents, and apply
for naturalization before their
permanent resident card expires.
Moreover, creating a new process and
discounted fee for those Form I–90
applicants who wish to naturalize
would increase the administrative
burden of administering both Form I–90
and Form N–400. For the reasons stated
above, this final rule sets the Form I–90
fee at $455, as proposed, regardless of
whether the applicant will also file
Form N–400 in the near term.
j. Genealogy, Forms G–1041/1041A
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase fees for the Genealogy Index
Search Request, Form G–1041, and
Genealogy Records Request, Form G–
1041A, from $20 or $35, depending on
the format requested, to a single fee of
46 For additional information, see https://
www.uscis.gov/i-90 and https://www.uscis.gov/
green-card/after-green-card-granted/renew-greencard.
47 USCIS also provides educational products and
resources to welcome immigrants, promote English
language learning, educate on rights and
responsibilities of citizenship, and prepare
immigrants for naturalization and civic
participation. In addition, USCIS provides grants,
materials and technical assistance to organizations
that prepare immigrants for citizenship. The USCIS
Citizenship Resource Center helps users better
understand the citizenship process and gain the
necessary skills required to be successful during the
naturalization interview and test. See https://
www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/
applicant-performance-naturalization-test/usciscitizenship-education-resources-and-initiatives.
48 See https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/aftergreen-card-granted/renew-green-card.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

$65. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(E)–(F); 81 FR 23967. As
noted in the NPRM, DHS based the
proposed fee increase on the ABC model
output fee of $46 for genealogy services,
as well as an additional $19 to recover
the applicable administrative costs
associated with funding these services,
such as the USCIS Librarian and other
genealogy research and information
services. 81 FR 26919 (citing INA sec.
286(t)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1356(t)(1)).
Some commenters objected to the
proposed fee increase. Some of these
commenters compared the genealogy
fees to state and local government fees
for copies of vital records. Some
commenters stated that the quality and
efficiency of genealogy services were
insufficient to justify the proposed fee
increase.49
USCIS does not receive any
appropriations for its genealogy program
and thus depends on genealogy fees to
cover costs, without increasing other
immigration and naturalization fees to
support this work. Genealogy fees have
not been adjusted since USCIS created
the program in 2008,50 and such fees are
currently insufficient to cover the full
costs of the genealogy program. USCIS
created the Genealogy Program to serve
people performing genealogy research,
including historical researchers,
genealogists, and other members of the
public, without diverting resources from
the significant number of Freedom of
Information Act requests to which
USCIS must respond.51 USCIS thus
proposed to increase the fee to meet the
full costs of the program and permit
USCIS to respond to requests for such
historical records and materials.
Notwithstanding the fees charged by
other government agencies, which likely
face different operational and funding
challenges, USCIS must ensure that it
has sufficient funding to fulfill its
mission. Following consideration of the
comments on this subject, DHS has
decided to set the final fee at $65, as
proposed.
49 At least one commenter questioned why USCIS
proposed to collect the biometric services fee for the
genealogy workload. While DHS is revising 8 CFR
103.2(b)(9) to clarify that any individual filing a
benefit request, or any beneficiary of such a request,
may be required to appear for biometric collection
and pay the biometric services fee, DHS did not
propose to and will not collect the biometric
services fee for genealogy searches or document
requests. See 81 FR 26917.
50 See 81 FR 26919; Final Rule, Establishment of
a Genealogy Program, 73 FR 28026 (May 15, 2008).
51 Prior to the establishment of the Genealogy
Program, genealogy researchers used the Freedom
of Information Act process to conduct their
research.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
k. Petition To Remove Conditions on
Residence, Form I–751
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Petition to
Remove Conditions on Residence, Form
I–751, from $505 to $595. Proposed 8
CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(HH); 81 FR 23968.
The proposed fee increase was the result
of application of the standard USCIS fee
methodology to this benefit request.
Some commenters objected to the
proposed fee increase. These
commenters stated that Form I–751 is
required for people who were granted
conditional permanent residence
through marriage, including spouses of
U.S. citizens and their children, to
remove the conditions on their status.
The commenters asserted that the new
fee is so burdensome that some
applicants may miss their deadline to
apply, putting those applicants at risk of
losing their residency and becoming
subject to removal from the United
States. A commenter stated that in 2010,
DHS increased the I–751 filing fee by
$40. The commenter stated that to now
increase it again by another $90 is
unjustified, particularly when USCIS
estimates that its projected workload
volume for Form I–751 will decrease by
10,000 receipts from 2010/2011 levels.
The commenter stated that if I–751
workloads will decrease, there is no
justification for an 18 percent fee
increase.
As noted previously in this preamble,
because USCIS operates almost
exclusively on fees, DHS sets the USCIS
fee schedule based on a standard full
cost recovery model. This means that
DHS must account for more than just
projected total receipts when setting the
fee for a given benefit. For instance,
DHS must account for the likelihood of
fee waivers by setting fees based on
projected total fee-paying receipts, not
just projected total receipts. And DHS
must also account for the costs
associated with adjudicating each
benefit request. If DHS did not account
for fee waivers when setting fees, or for
the cost of adjudicating benefit requests,
DHS would not recover sufficient
revenue to cover the cost of the services
that DHS provides. Moreover, because
DHS provides some immigration
adjudication and naturalization services
on a fee-exempt, fee-reduced, or feewaived basis, fee-paying applicants and
petitioners must pay more than their
directly attributable share of costs.
In addition, in the case of the Form I–
751 specifically, although workload
volume decreased 5.5 percent since the
2010 final rule, fee-paying volume
decreased at a greater rate of 8.4 percent.
Moreover, the completion rate, or the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

average hours per adjudication,
increased 39 percent since the 2010
final rule. Given that fewer fee-paying
applicants are now absorbing the
increased costs associated with longer
adjudications, DHS believes the
proposed $90 increase since the fee was
last set six years ago is reasonable.
Although the proposed increase would
impose an additional cost burden on
filers, it results from application of the
standard USCIS fee methodology. A
downward adjustment in favor of Form
I–751 petitioners would result in
upward adjustment of other fees.
Furthermore, if the petitioner cannot
pay the fee, they may request that the
fee be waived. See 8 CFR
103.7(c)(3)(vii). Therefore, this final rule
sets the Form I–751 fee at $595, as
proposed.
l. Petition for Alien Fiance´(e), Form I–
129F
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Petition for Alien
Fiance´(e), Form I–129F, from to $340 to
$535. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(K); 81 FR 23967. The
proposed fee increase was the result of
application of the standard USCIS fee
methodology to this benefit request.
Some commenters objected to the
proposed fee increase, stating that it
could discourage family reunification.
The commenters stated that the increase
would be particularly burdensome
because there is no fee waiver option
when filing this form.
As noted previously, DHS is
authorized to set fees at a level that
ensures recovery of the full costs of
providing immigration adjudication and
naturalization services. Because USCIS
relies almost entirely on fee revenue, in
the absence of a fee schedule that
ensures full cost recovery, USCIS would
be unable to sustain an adequate level
of service, let alone invest in program
improvements. Full cost recovery means
not only that fee-paying applicants and
petitioners must pay their proportionate
share of costs, but also that at least some
fee-paying applicants and petitioners
must pay a share of the immigration
adjudication and naturalization services
that DHS provides on a fee-exempt, feereduced, or fee-waived basis. DHS is
therefore mindful to adhere to the
standard USCIS fee methodology as
often as possible, and to avoid overuse
of DHS’s discretion to eliminate or
reduce fees for special groups of
beneficiaries.
The proposed fee for the Form I–129F
resulted from application of the
standard USCIS fee methodology. DHS
values its role in assisting U.S. citizens
who wish to bring a foreign national

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73305

fiance´(e) to the United States to marry,
and is sensitive to the extra burden that
the increased filing fee may impose. But
if USCIS were to waive or exempt Form
I–129F fees, then other applicants,
petitioners, and requestors would pay
higher fees to cover the cost. Because
DHS did not find a compelling reason
to shift the burden of the Form I–129F
fee increase onto other applicants, this
final rule sets the Form I–129F fee at
$535, as proposed.
Moreover, as a general matter, DHS
does not waive fees for petitions that
require the beneficiaries to demonstrate
that they will be able to support
themselves financially, or that require
the filing of an affidavit of support. A
citizen who files Form I–129F must
document his or her ability to
financially support his or her foreign
national fiance´(e). Because a few waiver
options would be inconsistent with this
financial support requirement, DHS
declines to allow fee waivers for this
form.
m. Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er),
or Special Immigrant, Form I–360
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Petition for
Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special
Immigrant, Form I–360, from $405 to
$435. Proposed 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(T);
81 FR 23968. DHS proposed to hold the
increase for these benefit types to an 8
percent increase 52 because the
combined effect of cost, fee-paying
volume, and methodology changes since
the last fee rule would otherwise place
an inordinate fee burden on individuals
requesting these types of benefits. See
81 FR 26915.
Some commenters objected to the
proposed fee increase because of its
potential effect on religious workers.
The commenters stated that religious
workers must file additional forms and
pay the required fees to obtain LPR
status. The commenters noted that these
workers benefit the United States by
becoming integral parts of their religious
ministries, participating in community
outreach, and making specific
connections with immigrants who speak
the same language. For these reasons,
the commenters requested that the
agency not finalize the proposed fee
increase.
Form I–360 may be used to obtain any
of a large number of immigration
benefits, some of which allow
petitioners to file the form on a feeexempt basis.53 Many petitioners may
52 The proposed increase was 7.4 percent due to
rounding.
53 See https://www.uscis.gov/i-360.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73306

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

use the Form I–360 on a fee-exempt
basis. For example, there is no fee for a
petitioner seeking classification as an
Amerasian; an individual selfpetitioning as a battered or abused
spouse, parent, or child of a United
States citizen or LPR; a petitioner
seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile
status; or an Iraqi or Afghan national
who worked for, or on behalf of, the
U.S. Government in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Previous 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(T)(1)–(4).
For those petitioners who are not feeexempt, DHS recognizes that fee
increases impose a burden, and DHS
takes steps to mitigate such burdens as
appropriate. At the same time, DHS
must recover the full costs of the
services that USCIS provides, or else
risk reductions in service quality. In this
case, DHS proposed to apply the
reduced fee increase (8 percent) to the
Form I–360, for the reasons stated
previously and consistent with DHS’s
practice of holding a number of benefit
requests to this reduced fee increase.
DHS was mindful that this departure
from the standard fee methodology
would also result in higher fees for
others. See 81 FR 26915. Although DHS
acknowledges the importance of the
religious worker program to many
communities, any further departure
would only heighten the effect on the
rest of the fee schedule, and would not
be consistent with DHS’s overall fee
methodology. In addition, unlike many
of the fee-exempt Form I–360
petitioners, religious workers fall into
the category of employment-based
immigrants for whom petitioners must
demonstrate the ability to pay a salary.
See, e.g., 8 CFR 204.5(g)(2) (requiring a
petition which requires an offer of
employment to be accompanied by
evidence that the prospective United
States employer has the ability to pay
the proffered wage). This final rule
therefore sets the fee for Form I–360 at
$435, as proposed.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

n. Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I–
290B
DHS proposed to increase the fee for
the Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I–
290B, from to $630 to $675. Proposed 8
CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(S); 81 FR 26938. DHS
proposed to hold the increase for these
benefit types to 8 percent 54 because the
combined effect of cost, fee-paying
volume, and methodology changes since
the last fee rule would otherwise place
an inordinate fee burden on the
particular individuals requesting these
types of benefits. See 81 FR 26915.
54 The proposed increase was 7.1 percent due to
rounding.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

Some commenters objected to the
proposed fee increase. Commenters
stated that the resulting fee, though
waivable,55 could hinder individuals
from receiving benefits for which they
are eligible. The commenters noted that
the time involved in submitting fee
waiver requests jeopardized the chance
of meeting the 30-day filing deadline for
appeals. Commenters also expressed
disappointment in the appeals process
in general, opining that it was
particularly burdensome for those
attempting to rectify USCIS errors.
Commenters also stated that USCIS
should allow credit card payments for
filing Form I–290B.
DHS appreciates the concerns of the
commenters and does not intend to
hinder individuals from receiving
benefits for which they are eligible. At
the same time, DHS must recover the
full costs of the services that USCIS
provides, or else risk reductions in
service quality. In this case, DHS
proposed to apply the reduced fee
increase (8 percent) to these benefit
requests, for the reasons stated
previously and consistent with DHS’s
practice of holding a number of benefit
requests to this reduced fee increase.
DHS was mindful that although this
departure from the standard fee
methodology would result in lower fees
for Form I–290B filers, it would also
results in higher fees for others. 81 FR
26915. Any further departure would
only increase the effect on the rest of the
fee schedule, and would not be
consistent with DHS’s overall fee
methodology. DHS addresses requests
for service quality improvements and
credit card payments later in this
preamble. DHS has made no changes to
the fee in this final rule as a result of
these comments, and is finalizing the
Form I–290B fee at $675, as proposed.
o. Application for Civil Surgeon
Designation, Form I–910
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Application for
Civil Surgeon Designation, Form I–910,
from $615 to $785. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(TT); 81 FR 26939. Form I–
910 is used to request recognition of a
physician as a civil surgeon for
purposes of performing mandatory
medical examinations on intending
55 If the Form I–290B is being filed to appeal or
reopen the denial of an immigration benefit request
that is exempt or where a fee has been waived, the
Form I–290B fee may also be waived by USCIS if
the applicant or petitioner demonstrates that he or
she is unable to pay the fee. 8 CFR 103.7(c)(3)(vi)
and 103.7(c)(1)(iii). Further, there is no fee for Form
I–290B when an Iraqi or Afghan national who
worked for, or on behalf of, the U.S. Government
in Iraq or Afghanistan appeals a denial of a petition
for a special immigrant visa. 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(S).

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

immigrants to determine whether they
are inadmissible based on health-related
grounds. See 8 CFR 232.2(b). The
proposed fee increase was the result of
application of the standard USCIS fee
methodology to this benefit request.
At least one commenter stated that the
proposed increase may have a chilling
effect on requests from physicians to
become approved civil surgeons. The
commenter suggested the possibility of
employing a tiered-fee structure, in
which USCIS would offer a lower
application fee in exchange for a
physician’s commitment to discount
fees for vulnerable children and youth
and other indigent applicants.
As noted, the proposed fee increase
for the Form I–910 was the result of
application of the standard USCIS fee
methodology to this benefit request.
When DHS departs from the standard
USCIS fee methodology to reduce fees
for one group, fees for other groups
increase to recover full cost. With
respect to the proposal to establish a
tiered fee structure for the application,
implementing such fees would require
eligibility and evidentiary requirements
for each fee and income level
established. This would add
administrative complexity, and further
increase costs. Additionally, USCIS
would not know whether such civil
surgeons complied with their
commitments to charge lower fees
without regulating and monitoring those
civil surgeons, and incurring the time
and costs to do so. Accordingly, no
changes were made in this final rule,
which sets the Form I–910 fee at $785,
as proposed.
p. Application for Advance Permission
To Enter as a Nonimmigrant, Form I–
192, and Application for Waiver of
Passport and/or Visa, Form I–193
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Application for
Advance Permission to Enter as a
Nonimmigrant, Form I–192, and
Application for Waiver of Passport and/
or Visa, Form I–193, from $585 to $930.
See proposed 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(P); 81
FR 26938. The proposed fee increase
was the result of application of the
standard USCIS fee methodology to this
benefit request. In the FY 2016/2017 fee
review, USCIS grouped these benefit
requests with other similar benefit
requests, specifically, Forms I–191, I–
212, I–601, and I–612.
One commenter stated that for certain
filers, CBP, and not USCIS, adjudicates
the benefit request.56 The commenter
stated that it would be unfair to increase
56 The commenter acknowledged that USCIS
adjudicates Form I–192 for T and U nonimmigrants.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the fee for Form I–192 applications
adjudicated by CBP, because those
adjudications do not increase USCIS
costs.57 The commenter stated that the
proposed increase in the fee for Form I–
192 would burden Canadian and
Bermudan nonimmigrant waiver
applicants in particular, because unlike
other nonimmigrant waiver applicants
who submit their applications at the
same time as visa applications at no
additional charge, Canadians and
Bermudans do not require a visa to enter
the United States, and thus pay the full
filing fee to submit the waiver
application. The commenter stated that
an increase in the filing fee will hurt
local economies in border towns
because ‘‘every dollar spent on a waiver
application is a dollar not spent on
tourism or retail.’’ The commenter did
not provide further data or analysis on
the potential impact of the proposed fee
increase on such economies.
In response to this comment, DHS is
not implementing the fee increase
proposed in the NPRM with respect to
those Forms I–192 filed with and
processed by CBP, and all Forms I–193.
CBP uses the fee revenue from these
forms to defray its own costs related to
such processing. The FY 2016/2017 fee
review and resulting proposed fee
change was based on USCIS’s costs for
processing inadmissibility waivers.
Therefore, under this final rule, DHS
adjusts only the fee for those Forms I–
192 filed with and processed by USCIS.
Consequently, Form I–192 will have two
fees—$585 for those filed with CBP and
$930 for those filed with USCIS. New 8
CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(P). All filings of Form
I–193 are processed by CBP and thus
DHS will also not adjust the current
$585 fee. New 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(Q).

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

C. Fee Waivers and Exemptions
DHS proposed no changes to the
USCIS fee waiver policies in the NPRM.
DHS noted, however, that the lost
revenue from fee waivers and
exemptions has increased markedly,
from $191 million in the FY 2010/2011
fee review to $613 million in the FY
2016/2017 Fee Review. DHS also
explained the fee waiver process. See 81
FR 26922. DHS received a number of
comments on its fee waiver and
exemption policies. Some commenters
on this subject requested that DHS
permit fee waivers for additional
immigration benefit requests. Others
asked that DHS make more requests
exempt from fee requirements.
57 The commenter did not mention Form I–193
applications, but such applications are similarly
affected by this rulemaking.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

Applicants, petitioners, and
requestors who pay a fee cover the cost
of processing requests that are feewaived or fee-exempt. Id.58 While a
number of commenters suggested that
USCIS expand the range of applications
and petitions for which USCIS would
consider a fee waiver, none provided a
compelling argument for why a
particular form that is not eligible for fee
waivers should be made eligible in this
final rule.
For example, one commenter
recommended that USCIS make fee
waivers available for all applications.
DHS recognizes that some applicants
cannot pay filing fees, and has
established a fee waiver process for
certain forms and benefit types. USCIS
carefully considers the merits of each
fee waiver request before making a
decision. Expansion of fee waiver policy
to include all immigration benefit
request fees would significantly increase
administrative and adjudicative costs.
Although DHS recognizes that filing fees
impose a heavy burden on people of
limited financial means, the costs of
allowing fee waivers across the board
would be borne by all other fee payers,
because the cost of providing services
with a discount or without a fee must
be transferred to those who pay a full
fee. Thus, USCIS takes a relatively
careful position with respect to
transferring costs from one applicant to
another through the expansion of fee
waiver eligibility.
DHS notes that, in response to
stakeholder concerns about the fee
waiver process and rejections of fee
waiver requests, USCIS recently
published a new Request for Fee
Waiver, Form I–912. It revised the form
to clarify the instructions, make the
form less complex, and reduce the
number of incomplete fee waiver
requests that are ultimately rejected. In
addition, because many applicants have
had difficulty providing all the
requested information in the spaces
provided on the previous form, USCIS
also included text boxes that provide
space for explanations. Those boxes
reduce the need for attachments, and
make the form more user-friendly.
As for fee exemptions, DHS already
exempts from fees those requests with
compelling circumstances. These
exemptions include benefit requests for
a range of humanitarian and protective
services, such as refugee and asylum
processing, assisting victims of crime
58 USCIS compares fee-paying receipts to the total
number of receipts to determine a fee-paying
percentage for each immigration benefit request.
See page 16 of the supporting documentation in the
rulemaking docket for an explanation of fee-paying
volume and methodology.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73307

and human trafficking, and other related
services. USCIS also may allow fee
exemptions based on economic
necessity in the event of incidents such
as an earthquake, hurricane, or other
natural disasters affecting localized
populations by using the authority of
the Director of USCIS at 8 CFR 103.7(d).
DHS proposed no new exemptions in
the NPRM, and knows of no compelling
reason for exempting a new group of
applicants, petitioners, or requestors
from a fee. Therefore, DHS has added no
new exemptions in this final rule.
D. Naturalization
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Application for
Naturalization, Form N–400, from $595
to $640. Proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(BBB); 81 FR 26939. DHS
proposed to hold the increase for the
Form N–400 to the reduced fee increase
(8 percent) 59 to support naturalization.
DHS also proposed an additional fee
option for those non-military
naturalization applicants with family
incomes greater than 150 percent and
not more than 200 percent of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines. Proposed 8
CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(BBB)(1); 81 FR 26939.
Specifically, DHS proposed that such
applicants would receive a 50 percent
discount, resulting in a fee of $320 for
Form N–400. DHS proposed this
reduced fee option to limit any potential
economic disincentives that some
eligible naturalization applicants may
face when deciding whether or not to
seek U.S. citizenship. The lower fee is
intended to help ensure that those who
have become eligible for naturalization
are not prohibited from naturalizing due
to their economic means.
Several commenters stated that the
price of this benefit is already too high.
Another commenter stated that the fee
for Form N–400 should be increased
based on the value of U.S. citizenship,
not just the costs associated with
adjudicating the form. And, while
generally opposed to the fee increase,
several commenters wrote in support of
USCIS’ efforts to alleviate some of the
associated burdens by establishing a
three-level fee for Form N–400,
including a fee of $320 for certain lowincome applicants who do not qualify
for the existing fee waiver. The
commenters stated that by doing so,
USCIS will expand the pool of potential
applicants.
DHS agrees with commenters that
citizenship is a benefit that deserves
special consideration and promotion.
Therefore, DHS did not propose a fee
59 The proposed increase was a 7.5 percent due
to rounding.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73308

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

that reflected all of the costs associated
with the relative complexity of the
adjudication. The Application for
Naturalization fee has not changed in
nearly a decade. Additionally, the fee
established in this rule for Form N–400
is less than it would be if the 2007 fee
were simply adjusted for inflation.
According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the semiannual average
inflation from July 2007 to July 2016
was 16.1 percent.60 If adjusted only for
inflation, the current $595 fee would be
$690, which is $50 more than the $640
fee set by this rule. DHS has not
previously adjusted Form N–400 by
CPI–U inflation, but provides this as a
point of comparison.
As for the comment requesting that
the Form N–400 fee be based on the
value of U.S. citizenship, doing so
would require quantifying that value,
which assuming it is appropriate or
even possible to do precisely, would be
beyond the scope established by the
proposed rule. The USCIS ABC model is
based on estimated operational costs,
and DHS has set the fee at a level that
adheres to the fee review methodology,
which includes full cost recovery. See
new 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(BBB). DHS
therefore sets the fee for Form N–400 at
$640, as proposed.
E. Improve Service and Reduce
Inefficiencies
Many of the comments received that
opposed fee increases cited delays in
processing times and dissatisfaction
with customer service. Some of these
commenters stated that they would
embrace the fee increases if they
resulted in faster processing and
improved customer service. A few
commenters asserted that if DHS
implements any type of USCIS fee
increase, then USCIS should guarantee
that it will reduce benefit request
processing times. At least one
commenter recommended increasing
the fees further so there would be no
excuse for delays in processing. Other
commenters wrote about expanding
electronic filing and receipting to
reduce mail handling and shipping of
paper. USCIS acknowledges that since it
last adjusted fees in FY 2010, the agency
has experienced elevated processing
times compared to the goals established
in the 2007 fee rule. See 72 FR 29858–
29859. These processing delays have
60 The semiannual average consumer price index
for all urban consumers (CPI–U) was 205.7 in July
2007 and 238.8 in July 2016. The change in the
Index over 9 years was 33.1 or 16.1 percent. See
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, All Urban Consumers (CPI–U)
Semiannual Average tables, available at http://
www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

contributed to case processing backlogs.
This can partially be attributed to
having removed the surcharge
previously applied to the IEFA fee
schedule to recover costs related to
RAIO, the SAVE program, and the
Office of Citizenship. This was done in
anticipation of congressional
appropriations for these programs,
consistent with the President’s budget
requests. As the anticipated budget
request was not granted, since FY 2012
USCIS has used other fee revenue to
support these programs. Under this final
rule, DHS will adjust USCIS fees by a
total weighted average increase of 21
percent; the total 21 percent weighted
average increase will be allocated as
follows:
• To reinstate a surcharge in the fee
schedule to sustain the current
operating levels of RAIO, the SAVE
program, and the Office of Citizenship
(approximately 8 percent);
• To account for reduced revenue
stemming from an increase in fee
waivers granted since FY 2010
(approximately 9 percent); and
• To recover the costs needed to
sustain current operating levels while
allowing for limited, strategic
investments necessary to ensure the
agency’s information technology
infrastructure is strengthened to protect
against potential cyber intrusions, and
to build the necessary disaster recovery
and back-up capabilities required to
effectively deliver the USCIS mission
(approximately 4 percent).
Through this final rule, USCIS
expects to collect sufficient fee revenue
to sustain current operating levels of
RAIO, the SAVE program, and the
Office of Citizenship. This change will
allow USCIS to discontinue diverting
other fee revenue to fund these
programs, thereby increasing the
resources available to fund additional
personnel 61 needed to improve case
processing, reduce backlogs, and move
toward processing times that are in line
with the commitments in the FY 2007
fee rule.
While the agency remains committed
to achieving the processing goal
commitments in the 2007 fee rule, it
acknowledges that these goals remain
ambitious. By its very nature, the fee
review cycle uses historical staffing and
workload information to establish future
needs, and as a result, cannot identify
the exact resources necessary to
guarantee future processing goals. In
addition, superseding priorities may
61 For additional information on staffing, see
second bullet on pg. 13, Alignment of USCIS
Staffing Allocation Model with the Fee Review on
pg. 26, and Appendix XIII Table 12: IEFA Positions
by Office in the supporting documentation.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

arise, which could not have been known
at the time fee cycle calculations were
made, that may impact USCIS’ ability to
meet customer expectations. USCIS will
need to continue addressing emergent
issues and their associated costs, which
may impact case processing efficiency
and backlogs. Nevertheless, the agency
holds the 2007 processing goals to be
among its highest priorities and
recommits to achieving them as quickly
as possible.
In addition, USCIS is committed to
providing stakeholders and customers
with the information they need, when
they need it. To that end, USCIS is
transforming how it calculates and posts
processing time information to improve
the timeliness of such postings, but
more importantly, to achieve greater
transparency of USCIS case processing.
For instance, to make current published
processing time information more
transparent and less complex for
customers to interpret, USCIS is
evaluating the feasibility of calculating
processing times using data generated
directly from case management systems,
rather than with self-reported
performance data provided by Service
Centers and Field Offices. Preliminary
findings suggest that USCIS will be able
to publish processing times sooner and
with greater transparency by showing
different processing times for each office
and form type. USCIS is also
considering publishing processing times
using a range rather than using one
number or date. This approach would
show that, for example, half of cases are
decided in between X and Y number of
months.
USCIS also expects to improve the
customer experience as it continues to
transition to online filing and electronic
processing of immigration applications
and petitions. With the new personcentric electronic case processing
environment, USCIS will possess the
data needed to provide near-real-time
processing updates to the customer that
will identify the case status and time
period that has elapsed between actions
for each individual case. This will allow
greater transparency to the public on
how long it will take to process each
case as it moves from stage to stage (e.g.,
from biometrics collection, to interview,
to decision).
DHS appreciates the comments
requesting expansions of electronic
filing, and USCIS is actively planning
the expansion of its online case
management system for the submission
and adjudication of immigration
benefits. As of the end of FY 2016,
approximately 17 percent of the
agency’s intake was processed through

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

online filing and we are striving to
increase that level.
In sum, DHS appreciates the
commenters’ concerns for timely
service. USCIS continually strives to
meet timely adjudication goals while
balancing security, eligibility analysis,
and integrity in the immigration system.
Fees have not been adjusted since 2010
and that fee rule did not include the
surcharge for RAIO, the SAVE program,
and the Office of Citizenship, which has
resulted in the reprioritization of
resources to cover those program costs.
This fee rule is intended to address such
shortfalls and provide resources
necessary to ensure adequate service.
USCIS would be unable to adequately
perform its mission if DHS allowed fee
levels to remain insufficient while
USCIS continued to develop its search
for additional efficiencies.
F. Premium Processing
Premium processing is a program by
which filers may request 15-calendarday processing of certain employmentbased immigration benefit requests if
they pay an extra amount. 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(RR) and (e); proposed 8
CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(SS); 81 FR 26939. In
2000, Congress set the premium
processing fee at $1,000 and authorized
USCIS to adjust the fee for inflation, as
determined by the Consumer Price
Index (CPI). Section 286(u) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1356(u). USCIS adjusted the
premium processing fee to $1,225 by
using the CPI in the 2010 final
rule.62 See 75 FR 58979. DHS proposed
no change to premium processing fees
or regulations because forecasted
premium processing revenue is
sufficient to cover the projected costs of
providing the premium service and
other permissible infrastructure
investments.
Several commenters wrote to request
that USCIS expand premium processing
to other forms, including family-based
immigration benefit requests,
naturalization, relief for victims of
crimes who assist law enforcement, and
forms related to the EB–5 Immigrant
Investor Program. Some commenters
stated that using premium processing
revenue may alleviate backlogs. Other
commenters stated that premium
processing is essentially mandatory to
ensure the timely and efficient
processing of their employment-based
petitions.
Assuming DHS has the general
authority to offer expedited processing
fees to additional forms, the timing
62 Premium processing fees are increased using
the CPI through statutory authority. See INA sec.
286(u), 8 U.S.C. 1356(u).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

requirements of many adjudications
involve considerations that are out of
USCIS’ control. For example,
background checks, the timing of which
are not controlled by USCIS, are
required for: The Application for
Temporary Protected Status, Form I–
821; the Application for Naturalization,
Form N–400; the Application for
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver,
Form I–601A; and the Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust
Status, Form I–485. These and many
other forms are not suited for expedited
processing. USCIS already seeks
processing efficiencies where available
and shifts workload to balance volume
surges, seasonal demands, and
competing priorities.
In addition, where expedited
processing may be possible, it would be
extraordinarily time-intensive to
determine the appropriate fee amount,
target adjudication timeframe, and
staffing levels needed to implement a
new expedited processing program.
Expanding the premium processing
program would require USCIS to
estimate the costs of a service that does
not currently exist with sufficient
confidence that it can deliver the service
promised and not impair service for
other immigration benefit requests.
Nevertheless, USCIS will continue
considering additional premium
processing services and its ability to
improve services without creating new
challenges. DHS made no changes in
this final rule as a result of these
comments.
G. Immigrant Investors
In the NPRM, DHS proposed a
number of changes to fees related to the
Employment-Based Immigrant Visa,
Fifth Preference (EB–5) ‘‘Immigrant
Investor’’ Program.63 Specifically, DHS
63 The EB–5 program was created by Congress in
1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job
creation and capital investment by foreign
investors. The EB–5 ‘‘regional center program’’ was
later added in 1992 by the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993. Pub. L.
102–395, sec. 610, 106 Stat 1828 (Oct. 6, 1992). The
EB–5 immigrant classification allows qualifying
individuals, and any accompanying or following to
join spouses and children, to obtain lawful
permanent resident (LPR) status if the qualifying
individuals have invested, or are actively in the
process of investing, $1 million in a new
commercial enterprise. See INA sec. 203(b)(5)(A)
and (C), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(A) and (C). To qualify,
the individual’s investment must benefit the U.S.
economy and create full-time jobs for 10 or more
qualifying employees. INA sec. 203(b)(5)(A)(ii), 8
U.S.C. 1153(B)(5)(A)(ii). If the investment is in a
Targeted Employment Area (TEA) (i.e., a rural area
or an area that has unemployment of at least 150%
of the national average), the required capital
investment amount is $500,000 rather than $1
million. INA sec. 203(b)(5)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C.
1153(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 CFR 204.6(f)(2). Entrepreneurs

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73309

proposed to increase the fee for the
Application for Regional Center Under
the Immigrant Investor Program, Form
I–924, from $6,230 to $17,795. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(WW); 81
FR 26939. DHS proposed to establish a
new fee for the Annual Certification of
Regional Center, Form I–924A, at
$3,035. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(XX); 81 FR 26939. DHS
proposed to increase the fee for the
Immigrant Petition by Alien
Entrepreneur, Form I–526, from $1,500
to $3,675. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(W); 81 FR 26938. Finally,
DHS proposed to hold the fee for the
Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove
Conditions, Form I–829, at $3,750. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(PP); 81 FR
26939. With the exception of the
proposed fee for Form I–829, each
proposed EB–5 fee increase was the
result of application of the standard
USCIS fee methodology to the
applicable benefit request.
Several commenters objected to the
proposed increases, noting that these are
some of the highest proposed fee
increases, while the related benefit
requests have some of the longest
processing times. Another commenter
wrote to applaud the increase to EB–5
fees in general, but requested that
USCIS conduct site visits and evaluate
whether regional centers are
misrepresenting themselves to investors.
As an initial matter, and as noted
previously, DHS is authorized to set fees
at a level that ensures recovery of the
full costs of providing immigration
adjudication and naturalization
services. Because USCIS relies almost
entirely on fee revenue, in the absence
of a fee schedule that ensures full cost
recovery, USCIS would be unable to
sustain an adequate level of service, let
alone invest in program improvements.
Full cost recovery means not only that
fee-paying applicants and petitioners
must pay their proportionate share of
costs, but also that at least some feepaying applicants and petitioners must
pay a share of the immigration
adjudication and naturalization services
that DHS provides on a fee-exempt, feereduced, or fee-waived basis. DHS is
therefore mindful to adhere to the
standard USCIS fee methodology as
often as possible, and to avoid overuse
may meet the job creation requirements through the
creation of indirect jobs by making qualifying
investments within a new commercial enterprise
associated with a regional center approved by
USCIS for participation in the regional center
program. INA sec. 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5); 8
CFR 204.6(e) and (m)(7). For more information on
the EB–5 program, see https://www.uscis.gov/
working-united-states/permanent-workers/
employment-based-immigration-fifth-preference-eb5/about-eb-5-visa.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73310

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

of DHS’s discretion to eliminate or
reduce fees for special groups of
beneficiaries.
The proposed fees for three of the four
EB–5 Program forms resulted from
application of the standard USCIS fee
methodology,64 because DHS did not
find a compelling reason to shift the
burden of adjudicating these forms onto
other applicants. In addition, the
relatively high fees for these requests
result in part from the high costs
associated with adjudicating them. For
instance, USCIS has recently
implemented several changes to refine
and improve the delivery, security and
integrity of the EB–5 Program. USCIS
established the Immigrant Investor
Program Office (IPO) in Washington, DC
in 2012. Since that time, IPO has
regularly added staff positions to focus
both on managing the program and
ensuring identification of fraud,
national security, or public safety
concerns within the program. In
addition, USCIS plans to conduct
increased site visits to regional centers
and associated commercial enterprises
to verify information provided in
regional center applications and
investor petitions and to clarify its EB–
5 regulations. Currently, USCIS is in the
process of hiring and training additional
adjudicators, economists, and support
staff needed to adjudicate the benefit
requests associated with the EB–5
program. Part of the increase in fees for
EB–5-related adjudications will bolster
the fraud detection and national
security capabilities of USCIS to
investigate fraud and abuse at all levels
of the EB–5 process, including
investigating projects that receive funds
from EB–5 investors and auditing
regional center annual reports to
enhance compliance with the program.
See 81 FR 26918. Each of these factors
contributed to the proposed EB–5
Program fees.
In the immediately succeeding
section, as well as in the Paperwork
Reduction Act section of this preamble,
DHS responds to additional comments
on the proposed EB–5 fees.
1. Application for Regional Center
Under the Immigrant Investor Program,
Form I–924
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Application for
Regional Center Under the Immigrant
Investor Program, Form I–924, from
$6,230 to $17,795. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(WW); 81 FR 26939. The
proposed fee increase was the result of
64 The proposed fee for the Form I–829 was above
the model output, as described in the proposed
rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

application of the standard USCIS fee
methodology to the benefit request.
At least one commenter wrote to
oppose the proposed Form I–924 fee
increase due to the possible impact on
EB–5 regional centers. The commenter
recommended a possible reduced fee for
centers in existence for fewer than 5
years. The same commenter stated
dissatisfaction with the level of
customer service that USCIS has
provided and suggested that USCIS
create an electronic platform for EB–5
regional centers to monitor their
applications and cases. Other
commenters stated that the proposed fee
increase were unreasonable and
inflated, especially in light of long
processing delays. At least one
commenter stated that regional centers
in rural and high-unemployment areas
are less capable of withstanding long
processing delays. The same commenter
stated that the proposed 286 percent fee
increase for the Form I–924 should be
accompanied by an assurance that
processing times would be cut by 75
percent. The commenter stated that an
alternative to processing time
reductions would be to create a process
in which regional centers would be
automatically approved if USCIS does
not provide a notice of action within 4
months, or if USCIS does not summarily
reject a petition for which there have
been prior approvals on the same
project. Another commenter stated that
DHS could adopt a tiered fee structure
for Form I–924 based on whether the
associated investment project was an
actual or exemplar project. At least one
commenter mentioned the potential for
legislation to alter the regional center
requirements.
USCIS understands the desire of EB–
5 regional centers to receive prompt and
courteous service, and the agency
strives to provide the best level of
service possible. As the program has
grown and applicants and projects have
become more advanced, the current fee
level has proven to be inadequate to
ensure that USCIS has the resources it
needs. The proposed fee increase was
determined using USCIS’s standard feesetting methodology, based on the
number of hours required to adjudicate
Form I–924. These adjudications require
economists and adjudications officers to
thoroughly review extensive business
documents, economic impact analyses,
and other project-related documents.
The proposed fee increase was, in part,
calculated to allow USCIS to hire
additional staff to process Forms I–924
and provide better and more thorough
service.
Currently, USCIS does not have the
data to quantify alternative fees for

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

regional centers in existence for fewer
than 5 years. In addition, USCIS does
not track Form I–924 completion rates
based on whether the project involves a
rural or urban area, an area of high or
low employment, or an actual or
exemplar project. USCIS also cannot
commit to across-the-board processing
time reductions as adjudications involve
case-by-case review of complex
applications and related supplementary
information, nor can it implement a
process that automatically approves a
regional center without a complete
adjudication. Moreover, USCIS does not
prioritize Form I–924 workloads based
on whether regional center projects
involve a rural or urban area, or an area
of high or low employment. DHS may
consider exploring the feasibility of
such a change in the future, but will not
implement a change at this time.
With respect to the commenter that
identified the possibility of legislative
changes, USCIS greatly appreciates the
work of stakeholders towards
reauthorization of the Regional Center
Program and reform of the EB–5
program more generally. USCIS is
cognizant of potential legislative
changes to the EB–5 program and is also
aware that such changes may require
adjustments to USCIS adjudication
processes. In the event that legislative
changes are enacted, USCIS would
assess any significant changes and
reassess program requirements,
adjudication process, and required fees.
For now, however, and for the reasons
stated previously, this rule sets the
Form I–924 fee at $17,795, as proposed.
2. Immigrant Petition by Alien
Entrepreneur, Form I–526
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to
increase the fee for the Immigrant
Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, Form I–
526, from $1,500 to $3,675. See
proposed 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(W); 81 FR
26938. The proposed fee increase was
the result of application of the standard
USCIS fee methodology to the benefit
request.
Some commenters wrote to request
additional information on the proposed
fee increase. Another commenter stated
that a lack of processing efficiency can
cause problems for Form I–526
applicants. Specifically, the commenter
stated that EB–5 project sponsors
sometimes agree to put an investor’s
money in escrow until the Form I–526
is approved. If the form is denied,
project sponsors return those funds to
the investor; if approved, the project
sponsor uses those funds on the project.
The commenter stated that such projects
can languish when the investor’s money
is held in escrow for lengthy periods of

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

time. According to the commenter,
although escrow arrangements provide
substantial benefits to program integrity,
they are becoming commercially
untenable due to Form I–526 processing
times. The commenter also asserted that
projects themselves are also hurt by
lengthy processing times, as projects
may be well underway by the time
USCIS denies the forms.
USCIS has taken multiple steps
towards reducing Form I–526
processing times. As previously
mentioned, USCIS is in the process of
hiring and training additional
adjudications officers, economists, and
support staff for these form types.
Additionally, USCIS is working to
revise the EB–5 regulations and is
preparing revisions to the EB–5 Policy
Manual. USCIS is also improving the
forms and form instructions for the EB–
5 program. The EB–5 program fee
increases will further these agency
efforts with the goal of improving
operational efficiencies while enhancing
predictability and transparency in the
adjudication process. USCIS
understands that long delays in Form I–
526 adjudications negatively impact
both immigrant investors and the
projects awaiting the release of their
investment funds from escrow. USCIS
strives to process Form I–526 filings as
soon as practicable. In addition,
regarding the release of escrowed funds,
USCIS permits EB–5 financing to
replace interim financing where the
financing to be replaced was
contemplated as temporary financing
that would be replaced.65 DHS made no
changes to the proposed Form I–526 fee
as a result of these comments, and is
finalizing the fee at $3,675, as proposed.
3. Petition by Entrepreneur To Remove
Conditions, Form I–829
In the NPRM, DHS proposed to hold
the fee for the Petition by Entrepreneur
to Remove Conditions, Form I–829, at
$3,750. See proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(PP); 81 FR 26939. While
the fee model calculated a fee of $2,353,
DHS proposed to maintain the current
fee for such petitions. See 81 FR 26918.
Because of the recent and continued
growth and maturation of the EB–5
Program, associated costs over the next
few fiscal years are uncertain. Among
other things, the final parameters of the
program are still evolving, such as the
number of USCIS employees and
facilities necessary to carry out
65 See

Policy Memorandum, EB–5 Adjudications
Policy (May 30, 2013) at https://www.uscis.gov/
sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/
May/EB5%20Adjudications%20PM%20
(Approved%20as%20final%205-30-13).pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

enhanced review of EB–5 filings, as well
as site visits. This uncertainty makes it
unclear whether EB–5 related fees will
fully fund EB–5 program activities. DHS
therefore proposed to keep the Form I–
829 at the current fee, above the full cost
recovery calculation, to shield USCIS
against potential, but likely rising
costs.66
At least one commenter indicated
current USCIS processing times for
Form I–829 extend beyond the 1-year
automatic extension of the
entrepreneur’s conditional residence,
imposing an additional burden on
petitioners traveling outside of the
United States. The commenter stated
that delays in processing Form I–829
mean that investments must remain at
risk for an extended period of time. The
commenter added that USCIS could
increase the efficiency of Form I–829
adjudications by consolidating the
business-related portions of multiple
Forms I–829 associated with a single
investment project into a single
adjudication. Another commenter
recommended that USCIS implement
electronic filing of this and other forms
related to the Immigrant Investor
Program to increase efficiency.
USCIS recognizes that lengthy Form
I–829 processing times place a strain on
EB–5 investors who are awaiting
approval of their applications to adjust
to LPR status. USCIS is working
diligently to add staffing, and the
agency plans to publish regulatory
action, policy guidance, and revised
forms with the goal of improving service
delivery to applicants and improving
the integrity of the EB–5 program. In
part due to the tentative nature of these
plans, DHS has no way to reliably
quantify any potential cost savings that
might be associated with these actions,
and therefore could not propose to
reduce the Form I–829 fee to account for
such savings.
DHS appreciates the suggestions for
improving EB–5 processing times. DHS
clarifies that USCIS already has
processes in place to streamline
adjudication of the business-related
portions of multiple Forms I–829
associated with a single, new
investment project. Specifically, when
USCIS receives a regional centerassociated Form I–829 that involves a
new commercial enterprise, USCIS
reviews the first two petitions
associated with that new commercial
66 If DHS had decided to adjust the fee consistent
with the adjustment that DHS made to most other
fees, the proposed fee would have decreased to
$3,280. The proposed fee would have been higher
than the model output because of Cost Reallocation.
Other fees would also have been adjusted
accordingly.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73311

enterprise to determine if there are
specific project-related issues that
would apply to all petitioners associated
with the new commercial enterprise.
After completing that review, USCIS
commences adjudication of all Forms I–
829 associated with that new
commercial enterprise filed within a
given period. Similarly, when USCIS
receives a regional center-associated
Form I–829 that involves a previously
reviewed commercial enterprise, USCIS
immediately assigns that petition for
adjudication. In other words, USCIS
currently adjudicates Form I–829
petitions in ‘‘first in, first out’’ order by
new commercial enterprises. USCIS
constantly searches for new ways to
increase efficiencies in the
adjudications process, and for that
reason cannot commit to a uniform
queuing practice in this rule, or reduce
associated fees in anticipation of
heretofore unrealized savings.
USCIS does not have immediate plans
to allow electronic filing for EB–5
requests, but appreciates commenters’
desire to avoid voluminous paper
filings. USCIS plans to allow electronic
filing for EB–5 requests in the future.
DHS made no changes to the proposed
Form I–829 fee, or the policies regarding
EB–5 adjudications, as a result of these
comments. The final rule sets the Form
I–829 fee at $3,750, as proposed.
H. Methods Used To Determine Fee
Amounts
As described previously and in the
NPRM, the standard USCIS fee-setting
methodology is intended to ensure full
cost recovery for USCIS immigration
adjudication and naturalization
services. DHS based the proposed
USCIS fees on the estimated costs of
providing immigration benefit
adjudication and naturalization
services. In addition, to the extent
possible, and with limited exception,
DHS based the proposed USCIS fees on
the relative identifiable costs associated
with providing each particular benefit
or service. This fee methodology is
consistent with government-wide feesetting guidelines outlined by OMB
Circular A–25, 58 FR 38142 (July 15,
1993); 67 the principles of the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C.
901–03; and the Federal Accounting
Standards Advisory Board (FASAB)
guidelines.68 Additional information
about the fee methodology can be found
in this preamble, the preamble for the
67 Office of Management and Budget, Circular A–
25, User Charges, available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a025/.
68 Handbook, Version 14 (06/15), available at
http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_
4.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73312

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

proposed rule, and the supporting
documentation accompanying this
rulemaking.69
DHS received a number of comments
regarding the methods that DHS uses to
determine fee amounts. Commenters
made statements about the need for full
cost recovery without appropriations,
the decision to exclude revenue from
certain benefits in the proposed fee
schedule, potential alternative fee
methodologies, and the potential for
cost reductions. DHS responds to these
comments below.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

1. Recovery of Full Cost Without
Appropriations
Some commenters suggested that
USCIS seek appropriations to reduce
immigration benefit request fees. Some
commenters opposing the fee increase
mentioned that immigrants in the
United States pay Federal income taxes,
Social Security taxes, and other fees and
questioned whether those are being
accounted for in USCIS fee calculations.
Commenters stated that appropriations
could help reduce processing times or
fund programs that do not recover full
cost on their own, such as RAIO, the
SAVE program, and the Office of
Citizenship.
DHS acknowledges that immigrants
pay both Social Security and various
Federal taxes and fees, but the decision
whether to fund USCIS services through
tax revenues belongs to the U.S.
Congress. And in recent years, such
funding has been unavailable. As noted
in the NPRM, USCIS is almost entirely
funded by fees and must recover the full
cost of its operations. See 81 FR 26905–
26912. Fees collected from individuals
and entities filing immigration benefit
requests are deposited into the IEFA and
used to fund the cost of immigration
benefits and naturalization. Id. USCIS
has not received any substantial
appropriations since FY 2011. Similarly,
USCIS received no FY 2016
discretionary appropriations for the
SAVE program or the Office of
Citizenship. See DHS Appropriations
Act 2016, Public Law 114–113, div. F.
(Dec. 18, 2015) and 81 FR 26912. USCIS
did not receive appropriations for
refugee and asylum processing or the
69 The USCIS fee methodology is not intended to
yield a profit for the agency nor the Federal
Government. The sole purpose of USCIS IEFA fees
is to achieve full cost recovery to allow the agency
to provide an adequate level of service. USCIS filing
fees are not designed to function as tariffs, to
generate general revenue to support broader policy
decisions, or to deter certain behavior. As
previously stated in this final rule, filing fees are
generally not intended to influence public policy in
favor of or in opposition to immigration, support
broader infrastructure, or cover costs beyond
USCIS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

SAVE program after FY 2011. USCIS
received $2.5 million for the immigrant
integration grants program in FY 2013
(Pub. L. 113–6) and FY 2014 (Pub. L.
113–76), but the agency did not receive
appropriations for that program in FY
2015 or FY 2016. The only USCIS
appropriations for FY 2016 provided
funding for the E-Verify employment
eligibility verification program. See
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016,
Public Law 114–113, div. F, tit. IV (Dec.
18, 2015) (DHS Appropriations Act
2016). Other than as described, USCIS
receives no appropriations to offset the
cost of adjudicating immigration benefit
requests. Id. As a consequence of this
funding structure, taxpayers do not bear
any costs related to the IEFA and bear
only a nominal burden to fund USCIS.
However, in the event appropriations
are provided that will materially change
IEFA fees, then DHS could pursue a
rulemaking to adjust fees appropriately.
Finally, one commenter questioned
why SAVE fees charged to local, state,
and Federal agencies do not recover the
full cost of the SAVE program. USCIS
collects SAVE fees from federal
government agencies under the
authority of the Economy Act, 31 U.S.C.
1535, and from state or local
government agencies under the
authority of the Inter-Governmental
Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6501. SAVE
fees are included in Memoranda of
Agreement (MOAs) with user agencies,
which are updated based on the
established periods of performance. As
noted in the proposed rule, SAVE fees
impact the IEFA fees established in this
rule only as necessary to fund the SAVE
costs that remain after taking into
account revenue received under the
MOAs. See 81 FR 26911. Fees charged
to SAVE users do not cover the full cost
of the SAVE program; rather, they only
cover the estimated per-query cost of
operating the verification system. IEFA
funds are used to cover other costs of
the program, especially personnel and
overhead expenses. In short, then, the
funding structure for SAVE is a dual
one, in which some costs are covered by
reimbursements, and other costs from
IEFA funds. Congress has supported this
funding arrangement in the past, noting
ongoing budget constraints.70 As the
commenter requests, USCIS and DHS
regularly examine SAVE fees, and may
modify them in the future.
2. Exclusion of Temporary or Uncertain
Costs, Items, and Programs
As noted in the NPRM, DHS excluded
from the fee model the costs and
revenue associated with certain
70 H.R.

PO 00000

Rep. No. 112–492 (May 23, 2012).

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

programs that are time-limited or that
may otherwise be narrowed or
terminated, including because they are
predicated on guidance and not
preserved in regulations or statute.71 See
81 FR 26914–26915. This exclusion
applies to the Application for TPS,
Form I–821; Consideration of Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),
Form I–821D; and Application for
Suspension of Deportation or Special
Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant
to Section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100)
(Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act (NACARA)), Form
I–881. As stated in the NPRM, DACA
and TPS are both administrative
exercises of discretion that may be
granted on a case-by-case basis for
particular periods of time. Both TPS and
DACA, and the individual grants under
each, are subject to intermittent renewal
or extension at DHS’s discretion. For
NACARA, the eligible population will
eventually be exhausted due to relevant
eligibility requirements, including the
date by which an applicant was
required to have entered the United
States. Given that these initiatives or
programs are temporary by definition
and at the discretion of DHS, USCIS
excluded the associated cost and
workload from the fee review and did
not propose to allocate overhead and
other fixed costs to these workload
volumes. See 81 FR 26915.
Some commenters wrote to question
the rationale for excluding DACA and
TPS from the fee review. Several
commenters stated that it is a financial
burden to have to renew DACA every 2
years and to renew TPS every 18
months. Other commenters stated that,
by their own estimates, the cost of
administering DACA is less than the
revenue that the program generates.
Some commenters stated that fee
increases to Forms I–765 and I–131
would deter DACA and TPS renewals
and initial applications.
Following consideration of the
comments received, DHS retains its
earlier position. The practice of
excluding these initiatives or programs
that are temporary by definition from
the fee review mitigates an unnecessary
revenue risk, by ensuring that USCIS
71 As noted in the proposed rule, for the purposes
of this rulemaking, DHS is including all requests
funded from the IEFA in the term ‘‘benefit request’’
or ‘‘immigration benefit request’’ although the form
or request may not be to request an immigration
benefit. For example, DACA is solely an exercise of
prosecutorial discretion by DHS and not an
immigration benefit, and would fit under the
definition of ‘‘benefit request’’ solely for purposes
of this rule. For historic receipts and completion
information, see USCIS immigration and
citizenship data available at https://www.uscis.gov/
tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms-data.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
will have enough revenue to recover full
cost regardless of DHS’s discretionary
decision to continue these initiatives.
This allows DHS to maintain the
integrity of its ABC model, ensure
recovery of full costs, and mitigate
revenue risk from unreliable sources.
For these reasons, the cost of
adjudicating requests associated with
these policies was not considered, and
this final rule excludes from the ABC
model the costs and revenue associated
with aforementioned policies, as
proposed.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

3. Setting Fees by Benefit Type
A commenter stated that IEFA fees
should be based on the specific
immigration benefit sought by a filer,
rather than the specific form type used.
The commenter noted that USCIS tracks
completion rate (i.e., adjudication time)
by form number, and that the agency
generally establishes a fee for the form
type rather than the benefit being sought
through the filing, even if the same form
can be used to obtain different
immigration benefits. For example,
Form I–129 is used to request several
types of nonimmigrant visa
classifications, and a different fee could
conceivably be calculated for each such
classification.72
USCIS already sets some of its fees
based on benefit sought, rather than
form type used. For example, USCIS
sets different fees for Form I–131
depending on the benefit sought, and
the agency provides fee exemptions to
certain filers of Form I–360. For other
forms that have multiple uses, USCIS
has not calculated the completion rate
with enough precision to determine fees
based on the benefits sought by filers of
those forms. USCIS officers are required
to manually report the time they spend
on adjudicating forms; requiring
reporting for sub-uses of those forms
would divert time from processing
requests. In addition, tracking whether
filers are submitting the appropriate fees
for the specific benefit sought would
increase complexity for the agency and
the public, potentially adding to
processing delays. Nonetheless, DHS
will continue considering this comment
and may further refine its fee-setting
methodology in the future to determine
if different fees for the same form can be
justified, as well as accurately and
efficiently determined, without causing
confusion and delay for adjudicators
and the public. DHS made no changes
72 Currently, the fee is the same for each Form I–
129 filed. This fee has historically been calculated
based on the average level of complexity for the
adjudication of the form.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

in this final rule as a result of this
comment.
4. Income-Based Fee Structure
Some commenters stated that DHS
should generally base fees on the filer’s
income level or cost of living. Although
USCIS is adopting a limited incomebased fee structure in the naturalization
context, adjusting all fees based on
income or cost of living would be
administratively complex and would
require even higher costs to administer.
A tiered fee system would require staff
dedicated to income verification and
necessitate significant information
system changes to accommodate
multiple fee scenarios for every form.
The costs and administrative burden
associated with implementing such a
system would require additional overall
fee revenue. As a result, DHS does not
support making the entire fee schedule
contingent on income or cost of living
and DHS has made no changes in this
final rule as a result of these comments.
5. Reduction in USCIS Costs
A number of commenters
recommended that USCIS reduce costs
internally instead of raising fees to fully
recover costs. For instance, some
commenters stated that USCIS
employees’ salaries were too high. No
commenters proposed a methodology
that DHS could use to adjust the
proposed fee schedule to account for
unrealized cost reductions.
USCIS is continually exploring
opportunities to increase efficiency and
reduce unnecessary costs without
negatively affecting the delivery of
benefits. Although USCIS will continue
seeking out cost reductions, and may
incorporate the results of such cost
reductions in future fee reviews, DHS
cannot set aside the need for full cost
recovery indefinitely. Accordingly, DHS
made no changes in this final rule as a
result of these comments.
I. Dishonored Payments
In the NPRM, in a set of proposals
separate and distinct from the proposed
fee schedule, DHS proposed to
eliminate three rules requiring that
cases be held while deficient payments
are corrected. See proposed 8 CFR
103.2(a)(7)(ii), 103.7(a)(2); 81 FR 26936;
see also previous 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii),
(a)(2); 8 CFR 103.17(b)(1). Instead, DHS
proposed that if a financial instrument
used to pay a fee were returned as
unpayable after one re-presentment,
USCIS would reject the filing and
impose a standard $30 charge. The
purpose of the proposed change was to
reduce the USCIS administrative costs
for holding and tracking immigration

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73313

benefit requests when the
accompanying payment has already
been rejected.
DHS received several comments
concerning these proposed changes.
Some commenters suggested that USCIS
maintain the current procedure or allow
for several attempts to process a
payment. These commenters noted that
some payment problems are due to
circumstances beyond the filer’s control.
These commenters stated that
dishonored payments may result from
errors at a USCIS Lockbox facility or a
temporary disruption to a bank or
Automated Clearing House (ACH) 73
network. These commenters also stated
that the rejection of a benefit request can
have serious repercussions for the filer.
Commenters asserted that a payment
failure may be especially disruptive if,
for example, an underlying labor
certification application for Form I–140
is about to expire, a derivative applicant
is about to age out of eligibility, the
priority date for an application for
adjustment of status is scheduled to
retrogress, or an applicant’s current
status will expire imminently and the
pendency and approval of the
application would otherwise result in
an extension of status. These
commenters stated that time-sensitive
immigration benefit requests could be
delayed by months or years because of
the proposed changes. One commenter
also noted that the rejected filings may
require over a month to be returned to
filers.
DHS agrees that ACH and bank
network outages can sometimes result in
a rejection or delay payments for a few
days.74 In the past, USCIS has addressed
the possibility of ACH and network
outages by arranging for the Department
of the Treasury (Treasury) to
automatically re-present a rejected
payment twice to see if it clears on the
second or third attempt before sending
the filer the bill for the rejected
payment.75 Re-depositing a rejected
73 The ACH Network is a nationwide electronic
fund transfer system that provides for the inter-bank
clearing of electronic credit and debit transactions
and for the exchange of payment-related
information among participating financial
institutions.
74 Treasury notifies USCIS of the reasons the
payment was dishonored. Sometimes the reason is
a lack of funds and sometimes the reason is a
system outage. DHS will apply the dishonored
payment provisions in this rule to all dishonored
payments, regardless of the reason provided by
Treasury. DHS believes that the safeguards
described in the remainder of this section
appropriately balance the interests of applicants
and beneficiaries, on the one hand, and USCIS’s
interest in sound and efficient administration, on
the other.
75 USCIS implemented this internal policy in an
effort to reduce the number of bad checks under the

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

Continued

24OCR4

73314

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

check, known as ‘‘re-presentment,’’ was
not required by the regulations, but
USCIS arranged for Treasury to do this
as a courtesy to filers.76
To address the concerns raised by
commenters that a dishonored payment
may be due to circumstances beyond the
filer’s control, DHS has decided to
continue this practice, and to codify it
(with slight revision) in this final rule.
To make sure that a payment rejection
is the result of insufficient funds and
not due to USCIS error or network
outages, USCIS (through Treasury) will
re-submit rejected payment instruments
to the appropriate financial institution
one time. See new 8 CFR
103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D).77 In effect, DHS will
implement as a regulatory requirement
the current practice under which USCIS
re-presents rejected payments, but this
rule will only require USCIS to resubmit the payment once, not twice.
USCIS estimates that this change, based
on its experience with how many days
are required for financial instruments to
clear, will provide a total of
approximately 10 days before Treasury
notifies USCIS that the payment
(including re-presentment) has failed.
The change codifies in regulation a
practice that reduces instances in which
requests are erroneously rejected
because a bank erroneously rejects the
relevant financial instrument.
This final rule also corrects an
oversight in the NPRM related to how
USCIS treats benefit requests that have
already been approved when the agency
learns that the financial instrument used
to pay the associated fee is unpayable.
Under current 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii), if
USCIS has approved a benefit request
before the payment has cleared, and the
filer, having received notice of failed
payment, fails to pay the filing fee and
associated service charge within 14
days, USCIS automatically revokes the
approval, or reopens and denies the
request, due to improper filing. See, e.g.,
previous 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1) (‘‘Each
benefit request or other document must
be filed with fee(s) as required by
regulation.’’); 8 CFR 103.5(a)(5). As a
result, a filer could not retain an
assumption that the payor may deposit funds
during the intervening period and to preclude the
need for USCIS to hold the bad check case while
the payor has 14 days to correct it.
76 DHS notes that the proposed rule’s preamble
erroneously stated that ‘‘DHS is proposing that
USCIS will not begin processing the benefit request
until the payment has cleared.’’ See 81 FR 26920.
No provisions were proposed that would require
USCIS to hold cases. As in the past, USCIS strives
to intake and begin processing every benefit request
as soon as practicable, without regard for whether
or not the payment has cleared.
77 This policy will not apply to credit card
payments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

approved benefit if the financial
instrument used to pay the fee was
subsequently returned as unpayable.78
Unfortunately, the proposed rule
erroneously omitted this existing
regulatory authority, see proposed 8
CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii); 81 FR 26936, and
also erroneously failed to include
conforming updates to a related
provision, see previous 8 CFR
205.1(a)(2) (providing for automatic
revocation of certain petitions ‘‘[i]f the
filing fee and associated service charge
are not paid within 14 days of the
notification to the remitter that his or
her check or other financial instrument
used to pay the filing fee has been
returned as not payable’’).
As the NPRM and this rule make
clear, however, the ability of USCIS to
collect fees is a fundamental aspect of
its ability to function. USCIS must be
able to continue requiring proper fee
payments as a condition of eligibility for
immigration benefits. Individuals who
file a benefit request with a fee payment
that is dishonored should, therefore,
have no expectation that they might
benefit from early processing of their
filing.
Given that background, the only
alternative to continuing to provide for
revocation would be for USCIS to hold
each benefit request until the financial
instrument used to pay the fee has
finally cleared or been rejected. In the
interest of administrative efficiency and
prompt processing of benefit requests,
DHS has rejected that alternative.
Therefore, DHS has provided in this
final rule that if a remittance in payment
of any fee submitted with a request is
not honored by the bank or financial
institution on which it is drawn, and the
request was approved, USCIS will
initiate revocation of the approval by
issuing a notice of intent to revoke
(NOIR). See new 8 CFR 103.7(a)(2)(iii).79
The applicant, petitioner or requestor
will be provided an opportunity to
respond to the NOIR with evidence that
the payment was honored and the
revocation would be in error. To assuage
concerns about procedural safeguards in
78 In such a case, USCIS would either (1) revoke
the approval automatically, (2) send a notice of
intent to revoke the approval, or (3) reopen the
approved case and deny it. See, e.g., 8 CFR
103.5(a)(5) (motion by Service officer); 205.1(a)(2)
(automatic revocation of immigrant petitions); 205.2
(revocation on notice); 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A)(5),
(l)(9)(iii)(A)(5), (o)(8)(iii)(A)(5), (p)(10)(iii)(A)(5),
(q)(9)(iii)(D) & (r)(18)(iii)(A)(5); 274a.14(b)
(revocation for erroneous approval); see also, e.g.,
6 U.S.C. 112; INA secs. 103, 204, 205, 214, 216,
216A, 244, 274A, and 286; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1154,
1155, 1184, 1186a, 1186b, 1254a, 1324a, and 1356.
79 DHS considers an NOIR process to provide
superior notice to requestors, as compared to the
automatic revocation provision in previous 8 CFR
103.2(a)(7)(ii).

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

such a situation, USCIS has decided to
provide a notice in advance of the
revocation in response to public
comments that stated that a mistake by
USCIS or a contractor could result in a
dishonored payment. The applicant,
petitioner or requestor may not,
however, pay the rejected fee in
response to the NOIR.
DHS emphasizes that this provision
applies if any fee submitted with a
benefit request is returned as
dishonored. If a benefit request requires
multiple fees, all fee instruments
submitted with the request must be
honored by the remitting bank; if any
one fee instrument is dishonored after
approval of the request, USCIS will
revoke the approval after notice and will
retain any filing fees properly paid. For
instance, for the past five fiscal years, an
average of 231 petitions per year were
submitted with a Request for Premium
Processing Service, Form I–907,
accompanied by a check that was
dishonored by the remitting bank. If a
benefit approved under these
circumstances is not revoked,
petitioners would have the perverse
incentive to request premium
processing services in order to receive a
swift approval, knowing they would not
suffer any consequences once the bank
dishonors the payment submitted for
premium processing.80 If the bank
dishonors the Form I–907 payment after
USCIS has approved the benefit request
underlying the Form I–907, USCIS may
revoke the approval after notice and, in
that event, would retain the filing fees
for the underlying benefit.81
In short, USCIS is fee funded and it
must be able to adjudicate requests,
including those which it has committed
to approve in an expedited manner,
without concerns that the fee payment
will be declined. Accordingly, under
this final rule, USCIS will intake the
benefit request, deposit the fee, and
begin processing the filing. If the
payment is rejected, Treasury will represent the payment instrument on
USCIS’s behalf. If the payment is
rejected on the second try, Treasury will
notify USCIS and USCIS, solely under
80 Currently, in the case of a request for premium
processing, if the Form I–907 check is returned for
insufficient funds, USCIS will process the case as
a regular submission and will not revoke the
approval even if the Form I–907 check is never
honored. Unless DHS can also revoke the
underlying petition, some premium processing
requesters will benefit from a swift adjudication for
which they have not paid.
81 Just as USCIS does not refund filing fees for a
denied benefit, USCIS will not refund filing fees for
a revoked benefit. After USCIS has fully adjudicated
the request, it will have performed the same amount
of work and expended the same resources for the
adjudication that it would have expended if the
case had been approved or denied.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
its own authority, will reject the filing
for fee non-payment. If the filing has
been approved, USCIS will initiate
revocation of the approval. See id. The
elimination of the 14-day waiting period
will reduce the need for special
handling of cases involving a
dishonored payment. The requirement
to re-present rejected payments will
address commenters’ concerns about
rejections that occur through no fault of
the filer. And the requirement to revoke
an approved request if the payment has
ultimately been rejected will help
ensure the integrity of the benefits
adjudication system.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

J. Refunds
In the NPRM, DHS proposed a minor
change in the provision regarding
USCIS fee refunds. See proposed 8 CFR
103.2(a)(1); 81 FR 26936. In general, and
except for a premium processing fee
under 8 CFR 103.7(e)(2)(i), USCIS does
not refund a fee regardless of the
decision on the immigration benefit.
However, USCIS will refund a fee if the
agency determines that an
administrative error occurred resulting
in the incorrect collection of a fee. See
81 FR 26920–26921. DHS proposed to
revise 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1) to provide that
fees are ‘‘generally’’ not refunded. This
would address concerns that the current
regulatory text does not explicitly
permit refunds at DHS discretion. DHS
currently grants such refunds because as
electronic filings and associated
electronic payments have increased,
there has been an increase in the
number of erroneous payments where
refunds are appropriate.
Some commenters stated that they
supported the regulatory change to
clarify that USCIS does not generally
allow refunds, but that a refund may
occur as a result of administrative error
or unnecessary payment. See 81 FR
26936. DHS has made no change based
on these comments. DHS is finalizing
this provision as proposed.
K. Visa Allocation
Some commenters wrote that they
generally opposed the fee increases in
the proposed rule due to long waits for
immigrant visas. Although these long
waits are due to visa retrogression in
oversubscribed categories, some
attributed it to USCIS processing
inefficiencies and questioned a fee hike
in the face of such delays.82 Some
commenters stated that USCIS should
82 Visa retrogression occurs when more people
apply for a visa in a particular category or country
than there are visas available for that month https://
www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processesand-procedures/visa-availability-priority-dates/
visa-retrogression.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

be able to move visa priority dates
forward if fee increases are
implemented.
Significant improvements have been
made in the visa coordination process
between DHS and the Department of
State (DOS). In September 2015, DOS, in
coordination with DHS, revised the
procedures for determining immigrant
visa availability and authorization for
issuance for both employment-based
and family-sponsored applicants for
adjustment of status in the United
States. See Department of State Visa
Bulletin for October 2015.83 These
revisions were made to better align with
DOS’ immigrant visa overseas consular
processing application procedures and
to enhance DOS’ ability to better predict
overall immigrant visa demand and
determine cut-off dates for visa issuance
published in the Visa Bulletin. Id.
DHS appreciates the concerns raised
by individuals who may have been
affected by long visa waits and visa
retrogression. However, requests to
make further revisions to the visa
allocation process and priority dates
must be done in coordination with DOS
and are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
L. Credit Card Payments
Finally, some commenters criticized
USCIS for not allowing credit card
payments for additional immigration
benefit requests. USCIS accepts credit
card payments made in person at all
domestic field offices that accept
payments.84 USCIS began allowing
credit card payments for paper-filed
Applications for Naturalization, Forms
N–400, on September 19, 2015.85
Currently, this is the only immigration
benefit that can be paid for with a credit
card when filed by mail. USCIS also
accepts credit card payments for
immigration benefit requests made
through the electronic immigration
system. DHS made no changes in this
final rule as a result of these comments.
Nonetheless, in the future, USCIS will
allow credit cards payments for all
immigration benefit request fees when
they are filed at a Lockbox facility as
83 Available at https://travel.state.gov/content/
visas/en/law-and-policy/bulletin/2016/visabulletin-for-october-2015.html.
84 See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Paying Immigration Fees (7/7/2014), available at
https://www.uscis.gov/forms/paying-immigrationfees.
85 See USCIS to Welcome More Than 36,000
Citizens During Annual Constitution Day and
Citizenship Day Celebrations (9/17/2015), available
at https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/usciswelcome-more-36000-citizens-during-annualconstitution-day-and-citizenship-day-celebrations.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73315

soon as this capability can be made
available.
V. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act—Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601(6),
DHS examined the impact of this rule
on small entities. A small entity may be
a small business (defined as any
independently owned and operated
business not dominant in its field that
qualifies as a small business per the
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632), a
small not-for-profit organization, or a
small governmental jurisdiction
(locality with fewer than 50,000 people).
Below is a summary of the small entity
analysis. A more detailed analysis is
available in the rulemaking docket at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Individuals rather than entities
submit the majority of immigration and
naturalization benefit applications and
petitions. Entities that will be affected
by this rule are those that file and pay
the fees for certain immigration benefit
applications and petitions. There are
four categories of benefits that DHS
analyzed in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this rule:
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
Form I–129; Immigrant Petition for an
Alien Worker, Form I–140; Application
for Civil Surgeon Designation, Form I–
910; and the Application for Regional
Center Designation Under the Immigrant
Investor Program, Form I–924.86
Additionally, DHS has analyzed as part
of the following Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) requests
related to genealogy information, Forms
G–1041 and G–1041A, and the Petition
for Amerasian Widow(er) or Special
Immigrant, Form I–360, in response to
public comment on the impact to small
entities that file these forms.
Following the review of available
data, DHS does not believe that the
increase in fees in this final rule will
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
that are filing Form I–129, Form I–140,
or Form I–910. However, DHS does not
have sufficient data on the revenue
collected through administrative fees by
regional centers to definitively
determine the economic impact on
small entities that may file Form I–924.
DHS also does not have sufficient data
on the requestors that file genealogy
forms to determine whether such filings
were made by entities or individuals,
86 Also captured in the dataset for Form I–924 is
the Supplement Form I–924A, which regional
centers must file annually to certify their continued
eligibility for regional center designation.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73316

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

and thus is unable to determine if the
fee increase for genealogy searches is
likely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Finally, DHS has added in this
FRFA an analysis of the effects on small
entities from the fee increase for Form
I–360 and does not believe that the
increase in fees will have a significant
economic impact on these small
entities. DHS is publishing this FRFA to
respond to public comments, and
provide further information on the
likely impact of this rule on small
entities.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

1. A Statement of the Need for, and
Objectives of, the Rule
DHS issues this final rule consistent
with INA section 286(m),87 which
authorizes DHS to charge fees for
adjudication and naturalization services
at a level to ‘‘ensure recovery of the full
costs of providing all such services,
including the costs of similar services
provided without charge to asylum
applicants or other immigrants,’’ and
the CFO Act,88 which requires each
agency’s CFO to review, on a biennial
basis, the fees imposed by the agency for
services it provides, and to recommend
changes to the agency’s fees. DHS is
adjusting the fee schedule for DHS
immigration and naturalization benefit
applications after conducting a
comprehensive fee review for the FY
2016/2017 biennial period and
determining that current fees do not
recover the full costs of services
provided. DHS has determined that
adjusting the fee schedule is necessary
to fully recover costs and maintain
adequate service.
2. A Statement of the Significant Issues
Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, A Statement of the
Assessment of the Agency of Such
Issues, and A Statement of Any Changes
Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result
of Such Comments
DHS published the NPRM along with
the IRFA on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26903)
with the comment period ending July 6,
2016. During the 60-day comment
period, DHS received 475 comments
from interested individuals and
organizations. DHS received several
comments that directly or indirectly
referred to aspects of the small entity
analysis or IRFA presented with the
87 See
88 See

8 U.S.C. 1356(m).
31 U.S.C. 901–03.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

NPRM. The comments, however, did
not result in any major revisions to the
small entity analysis in this final rule
that are relevant to the effects on small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions
presented in this FRFA. DHS
summarizes and responds to these
comments in this Final Rule.
a. Comments on Form I–129
One commenter wrote about the 42percent increase ($135) of the fee for the
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
Form I–129. The commenter explained
that such a significant increase in visa
fees for H–2A category visas for
temporary agricultural workers will
negatively affect the ability of both large
and small farmers to use those visas to
ensure a sufficient and stable work
force. Form I–129, which is used to
petition for H–2A workers, is often used
by a large and an increasing portion of
small business employers according to
this commenter. The commenter
discussed the impact this 42-percent
increase has on an employer hiring only
one employee compared to an employer
hiring 100 employees. This commenter
was especially concerned with the
impact of this rule on smaller farmers,
many of whom petition for 1 to 5
workers, but whose farming operations
could not continue without these
workers. This commenter also stated
that the impact of the rule on small
entities was not quantitatively
considered and/or disclosed.
Several other commenters wrote about
the fee increase for Form I–129 and its
impact on small entities in terms of
small traveling musicians that cross
over the border, particularly those along
the United States and Canadian border.
The commenters stated that these
musicians routinely perform in small
venues or small festivals and it
currently takes about 3 separate
performances to recoup the expenses of
the current fee for Form I–129. The
commenters stated that this increase in
fees presents considerable hardship for
these small performers and also
compromises the ability to organize
small tours that would result in breakeven revenues.
Other commenters also wrote about
the increase for Form I–129 and its
impact on small religious orders and
communities who petition for foreignborn religious workers. The commenters
stated that this increase is particularly
burdensome since extensions have to

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

continually be filed for work
authorizations as well. They noted that
these added costs impact smaller
parishes and lower-income
neighborhoods disproportionately. In
addition to the fee increases for Form I–
129, these commenters also expressed
similar concern for Forms I–360 and I–
485.
DHS respectfully disagrees with the
commenter who stated that the impact
of the rule on small entities was not
quantitatively considered and/or
disclosed. DHS used recent data to
examine the direct impacts to small
entities for Forms I–129, I–140, I–910,
and I–924. DHS prepared an IRFA that
complied with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) and that was
published with the NPRM. DHS also
published a more comprehensive small
entity analysis of the potential impact of
the Form I–129 fee increase on
www.regulations.gov in the docket for
this rule along with other supporting
documentation. DHS has also added an
analysis of Forms G–1041, G–1041A,
and I–360 in this FRFA in response to
public comments.
In terms of the range for Form I–129,
among the 284 small entities with
reported revenue data identified in the
small entity analysis, all experienced an
economic impact of considerably less
than 1.0 percent of revenue in the
analysis, with the exception of two
entities. Using the methodology
described in the comprehensive small
entity analysis, the greatest economic
impact imposed by this fee change
totaled 2.55 percent. This small entity
with the highest economic impact
imposed by the fee increase is in the
theater companies and dinner theaters
industry, which submitted 18 of the
total 482,190 Form I–129 petitions in
the 12-month period analyzed. The
small entity with the second highest
economic impact (2.05 percent)
imposed by the fee increase is in the
custom computer programming services
industry, which submitted 50 of the
total 482,190 Form I–129 petitions. DHS
notes that out of the 10 small entities
that face the highest economic impact
due to this fee increase, a majority are
in industries that are not related to
musicians, farmers, or religious
organizations. Table 2 shows the
industry in which these top 10 impacted
small entities belong, as well as the
number of petitions submitted by each
entity.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

73317

TABLE 2—FORM I–129 NAICS INDUSTRY OF THE SMALL ENTITIES WITH THE HIGHEST ECONOMIC IMPACT IMPOSED BY
THE FEE INCREASE *

Number of
petitions
submitted

NAICS Industry

Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters ...............................................................................................................
Custom Computer Programming Services ..............................................................................................................
All Other Business Support Services ......................................................................................................................
Dance Companies ...................................................................................................................................................
Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services ...............................................................................................
Computer Systems Design Services .......................................................................................................................
All Other Business Support Services ......................................................................................................................
Custom Computer Programming Services ..............................................................................................................
All Other Business Support Services ......................................................................................................................
All Other Business Support Services ......................................................................................................................

18
50
2
4
7
2
1
3
2
2

Economic
impact on
entity’s
revenue imposed by fee
increase
(percent)
2.55
2.05
0.90
0.90
0.53
0.46
0.45
0.37
0.34
0.34

Source: DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality.
* North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

DHS also analyzed the 284 small
entities with reported revenue data in
our sample of Form I–129 petitions to
see how many small entities were
specifically in NAICS codes related to
musicians, farmers, or religious
organizations. Of these small entities, a
total of 26 small entities were found in
one of these related NAICS, 3 of the
small entities were in the agricultural
industry; 8 small entities were in the
performing arts, spectator sports, and
related industries; and 15 small entities
were religious organizations. Looking
only at this subset of 26 entities, only
one small entity had an economic
impact above 1 percent with one other
small entity just under 1 percent, both
of which were in the performing arts
industries. The 24 other small entities in
these categories had economic impacts
that were well below 1 percent. Twelve
of these small entities had an economic
impact between 0.34 percent and 0.10
percent, while the remaining 12 small
entities had economic impacts below
0.10 percent. Therefore, while DHS
sympathizes with small farmers, small
traveling musicians, and small religious

entities, the evidence suggests that the
additional fee imposed by this rule does
not represent a significant economic
impact on most of these types of
entities.
b. Comments on Forms I–360 and I–485
DHS also received comments about
the impact of this rule on small religious
organizations who file on behalf of
religious workers utilizing Forms I–485
and I–360. Form I–485, Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust
Status, was not considered in this small
entity analysis because it is submitted
by individuals seeking to receive
benefits, not entities. DHS selected
forms that are filed by entities for the
small entity analysis in the NPRM. DHS
recognizes, however, that entities may
also file the Petition for Amerasian,
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, Form
I–360, on behalf of a religious worker
and acknowledges it is appropriate to
include Form I–360 in the small entity
analysis for the final rule.
The fee for Form I–360 will increase
from $405 to $435, a $30 (7 percent)
increase. DHS was able to obtain

internal data on petitioners who file
Form I–360 for Special Immigrant
Religious Workers provided by the
Office of Performance and Quality for
this final rule. There were a total of
4,399 religious foreign worker Form I–
360 petitions submitted in FY 2015 by
1,890 unique entities. Of these 1,890
unique entities, approximately 96
percent were churches, mosques,
synagogues, temples, or other places of
worship. Due to the overwhelming
number of entities that were places of
worship and therefore, likely designated
as non-profit organizations, DHS
assumed that all 1,890 entities are small.
Of the unique entities, about 51
percent of entities had submitted just
one petition in the FY 2015 (Table 3).
Over 83 percent submitted only one or
two petitions. At the other end of scale,
only about half a percent of entities
submitted more than 20 petitions. An
average of 2.4 petitions per entity was
submitted in FY 2015. Based on a $30
increase in fees per petition for Form I–
360, the average additional cost to these
entities is $72.89

TABLE 3—FORM I–360 PETITIONS PER ENTITY

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Petitions per entity

Percentage of
total
(percent)

Entities

1 ...................................................................................................................................................
2 ...................................................................................................................................................
3 ...................................................................................................................................................
4 ...................................................................................................................................................
5 ...................................................................................................................................................
6 to 10 ..........................................................................................................................................
11 to 20 ........................................................................................................................................
21 to 50 ........................................................................................................................................

959
617
91
78
21
87
30
5

89 Calculation: 2.4 average petitions per entity ×
$30 increase in fees = $72 average additional cost
to entities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

50.7
32.6
4.8
4.1
1.1
4.6
1.6
0.3

Cumulative
percentage
(percent)
50.7
83.3
88.2
92.3
93.4
98.0
99.6
99.9

73318

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—FORM I–360 PETITIONS PER ENTITY—Continued
Petitions per entity

Percentage of
total
(percent)

Entities

51+ ...............................................................................................................................................

2

0.1

Total ......................................................................................................................................

1,890

100.0

Cumulative
percentage
(percent)
100.0

Source: DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality.

DHS also analyzed the costs imposed
by this rule on the petitioning entities
relative to the costs of the typical
employee’s salary. Guidelines suggested
by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) Office of Advocacy indicate that
the impact of a rule could be significant
if the cost of the regulation exceeds 5
percent of the labor costs of the entities
in the sector.90 According to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS), the mean
annual salary is $48,150 for clergy,91
$45,160 for directors of religious
activities and education,92 and $35,160
for all other religious workers.93 Based
on an average of 2.4 religious workers
petitioned-for per entity, the additional
average annual cost will be $72 per
entity.94 Thus, the additional costs per
entity imposed by this rule represent
only 0.15 percent of the average salary
for clergy, 0.16 percent of the average
salary for directors of religious of
activities and education, and 0.20
percent of the average salary for all
other religious workers. Therefore, using
average annual labor cost guidelines, the

additional regulatory compliance costs
imposed by this rule are not significant.
c. Comments on Forms G–1041 and G–
1041A
Several commenters also expressed
concern about the impact the proposed
increase in fees related to genealogy
searches would have on individual
businesses. The commenters stated that
such large increases in fees would be
prohibitive to many individual
genealogists that submit requests. Some
commenters suggested that the fee
increase should be phased-in over
several years to help mitigate the impact
of this total cost increase.
DHS appreciates the comments on the
impact this fee increase will have on the
individual businesses who request
information from the genealogy
program. The fee for Genealogy Index
Search Request, Form G–1041, will
increase from $20 to $65 (a 225 percent
increase). The fee for Genealogy Index
Search Request, Form G–1041, will
increase from $20 to $65 (a 225 percent
increase). Currently there are two fees
for the Genealogy Records Request,

Form G–1041A; the appropriate fee
depends on whether the filing requests
copies from microfilm (currently $20) or
copies from textual records (currently
$35). The new fee for Form G–1041A
will increase to $65, regardless of the
type of media involved. This represents
a fee increase of 86 to 225 percent over
current fee levels.
Based on DHS records related to the
genealogy program, an average of 4,022
Index Search requests and 2,166
Records requests were made annually
over the 4 calendar year span from 2012
to 2015 (Table 4). However, DHS does
not have sufficient data on these
requests to determine whether they
were submitted by entities or
individuals. Additionally, DHS cannot
break out how many Genealogy Records
Requests are copies from microfilm or
from textual records. The case
management tracking system used by
DHS for these genealogy requests does
not allow for requestor data to be readily
pulled, nor does it allow for a break out
in the Form G–1041A requests by record
type.

TABLE 4—GENEALOGY FORM RECEIPTS
[Calendar Year]
Form Type

2012

Genealogy Index Search Request, Form G–1041 ..............
Genealogy Records Request, Form G–1041A ....................

2013
3361
2066

2014
3662
2219

2015
4167
2036

Average
4897
2344

4022
2166

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Source: DHS, USCIS, Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate.

DHS has previously determined that
requests for historical records are
usually made by individuals.95 If
professional genealogists and
researchers submitted such requests in
the past, they did not identify
themselves as commercial requesters
and thus could not be segregated in the
data. Genealogists typically advise

clients on how to submit their own
requests. For those that submit requests
on behalf of clients, DHS does not know
the extent to which they can pass along
the fee increases to their individual
clients. Therefore, DHS does not
currently have sufficient data to
definitively assess the impact on small
entities for these requests.

DHS has decided to recover the full
cost of the genealogy program from the
genealogy program fees. As previously
stated in this final rule, reducing the
filing fee for any one benefit request
submitted to DHS simply transfers the
additional cost to process this request to
other immigration and naturalization
filing fees. Furthermore, DHS is not able

90 Office of Advocacy, Small Business
Administration, ‘‘A Guide for Government
Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/
files/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.
91 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May
2015, ‘‘Clergy’’: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes212011.htm.

92 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May
2015, ‘‘Directors of Religious Activities and
Education’’: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes212021.htm.
93 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May
2015, ‘‘Religious Workers, All Other’’: http://
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes212099.htm.

94 Calculation: 2.4 average petitions per entity ×
$30 new petition fee = $72 additional total cost per
entity.
95 See ‘‘Establishment of a Genealogy Program;
Proposed Rule,’’ 8 CFR 103, 299 (Apr. 20, 2006),
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document
?D=USCIS-2006-0013-0001.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to accommodate a phased-in approach
of costs over several years due to the
statutory guidelines on how DHS is able
to increase its fees.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

d. Comments on Form I–924A
One commenter indicated that fees for
the new Form I–924A would create
particular burdens on regional centers
with less than 30 investors. The new fee
for the annual filings of Supplement
Form I–924A is $3,035.
As discussed in the small entity
analysis of this final rule, while DHS
cannot definitively claim that there is
no significant economic impact to these
small entities based on existing
information at the time of this final rule,
DHS would assume existing regional
centers that have revenues equal to or
less than $303,500 per year 96 (some of
which DHS assumes would be derived
from administrative fees charged to
individual investors) could experience a
significant economic impact if DHS
assumes a fee increase that represents 1
percent of annual revenue is a
‘‘significant’’ economic burden under
the RFA. DHS also assumes newly
designated regional centers that have
revenues equal to or less than
$1,779,500 per year 97 could also
experience a significant impact.
Searching through several public Web
sites, DHS gathers that administrative
fees charged to investors could range
between $30,000 and $100,000 per
investor.98 DHS was able to obtain some
sample data on 440 regional centers
operating 5,886 projects. These 5,886
projects had a total of 54,506 investors,
averaging 124 investors per regional
center.99 Assuming an average of 124
investors is a representative proxy for
regional centers, and that $30,000 is the
minimum administrative fee charged by
regional centers, then such fees would
represent approximately $3,720,000 in
revenue. In that case, DHS expects that
the proposed filing fee increase for Form
I–924 and the creation of a new fee for
Form I–924A would not cause a
significant economic impact to these
entities.
DHS does not currently have
information on how many regional
96 Calculation: 1 percent of $303,500 = $3,035 (the
new proposed fee for Form I–924A).
97 Calculation: 1 percent of $1,779,500 = $17,995
(the new proposed fee for Form I–924).
98 Yen, Christine et al., ‘‘A Report on Source of
Funds: Perils of the Administrative Fee.’’ EB5
Investors Magazine (Aug. 20, 2015), available at:
http://www.eb5investors.com/magazine/article/AReport-on-Source-of-Funds; see also Green, Merritt.
‘‘The Costs of an EB–5 Regional Center Project
Investment.’’ (June 27, 2014), available at: http://
www.generalcounsellaw.com/the-cost-of-an-eb-5regional-center-project-investment/.
99 Department of Homeland Security, USCIS,
Immigrant Investor Program Office.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

centers may have 30 or fewer investors.
However, DHS expects that the fee for
the annual filing of Form I–924A is
greater than 1 percent of annual revenue
for only those regional centers with 10
or fewer investors.100 Regional centers
with 11 or more investors are not likely
to experience a significant economic
impact due to this rule. While DHS
cannot definitively state the number of
regional centers that have fewer than 10
investors, we do not believe it is a
substantial number of regional centers.
3. The Response of the Agency to Any
Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in Response to the
Proposed Rule, and a Detailed
Statement of Any Change Made to the
Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a
Result of the Comments
No comments were filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of SBA.
4. A Description of and an Estimate of
the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation
of Why No Such Estimate is Available
Entities affected by this final rule are
those that file and pay fees for certain
immigration benefit applications and
petitions on behalf of a foreign national.
These applications include Petition for
Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I–129;
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker,
Form I–140; Civil Surgeon Designation,
Form I–910; Application for Regional
Center Designation Under the Immigrant
Investor Program, Form I–924; and
Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or
Special Immigrant, Form I–360. Annual
numeric estimates of small entities
affected by this fee increase total (in
parentheses): Form I–129 (70,211), Form
I–140 (17,812), Form I–910 (589), Form
I–924 (412), and Form I–360 (1,890).
This rule applies to small entities
including businesses, not-for-profit
organizations, and governmental
jurisdictions filing for the above
benefits. Form I–129 and Form I–140
will see a number of industry clusters
affected by this rule (see Appendix A of
the Small Entity Analysis for a list of
affected industry codes). Of the total 444
small entities in the sample for Form I–
129, most entities were small businesses
(401), with 41 small not-for-profit
entities and only 2 small governmental
jurisdictions. Similarly, of the total 393
small entities in the sample for Form I–
140, most entities were small businesses
(364), with 26 small not-for-profit
entities and 3 small governmental
jurisdictions. The fee for the
100 Assuming $30,000 administrative fee × 10
investors = $300,000 regional center revenue.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73319

Application for Civil Surgeon
Designation, Form I–910, will apply to
physicians requesting such designation.
There were 322 small entities in the
sample for Form I–910, consisting of
two small governmental jurisdictions
and 320 small entities that were either
small businesses or small not-for-profits.
DHS was unable to further break down
the composition of small entities
between small businesses and small notfor-profits due to difficulties in
determining the structure of these small
entities. The Form I–924 will apply to
any entity requesting approval and
designation as a regional center under
the Immigrant Investor Program or filing
an amendment to an approved regional
center application. Also captured in the
dataset for Form I–924 is the
Supplement Form I–924A, which
regional centers must file annually to
certify their continued eligibility for
regional center designation. The Form I–
360 will apply to any entity petitioning
on behalf of a religious worker.
DHS does not have sufficient data on
the requestors for the genealogy forms,
Forms G–1041 and G–1041A, to
determine if entities or individuals
submitted these requests. DHS has
previously determined that requests for
historical records are usually made by
individuals.101 If professional
genealogists and researchers submitted
such requests in the past, they did not
identify themselves as commercial
requesters and thus could not be
segregated in the data. Genealogists
typically advise clients on how to
submit their own requests. For those
that submit requests on behalf of clients,
DHS does not know the extent to which
they can pass along the fee increases to
their individual clients. Therefore, DHS
does not currently have sufficient data
to definitively assess the estimate of
small entities for these requests.
a. Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
Form I–129
The fee for the Petition for a
Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I–129, will
increase from $325 to $460, a $135 (42
percent) increase. DHS used a 12-month
period of data on filings of Form I–129
from September 1, 2014 to August 31,
2015, to collect internal data for each
filing organization including the name,
Employer Identification Number, city,
state, ZIP Code, and number/type of
filings. Each entity may make multiple
filings; for instance, there were 482,190
Form I–129 petitions, but only 84,490
101 See ‘‘Establishment of a Genealogy Program;
Proposed Rule,’’ 8 CFR 103, 299 (Apr. 20, 2006),
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document
?D=USCIS-2006-0013-0001.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

73320

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

unique entities that filed those petitions.
Since the filing statistics do not contain
information such as the revenue of the
business, DHS looked for this
information by researching databases
from third-party sources. DHS used the
subscription-based online database from
Hoover’s, as well as three open-access
databases from Manta, Cortera, and
Guidestar, to help determine an
organization’s small entity status and
apply SBA size standards.
DHS devised a methodology to
conduct the small entity analysis based
on a representative sample of the
affected population for each form. To
achieve a 95 percent confidence level
and a 5 percent confidence interval on
a population of 84,490 unique entities
for Form I–129, DHS used the standard
statistical formula to determine a
minimum sample size of 382 entities
was necessary. Based on past
experience, DHS expected to find about
40 to 50 percent of the filing
organizations in the online subscription
and public databases. Accordingly, DHS
selected a sample size approximately 40
percent larger than the minimum
necessary in order to allow for nonmatches (filing organizations that could
not be found in any of the four
databases). Therefore, DHS conducted
searches on 534 randomly selected
entities from the population of 84,490
unique entities for Form I–129.
The 534 searches for Form I–129
resulted in 444 small entities, 287 of
which were determined to be small
entities based on their reported revenue
or employee count and their NAICS
code. Combining non-matches (130),
matches missing data (27), and small
entity matches (287), enables us to
classify 444 of the 534 entities as small
for Form I–129.
With an aggregated total of 444 out of
a sample size of 534 entities searched,
DHS inferred that a majority, or 83.1
percent, of the entities filing Form I–129
petitions during the period were small
entities. Furthermore, 284 of the 534
entities searched were small entities
with the sales revenue data needed to
estimate the economic impact of the
rule. Because these 284 small entities
were a subset of the random sample of
534 searches, they were statistically
significant in the context of this
research. In order to calculate the
economic impact of this rule, DHS
estimated the total costs associated with
the fee increase annually for each entity,
divided by the annual sales revenue of
that entity.102 Based on the fee increase
of $135 for Form I–129, this will amount
102 Total Cost to Entity = (Number of Petitions ×
$135)/Entity Sales Revenue.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

to an average impact of 0.08 percent on
all 284 small entities with reported
revenue data.
In terms of range, among the 284
small entities with reported revenue
data, all experienced an economic
impact of considerably less than 1.0
percent in the analysis, with the
exception of two entities. Using the
above methodology, the greatest
economic impact imposed by this fee
change totaled 2.55 percent and the
smallest totaled 0.0001 percent.
The evidence suggests that the
additional fee imposed by this rule does
not represent a significant economic
impact on these entities.
b. Immigrant Petition for an Alien
Worker, Form I–140
The fee for the Immigrant Petition for
an Alien Worker, Form I–140, will
increase from $580 to $700, a $120 (21
percent) increase. Using a 12-month
period of data on filings of Form I–140
petitions from September 1, 2014 to
August 31, 2015, DHS collected internal
data similar to that of Form I–129. There
were 101,245 Form I–140 petitions, but
only 23,284 unique entities that filed
those petitions. Again, DHS used the
third party sources of data mentioned
previously to search for revenue and
employee count information.
DHS used the same methodology as
with Form I–129 to conduct the small
entity analysis based on a representative
sample of the affected population. To
achieve a 95 percent confidence level
and a 5 percent confidence interval on
a population of 23,284 unique entities
for Form I–140, DHS used the standard
statistical formula to determine that a
minimum sample size of 378 entities
was necessary. Again, based on past
experience, DHS expected to find about
40 to 50 percent of the filing
organizations in the online subscription
and public databases. Accordingly, DHS
oversampled in order to allow for nonmatches (filing organizations that could
not be found in any of the four
databases).
DHS conducted searches on 514
randomly selected entities from the
population of 23,284 unique entities for
Form I–140. The 514 searches resulted
in 430 instances where the name of the
filing organization was successfully
matched in the databases and 84
instances where the name of the filing
organization was not found in the
databases. Based on previous experience
conducting regulatory flexibility
analyses, DHS assumes filing
organizations not found in the online
databases are likely to be small entities.
In order not to underestimate the
number of small entities affected by this

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

rule, DHS makes the conservative
assumption to consider all of the nonmatched entities as small entities for the
purpose of this analysis. Among the 430
matches for Form I–140, 290 were
determined to be small entities based on
their reported revenue or employee
count and their NAICS code. Combining
non-matches (84), matches missing data
(19), and small entity matches (290),
enables us to classify 393 of 514 entities
as small for Form I–140.
With an aggregated total of 393 out of
a sample size of 514 entities searched,
DHS inferred that a majority, or 76.5
percent, of the entities filing Form I–140
petitions during the period were small
entities. Furthermore, 287 of the 514
entities searched were small entities
with the sales revenue data needed to
estimate the economic impact of the
rule. Because these 287 small entities
were a subset of the random sample of
514 searches, they were statistically
significant in the context of this
research. Similar to the analysis
involving Form I–129, DHS estimated
the total costs associated with the Form
I–140 fee increase annually for each
entity, divided by the annual sales
revenue of that entity in order to
calculate the economic impact of this
rule.
Among the 287 small entities with
reported revenue data, all experienced
an economic impact considerably less
than 1.0 percent in the analysis. Using
the above methodology, the greatest
economic impact imposed by this fee
change totaled 0.68 percent and the
smallest totaled 0.000002 percent. The
average impact on all 287 small entities
with revenue data was 0.04 percent. The
evidence suggests that the additional fee
imposed by this rule does not represent
a significant economic impact on these
entities.
Additionally, DHS analyzed any
cumulative impacts to small entities
resulting from the fee increases to both
Forms I–129 and I–140. DHS isolated
those entities that overlapped in both
samples of Forms I–129 and I–140 by
Employer Identification Number (EIN).
Only three entities had EINs that
overlapped in both samples. Of these
three entities, two of them were small
entities and one was not a small entity.
Only one entity submitted multiple
Form I–129 petitions, while all three
entities submitted multiple Form I–140
petitions. Due to little overlap in entities
in the samples and the relatively minor
impacts on revenue of fee increases of
Forms I–129 and I–140, DHS does not
expect the combined impact of these
two forms to be an economically
significant burden on a substantial
number of small entities.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

c. Application for Civil Surgeon
Designation, Form I–910
The fee for the Application for Civil
Surgeon Designation, Form I–910, will
increase from $615 to $785, a $170 (28
percent) increase. Using a 12-month
period of August 1, 2014 to July 31,
2015, DHS collected internal data on
applicants of this form. There were 719
Form I–910 applications, but only 602
unique entities that filed such
applications. Again, DHS used third
party sources of data mentioned
previously to search for revenue and
employee count information.
Using the same methodology
employed with Forms I–129 and I–140,
DHS conducted the small entity analysis
based on a representative sample, with
a 95 percent confidence level and a 5
percent confidence interval, of the
population of 602 unique entities for
Form I–910. DHS determined that a
minimum sample size of 235 entities
was necessary. DHS oversampled and
conducted searches on 329 randomly
selected entities for Form I–910.
The 329 searches for Form I–910
resulted in 252 instances in which the
name of the filing organization was
successfully matched in the databases
and 77 instances in which the name of
the filing organization was not found in
the databases. DHS assumed again that
filing organizations not found in the
online databases are likely to be small
entities, so DHS considered all of the
non-matched entities as small entities
for the purpose of this analysis. Among
the 252 matches for Form I–910, 240
were determined to be small entities
based on their reported revenue or
employee count and their NAICS code.
Combining non-matches (77), matches
missing data (5), and small entity
matches (240), DHS classified 322 of
329 entities as small for Form I–910.
With an aggregated total of 322 out of
a sample size of 329 entities searched,
DHS inferred that a majority, or 97.9
percent, of the entities filing Form I–910
applications were small entities.
Furthermore, 238 of the 329 entities
searched were small entities with the
sales revenue data needed in order to
estimate the economic impact of the
rule. Because these 238 small entities
were a subset of the random sample of
329 searches, they were statistically
significant in the context of this
research.
Similar to the analysis involving
Forms I–129 and I–140, DHS estimated
the total costs associated with the Form
I–910 fee increase for each entity.
Among the 238 small entities with
reported revenue data, all experienced
an economic impact considerably less

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

than 1.0 percent in the analysis. The
greatest economic impact imposed by
this fee change totaled 0.61 percent and
the smallest totaled 0.00002 percent.
The average impact on all 238 small
entities with revenue data was 0.09
percent. The evidence suggests that the
additional fee imposed by this rule does
not represent a significant economic
impact on these entities.
d. Regional Center Designation Under
the Immigrant Investor Program, Forms
I–924 and I–924A
Congress created the EB–5 Program in
1990 under section 203(b)(5) of the INA
to stimulate the U.S. economy through
job creation and capital investment by
foreign investors. Foreign investors have
the opportunity to obtain LPR status in
the United States for themselves, their
spouses, and their minor unmarried
children through a certain level of
capital investment and associated job
creation or preservation. There are two
distinct EB–5 pathways for a foreign
investor to gain LPR status: The Basic
Program and the Regional Center
Program. Both options require a capital
investment from the foreign investor in
a new commercial enterprise located
within the United States. The capital
investment amount is generally set at
$1,000,000, but may be reduced to
$500,000 if the investment is made in a
‘‘Targeted Employment Area.’’
A regional center is an economic
entity, public or private, that promotes
economic growth, regional productivity,
job creation, and increased domestic
capital investment. Regional centers
pool funds into development loans or
equity for commercial and real estate
development projects. As of July 15,
2016, there were 847 DHS-approved
regional centers.103 Entities seeking
designation as regional centers file Form
I–924 along with supporting materials.
Approved regional centers are currently
required to file the Supplement to Form
I–924, Form I–924A, on an annual basis
to demonstrate continued eligibility for
regional center designation. DHS is
proposing to change the name of the
Form I–924A annual filing to ‘‘Annual
Certification of Regional Center.’’
DHS is increasing the fee for the
Application for Regional Center
Designation Under the Immigrant
Investor Program, Form I–924, from
$6,230 to $17,795, an $11,565 (186
percent) increase. Additionally, DHS
introduces a filing fee of $3,035 for
Form I–924A. In establishing this fee,
103 USCIS Immigrant Investor Regional Centers:
http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/
permanent-workers/employment-basedimmigration-fifth-preference-eb-5/immigrantinvestor-regional-centers#table.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73321

DHS is also clarifying the related
regulations that provide for the annual
regional center review related to Form
I–924A. Currently, there is no procedure
for regional centers seeking to withdraw
their designation and discontinue their
participation in the program. Formal
termination is currently processed by
DHS issuing a Notice of Intent to
Terminate and a subsequent termination
notice. The withdrawal procedure will
allow a regional center to proactively
request withdrawal without the need for
the more formal notices sent out by
DHS. This procedure will reduce
administrative costs and time for the
Department, while timely clarifying
status to the requesting regional center.
Over a 13-month period of August 1,
2014 through August 31, 2015, DHS
received a total of 412 Form I–924
applications.104 These applications
include the request for newly
designated regional centers, as well as
requests for continued designation for
existing regional centers.
DHS was not able to determine the
numbers of regional centers that are
considered small entities. Regional
centers are difficult to assess because
there is a lack of official data on
employment, income, and industry
classification for these entities. Regional
centers also pose a challenge for
analysis as their structure is often
complex and can involve many related
business and financial activities not
directly involved with EB–5 activities.
Regional centers can be made up of
several layers of business and financial
activities that focus on matching foreign
investor funds to development projects
to capture above market return
differentials. While DHS attempted to
treat the regional centers similar to the
other entities in this analysis, we were
not able to identify most of the entities
in any of the online databases.
Furthermore, while regional centers are
an integral component of the EB–5
program, DHS does not collect data on
the administrative fees the regional
centers charge to the foreign investors
who are investing in one of their
projects. DHS did not focus on the
bundled capital investment amounts
(either $1 million or $500,000 per
investor) that the regional center invests
into a new commercial enterprise. Such
investment amounts are not necessarily
indicative of whether the regional center
is appropriately characterized as a small
entity for purposes of the RFA.
Due to the lack of regional center
revenue data, DHS assumes regional
centers collect revenue through the
104 Supplemental Form I–924A (Supplement to
Form I–924) is captured in this dataset.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73322

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

administrative fees charged to investors.
Searching through several public Web
sites, DHS gathers that administrative
fees charged to investors could range
between $30,000 and $100,000 per
investor.105 DHS assumes
administrative fees charged to investors
are $30,000 per investor for the
purposes of this analysis. DHS does not
know the extent to which these regional
centers can pass along fee increases to
individual investors. Passing along the
costs from this rule could reduce or
eliminate the economic impacts to the
regional centers. While DHS cannot
definitively state there is no significant
economic impact to these small entities
based on existing information, DHS
assumes existing regional centers that
have revenues equal to or less than
$303,500 per year 106 (some of which we
assume will be derived from
administrative fees charged to
individual investors) could experience a
significant economic impact if we
assume a fee increase that represents 1
percent of annual revenue is a
‘‘significant’’ economic burden under
the RFA. DHS also assumes newly
designated regional centers that have
revenues equal to or less than
$1,779,500 per year 107 could also
experience a significant impact.
DHS was able to obtain some sample
data on 440 regional centers operating
5,886 projects. These 5,886 projects had
a total of 54,506 investors, averaging 124
investors per regional center.108
Assuming an average of 124 investors is
a representative proxy of the regional
centers, and that $30,000 is the
minimum administrative fee charged by
regional centers, then such fees will
represent approximately $3.7 million in
revenue. In that case, DHS expects that
the filing fee increase for Form I–924
and the creation of a new fee for Form
I–924A will not cause a significant
economic impact to these entities.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

e. Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or
Special Immigrant, Form I–360
As previously described in this
analysis, the fee for Form I–360 will
increase from $405 to $435, a $30 (7
105 See Yen, Christine et al., ‘‘A Report on Source
of Funds: Perils of the Administrative Fee.’’ EB5
Investors Magazine (Aug. 20, 2015), available at:
http://www.eb5investors.com/magazine/article/AReport-on-Source-of-Funds; see also Green, Merritt.
‘‘The Costs of an EB–5 Regional Center Project
Investment.’’ (June 27, 2014), available at: http://
www.generalcounsellaw.com/the-cost-of-an-eb-5regional-center-project-investment/.
106 Calculation: 1 percent of $303,500 = $3,035
(the new fee for Form I–924A).
107 Calculation: 1 percent of $1,779,500 = $17,995
(the new fee for Form I–924).
108 DHS, USCIS, Immigrant Investor Program
Office.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

percent) increase. DHS was able to
obtain internal data for FY 2015
showing 1,890 unique entities
submitted 4,399 Form I–360 petitions
for religious workers. Of these 1,890
unique entities, approximately 96
percent were churches, mosques,
synagogues, temples, or other places of
worship, and DHS thus chose to
consider all 1,890 entities to be small
entities. Most entities only submitted 1
or 2 petitions. As previously described,
DHS analysis showed that the costs per
entity imposed by this rule represent
only 0.15 percent of the average salary
for clergy; 0.16 percent of the average
salary for directors of religious of
activities and education, and 0.20
percent of the average salary for all
other religious workers. As all of these
are under the 5 percent average annual
labor cost SBA guidelines, DHS
determined that the additional
regulatory costs imposed by this rule are
not significant.
5. A Description of the Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule,
Including an Estimate of the Classes of
Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to
the Requirement and the Type of
Professional Skills Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
This final rule imposes higher fees for
filers of Forms I–129, I–140, I–910, I–
924, I–924A, and I–360. The new fee
structure, as it applies to the small
entities outlined above, results in the
following fees: Form I–129 ($460), Form
I–140 ($700), Form I–910 ($785), Form
I–924 ($17,795), Form I–924A ($3,035),
and Form I–360 ($435). This final rule
does not require any new professional
skills for reporting.
6. A Description of the Steps the Agency
Has Taken To Minimize the Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities
Consistent With the Stated Objectives of
Applicable Statutes, Including a
Statement of the Factual, Policy, and
Legal Reasons for Selecting the
Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule
and Why Each One of the Other
Significant Alternatives to the Rule
Considered by the Agency Which Affect
the Impact on Small Entities Was
Rejected
The INA provides for the collection of
fees at a level that will ensure recovery
of the full costs of providing
adjudication and naturalization
services, including services provided
without charge to asylum applicants
and certain other applicants. In
addition, DHS must fund the costs of
providing services without charge by
using a portion of the filing fees

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

collected for other immigration benefits.
Without an increase in fees, DHS will
not be able to maintain the level of
service for immigration and
naturalization benefits that it now
provides. DHS has considered the
alternative of maintaining fees at the
current level with reduced services and
increased processing times, but has
determined that this will not be in the
interest of applicants and petitioners.
Therefore, this alternative was rejected.
While most immigration benefit fees
apply to individuals, as described
previously, some also apply to small
entities. DHS seeks to minimize the
impact on all parties, but in particular
small entities. Another alternative to the
increased economic burden of the fee
adjustment is to maintain fees at their
current level for small entities. The
strength of this alternative is that it
assures that no additional fee-burden is
placed on small entities; however, small
entities will experience negative effects
due to the service reductions that will
result in the absence of the fee
adjustments in this final rule.
Without the fee adjustments provided
in this rule, significant operational
changes to DHS would be necessary.
Given current filing volume and other
economic considerations, DHS requires
additional revenue to prevent
immediate and significant cuts in
planned spending. These spending cuts
would include reductions in areas such
as Federal and contract staff,
infrastructure spending on information
technology and facilities, and training.
Depending on the actual level of
workload received, these operational
changes would result in longer
processing times, a degradation in
customer service, and reduced
efficiency over time. These cuts would
ultimately represent an increased cost to
small entities by causing delays in
benefit processing and reductions in
customer service.
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) requires certain actions
to be taken before an agency
promulgates any notice of rulemaking
‘‘that is likely to result in promulgation
of any rule that includes any Federal
mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year.109 While this rule may result
in the expenditure of more than $100
million by the private sector annually,
the rulemaking is not a ‘‘Federal
109 See

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

2 U.S.C. 1532(a).

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mandate’’ as defined for UMRA
purposes,110 as the payment of
immigration benefit fees by individuals
or other private sector entities is, to the
extent it could be termed an enforceable
duty, one that arises from participation
in a voluntary Federal program,
applying for immigration status in the
United States.111 Therefore, no actions
were deemed necessary under the
provisions of the UMRA.
C. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
This rulemaking is a major rule as
defined by section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of
1996. This rulemaking will result in an
annual effect on the economy of more
than $100 million (adjusted annually for
inflation) in order to generate the
revenue necessary to fully fund all
adjudication and naturalization
services. The increased costs will be
recovered through the fees charged for
various immigration benefit requests. As
small businesses may be impacted
under this regulation, DHS has prepared
a RFA analysis.
D. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act 112
requires rules to be submitted to
Congress before taking effect. DHS will
submit a report regarding the issuance
of this final rule before its effective date,
as required by 5 U.S.C. 801 to Congress
and the Comptroller General of the

United States. This rule is deemed a
major rule and will therefore have a 60day delayed effective date.
E. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(Regulatory Planning and Review)
1. Background and Purpose of the Final
Rule
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available alternatives, and if
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. This final
rule has been designated an
‘‘economically significant regulatory
action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
OMB has reviewed this final rule.
DHS projects an annual budget of
$3.038 billion in FY 2016/2017, a $767
million (34 percent) increase over the
FY 2010/FY 2011 fee review-adjusted
annual budget of $2.271 billion. This
final rule is estimated to provide DHS
with an average of $546 million in
annual fee revenue above the FY 2010/
FY 2011 levels, based on a projected
annual fee-paying volume of 4.9 million
immigrant benefit requests and 2.6

73323

million requests for biometric
services.113 DHS will use this increase
in revenue under subsections 286(m)
and (n) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) and
(n), to fund the full costs of processing
immigration benefit requests and
associated support benefits; the full cost
of providing similar benefits to asylum
and refugee applicants at no charge; and
the full cost of providing similar
benefits to others at no charge.
If DHS does not adjust the current fees
to recover the full costs of processing
immigration benefit requests, it will be
forced to make reductions in services
provided to applicants and petitioners.
These will reverse the considerable
progress DHS has made over the last
several years to reduce the backlogs of
immigration benefit filings, to increase
the integrity of the immigration benefit
system, and to protect national security
and public safety. The revenue increase
is based on DHS costs and volume
projections available at the time the rule
was drafted. DHS has placed in the
rulemaking docket a detailed analysis
that explains the basis for the annual fee
increase.
DHS has included an accounting
statement detailing the annualized
impacts of the rule in Table 5 below.
DHS makes a correction from the NPRM
by adding in the opportunity costs of
time for filing Form I–942 as discussed
later in this analysis. Thus, DHS notes
the higher cost in this final rule.

TABLE 5—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT, FY 2016 THROUGH FY 2017
Category

Primary estimate

Benefits:
Un-quantified Benefits .................................
Costs:
Quantified Costs ..........................................
Transfers:
Annualized Monetized Transfers at 3 percent.
Annualized Monetized Transfers at 7 percent.

Maintain current level of service with respect to processing times, customer service, and efficiency levels.
$717,724 ..........................................................

$717,724

546,429,650 .....................................................

546,429,650

546,429,650 .....................................................

546,429,650

Category

Effects

Source

Effects on State, local, and/or tribal governments.

For those state, local, and/or tribal governments that submit petitions for nonimmigrant and immigrant workers, they will
face an increase in filing fees.
For those small businesses that submit petitions for nonimmigrant and immigrant workers, they will face an increase in filing fees.

Final Rule, Executive Order 12866/13563
Analysis.

Effects on small businesses ...............................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Maximum estimate

110 See
111 See

2 U.S.C. 658(6).
2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A)(ii).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

112 See

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Final Rule, Executive Order 12866/13563
Analysis, Small Entity Analysis.

113 This estimate is based on FY 2016/FY 2017 fee
study volume projections.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73324

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

2. Amendments and Impacts of
Regulatory Change
This rule is intended to adjust current
fees to ensure that DHS is able to
recover the full costs of the immigration
services it provides and maintain
adequate service.114 In addition to
increasing fees, this final rule includes
the following provisions: Provisions that
DHS will reject an immigration benefit
request paid with a dishonored check;
provisions that DHS will reject an
application that does not include the
required biometric services fee; the
institution of a reduced fee for the
Application for Naturalization, Form N–
400; and provisions that DHS will
provide fee refunds at its discretion.
a. Dishonored Payments
This final rule changes how DHS will
treat a benefit request filing
accompanied by fee payment (in the
form of check or other financial
instrument) that is subsequently
returned as not payable.115 Current
regulations provide that when a check
or other financial instrument used to
pay a filing fee is subsequently returned
as not payable, the remitter will be
notified and requested to pay the filing
fee and associated service charge within
14 calendar days, without extension.116
If the benefit request is pending and
these charges are not paid within 14
days, the benefit request will be rejected
as improperly filed. In addition, a
receipt issued by a DHS officer for any
remittance will not be binding upon
DHS if the remittance is found
uncollectable, and legal and statutory
deadlines will not be deemed to have
been met if payment is not made within
10 business days after notification by
DHS of the dishonored payment.117 In

accordance with these current
provisions, when a payment is returned
as not payable, DHS places the
immigration benefit request on hold,
and suspends adjudication. If payment
fails, DHS assesses a $30 penalty and
pursues the unpaid fee and penalty
using administrative debt collection
procedures.118 If payment (the unpaid
fee plus $30) is made within the allotted
14 day time period, DHS resumes
processing the benefit request. If a
payment is not corrected by the
applicant, DHS rejects the filing for
nonpayment.119
In this final rule, DHS is eliminating
provisions that require USCIS to hold
benefit request filings while deficient
payments are corrected. Under the
amendment, if a check or other financial
instrument used to pay a filing fee is
subsequently returned as not payable,
DHS will now reject the filing when
Treasury notifies DHS that the payment
has failed; USCIS will no longer hold
the filing and provide 14 days for the
deficient payment to be corrected.
To ensure that a payment rejection is
the result of insufficient funds and not
due to ACH and bank network outages,
DHS has made a minor revision to the
proposed amendment in the NPRM.
Under the final rule, DHS will submit
all rejected payments to the applicant’s
bank two times (once upon original
deposit and once again if the original
attempt to deposit the payment is
unsuccessful). Based on the typical time
required for a payment instrument to
clear a financial institution, this will
allow approximately 5 additional days
for payments to clear.120 DHS estimates
the new mandatory rejected payment representment requirement will therefore
provide approximately 10 days for

payments to be corrected before DHS
receives notification that the payment
has failed and rejects the filing or
imposes the $30 returned check fee.121
Under the new process, DHS will
continue to intake benefit requests,
attempt to deposit fees, and begin
processing filings as soon as possible.122
In cases where the payment is initially
rejected, Treasury will re-attempt to
deposit the payment. However, if the
payment is rejected a second time,
Treasury will notify DHS and DHS,
solely under its own authority, will
reject the filing for non-payment of the
required fee. In such cases where the
benefit request has already been
approved when DHS is notified of the
failed payment, DHS will send the
approved applicant or petitioner a
notice of intent to revoke the approval.
Regardless of the disposition of the
benefit request, if the payment to DHS
is rejected, the remitter will be charged
a $30 returned check service charge.123
In order to estimate the number of
applicants who will make a payment
that is ultimately dishonored, DHS
analyzed the count of all returned and
subsequently corrected payments of a
credit card or check from fiscal years
2012 to 2015.124 In FY 2015, a total of
10,818 payments were returned (Table
6). Of those 10,818 returned payments,
6,399 (59.2 percent) were later
corrected. The average annual number
of returned payments from FY 2012 to
FY 2015 was 9,781 with an annual
average of 6,478 payments (66.2
percent) later corrected. Assuming all
included the current service fee of $30,
the resulting total annual cost to
applicants for returned payments is
$293,430.125

TABLE 6—COUNT OF RETURNED AND CORRECTED CREDIT CARD/CHECK PAYMENTS, FY 2012–2015
Total
returned
payments

Year

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

2015
2014
2013
2012

.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

114 For comparison between current fees, USCIS
estimates for costs of underlying services, and
changes to fees, see Appendix VI, Table 4 in the
supporting documentation.
115 USCIS will immediately reject and not accept
for processing any applications and petitions
submitted with invalid payments, e.g., an unsigned
check or invalid bank account on an electronic
payment. The subsequent identification as not
payable will occur when an attempt is made to
process the payment through a bank, but the bank
does not honor the payment (e.g., because of
insufficient funds).
116 See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii).
117 See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii), 103.7(a)(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

118 See

8 CFR 103.7(a)(2).
8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii).
120 See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D).
121 A commenter wrote that a fee payment may
be submitted even when the applicant knows the
account lacks the funds to cover the payment
because a document is due to expire or a deadline
is approaching.
122 USCIS will not store and hold any case. The
adjudicator will intake and begin processing every
benefit request as soon as practicable and will
presume that all fee payments are valid. If the
payment is rejected (which could take 10-days to
know) and the adjudicator has not approved the
request, Treasury will notify USCIS of the rejected
119 See

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

10,818
9,200
9,785
9,322

Total
corrected
payments
6,399
6,467
6,496
6,550

Percentage of
corrected
payments
59.2
70.3
66.4
70.3

payment, and USCIS will collect the request
package and reject it. If the fees have been
deposited and the benefit request has not yet been
adjudicated, USCIS will process a refund. If the
request is approved, USCIS may revoke after notice
without a refund.
123 See amended 8 CFR 103.7(a)(2).
124 Corrected payments include any payment
collected by USCIS after the return of an initial
payment.
125 Calculation: 9,781 (average number of
returned payments) × $30 (current service fee
charge) = $293,430 (total cost for returned
payments)).

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

73325

TABLE 6—COUNT OF RETURNED AND CORRECTED CREDIT CARD/CHECK PAYMENTS, FY 2012–2015—Continued
Total
returned
payments

Year
Average ........................................................................................................................................

9,781

Total
corrected
payments
6,478

Percentage of
corrected
payments
66.2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Source: Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Burlington Finance Center.

As stated previously, with the
implementation of this final rule, the
regulations will no longer require DHS
to hold benefit requests, and applicants
will no longer be allowed to correct
payments directly. Instead, all rejected
payments will be re-presented to the
relevant financial institution a second
time, which will allow approximately
another 5 days for it to clear.126 DHS’
current policy is to re-present a rejected
payment twice to see if it clears on the
second or third attempt before sending
the filer the bill for the rejected
payment. Under this final rule, Treasury
will only re-present the payment on one
occasion to save time. The average 9,781
returned payments (Table 6) will now
be rejected unless the payments clear
when re-presented by Treasury. This representation by Treasury has no
additional cost since Treasury currently
includes this step in the process to
deposit DHS fee payments. DHS
anticipates that the prospect of rejection
will encourage filers to provide the
correct filing fees at the time they
submit their benefit requests. However,
DHS recognizes that there will continue
to be filers who file benefit requests
with incorrect or deficient fees.
For filers, filing fees are a required
and fundamental aspect of the benefit
being requested. By providing a 14-day
window to correct dishonored
payments, the regulation currently
permits a benefit request paid with a
dishonored payment instrument to
secure a place in line ahead of a benefit
request that was accompanied by a
proper payment, including in programs
that are time sensitive or involve
numerically limited visas. In all cases,
rejected filings may be refiled
immediately with the proper payment
but there are some slight differences
depending on whether the submission is
paper-based or electronically filed. The
DHS online filing system will permit the
rejected applications to remain
accessible for the applicant to print and
view. The original rejected electronic
submission will not be available for
resubmission with a new payment;
however, the rejected submission may
be used as a reference when a new
application is being completed. In cases

where the rejected submission is paperbased, the entire application/petition/
request and supporting documentation
are returned when rejected and can
generally be refiled with the proper
payment instrument.
The changes in this final rule will
provide several benefits to DHS. These
changes lower DHS administrative costs
for holding and tracking benefit requests
during the 14-day period currently
provided to correct dishonored
payments. The holding and tracking of
benefit requests requires physical
storage space that will no longer be
required with these revisions. DHS
currently incurs administrative costs
through tracking payments in postage
costs and adjudicator time among other
costs. This change in process also
provides parity to those individuals
who file benefit requests with the
correct fees, particularly in programs
that are time sensitive or involve
numerically limited visas.
DHS recognizes the unique impact
that these changes may have in the
context of the H–1B program
regulations, which make visa numbers
available to petitions in the order in
which the petitions are filed.127 The H–
1B regulations allow the final receipt
date to be any of the first 5 business
days on which petitions subject to the
applicable numerical limit may be
received. DHS then conducts a random
selection among the petitions received
during any of those 5 business days,
known as the ‘‘H–1B lottery.’’ Currently,
petitions remain eligible for the H–1B
lottery despite having failed payments,
as long as the payments are corrected
within the provided 14-day or 10-day
timeframe.128 Under the changes in this
final rule, however, DHS will remove
petitions from the H–1B lottery as soon
as DHS receives notification of a failed
payment, typically within 10 days of the
receipt date. DHS does not have data at
this time to estimate the impact on how
many petitions may be affected by these
changes. DHS is also unable to monetize
the cost to the applicant of having a
petition removed from selection for the
H–1B lottery.
127 See

126 See

8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

128 See

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B).
8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii).

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

b. Failure To Pay the Biometric Services
Fees
DHS is also eliminating provisions
governing non-payment of the biometric
services fee in this final rule. Currently,
if a benefit request is received by DHS
without the correct biometric services
fee, DHS will notify the filer of the
deficiency and take no further action on
the benefit request until payment is
received.129 Failure to submit the
correct biometric services fee within the
time allotted in the notice will result in
denial of the benefit request. If the
required biometric services fee is
missing, DHS suspends adjudication
and places the benefit request on hold.
If payment is made within the allotted
time, DHS resumes processing the
benefit request. If the biometric services
fee is not paid, the benefit request is
denied as abandoned.
Through this final rule, DHS is
deleting the regulatory provisions that
permitted benefit requests to be held
while deficient payments are corrected.
As a result of these deletions, DHS will
reject a benefit request if, for instance,
it is received without the correct
biometric services fee, as specified in
the form instructions.
In order to analyze the number of
people who do not pay the correct
biometric services fee, DHS updated the
numbers from the NPRM with more
recent data and gathered 7 months of
data from DHS lockbox facilities.130 The
data covers the period from December 1,
2015 to June 30, 2016. During this 7month period, DHS lockbox facilities
accepted 2,624,825 benefit requests. Of
these, a total of 6,179 (.24 percent) of
filers were issued a notice alerting them
that their biometric services fees were
missing. Assuming this 7-month trend is
typical of the number of deficient
biometric services fee notices, the new
provision will affect less than 1 percent
of all benefit requests received at DHS
lockbox facilities. As previously
mentioned, rejected filings may be
refiled immediately. While filers do not
incur monetary costs (except for
129 See

8 CFR 103.17(b)(1).
USCIS prefers to base assumptions on
a longer time period (ideally 5 years), 7 months was
the longest time period for which this data was
available.
130 While

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73326

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

additional postage fees) associated with
the rejection of a benefit request,
reapplying for benefits with the correct
fees requires time. Again, DHS
anticipates this new provision will
encourage individuals to file with the
appropriate fees.
Additionally, this change will
streamline DHS’ process for handling
benefit requests when biometrics
services fees are not submitted when
required. DHS costs are reduced by
eliminating the administrative handling
costs associated with holding cases
while biometric services fees are
collected.
c. Reduced Fee for Application for
Naturalization
The current fee for the Application for
Naturalization, Form N–400, is $595. In
most cases, applicants must also pay an
$85 biometrics services fee, so the total
cost for most applicants is $680. If an
applicant cannot pay the fee, he or she
can file a Request for Fee Waiver, Form
I–912, along with their Form N–400.
DHS considers anyone with a household
income at or below 150 percent of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines to be eligible
for a fee waiver. If DHS approves an
applicant’s fee waiver, both the $595
Form N–400 fee and the $85 biometrics
services fee, where applicable, are
waived.
DHS will increase the Form N–400 fee
from $595 to $640, a $45 (8 percent)
increase in this final rule. The biometric
services fee will remain unchanged at
$85. Therefore, the new costs of Form
N–400 plus the biometric services fee
will total $725. DHS is introducing an
additional fee option for those nonmilitary naturalization applicants with
family incomes greater than 150 percent
and not more than 200 percent of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines.
Specifically, applicants will receive a 50
percent discount and only be required
to pay a filing fee of $320 for the N–400,
plus an additional $85 biometric
services fee (for a total of $405). This
reduced fee option is intended to limit
any potential economic disincentives
that some eligible naturalization
applicants face when deciding whether
or not to seek citizenship. The lower fee
will help ensure that those who have
worked hard to become eligible for
naturalization are not limited by their
economic means. In order to qualify for
this fee, the eligible applicant will have
to submit the newly created Form I–942,
Request for Reduced Fee, along with
their Form N–400. Form I–942 will
require the names of everyone in the
household and documentation of the
household income to determine if the
applicant’s household income is greater

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

than 150 and not more than 200 percent
of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.
As described in the NPRM, DHS
estimates that approximately 11 percent
of all Form N–400 applicants, excluding
military applicants, could qualify for the
reduced fee. Given the non-military
Form N–400 volume projection estimate
of 821,500 annually, over the biennial
period, DHS expects that 90,365 filers
will be included in the population
eligible for the fee reduction.131 While
these 90,365 filers represent only the
current number of applicants who will
be eligible for the fee reduction, DHS
anticipates an increase in Form N–400
filings as a result of the changes in this
final rule. DHS anticipates that the
reduced fee for applicants with
qualifying incomes will remove
economic barriers associated with the
costs of associated fees and thus
encourage more eligible applicants to
file their Form N–400 applications.
While DHS anticipates an increase in
Form N–400 filings due to this fee
reduction, we cannot predict how many
more eligible applicants will file their
N–400 applications at this time.
DHS has factored the estimated
revenue loss from this product line into
its fee model, so those costs are
reallocated over other fee paying benefit
requests. While the costs of the reduced
fee are being reallocated to other feepaying customers, DHS believes the
benefits of facilitating access to
citizenship outweighs the cost
reallocation impacts.
As previously mentioned, an eligible
applicant will have to submit a Form I–
942 along with a Form N–400
application to qualify for this reduced
fee. While DHS is not imposing an
additional fee for Form I–942, DHS has
estimated the opportunity cost of time
to applicants to complete the form. The
total annual opportunity cost of time for
applicants will be $717,724, if all 90,365
eligible applicants apply for the reduced
fee.132 The Federal minimum wage
rate 133 of $7.25 was used as the hourly
wage rate because the anticipated
applicants are asserting they cannot
afford to pay the full DHS fee and DHS
thus assumes that such applicants earn
less than average incomes. The BLS
reports the average employer costs for
employee compensation for all civilian
workers in major occupational groups
and industries. Using these data from
131 Calculation:

821,500 * 11 percent.
Opportunity Costs of Time to Applicants
= Expected Filers (90,365) * (Full Cost of Employee
Benefits ($10.59) * Time Burden (.75 hr.)).
133 U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour
Division. The minimum wage in effect as of July 13,
2016. See http://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/
minimumwage.
132 Total

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

BLS, DHS calculated compensation-towage multiplier of 1.46 to estimate the
full opportunity costs to applicants,
including employee wages, salaries, and
the full costs of benefits, such as paid
leave, insurance, and retirement.134 To
anticipate the full opportunity cost of
time to applicants, we multiplied the
Federal minimum wage rate by 1.46 to
account for the full cost of employee
benefits for a total of $10.59. The time
burden estimate was developed by DHS
with an average of 45 minutes (or .75 of
an hour) to complete Form I–942,
resulting in an opportunity cost of time
per petition of $7.94.135 This additional
burden is offset by the benefits received
from the $320 fee reduction.
d. Refunds. DHS is also amending
regulations for fee refunds in this final
rule. In general, and except for a
premium processing fee under 8 CFR
103.7(e)(2)(i), DHS does not refund a fee
regardless of the decision on the
immigration benefit request. DHS makes
very rare exceptions when DHS
determines that an administrative error
occurred resulting in the inadvertent
collection of a fee. DHS errors may
include:
• Unnecessary filings. Cases in which
DHS (or DOS in the case of an
immigration benefit request filed
overseas) erroneously requests that an
individual file an unnecessary form
along with the associated fee; and
• Accidental Payments. Cases in
which an individual pays a required fee
more than once or otherwise pays a fee
in excess of the amount due and DHS
(or the DOS in the case of an
immigration benefit request filed
overseas) erroneously accepts the
erroneous fee.
DHS is codifying the process of
continuing to provide these refunds in
cases involving obvious DHS error.
Individuals will continue to request a
refund through the current established
process, which requires calling the
customer service line or submitting a
written request for a refund to the office
having jurisdiction over the relevant
immigration benefit request.
Any DHS refunds provided are
generally due to obvious DHS errors
resulting from electronic system
134 The compensation-to-wage multiplier is
calculated as follows: (All Workers Total Employee
Compensation per hour)/(Wages and Salaries per
hour). See Economic News Release, U.S.
Department of Labor, BLS, Table 1. Employer Costs
per hour worked for employee compensation and
costs as a percent of total compensation: Civilian
workers, by major occupational and industry group
(Sept. 2015), available at http://www.bls.gov/
news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.
135 Calculation: $10.59 hourly wage rate * .75
hours.

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
behavior issues or human error. The
anticipation of increased electronic
filings in the future also spurs the need
for this provision. Currently, DHS
provides fee refunds to applicants as
shown in Table 7. Over the past 3 fiscal

years, DHS issued an annual average of
5,363 refunds, resulting in an average of
$2.1 million refunded. This is
approximately $396 per refund. These
numbers and amounts of refunds do not
include premium processing refunds

73327

regulated under 8 CFR 103.7(e)(2)(i). In
the context of the total number of fees
collected by DHS across all benefits, this
average amount of refunds is still less
than 1 percent of the total fees collected.

TABLE 7—AMOUNT AND NUMBER OF FEE REFUNDS PROVIDED BY USCIS
Amount
refunded

Fiscal year
2013 .........................................................................................................................................................................
2014 .........................................................................................................................................................................
2015 .........................................................................................................................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................................................................................

$2,674,290
1,805,006
1,890,638
2,123,311

Number of
refunds
7,405
4,198
4,485
5,363

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Source: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Burlington Finance Center.

The changes in the final rule will
benefit applicants who accidently
submit payments twice. DHS anticipates
this to be a bigger issue as more forms
and associated fees begin to be collected
through electronic means. Applicants
will recoup any fees that were
submitted erroneously due to electronic
systems issues. DHS benefits by having
clear regulatory authority concerning
the relatively few cases in which
refunds are provided.
There may be some administrative
costs associated with the issuance of
refunds. DHS may see a potential initial
increase in requests for refunds due to
the visibility of this rule; however, DHS
does not anticipate a sustained increase
as DHS is not anticipating any changes
to the conditions for issuing refunds.
There may also be a potential increase
in the time burden costs for DHS
adjudicators to process these potential
initial increases in refund requests. DHS
does not have cost estimates at this time
indicating the number of hours required
to process and issue these refunds.
There may also be some opportunity
costs of time to filers who submit refund
requests; however, DHS anticipates this
cost is offset by the benefit gained in
receiving a refund.

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This final rule meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, all Departments are required to
submit to OMB, for review and
approval, any reporting and
recordkeeping requirements inherent in
a rule. See 44 U.S.C. 3507. This final
rule requires changes to OMB control
number 1615–0052, the Application for
Naturalization, Form N–400, to collect
information necessary to document the
applicant’s eligibility for the reduced fee
proposed in this final rule at 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(AAA)(1); OMB control
number 1615–0061, Annual
Certification of Regional Center, Form I–
924A, and the Application for Regional

This rulemaking will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, DHS has determined that
this rulemaking does not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

H. Family Assessment
DHS has determined that this rule
will not affect family well-being within
the meaning of section 654 of the
Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law
105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). By
increasing immigration benefit request
fees, this action will impose a slightly
higher financial burden on some
families that petition for family
members to join them in the United
States. On the other hand, the rule will
provide USCIS with the funds necessary
to carry out adjudication and
naturalization services and provide
similar services for free to
disadvantaged populations, including
asylees, refugees, individuals with
Temporary Protected Status, and
victims of human trafficking. DHS has
determined that the benefits of the
action justify the financial impact that it
will place on some families.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act—Comments
on the Proposed Information Collection
Changes

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Center Designation Under the Immigrant
Investor Program, Form I–924, to add
the instructions necessary to require the
annual fee; and OMB control number
1615–NEW, Request for Reduced Fee,
Form I–942, to document the applicant’s
eligibility for the reduced fee. DHS
specifically requested public comments
on the proposed changes to the forms
and form instructions in the NPRM in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11(a). OMB
reviewed the request filed in connection
with the NPRM and also filed comments
in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11(c).
DHS summarized the comments
received from the public and responded
below:
1. Request for Reduced Fee, Form I–942
USCIS received some comments on
the Request for Reduced Fee, Form I–
942, which was part of the NPRM
docket. USCIS proposed to require Form
I–942 for an applicant to request the
$320 reduced fee for the Application for
Naturalization. The comments indicated
that the Form I–942’s sections related to
preparer and interpreter certifications
were unnecessarily lengthy, as was the
section for signatures of additional
family members. The comments stated
that these sections make the form
appear longer and more onerous than it
needs to be. The commenters also
recommended that the form be optional,
similar to the optional Request for Fee
Waiver, Form I–912.
USCIS designed the Request for
Reduced Fee to be very similar to the
Request for Fee Waiver. USCIS
anticipates that preparers will benefit
from having similar forms with similar
formats. Additionally, USCIS does not
believe that Form I–942 should be
optional for reduced fee requests in the
same way that Form I–912 is optional.
With respect to Form I–912, USCIS
recognizes that applicants may be able
to address certain criteria, such as
financial hardship, in a letter more

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73328

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

easily than through a form. However,
the proposed sole basis for submitting a
Request for Reduced Fee is the
applicant’s household income level. See
81 FR 26916. To qualify for the reduced
fee, an applicant’s household income
must be greater than 150 and not more
than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines. Id. USCIS believes that such
income information is more easily
conveyed to the agency, and accessed by
the agency, if it is presented in a
uniform manner through a form, rather
than through a letter. To provide
additional flexibility to reduced fee
applicants, USCIS has also decided to
permit multiple family members living
in the same household who are each
submitting an Application for
Naturalization, and who are each within
the relevant income levels for the
reduced fee, to jointly submit one Form
I–942 with their naturalization
applications.136 USCIS determined that
permitting multiple requests on one
form would impose less of a burden
overall than requiring multiple members
of the same household to file separate
reduced fee requests. As a result of these
comments, DHS changed the form to
permit multiple family members to file
on Form I–942 with respect to multiple
naturalization applications.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

2. Annual Certification of Regional
Center, Form I–924A
At least one commenter
recommended standardizing the
questions for Form I–924A and
indicated that the form provides little to
no value to USCIS. USCIS believes the
revised form and instructions better
explain the annual reporting process
and requirements, and provide more
useful information to USCIS, than the
previous version of the form. In
addition, USCIS believes the revised
forms address the commenter’s concerns
by eliminating many redundant and
lengthy questions and instructions.
While the form contains new questions,
it is intended to result in more
comprehensive reviews and to require
fewer and simpler follow-up inquiries
from USCIS in response to annual I–
924A filings. DHS made no changes to
the draft form or the proposed rule as a
result of these comments. The form and
fee are finalized as proposed. New CFR
204.6(m).
136 In such cases, each family member who is
requesting a reduced fee for their Application for
Naturalization must sign the Form I–942.
Applicants must submit the Form I–942 in the same
envelope as the naturalization applications for
which they are requesting fee waivers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

List of Subjects
8 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and
procedures, Authority delegations
(government agencies), Freedom of
Information, Privacy, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Surety
bonds.
8 CFR Part 204
Administrative practice and
procedure, Immigration, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 205
Administrative practice and
procedure, Immigration.
Accordingly, DHS amends chapter I of
title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 103—IMMIGRATION BENEFITS;
BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS;
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS
1. The authority citation for part 103
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552(a); 6
U.S.C. 112, 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155,
1185, 1186a, 1186b, 1254a, 1304, 1324a,
1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Pub. L. 107–296, 116
Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47
FR 14874, 15557; 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166;
8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 112–54.
■
■
■
■

2. Section 103.2 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(7); and
c. Revising paragraph (b)(9).
The revisions read as follows:

§ 103.2 Submission and adjudication of
benefit requests.

(a) * * *
(1) Preparation and submission. Every
form, benefit request, or other document
must be submitted to DHS and executed
in accordance with the form
instructions regardless of a provision of
8 CFR chapter I to the contrary. The
form’s instructions are hereby
incorporated into the regulations
requiring its submission. Each form,
benefit request, or other document must
be filed with the fee(s) required by
regulation. Filing fees generally are nonrefundable and, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter I, must be paid
when the benefit request is filed.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Benefit requests submitted. (i)
USCIS will consider a benefit request
received and will record the receipt date
as of the actual date of receipt at the
location designated for filing such
benefit request whether electronically or
in paper format.
(ii) A benefit request which is rejected
will not retain a filing date. A benefit
request will be rejected if it is not:

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(A) Signed with valid signature;
(B) Executed;
(C) Filed in compliance with the
regulations governing the filing of the
specific application, petition, form, or
request; and
(D) Submitted with the correct fee(s).
If a check or other financial instrument
used to pay a fee is returned as
unpayable, USCIS will re-submit the
payment to the remitter institution one
time. If the instrument used to pay a fee
is returned as unpayable a second time,
the filing will be rejected and a charge
will be imposed in accordance with 8
CFR 103.7(a)(2).
(iii) A rejection of a filing with USCIS
may not be appealed.
(b) * * *
(9) Appearance for interview or
biometrics. USCIS may require any
applicant, petitioner, sponsor,
beneficiary, or individual filing a benefit
request, or any group or class of such
persons submitting requests, to appear
for an interview and/or biometric
collection. USCIS may require the
payment of the biometric services fee in
8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C) or that the
individual obtain a fee waiver. Such
appearance and fee may also be required
by law, regulation, form instructions, or
Federal Register notice applicable to the
request type. USCIS will notify the
affected person of the date, time and
location of any required appearance
under this paragraph. Any person
required to appear under this paragraph
may, before the scheduled date and time
of the appearance, either:
(i) Appear before the scheduled date
and time;
(ii) For good cause, request that the
biometric services appointment be
rescheduled; or
(iii) Withdraw the benefit request.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 103.7 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) to
read as follows:
§ 103.7

Fees.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) Remittances must be drawn on a
bank or other institution located in the
United States and be payable in United
States currency. Remittances must be
made payable in accordance with the
guidance specific to the applicable U.S.
Government office when submitting to a
Department of Homeland Security office
located outside of the United States.
Remittances to the Board of Immigration
Appeals must be made payable to the
‘‘United States Department of Justice,’’
in accordance with 8 CFR 1003.8. If a
remittance in payment of a fee or any

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
other matter is not honored by the bank
or financial institution on which it is
drawn:
(i) A charge of $30.00 will be
imposed;
(ii) The provisions of 8 CFR
103.2(a)(7)(ii) apply, no receipt will be
issued, and if a receipt was issued, it is
void and the benefit request loses its
receipt date; and
(iii) If the benefit request was
approved, the approval may be revoked
upon notice. If the approved benefit
request requires multiple fees, this
provision will apply if any fee
submitted is not honored. Other fees
that were paid for a benefit request that
is revoked under this provision will be
retained and not refunded. A revocation
of an approval because the fee
submitted is not honored may be
appealed to the USCIS Administrative
Appeals Office, in accordance with 8
CFR 103.3 and the applicable form
instructions.
(b) Amounts of fees—(1) Established
fees and charges—(i) USCIS fees. A
request for immigration benefits
submitted to USCIS must include the
required fee as established under this
section. The fees established in this
section are associated with the benefit,
the adjudication, or the type of request
and not solely determined by the form
number listed below. The term ‘‘form’’
as defined in 8 CFR part 1, may include
a USCIS-approved electronic equivalent
of such form as USCIS may provide on
its official Web site at http://
www.uscis.gov.
(A) Certification of true copies: $2.00
per copy.
(B) Attestation under seal: $2.00 each.
(C) Biometric services fee. For
capturing, storing, and using biometric
information (Biometric Fee). A service
fee of $85 will be charged to pay for
background checks and have their
biometric information captured, stored,
and used for any individual who is
required to submit biometric
information for an application, petition,
or other request for certain immigration
and naturalization benefits (other than
asylum or refugee status) or actions.
USCIS will not charge a biometric
services fee when:
(1) An applicant under 8 CFR 204.3
submits to USCIS a written request for
an extension of the approval period of
an Application for Advance Processing
of an Orphan Petition (Application), if
the request is submitted before the
approval period expires and the
applicant has not yet filed a Petition to
Classify Orphan as an Immediate
Relative (Petition) in connection with
the approved Application. The
applicant may submit only one

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

extension request without having to pay
an additional biometric services fee. If
the extension of the approval expires
before the applicant files an associated
Petition, then the applicant must file
either a new Application or a Petition,
and pay a new filing fee and a new
biometric services fee.
(2) The application or petition fee for
the associated request has been waived
under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(3) The associated benefit request is
one of the following:
(i) Application for Posthumous
Citizenship, Form N–644;
(ii) Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition,
Form I–730;
(iii) Application for T Nonimmigrant
Status, Form I–914;
(iv) Petition for U Nonimmigrant
Status, Form I–918;
(v) Application for Naturalization,
Form N–400, by an applicant who meets
the requirements of sections 328 or 329
of the Act with respect to military
service under paragraph (b)(1)(i)(WW) of
this section;
(vi) Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status, Form I–485,
from an asylee under paragraph
(b)(1)(i)(U) of this section;
(vii) Application To Adjust Status
under Section 245(i) of the Act,
Supplement A to Form I–485, from an
unmarried child less than 17 years of
age, or when the applicant is the spouse,
or the unmarried child less than 21
years of age of a legalized foreign
national and who is qualified for and
has applied for voluntary departure
under the family unity program from an
asylee under paragraph (b)(1)(i)(V) of
this section; or
(viii) Petition for Amerasian,
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, Form
I–360, meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(T)(1), (2), (3) or (4)
of this section.
(D) USCIS Immigrant Fee. For DHS
domestic processing and issuance of
required documents after an immigrant
visa is issued by the U.S. Department of
State: $220.
(E) Request for a search of indices to
historical records to be used in
genealogical research, Form G–1041:
$65. The search request fee is not
refundable.
(F) Request for a copy of historical
records to be used in genealogical
research, Form G–1041A: $65. USCIS
will refund the records request fee only
when it is unable to locate the file
previously identified in response to the
index search request.
(G) Application to Replace Permanent
Resident Card, Form I–90. For filing an
application for a Permanent Resident
Card, Form I–551, to replace an obsolete

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73329

card or to replace one lost, mutilated, or
destroyed, or for a change in name:
$455.
(H) Application for Replacement/
Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure
Document, Form I–102. For filing a
petition for an application for Arrival/
Departure Record Form I–94, or
Crewman’s Landing Permit Form I–95,
to replace one lost, mutilated, or
destroyed: $445.
(I) Petition for a Nonimmigrant
Worker, Form I–129. For filing a petition
for a nonimmigrant worker: $460.
(J) Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker
in CNMI, Form I–129CW. For an
employer to petition on behalf of one or
more beneficiaries: $460 plus a
supplemental CNMI education funding
fee of $150 per beneficiary per year. The
CNMI education funding fee cannot be
waived.
(K) Petition for Alien Fiance´(e), Form
I–129F. For filing a petition to classify
a nonimmigrant as a fiance´e or fiance´
under section 214(d) of the Act: $535;
there is no fee for a K–3 spouse as
designated in 8 CFR 214.1(a)(2) who is
the beneficiary of an immigrant petition
filed by a United States citizen on a
Petition for Alien Relative, Form I–130.
(L) Petition for Alien Relative, Form I–
130. For filing a petition to classify
status of a foreign national relative for
issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204(a) of the Act: $535.
(M) Application for Travel Document,
Form I–131. For filing an application for
travel document:
(1) $135 for a Refugee Travel
Document for an individual age 16 or
older.
(2) $105 for a Refugee Travel
Document for a child under the age of
16.
(3) $575 for advance parole and any
other travel document.
(4) No fee if filed in conjunction with
a pending or concurrently filed Form I–
485 with fee that was filed on or after
July 30, 2007.
(N) Immigrant Petition for Alien
Worker, Form I–140. For filing a petition
to classify preference status of an alien
on the basis of profession or occupation
under section 204(a) of the Act: $700.
(O) Application for Advance
Permission to Return to Unrelinquished
Domicile, Form I–191. For filing an
application for discretionary relief
under section 212(c) of the Act: $930.
(P) Application for Advance
Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant,
Form I–192. For filing an application for
discretionary relief under section
212(d)(3) of the Act, except in an
emergency case or where the approval
of the application is in the interest of

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

73330

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the United States Government: $930. If
filed with and processed by CBP: $585.
(Q) Application for Waiver for
Passport and/or Visa, Form I–193. For
filing an application for waiver of
passport and/or visa: $585.
(R) Application for Permission to
Reapply for Admission into the United
States After Deportation or Removal,
Form I–212. For filing an application for
permission to reapply for an excluded,
deported or removed alien, an alien who
has fallen into distress, an alien who has
been removed as an alien enemy, or an
alien who has been removed at
government expense instead of
deportation: $930.
(S) Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form
I–290B. For appealing a decision under
the immigration laws in any type of
proceeding over which the Board of
Immigration Appeals does not have
appellate jurisdiction: $675. The fee will
be the same for appeal of a denial of a
benefit request with one or multiple
beneficiaries. There is no fee for an
appeal or motion associated with a
denial of a petition for a special
immigrant visa filed by or on behalf of
an individual seeking special immigrant
visa or status as an Iraqi or Afghan
national who was employed by or on
behalf of the U.S. Government in Iraq or
Afghanistan.
(T) Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er),
or Special Immigrant, Form I–360. For
filing a petition for an Amerasian,
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant: $435.
The following requests are exempt from
this fee:
(1) A petition seeking classification as
an Amerasian;
(2) A self-petition for immigrant status
as a battered or abused spouse, parent,
or child of a U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident; or
(3) A petition for special immigrant
juvenile status; or
(4) A petition seeking special
immigrant visa or status an Iraqi or
Afghan national who was employed by
or on behalf of the U.S. Government in
Iraq or Afghanistan.
(U) Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status, Form I–485.
For filing an application for permanent
resident status or creation of a record of
lawful permanent residence:
(1) $1,140 for an applicant 14 years of
age or older; or
(2) $750 for an applicant under the
age of 14 years who submits the
application concurrently with the Form
I–485 of a parent.
(3) There is no fee if an applicant is
filing as a refugee under section 209(a)
of the Act.
(V) Application to Adjust Status
under Section 245(i) of the Act,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

Supplement A to Form I–485.
Supplement to Form I–485 for persons
seeking to adjust status under the
provisions of section 245(i) of the Act:
$1,000. There is no fee when the
applicant is an unmarried child less
than 17 years of age, when the applicant
is the spouse, or the unmarried child
less than 21 years of age of an
individual with lawful immigration
status and who is qualified for and has
applied for voluntary departure under
the family unity program.
(W) Immigrant Petition by Alien
Entrepreneur, Form I–526. For filing a
petition for an alien entrepreneur:
$3,675.
(X) Application To Extend/Change
Nonimmigrant Status, Form I–539. For
filing an application to extend or change
nonimmigrant status: $370.
(Y) Petition to Classify Orphan as an
Immediate Relative, Form I–600. For
filing a petition to classify an orphan as
an immediate relative for issuance of an
immigrant visa under section 204(a) of
the Act. Only one fee is required when
more than one petition is submitted by
the same petitioner on behalf of orphans
who are brothers or sisters: $775.
(Z) Application for Advance
Processing of Orphan Petition, Form I–
600A. For filing an application for
advance processing of orphan petition.
(When more than one petition is
submitted by the same petitioner on
behalf of orphans who are brothers or
sisters, only one fee will be required.):
$775. No fee is charged if Form I–600
has not yet been submitted in
connection with an approved Form I–
600A subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The applicant requests an
extension of the approval in writing and
the request is received by USCIS before
the expiration date of approval; and
(2) The applicant’s home study is
updated and USCIS determines that
proper care will be provided to an
adopted orphan.
(3) A no fee extension is limited to
one occasion. If the Form I–600A
approval extension expires before
submission of an associated Form I–600,
then a complete application and fee
must be submitted for any subsequent
application.
(AA) Application for Waiver of
Ground of Inadmissibility, Form I–601.
For filing an application for waiver of
grounds of inadmissibility: $930.
(BB) Application for Provisional
Unlawful Presence Waiver, Form I–
601A. For filing an application for
provisional unlawful presence waiver:
$630.
(CC) Application for Waiver of the
Foreign Residence Requirement (under

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Section 212(e) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as Amended), Form I–
612. For filing an application for waiver
of the foreign-residence requirement
under section 212(e) of the Act: $930.
(DD) Application for Status as a
Temporary Resident under Section
245A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, Form I–687. For filing
an application for status as a temporary
resident under section 245A(a) of the
Act: $1,130.
(EE) Application for Waiver of
Grounds of Inadmissibility under
Sections 245A or 210 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, Form I–690. For
filing an application for waiver of a
ground of inadmissibility under section
212(a) of the Act as amended, in
conjunction with the application under
sections 210 or 245A of the Act, or a
petition under section 210A of the Act:
$715.
(FF) Notice of Appeal of Decision
under Sections 245A or 210 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (or a
petition under section 210A of the Act),
Form I–694. For appealing the denial of
an application under sections 210 or
245A of the Act, or a petition under
section 210A of the Act: $890.
(GG) Application to Adjust Status
from Temporary to Permanent Resident
(Under Section 245A of Pub. L. 99–603),
Form I–698. For filing an application to
adjust status from temporary to
permanent resident (under section 245A
of Pub. L. 99–603): $1,670. The
adjustment date is the date of filing of
the application for permanent residence
or the applicant’s eligibility date,
whichever is later.
(HH) Petition to Remove Conditions
on Residence, Form I–751. For filing a
petition to remove the conditions on
residence based on marriage: $595.
(II) Application for Employment
Authorization, Form I–765. $410. No fee
if filed in conjunction with a pending or
concurrently filed Form I–485 with fee
that was filed on or after July 30, 2007.
(JJ) Petition to Classify Convention
Adoptee as an Immediate Relative,
Form I–800.
(1) There is no fee for the first Form
I–800 filed for a child on the basis of an
approved Application for Determination
of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a
Convention Country, Form I–800A,
during the approval period.
(2) If more than one Form I–800 is
filed during the approval period for
different children, the fee is $775 for the
second and each subsequent petition
submitted.
(3) If the children are already siblings
before the proposed adoption, however,
only one filing fee of $775 is required,

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
regardless of the sequence of submission
of the immigration benefit.
(KK) Application for Determination of
Suitability to Adopt a Child from a
Convention Country, Form I–800A. For
filing an application for determination
of suitability to adopt a child from a
convention country: $775.
(LL) Request for Action on Approved
Application for Determination of
Suitability to Adopt a Child from a
Convention Country, Form I–800A,
Supplement 3. This filing fee is not
charged if Form I–800 has not been filed
based on the approval of the Form I–
800A, and Form I–800A Supplement 3
is filed in order to obtain a first
extension of the approval of the Form I–
800A: $385.
(MM) Application for Family Unity
Benefits, Form I–817. For filing an
application for voluntary departure
under the Family Unity Program: $600.
(NN) Application for Temporary
Protected Status, Form I–821. For first
time applicants: $50. There is no fee for
re-registration.
(OO) Application for Action on an
Approved Application or Petition, Form
I–824. For filing for action on an
approved application or petition: $465.
(PP) Petition by Entrepreneur to
Remove Conditions, Form I–829. For
filing a petition by entrepreneur to
remove conditions: $3,750.
(QQ) Application for Suspension of
Deportation or Special Rule
Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to
Section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100), Form
I–881:
(1) $285 for adjudication by DHS,
except that the maximum amount
payable by family members (related as
husband, wife, unmarried child under
21, unmarried son, or unmarried
daughter) who submit applications at
the same time will be $570.
(2) $165 for adjudication by the
Immigration Court (a single fee of $165
will be charged whenever applications
are filed by two or more foreign
nationals in the same proceedings).
(3) The $165 fee is not required if the
Form I–881 is referred to the
Immigration Court by DHS.
(RR) Application for Authorization to
Issue Certification for Health Care
Workers, Form I–905: $230.
(SS) Request for Premium Processing
Service, Form I–907. $1,225. The
Request for Premium Processing Service
fee:
(1) Must be paid in addition to, and
in a separate remittance from, other
filing fees.
(2) May be adjusted annually by
notice in the Federal Register based on
inflation according to the Consumer
Price Index (CPI).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

(3) May not be waived.
(TT) Application for Civil Surgeon
Designation, Form I–910. For filing an
application for civil surgeon
designation: $785. There is no fee for an
application from a medical officer in the
U.S. Armed Forces or civilian physician
employed by the U.S. Government who
examines members and veterans of the
Armed Forces and their dependents at
a military, Department of Veterans
Affairs, or U.S. Government facility in
the United States.
(UU) Application for T Nonimmigrant
Status, Form I–914. No fee.
(VV) Application for U Nonimmigrant
Status, Form I–918. No fee.
(WW) Application for Regional Center
Designation under the Immigrant
Investor Program, Form I–924. For filing
an application for regional center
designation under the Immigrant
Investor Program: $17,795.
(XX) Annual Certification of Regional
Center, Form I–924A. To provide
updated information and certify that an
Immigrant Investor Regional Center has
maintained their eligibility: $3,035.
(YY) Petition for Qualifying Family
Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant, Form
I–929. For U–1 principal applicant to
submit for each qualifying family
member who plans to seek an immigrant
visa or adjustment of U status: $230.
(ZZ) Application to File Declaration
of Intention, Form N–300. For filing an
application for declaration of intention
to become a U.S. citizen: $270.
(AAA) Request for a Hearing on a
Decision in Naturalization Proceedings
(Under section 336 of the Act), Form N–
336. For filing a request for hearing on
a decision in naturalization proceedings
under section 336 of the Act: $700.
There is no fee if filed on or after
October 1, 2004, by an applicant who
has filed an Application for
Naturalization under sections 328 or
329 of the Act with respect to military
service and whose application has been
denied.
(BBB) Application for Naturalization,
Form N–400. For filing an application
for naturalization: $640. Except:
(1) The fee for an applicant whose
documented income is greater than 150
percent and not more than 200 percent
of the Federal poverty level is $320.
(2) No fee is charged an applicant who
meets the requirements of sections 328
or 329 of the Act with respect to
military service.
(CCC) Application to Preserve
Residence for Naturalization Purposes,
Form N–470. For filing an application
for benefits under section 316(b) or 317
of the Act: $355.
(DDD) Application for Replacement
Naturalization/Citizenship Document,

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

73331

Form N–565. For filing an application
for a certificate of naturalization or
declaration of intention in place of a
certificate or declaration alleged to have
been lost, mutilated, or destroyed; for a
certificate of citizenship in a changed
name under section 343(c) of the Act; or
for a special certificate of naturalization
to obtain recognition as a citizen of the
United States by a foreign state under
section 343(b) of the Act: $555. There is
no fee when this application is
submitted under 8 CFR 338.5(a) or
343a.1 to request correction of a
certificate that contains an error.
(EEE) Application for Certificate of
Citizenship, Form N–600. For filing an
application for a certificate of
citizenship under section 309(c) or
section 341 of the Act: $1,170. There is
no fee for any application filed by a
member or veteran of any branch of the
United States Armed Forces.
(FFF) Application for Citizenship and
Issuance of Certificate under section 322
of the Act, Form N–600K. For filing an
application for citizenship and issuance
of certificate under section 322 of the
Act: $1,170.
(GGG) American Competitiveness and
Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA)
fee. For filing certain H–1B petitions as
described in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19) and
USCIS form instructions: $1,500 or
$750.
(HHH) Fraud detection and
prevention fee. For filing certain H–1B
and L petitions, and $150 for H–2B
petitions as described in 8 CFR
214.2(h)(19): $500.
(III) 9–11 Response and Biometric
Entry-Exit Fee for H–1B Visa. For certain
petitioners who employ 50 or more
employees in the United States if more
than 50 percent of the petitioner’s
employees are in H–1B, L–1A or L–1B
nonimmigrant status: $4,000. Collection
of this fee is scheduled to end on
September 30, 2025.
(JJJ) 9–11 Response and Biometric
Entry-Exit Fee for L–1 Visa. For certain
petitioners who employ 50 or more
employees in the United States, if more
than 50 percent of the petitioner’s
employees are in H–1B, L–1A or L–1B
nonimmigrant status: $4,500. Collection
of this fee is scheduled to end on
September 30, 2025.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 103.16 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
§ 103.16 Collection, use and storage of
biometric information.

(a) Use of biometric information. An
individual may be required to submit
biometric information by law,
regulation, Federal Register notice or

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4

73332

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the form instructions applicable to the
request type or if required in accordance
with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 103.17 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 103.17

Biometric services fee.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Non-payment. If a benefit request
is received by DHS without the correct
biometric services fee as provided in the
form instructions, DHS will reject the
benefit request.
PART 204—IMMIGRANT PETITIONS

7. The authority citation for part 204
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1153,
1154, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1255, 1641; 8 CFR
part 2.

8. Section 204.6 is amended by
revising paragraph (m)(6) to read as
follows:

■

§ 204.6
aliens.

Petitions for employment creation

*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(6) Continued participation
requirements for regional centers. (i)
Regional centers approved for
participation in the program must:
(A) Continue to meet the requirements
of section 610(a) of the Appropriations
Act.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES4

*

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:32 Oct 21, 2016

Jkt 214001

(B) Provide USCIS with updated
information annually, and/or as
otherwise requested by USCIS, to
demonstrate that the regional center is
continuing to promote economic
growth, including increased export
sales, improved regional productivity,
job creation, and increased domestic
capital investment in the approved
geographic area, using a form designated
for this purpose; and
(C) Pay the fee provided by 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(i)(XX).
(ii) USCIS will issue a notice of intent
to terminate the designation of a
regional center in the program if:
(A) A regional center fails to submit
the information required in paragraph
(m)(6)(i)(B) of this section, or pay the
associated fee; or
(B) USCIS determines that the
regional center no longer serves the
purpose of promoting economic growth,
including increased export sales,
improved regional productivity, job
creation, and increased domestic capital
investment.
(iii) A notice of intent to terminate the
designation of a regional center will be
sent to the regional center and set forth
the reasons for termination.
(iv) The regional center will be
provided 30 days from receipt of the
notice of intent to terminate to rebut the
ground or grounds stated in the notice
of intent to terminate.
(v) USCIS will notify the regional
center of the final decision. If USCIS

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

determines that the regional center’s
participation in the program should be
terminated, USCIS will state the reasons
for termination. The regional center may
appeal the final termination decision in
accordance with 8 CFR 103.3.
(vi) A regional center may elect to
withdraw from the program and request
a termination of the regional center
designation. The regional center must
notify USCIS of such election in the
form of a letter or as otherwise
requested by USCIS. USCIS will notify
the regional center of its decision
regarding the withdrawal request in
writing.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 205—REVOCATION OF
APPROVAL OF PETITIONS
9. The authority citation for part 205
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1153,
1154, 1155, 1182, and 1186a.

10. Section 205.1 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2).

■

§ 205.1

Automatic revocation.

(a) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*

*

Jeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016–25328 Filed 10–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

E:\FR\FM\24OCR4.SGM

24OCR4