60-day Public Comment Response Matrix

G-325A-011 REV-60-day Public Comment Response Matrix.pdf

Biographic Information (for Deferred Action)

60-day Public Comment Response Matrix

OMB: 1615-0008

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Comment ID
0059

Comment
Commenter: Anonymous
Hi, I have a few comments for clarity and ease
of use for the form.
Part 1:
Q2 – As you are asking for current physical
address, the end date range imbedded within
the question should state “present” instead of
requiring a date. If it's present address how do
you have an end date?
Q2 & Q3 – Remove Province, Postal Code, and
Country from both questions as the
instructions say it's only for someone in the
US.
Q9 – Other USCIS forms have “USCIS Online
Account Number (if any)” as a separate
question to link to attorney accounts. Can this
be added?
Q10 – For consistency with other forms, add
note that says “NOTE: Provide all other names
you have ever used, including your family
name at birth, other legal names, nicknames,
aliases, and assumed names. If you need extra
space to complete this section, please include
a separate page.”
Q11 – Make City and Country of birth two
separate data fields - this can get confusing for
applicants. Move Country of Citizenship or
nationality down so this information is in same
sequence.
Q13 & 17 – Change heading from Requestor’s
Father/Mother to “Information About Your
Parent 1” and “Information About Your Parent
2” to be consistent with other USCIS forms.
Q15 & Q19 – Make City and Country of Birth
two separate data fields.
Q16 & Q20, Make City and Country of
Residence two separate fields; add “(if living)”

USCIS Response
Response: Thank you for your suggestions.
We have incorporated most of the
suggestions into the revised form, with the
exception of the suggestion detailed in the
response below.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
to question in case parent has passed.
Q23 – Make City and Country of Birth two
separate data fields.
Q25 – Make Place of Marriage two separate
questions – “Place of Marriage to Current
Spouse 25a. City or Town, 25b. State or
Province, 25c. Country. for clarity.
Q27 – Align questions to mirror I-485 for
consistency and ease of use for attorneys:
“When I last arrived in the Unietd States, I:
_Was inspected at a port of entry and
admitted as (for example, exchange visitor;
visitor, waived through; temporary worker;
student: __________
_ Was inspected at a port of entry and
paroled as (for example, humanitarian parole,
Cuban parole): _______
_ Came into the United States without
Admission or Parole
_ Other
If you were issued a Form I-94 ArrivalDeparture Record Number:
Form I-94 Arrival-Departure Record
Number________
Expiration Date of Authorized Stay Shown on
Form I-94 (mm/dd/yyyy) _____
Status on Form I-94 (for example, class of
admission or paroled, if paroled) _____
What is your current immigration status (if it
has changed since your arrival)? ______
Provide your name exactly as it appears on
your form I-94 (if any)
Family Name (Last Name)____
Given Name (First Name)____
Middle Name _______”
For all dates, use consistent formatting and
include in italics: MM - DD - YYYY for
consistency for reader.

USCIS has incorporated only the following
suggestion related to the Form I-94 ArrivalDeparture Record Number into the G-325A
form.
If you were issued a Form I-94 ArrivalDeparture Record Number:
15.a. Form I-94 Arrival-Departure Record
Number
15.b. Expiration Date of Authorized Stay
Shown on Form I-94 (mm/dd/yyyy)

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
Part 2:
Add category for other government referrals
as it's currently only limited to labor agencies.
Add initial v. renewal requests so it's clear that
the applicant is requesting a renewal of their
deferred action.

2.
0057

3.
0058

(see
attachment)

4.
II. DHS’s
Proposal
Allowing
Requestors to
Apply for
EADs Using
Form G-325A

0058

Part 3:
2.d. Add instruction stating if additional space
is required, add an additional sheet.
Alternatively, add another part to the form
that allows requestor to provide additional
information.
Commenter: WhoPoo App
Please build a new holding center for those
with immigration detainer holds due to
spiraling illegal crime. Two men charged with
murder of 12-Year-Old Jocelyn Nungaray held
on immigration detainers
According to ICE, Franklin Jose Peña Ramos
and Johan Jose Rangel Martinez were released
on orders of recognizance after being detained
by the U.S. Border Patrol.
Commenter: AFL-CIO
Please find attached for the comment of the
American Federation of Labor-Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

Commenter: AFL-CIO
A. DHS Should Revise Part 3 to Allow for the
Collection of Information Necessary for the
Social Security Administration to Issue Social
Security Numbers
We note that those individuals who have
never previously been issued work
authorization typically use Form I-765 to
request a Social Security Number (“SSN”) for
the first time (by answering the questions in
Part 2, Questions 12 through 17, of that form).

Response: This comment is out of scope for
the proposed revision to this information
collection.

Response: See Comment Responses below
labeled with Commenter ID: 0058. The
information in the attachment from the
public comment (0058) was separated into
different sections in this comment matrix to
address each portion of information
individually.
See Comment # 4. – 8.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion.
We have incorporated the suggestion into
the revised form.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
In addition to providing information that is
necessary for the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) to generate a SSN, such
as the name of the applicant’s mother and
father, applicants filling out Form I-765 must
expressly consent to the disclosure of the
information submitted via the form to the SSA
(Question 15).
If DHS will be streamlining its EAD application
process for LIB-DA requestors via Form G325A and allowing such requestors to forego
filing Form I-765, it is crucial that the agency
collect the information required to
automatically request a SSN and secure the
necessary consent to share information with
SSA for the automatic production of a Social
Security card (see footnote 4). If Form G-325A
fails to include these questions, requestors
would have to separately apply for a SSN with
the SSA after being granted deferred action,
which would be unnecessarily burdensome
and contrary to DHS’s goals of reducing
barriers towards applying.

5.
II. DHS’s
Proposal
Allowing
Requestors to
Apply for EADs
Using Form G325A

0058

Accordingly, we recommend that DHS
reproduce Questions 12 through 17 of Part 2
of Form I-765 in Part 3 of the revised Form G325A.
Commenter: AFL-CIO
B. DHS Should Waive EAD Filing Fees for LIBDA Requestors
Although Form G-325A allows LIB-DA
requestors to forego filing Form I-765, the
revised form instructions make clear that DHS
continues to expect such requestors to pay
the applicable filing fee (currently $520), or
apply for a fee waiver via Form I-912.
We urge DHS to reconsider this position,
which is inconsistent with the agency’s
approach for employment authorization
incident to other benefits implicating law
enforcement interests, such a U and T visas,
and other humanitarian relief, such as

Response: Comments on immigration
benefit request fees charged by USCIS, and
whether or not requesters are exempted
from paying such fees, are out of scope for
the proposed revision to this information
collection. USCIS most recently provided the
public with the opportunity to participate in
the setting of immigration benefit request
fees through the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services Fee Schedule and
Changes to Certain Other Immigration
Benefit Request Requirements rule. See 89
FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024).

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) selfpetitions, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
(“SIJS”) and asylum, all of which are feeexempt. DHS must recognize that LIB-DA
requestors, by definition, are victims of or
witnesses to violations of important federal
and state laws and are therefore often—
indeed, almost always—economically
vulnerable.
Requestors’ ability to pay the required fee is
frequently constrained by the very situations
that gave rise to their eligibility for LIB-DA,
which include, but are not limited to, wage
theft, discriminatory dismissals, and even
labor trafficking. Labor agencies need the full
participation of all workers who have
information about workplace violations to feel
empowered to participated in their
investigations—not only those who can afford
an EAD filing fee. Maintaining a filing fee for
this population necessarily dissuades some
workers covered by Statements of Interest
from applying and therefore undermines the
efficacy of the labor investigations of DHS’s
partner agencies.
Additionally, DHS should recognize that—
unlike U or T nonimmigrant status—LIB-DA is
not a benefit or incentive for an individual
who has been helpful with a law enforcement
investigation or who was a victim of human
trafficking; instead, it is a temporary
protection available only to workers whose
cooperation is necessary to support a labor
agency’s ongoing investigation. In other
words, time is of the essence—if workers are
unable to promptly gather the appropriate fee
to apply for an EAD, they will not be able to
access the protection that the labor agencies
have deemed necessary for them to fully
participate in their investigations (see footnote
5).
In its recent Final Rule on fees, DHS recognized
that fee exemptions are appropriate for

6.
III. Reducing
Burden and
Collection of
Unnecessary
Biographic
Information

0058

applicants who are “particularly vulnerable as
victims of abuse . . . because of this
victimization, many will lack the financial
resources or employment authorization
needed to pay for fees related to immigration
benefits.” U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security,
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services fee
Schedule and Changes to Certain Other
Immigration Benefit Request Requirements,”
89 Fed. Reg. 6194, 6267 (Jan. 31, 2024). On
this basis, DHS stated that it “believes that
replacing fee waivers with additional fee
exemptions removes barriers for applicants
who are similarly situated in terms of financial
resources and employment prospects.” Id. at
6268. Indeed, DHS reached this conclusion
even for U nonimmigrants who may maintain
employment authorization for a long period of
time, recognizing that “the impact of
victimization can be lasting and far-reaching,
even after the events giving rise to U
nonimmigrant status eligibility have
concluded.” Id. at 6269. Because LIB-DA
requestors are similarly victimized but enjoy
far shorter periods of work authorization, the
argument for exempting them from fee
payment is arguably even stronger than for U
and T nonimmigrants (see footnote 6).
Commenter: AFL-CIO
In determining which information to collect on
Form G-325A, the AFL-CIO urges DHS to
consider the following factors. First, DHS
should avoid collecting extraneous
information that is unnecessary to prove
identity or nationality, eligibility for the type of
deferred action requested, or its case-by-case
exercise of discretion. Second, DHS should
take into consideration the unique
characteristics of the population applying for
LIB-DA.
In this vein, we strongly encourage DHS to
eliminate or modify Questions 26 and 28 in
Part 1 of the proposed revised Form G-325A,
which asks requestors to provide their
previous addresses and employers for the last

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
five years (see footnote 7). We recommend
that Question 26 be eliminated entirely,
insofar as Questions 2 and 3 already ask
requestors to provide their current physical
and mailing addresses, while Question 28 be
modified to ask requestors to provide
information about their employer listed in the
Statement of Interest only (see footnote 8).
There are three reasons for this
recommendation. First, collecting
information about prior addresses or
employers unrelated to the Statement of
Interest appears to be wholly extraneous to
the LIB-DA application. To our knowledge,
DHS has not relied on prior address or
employment history to make a positive or
negative discretionary assessment in any
deferred action case, nor is it clear how or
why it might do so. To the extent that an
individual requestor wishes to provide
evidence of other employment history as a
favorable equity, they are free to do so,
insofar as the application does not limit them
from submitting any form of evidence. Nor
does this information appear relevant in
establishing the identity of the requestor,
which is far more readily established by
requiring the submission of identity
documents and biometric checks.
Second, the collection of this information is
burdensome for workers and the labor rights
advocates who support them through the
LIB-DA process. In our experience, noncitizen
workers who lack employment authorization
often work numerous informal or short-term
jobs, which are difficult to account for over a
five-year period. This is particularly true in
the construction and building trades, where
short-term projects and frequent turnover
are the norm regardless of immigration
status. Many of the cases that we have
supported with our affiliates arise from this
industry, and reconstructing an employment
history for the purpose of the current Form

whether it is an initial or subsequent
request, is made on a case-by case basis.
The information being collected by the Form
G-325A is necessary for DHS to assess
whether the person requesting deferred
action has demonstrated that they warrant
a favorable exercise of discretion with
respect to the request before USCIS.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
G-325A is often a tedious and timeconsuming process.
We also urge DHS to take into consideration
the underlying purpose of LIB-DA and the
unique structure of the program. A
Statement of Interest is coterminous with a
labor agency’s interest in a given labor
investigation or enforcement action, and
typically covers all workers who are potential
victims of or witnesses to the labor law
violation alleged. In order for LIB-DA to meet
the labor agency’s investigatory and
enforcement interests, it must be applied for
and granted quickly, so that the workers the
labor agency needs are able to fully
participate at all stages of the investigation.
These factors often put labor unions,
workers’ centers, and other workers’ rights
advocacy groups—all organizations that
typically do not have immigration attorneys
on staff—in the position of assisting in the
filing of significant numbers of LIB-DA
applications over a truncated period of time.
This differs markedly from other victimoriented benefits applications, such as
VAWA, U and T visas, which are typically
applied for by an individual applicant with
the assistance of an immigration attorney,
and are not subject to the time pressure of
supporting an ongoing investigation.
While some of our affiliates have referred
workers to immigration attorneys or
otherwise provided them with counsel, the
resource constraints in doing so are
significant, especially when a Statement of
Interest relates to a broad investigation that
implicates a large number of workers. To
meet this need, we have supported many
affiliates and their local unions in organizing
events on a clinic model, which allow
workers to request LIB-DA pro se with the aid
of non-attorney preparers under attorney
supervision. The reports from such clinics are
consistent: the questions concerning 5 years
of employment and address history consume

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
an inordinate and disproportionate period of
time and reduce the number of workers that
each preparer can assist, thereby limiting the
efficacy of DHS’s efforts to support its labor
agency partners.
Third, given the temporary nature of LIB-DA
relief, which currently limits initial grants to
2 years, requesting extensive information
about prior employment and addresses has
a chilling effect on certain workers’
willingness to apply for the program. Even
when assured that the Administration’s
enforcement priorities would preclude such
targeting, some workers fear that noncitizen
family members or acquaintances living at
past addresses might be singled out for DHS
enforcement, that prior employers might be
questioned or subject to an audit for
employing unauthorized workers, or that
they themselves might suffer adverse
consequences for disclosing unauthorized
work (see footnote 9).

7.
IV. Simplified
Form for
Renewals or
Subsequent
Grants of LIBDA

0058

Accordingly, given that this information
would appear to be of exceedingly limited
value to DHS, that its collection is
burdensome for the LIB-DA requestor
population, and that it tends to have a
chilling effect on workers otherwise eligible
to request LIB-DA, we encourage DHS to
eliminate or modify Questions 26 and 28 in
Part 1 of the proposed revised Form G-325A.
Commenter: AFL-CIO
DHS has recently issued guidance on
subsequent requests of LIB-DA beyond the
initial 2-year grant period, which can be
requested on the basis of an updated labor
agency Statement of Interest. According to the
DHS Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) on
the subject, noncitizens requesting such grants
must submit, among other documentation, a
fully completed Form G-325A (see footnote
10). We believe that for subsequent or
renewed grants of LIB-DA, this is duplicative,
and encourage DHS to consider instituting a

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
simple renewal form that omits questions
about biographic information that is already in
DHS’s possession.

8.
V. Requested
Clarifications

0058

Specifically, such a simple renewal form could
retain Part 1, Questions 1 through 9, and Parts
2 through 5, but omit Part 1, Questions 10-28.
Questions 1 through 9 identify the requestor’s
current address and contact information, and
provide basic biographic information
necessary for identification purposes.
Questions 10-28, in contrast, request
information about the requestor’s family,
employment, and mode of entry that would
already be within DHS’s possession based on
the initial approved request for LIB-DA.
Accordingly, the collection of such information
is burdensome and would unnecessarily tax
the resources of labor unions and other
workers’ organizations that are supporting
labor agency investigations and enforcement
actions (see footnote 11).
Commenter: AFL-CIO
Finally, the AFL-CIO requests that DHS clarify
the role of Part 2, Question 8, which requests
a brief statement as to why the request for
deferred action should be considered and why
the requestor warrants deferral of removal as
a matter of discretion.
We do not oppose the inclusion of this
question, but observe that currently, DHS
instructs LIB-DA requestors to submit “a
written request signed by the noncitizen
stating the basis for the deferred action
request.” We recommend that DHS expressly
clarify on its webpage and/or in the form
instructions that the submission of a signed
Form G-325A with an articulated basis for a
grant of LIB-DA satisfies the requirement for a
“written request signed by the noncitizen,”
and
refrain from requiring an additional separate
statement, as this would be duplicative.

petitions, and A-3, G-5, T, and U
nonimmigrant status. Deferred action is a
discretionary determination to defer
removal of a noncitizen as an act of
prosecutorial discretion, and each decision,
whether it is an initial or subsequent
request, is made on a case-by case basis.
The information being collected by the Form
G-325A is necessary for DHS to assess
whether the person requesting deferred
action has demonstrated that they warrant
a favorable exercise of discretion with
respect to the request before USCIS.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion.
Through this revision, the form instructions
have removed the requirement for a signed
written request by the noncitizen stating the
basis for the deferred action request. This
field replaces the need for a separate signed
written statement.

(see
attachment)

10.
0061

Commenter: Mary Yanik
See attached file

Commenter: Mary Yanik
The proposed revisions to the G-325A also aim
to include the written request from the
deferred action applicant as part of the G325A. I suggest first that this requirement be
eliminated entirely from deferred action
applications. Even though this requirement is
included in DHS’s Frequently Asked Questions
on DHS Support for the Enforcement of Labor
and Employment Laws (see footnote 3), it is a
source of great confusion in the field. This is
an unusual requirement in immigration
benefit applications. I am not aware of any
other immigration benefit that requires a
separate written statement from the applicant
that provides reasons for seeking immigration
protection.
Other temporary humanitarian relief, such as
temporary protected status or humanitarian
parole, do not require a separate written
statement from the applicant. Because this
requirement is unusual, it is often overlooked,
even by experienced immigration attorneys.
This has resulted in rejected applications,
which frustrates workers who are urgently
seeking this protection as well as their
advocates.
Further, the requirement of a written request
for deferred action from the applicant does
not yield information that is useful to the
agency’s case-by-case weighing of the
equities. Applicants for deferred action usually
seek this protection for the same valid and
predictable reasons that are shared by most

Response: See Comment Responses below
labeled with Commenter ID: 0061. The
information in the attachment from the
public comment (0061) was separated into
different sections in this comment matrix to
address each portion of information
individually.
See Comment # 10. – 12.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion.
Through this revision, the form instructions
have removed the requirement for a signed
written request by the noncitizen stating the
basis for the deferred action request. This
field replaces the need for a separate signed
written statement. Deferred action is a
discretionary form of prosecutorial
discretion. The noncitizen must demonstrate
that they warrant an exercise of discretion.
As a result, the additional field clearly
directs the noncitizen to explain their basis
for a discretionary request to defer removal.
Your comments regarding noncitizens
requesting deferred action for their
participation in a labor agency investigation
is noted, but this form is utilized by any
individual requesting deferred action, not
just individuals who may be part of a labor
agency investigation.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
other eligible workers: they do not want to be
deported, they want to stay with and provide
for their families, they want to contribute to
their community, they want to seek justice for
labor violations committed against them, and
they want to assist in labor agency
investigations or compliance. But these
reasons are evident from the application and
can be appropriately weighed without
requiring a separate written statement. Every
application for deferred action for labor
enforcement is accompanied by other
evidence, including at a minimum evidence of
employment, labor agency Statement of
Interest, proof of identity, and some
biographic information. So, the minimal
information the agency receives from an
applicant’s written request for deferred action
is not adding novel information relevant to its
weighing of the equities. And eliminating the
requirement for a separate written statement
in each application would not in any way bar
applicants from conveying additional and
unique reasons through an optional separate
statement, through a cover letter written by
the representative or applicant, or through
additional evidence.

11.
0061

Therefore, I ask that the agency to consider
eliminating this requirement in its entirety. If
DHS is not able to eliminate this requirement,
then the second-best option is to integrate
this requirement into the G-325A, as the
proposed revision seems to do, to reduce the
confusion in the field that is resulting in
rejected applications and delayed protections
for workers needed in labor agency
investigations.
Commenter: Mary Yanik
Along the same lines, I ask that the agency
eliminate or reduce the voluminous
biographical information that is required on
the current G-325A, specifically, the five years
of address and work history. These fields are
burdensome on applicants and attorneys. The
low-wage workers that are most likely to

12.
0061

suffer labor exploitation and therefore are
most in need of deferred action protections
typically have informal employment, working
for one or more contractor and sometimes onand-off over a period of weeks or months.
These employers do not have fixed addresses
and informal employment of this nature often
does not have a clear start and end date, as is
required by this form. Low-wage workers
struggle to remember in a linear fashion their
address and work history over so many years,
which means that it may take hours of careful
questioning from an attorney to elicit accurate
information. This delays applications and
undermines DHS’s
policy objective of providing “streamlined”
protections to workers assisting labor
investigations (see footnote 4). And this
significant burden on applicants and those
assisting applicants is not worth the
information obtained, since address and work
history are rarely relevant to weighing equities
in these cases. The current revisions retain all
of these fields, without explanation and in
addition to adding new fields to integrate
information needed for employment
authorization. Instead, DHS should request
only current address and current employment.
Commenter: Mary Yanik
Finally, I urge the Department to consider
exempting the revised G-325A from the filing
fee associated with applications for
employment authorization. Under the latest
fee schedule, the fee for seeking employment
authorization has risen to $520.5 This is cost
prohibitive for every eligible worker that I
have personally encountered, the vast
majority of whom are low wage workers. I
have personally assisted or witnessed workers
apply for deferred action for labor
enforcement based on experiencing severe
wage theft, wage discrimination, unlawful
withholdings, and retaliatory firings. They are
often applying for this protection in the most
economically precarious moment of their
lives.

participating in labor-based enforcement
action, Form G-325A will be used for all
initial and subsequent requests for deferred
action, other than deferred action related to
DACA, Violence Against Women Act selfpetitions, and A-3, G-5, T, and U
nonimmigrant status Deferred action is a
discretionary determination to defer
removal of a noncitizen as an act of
prosecutorial discretion, and each decision,
whether it is an initial or subsequent
request, is made on a case-by case basis.
The information being collected by the Form
G-325A is necessary for DHS to assess
whether the person requesting deferred
action has demonstrated that they warrant
a favorable exercise of discretion with
respect to the request before USCIS.

13.
0060

(see
attachment)

While the availability of an individual fee
waiver offers some relief, it is insufficient. The
fee waiver form is longer than every other
form currently required in this application,
combined. The documentation required to
support a fee waiver request is often not
available. Immigrants in the Deep South,
where I practice, are never eligible for any
means-tested benefits that would qualify
them for a fee waiver. And the documentation
to show income below 150% of the federal
poverty line is also often elusive: workers are
sometimes paid off the books, in cash, and
cannot ask their employer to verify their
income because, for instance, their employer
is under investigation by the labor agency and
already poised to retaliate against any worker
who seems to be cooperating. The remaining
ground, financial hardship, requires even more
extensive documentation for every significant
monthly expense. I treat the financial hardship
category of the fee waiver form as an absolute
last resort because I often find that reviewing
every monthly expensive is retraumatizing for
workers who have just lost their job and fear
facing the financial needs of their family in a
moment of crisis, all wrought by the
employer’s unlawful conduct. Therefore, the
workers who are eligible for deferred action
may not be able to produce the evidence to
demonstrate that they qualify for fee waiver.
This also delays the filing of applications, as
workers attempt to find supportive evidence
or borrow from friends or family to pay the
application fee. Eliminating the fee required
for deferred action for labor enforcement
would alleviate this significant hardship and
also serve the purpose of the streamlined
protections in facilitating the timely
participation of witnesses in labor
enforcement.
Commenter: Migration That Works
See attached file.

Response: See Comment Responses below
labeled with Commenter ID: 0060. The
information in the attachment from the

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
public comment (0060) was separated into
different sections in this comment matrix to
address each portion of information
individually.
14.
0060

Commenter: Migration That Works
b. USCIS should eliminate the fee for the
streamlined process of requesting both
deferred action and employment
authorization.
While the proposed form revision includes an
ability for a noncitizen to request an
Employment Authorization Document (EAD)
from Form G-325A, as opposed to submitting
Form I-765 after deferred action has been
adjudicated, the prohibitive fee for requesting
an EAD remains a part of this process.
Specifically, the proposed instructions explain
that although “[r]equesting employment
authorization upon a grant of deferred action
using form G-325A is an alternative to
submitting a separate Form I-765, Application
for Employment Authorization, under the
(c)(14) employment authorization category,”
requestors are still “required to provide the
applicable filing fee when requesting
employment authorization” even though there
is no filing fee for form G- 325A.4 USCIS should
amend this to clarify that a worker using form
G-325A to apply for both deferred action and
employment authorization is not required to
pay a separate filing fee for the application for
employment authorization.
There are already a number of fee-exempt
categories for applications for employment
authorization. Here too, there are compelling
reasons for why the employment
authorization application should be feeexempt instead of in the (c)(14) category.
Under the deferred action program, workers
come forward due to labor disputes with their
former or current employer(s). The worker
applicant’s ability to pay the required fee is

See Comment # 14. – 19.
Response: Comments on immigration
benefit request fees charged by USCIS, and
whether or not requesters are exempted
from paying such fees, are out of scope for
the proposed revision to this information
collection. USCIS most recently provided the
public with the opportunity to participate in
the setting of immigration benefit request
fees through the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services Fee Schedule and
Changes to Certain Other Immigration
Benefit Request Requirements rule. See 89
FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024).
However, USCIS did amend the instructions
to clarify that the filing fee for employment
authorization under the (c)(14) employment
authorization category is subject to the
General Filing fee category.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
necessarily constrained by the very
circumstances of being involved in a labor
dispute. These disputes include wage theft,
labor trafficking and fraud, all of which further
limit workers’ resources to allocate towards
the filing fee. After a settlement or judgment,
the length of time it takes to receive a receipt
of full monetary remedies and/or
reinstatement varies widely. Migration that
Works’ members have witnessed cases where
final determinations were made years ago yet
our clients still have not received the damages
they are owed.
Migration that Works’ founding member and
chair Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc.
(“CDM”) has encountered many workers who
have opted out of the deferred action
program altogether due to the fee required
for the employment authorization application.
For example, CDM has conducted several
clinics for workers eligible for deferred action
who could not file their applications in part
because of the burdensome fee. At one such
clinic in North Carolina, CDM had two
Statements of Interest from the Wage and
Hour Division of the Department of Labor,
which, when combined, could cover up to
6,071 workers. After extensive outreach,
about 80 workers attended an in-person clinic
conducted by CDM and local partners, yet only
13 workers submitted deferred action and
employment authorization applications. For
the workers who decided not to submit an
application, the main reasons were that the
EAD fees were too high, and the deferred
action period of two years seemed too short
to instill confidence in the protective nature of
the program. Eliminating the fee barrier for
workers would help to realize the full potential
of the deferred action program and ultimately
aid labor agencies in their efforts to hold
abusive employers accountable.
In the alternative, USCIS should allow for a
simpler fee waiver process with this

15.
c. USCIS should
further
streamline
Form G325A

16.
c. USCIS should
further
streamline
Form G325A
17.
c. USCIS should
further
streamline
Form G325A

0060

18.
0060

streamlined process that accurately reflects
workers’ lived realities. USCIS should accept
any statement of inability to pay rather than
requiring the I-912 which is an additional
burdensome form for low- wage workers who
may not have traditional forms of evidence of
income. At a minimum, USCIS should clarify
the instructions regarding the fee schedule,
category and amount required with this
streamlined application.
Commenter: Migration That Works
Part 1, Question 27.a.: The revised form’s
dropdown formatting requires the requestor
to enter an exact date of entry to the United
States. In our experience, some workers
applying for deferred action have only an
estimated date of arrival. To avoid forcing
requestors to enter an exact date without
certainty of that date, we recommend that
USCIS either: (a) remove the dropdown
formatting requiring an exact date, or (b)
adopt language from the 04/01/2024 edition
of Form I-765: “Date of Your Last Arrival Into
the United States, On or About
(mm/dd/yyyy).”
Commenter: Migration That Works
Part 1, Question 27.b.: We recommend that
USCIS adopt language from the 04/01/2024
edition of Form I-765 giving examples of
immigration statuses: “Immigration Status at
your Last Arrival (for example, B-2 visitor, F-1
student, or no status).”
Commenter: Migration That Works
Part 2, Question 8: As currently formatted, a
requestor could understand Question 8 to be
part of the set of options in Questions 1-7. If
USCIS seeks this information from all
requestors of deferred action, we recommend
inserting a left-justified header, revising the
numbering, or otherwise making clear that
this is a required field separate from the type
of deferred action request.
Commenter: Migration That Works
d. USCIS should clarify whether information
gathered in the revised Form G325A replaces

Response: Thank you for your suggestion.
We have incorporated the suggestion into
the revised form.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion.
Through this revision, the form instructions

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
elements of the current process to request
Labor-Investigation Based Deferred Action.
The Department of Homeland Security’s
current process for requestors of laborinvestigation based deferred action includes
nine bullet points outlining materials to submit
in support of the request.5 These bullets
include information not captured in the
current Form G325A, but captured in the
proposed revisions. Specifically, Part 2,
Question 8 of the revised form seeks a “brief
statement as to why the requestor's request
for deferred action should be considered and
why the requestor warrants deferral of
removal as a matter of discretion.” This is
duplicative with the current instruction to
provide “a written request signed by the
noncitizen stating the basis for the
deferred action request.”
If USCIS intends to condense the deferred
action application process and reduce the
number of items that must be submitted by
the requestor, we commend this action.
However, if USCIS intends to maintain
requirements that each requestor include a
signed written request, we strongly
suggest that Part 2, Question 8 be either
removed or made optional. In Migration that
Work’s experience, each element of an
immigration application is usually unfamiliar
to a worker and creates an obstacle to
overcome before accessing the protection
labor investigation-based deferred action
offers. Because workers seeking this
protection are often under serious and active
threat of retaliation, it is crucial that the
process be as straightforward and easily
accessible as possible. USCIS should eliminate
all requests for duplicative information in
Form 325A and the labor investigation-based
deferred action application as a whole.
Similarly, the revisions to Form G325A contain
fields to collect the information in Form I-

have removed the requirement for a signed
written request by the noncitizen stating the
basis for the deferred action request. This
field replaces the need for a separate signed
written statement.

19.
0060

20.
0062

(see
attachment)

21.
0062

765WS. To the extent this revision is made to
eliminate the need to submit Form I-765WS
when requesting deferred action, Migration
that Works fully supports it. However, in that
case, we urge USCIS to clarify and educate
potential requestors about any changes to the
existing process to avoid submission of
unnecessary forms or evidence and the
associated burden on requestors.
Commenter: Migration That Works
e. Burden Estimation

Response: The estimated hour burden per
response did increase to 2.33 hours per
The estimated hour burden per response
response within this revision action. Taking
provided is 2.15 hours. In 2022, when the form into account the changes made within this
was only one page with revisions made, USCIS revision to consolidate prior requirements
also estimated the hour burden per response
onto the form, such as removing the
was 2.15 hours. It is clear that the proposed
requirement for a signed written request by
change to this form would necessarily increase the noncitizen stating the basis for the
the hour burden per response, as it requires
deferred action request and including a field
more information. We encourage USCIS to
on the form for this request of a brief
provide a more accurate estimate of the hour
statement, adding an Employment
burden required by respondents, using a
Authorization Document request checkbox,
representative sample of potential
and reformatting the form to align with
respondents.
standardized formatting resulted in an
increase in burden.

Commenter: NILC
See attached file(s)

Commenter: NILC
To streamline both the initial application and
renewal process, the agency should include
only those requests for information necessary

In addition, based on the suggestions
accepted from public comments received
during the 60-day comment period, the hour
burden per response has been updated to
2.39 hours per response, as reflected in the
Paperwork Reduction Act statement.
Response: See Comment Responses below
labeled with Commenter ID: 0062. The
information in the attachment from the
public comment (0062) was separated into
different sections in this comment matrix to
address each portion of information
individually.
See Comment # 21. – 29.
Response: USCIS has considered your
comment but will not make any changes to
the Form G-325A based upon it. In addition

22.
I. The Agency
should remove
information
required by
Form G-325A
that is
burdensome
for migrant
workers to
collect and
lacks probative

0062

for the application’s proper adjudication.
Nonetheless, significant barriers remain for
immigrant workers seeking this protection,
including
a lack of free or affordable immigration legal
services (see footnote 8). Moreover, even the
new, streamlined process continues to require
significant information and documentation, in
addition to a filing
fee, which is prohibitive for many applicants
who are victims of wage theft or other such
violations. For these reasons, NILC and SEIU
respectfully request that the Agency
reconsider exempting or waiving the filing fee
for workers eligible for this process. With
respect to Form G-325A specifically, we urge
the Agency to remove sections that require
information of limited
value to adjudicators but that are burdensome
to applicants and immigration practitioners.
Further, if the Agency maintains a filing fee for
this process, the undersigned propose
obviating Form I-912 for these requests by
including an option to request a fee waiver on
the G-325A itself and using the related
economic necessity information (which can be
supplemented as needed by a written request
and/or documents from the worker) to
adjudicate it. Finally, NILC and SEIU
recommend allowing labor-based deferred
action requests to be e-filed to increase access
to these critical protections for migrant
workers and reduce processing burdens on
the Agency.
Commenter: NILC
The undersigned urge the Agency to remove
unnecessary and burdensome information
from the G-325A. Requestors should be
required to provide nothing more than their
current mailing address and employment
information. They should not need to provide
any information about spouses or family
members as such information is not related to
the case-by-case adjudication of labor-based
deferred action. Providing such information is
burdensome for applicants and their pro bono

to those seeking deferred action based upon
their participating in labor-based
enforcement action, the Form G-325A will
be used to request all initial and subsequent
deferred action, other than deferred action
related to DACA, Violence Against Women
Act self-petitions, and A-3, G-5, T, and U
nonimmigrant status. Deferred action is a
discretionary determination to defer
removal of a noncitizen as an act of
prosecutorial discretion, and each decision,
whether it is an initial or subsequent
request, is made on a case-by case basis.
The information being collected by the Form
G-325A is necessary for DHS to assess
whether the person requesting deferred
action has demonstrated that they warrant
a favorable exercise of discretion with
respect to the request before USCIS.

counsel, particularly in the context of one-day
legal clinics that have become common given
the unmet need for immigration legal services
providing direct representation of workers.

DACA, Violence Against Women Act selfpetitions, and A-3, G-5, T, and U
nonimmigrant status. Deferred action is a
discretionary determination to defer
removal of a noncitizen as an act of
While a grant of discretionary relief rests upon prosecutorial discretion, and each decision,
the weighing of all relevant factors, a key
whether it is an initial or subsequent
factor in labor-based deferred action
request, is made on a case-by case basis.
adjudications is the labor agency’s
The information being collected by the Form
enforcement interest (see footnote 9). More
G-325A is necessary for DHS to assess
specifically, to be eligible for a grant of laborwhether the person requesting deferred
based deferred action, an applicant must show action has demonstrated that they warrant
that their current or past employment falls
a favorable exercise of discretion with
within the scope of the investigation described respect to the request before USCIS.
in a labor agency’s SOI (see footnote 10). In
addition to proof of identity and employment
at the workplace under investigation, and
immigration history, if applicable, applicants
are encouraged to submit “[e]vidence of any
additional factors supporting a favorable
exercise of discretion. (see footnote 11)”
Notwithstanding the broad nature of
prosecutorial discretion, much of the
information required by the G-325A has no
bearing on the adjudication of labor-based
deferred action or discretionary factors
generally considered by USCIS, such as
criminal histories or positive equities. Further,
as set forth below, biographical information of
the kind required by the Form can be more
onerous for low-income immigrant workers
who often experience housing and job
insecurity. This is particularly acute where, as
in labor-based deferred action cases, an
applicant has experienced labor violations that
rob them of wages or impact their ability to
work.
Finally, given the dearth of legal services
immigrant workers have faced when
attempting to access this process, DHS should
prioritize limiting the application
requirements—including the G-325A—to only
the information required to conduct its caseby-case adjudication. Doing so will reduce the

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
burden on pro bono legal services, which will
increase access to counsel and make
adjudications more efficient for the Agency.

23.
I. The Agency
should remove
information
required by
Form G-325A
that is
burdensome
for migrant
workers to
collect and
lacks probative
value for the
discretionary
adjudication of
labor-based
deferred
action.

0062

Accordingly, to further streamline this process
and avoid creating additional barriers for
workers seeking to access it, the undersigned
recommend removing Part 1, Questions 13-26
and 28 from the proposed G-325A.
Commenter: NILC
a. An applicant’s past five-year employment
and address history, as well as marital and
parental information, provide no utility to
adjudications but create burdens for
applicants and counsel.
Marital and parental history, as well as the
requestor’s past five years of employment and
residential history, all offer little meaningful
information for discretionary adjudication.
Even if adjudicators draw some inferences
about a worker’s positive or negative equities
from the extensive biographical information, it
would be insignificant when weighed against
the
demonstrated enforcement interests of labor
agencies. Furthermore, having to provide this
information will only deter potential
requestors from submitting applications or
increase burdens
on legal service organizations that would be
able to help more individuals with streamlined
applications.
Indeed, reducing the amount of information
collected by the agency furthers efficiency
interests and reduces the cost to adjudicate
such cases. In fact, the Agency has already
taken steps to reduce superfluous information
by not including requestors’ last address and
employment information outside the U.S. in
its proposed changes to Form G-325A. We
support the removal of that information. We
recommend that the Agency further
streamline the application process by also
eliminating proposed Question 26, which

Response: USCIS has considered your
comment and removed the employment
history section from Form G-325A; we will
not make any other recommended changes.
USCIS notes that, in addition to those
requesting deferred action based on their
participating in labor-based enforcement
action, Form G-325A will be used for all
initial and subsequent requests for deferred
action, other than deferred action related to
DACA, Violence Against Women Act selfpetitions, and A-3, G-5, T, and U
nonimmigrant status. Deferred action is a
discretionary determination to defer
removal of a noncitizen as an act of
prosecutorial discretion, and each decision,
whether it is an initial or subsequent
request, is made on a case-by case basis.
The information being collected by the Form
G-325A is necessary for DHS to assess
whether the person requesting deferred
action has demonstrated that they warrant
a favorable exercise of discretion with
respect to the request before USCIS.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
requires that the requestor list her address
history throughout the past five years.
Additionally, we recommend that the Agency
modify Question 28 to request only the
requestor’s current employment information.
The undersigned’s experience with lowincome immigrant workers is that many
struggle to maintain a permanent address and
are often forced to move repeatedly in search
of new employment and stable housing (see
footnote 12). Additionally, undocumented
workers face an elevated degree of
employment instability due to their
undocumented status. Indeed, the population
seeking this benefit is only eligible because of
their employment with an exploitative
employer, illustrating
their challenges in providing five years of
employment history when compared to
workers with work authorization or
permanent status. It is also noteworthy that
other temporary protections, such as the Form
I-821 for requesting Temporary Protected
Status (TPS), do not require submitting
extensive past residential and employment
history.
As a result, advocates have often encountered
significant delays in application
submission because workers attempt to recall
or obtain the details of their address and
employment history as requested by the
proposed G-325A. For example, NILC recently
assisted farmworkers who were eligible to
apply for labor-based deferred action. Due to
the seasonal nature of this work, workers
often had well over ten different employers in
the last five years. Piecing together this
history, along with the addresses of each
employer and the dates of
employment, was extremely onerous for both
the workers and advocates, often requiring an
entire separate page (or more) of employment
history beyond the space provided on the
form.

Advocates have encountered similar delays for
requestors with past marital history. At
present, a requestor must provide her
spouse’s date of birth, city and country of
birth, and date and location of marriage.
Additionally, a requestor that has been
previously married must provide their prior
spouses’ date of birth, the date and place of
the marriage, and the date and place of the
marriage’s dissolution. This information may
be unavailable to applicants, confusing in
certain cultural contexts where “marriage”
does not necessarily connote a legal status,
and may discourage applicants who fear
identifying family members without
immigration status. The Agency’s proposed
changes to Form G-325A make no substantive
changes to this marital history request despite
the information’s lack of clear probative value.

24.
I. The Agency
should remove
information
required by
Form G-325A
that is
burdensome
for migrant
workers to
collect and
lacks probative
value for the

0062

Finally, the parental information required can
be difficult to obtain, particularly for workers
who have resided in the U.S. for many years—
and whose parents are deceased—and who do
not have access to their parents’ records from
their home country that would contain place
and dates of birth as required by the G-325A.
Once again, parental information has no
probative value in the case-by-case
adjudication of labor-based deferred action,
and its requirement functions only as a barrier
to accessing this process.
Commenter: NILC
b. The Agency underestimates the burden on
immigrant workers of completing Form G325A even under the new “streamlined”
labor-based deferred action process.
The Agency estimates 565,180 submissions of
amended Form G-325A, with each individual
submission requiring fifteen minutes on
average to be completed by applicants (see
footnote 13). We are not aware of the
Agency’s source for this time estimate, but in
our experience, the form takes significantly

Response: The estimated hour burden per
response did increase to 2.33 hours per
response within this revision action. Taking
into account the changes made within this
revision to consolidate prior requirements
onto the form, such as removing the
requirement for a signed written request by
the noncitizen stating the basis for the
deferred action request and including a field
on the form for this request of a brief
statement, adding an Employment
Authorization Document request checkbox,

longer to complete, even when workers are
assisted by counsel. Based on our experience,
a more realistic estimate of the average time
to complete the G-325A would be between
one to three hours, based on the workers’
history and the time needed for the worker to
obtain marriage, parental, residential, and
employment history that is not readily
available. Sometimes the Form cannot be
completed in a single meeting due to the
worker’s need to search for additional
information.
The true time burden incurred by requests for
superfluous information truncates nonprofit
organizations’ ability to assist eligible
requestors. Migrant workers eligible for laborbased deferred action already face myriad
obstacles in the application process. As NILC
noted in its one-year report on the process,
“most workers’ rights organizations do not
have in-house immigration services; many
nonprofits that offer immigration services are
already at capacity; many workers in lowpaying jobs cannot afford private immigration
attorneys; and some cases involving large
numbers of immigrant workers occur in rural
and/or under-resourced communities that are
‘legal deserts’ in terms of immigration services
(see footnote 14).”
To address these obstacles, worker advocacy
groups have sought to meet this need by
organizing pro se legal clinics in which
volunteer attorneys assist a large number of
workers in preparing and submitting
applications, similar to those that assisted
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
applicants in years past. By eliminating
sections on requestors’ marital, employment,
and address history, volunteers will have
significantly more time to assist a far greater
number of eligible workers in submitting their
applications (see footnote 15). Increasing
access to counsel not only benefits applicants,
but also decreases the administrative burden

and reformatting the form to align with
standardized formatting resulted in an
increase in burden.
In addition, based on the suggestions
accepted from public comments received
during the 60-day comment period, the hour
burden per response has been updated to
2.39 hours per response, as reflected in the
Paperwork Reduction Act statement.

25.
I. The Agency
should remove
information
required by
Form G-325A
that is
burdensome
for migrant
workers to
collect and
lacks probative
value for the
discretionary
adjudication of
labor-based
deferred
action.

0062

26.
II. The Agency
0062
will advance its
humanitarian
interests by
exempting or
waiving filing
fees for
migrant
workers
seeking laborbased deferred

to the Agency as applicants with the
assistance of counsel will be more likely to
provide adequate and streamlined evidence
and correctly completed applications, thus
reducing the need for Agency Requests for
Evidence, follow-up, adjudication times, and
appeals.
Commenter: NILC
c. The Agency should amend the instructions
for the G-325A to require less information for
renewals or subsequent requests of laborbased deferred action.
We welcome the Agency’s January 2024
announcement of a process for workers to
submit subsequent requests for labor-based
deferred action based on the ongoing
interests of the labor agencies. However, the
current process requires essentially all the
same forms and supporting documents as the
initial request, raising similar concerns of
access for eligible workers with limited legal
support. Therefore, even if the Agency retains
the required information currently proposed
in the revised G-325A, we respectfully request
it amend the
instructions to allow workers to forego
extraneous information that has been
previously provided to the agency in the initial
request. Specifically, the agency should not
require applicants to complete Part 1,
Questions 10 through 28 when making
subsequent requests for labor-based deferred
action.
Commenter: NILC
a. The Agency will best achieve its interest in
facilitating labor enforcement by
amending controlling regulations to exempt
filing fees for requestors seeking
employment authorization pursuant to a
grant of labor-based deferred action.
Currently, controlling regulations allow USCIS
to waive, but not exempt, payment for laborbased deferred action recipients seeking
employment authorization under category

Response: USCIS has considered your
comment and removed the employment
history section from Form G-325A; we will
not make any other recommended changes.
USCIS notes that, in addition to those
seeking deferred action based upon their
participating in labor-based enforcement
action, the Form G-325A will be used to
request all initial and subsequent deferred
action, other than deferred action related to
DACA, Violence Against Women Act selfpetitions, and A-3, G-5, T, and U
nonimmigrant status. Deferred action is a
discretionary determination to defer
removal of a noncitizen as an act of
prosecutorial discretion, and each decision,
whether it is an initial or subsequent
request, is made on a case-by case basis.
The information being collected by the Form
G-325A is necessary for DHS to assess
whether the person requesting deferred
action has demonstrated that they warrant
a favorable exercise of discretion with
respect to the request before USCIS.

(c)(14).16 Nevertheless, Section 286 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act17 empowers
the Attorney General to designate
adjudication fees for applications to USCIS
while making express reference to services
rendered without cost to the applicant. USCIS
already recognizes a wide
variety of employment authorization
applicants for whom it has waived or
exempted the filing fee requirement (see
footnote 18). In fact, the agency’s historical
practice of exempting fees on a humanitarian
basis has even been recently codified in
federal regulations (see footnote 19).
Indeed, the recently amended USCIS Fee
Schedule reflects prioritizing fee exemptions,
rather than waivers only, for nearly all victimbased or humanitarian requests (see footnote
20), identifying specifically both the benefit to
the applicant as well as reduced cost to the
agency in avoiding adjudication of fee waivers
for categories that will generally merit them.
Labor-based deferred action cases are by-andlarge such cases. By definition, these
applicants are individuals who have
experienced workplace violations and are
required to show economic necessity to work
in order to receive employment authorization.
Requiring a fee and processing a waiver that
should generally be granted is a waste of
Agency resources in addition to a burden on
applicants and
Counsel (see footnote 21).
The $520 filing fee associated with the
application for employment authorization (see
footnote 22) is cost-prohibitive for many
migrants seeking discretionary relief from
USCIS, especially in the wake of the Covid-19
pandemic (see footnote 23). Accordingly, to
more fully advance its humanitarian activity as
proposed to Congress (see footnote 24), the
Agency would do best to altogether exempt
applicants seeking employment authorization

Benefit Request Requirements rule. See 89
FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024).

27.
II. The Agency
0062
will advance its
humanitarian
interests by
exempting or
waiving filing
fees for
migrant
workers
seeking laborbased deferred
action and by
including an
option to
request a
Social Security
number on
Form G-325A.

based on labor-based deferred action from
the filing fee. At present,
with exception for those applications filed
under category (c)(33), USCIS may waive the
$520 filing fee (see footnote 25) for
employment authorization applications based
on Deferred Action (see footnote 26).
Commenter: NILC
b. In the alternative, the Agency should
include an option to request a fee waiver on
Form G-325A, obviating the need to submit a
separate Form I-912.
While federal regulations do not mandate that
applications for employment authorization
under category (c)(14) be submitted on a
prescribed form,27 they do require that a
recipient of Deferred Action establish
economic necessity to work in order to receive
employment authorization (see footnote 28).
Under controlling regulations, agency
adjudicators assess economic necessity with
information regarding the applicant’s assets,
income, and expenses (see footnote 29).
As to submission requirements, controlling
regulations require only that an applicant’s
request for adjudication without fee payment
be made in writing and contain an explanation
of the applicant’s inability to pay (see footnote
30). In other words, the Agency is not required
to adjudicate fee
waiver requests submitted only on Form I-912
(see footnote 31). In fact, in its final rule on
changes to the USCIS Fee Schedule, the
Agency stated it would not require fee waiver
requests to be submitted on a prescribed form
(see footnote 32).
Instead, the Agency chose to “revert to the
current effective language at 8 CFR 103.7(c)(2)
(Oct. 1, 2020)” and maintain its historical
practice of accepting either Form I-912 or a
written fee waiver request. Eligibility
requirements remain consistent with the 2011
Fee Waiver Policy (see footnote 33) criteria of

Response: There is no fee for the Form G325A, but USCIS assumes the commentor is
referring to the fee for the associated
request for employment authorization.
USCIS may consider this recommendation in
a future revision action to Form G-325A.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
inability to pay, which a requestor may
establish by showing: 1) Receipt of a “meanstested” benefit (see footnote 34) at the time of
filing (see footnote 35); 2) Household income
at or below 150 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines at the time of filing (see footnote
36); or 3) Extreme financial hardship or other
circumstances resulting in inability to pay (see
footnote 37). Nevertheless, at present, agency
instructions require labor-based deferred
action requestors to seek a fee waiver on
Form I-912 (see footnote 38).
The proposed changes to Form G-325A will
allow applicants to apply for employment
authorization and establish economic
necessity without need of Form I-765 or I765WS, Worksheet. This is because the
information requestors provide to establish
economic necessity closely parallels the newly
codified regulatory requirements for fee
waiver eligibility (see footnote 39).
Accordingly, the agency should capitalize on
its proposed employment-related inclusions in
Form G-325A by allowing applicants to request
a fee waiver on the new form itself, obviating
the need for submission of the I-912. Rather
than submitting a separate form with largely
duplicate information, an applicant may
instead check a box requesting a fee waiver
based on the economic necessity information,
with the option to submit additional
supporting documents. Such an allowance will
further streamline the application process for
applicants who are unable to pay the $520
filing fee and wish to request a fee waiver.
Moreover, it will also ease the Agency’s
operational costs by no longer requiring
agency adjudicators to process a lengthy Form
I-912 containing much of the same
information already provided within Form G325A for applicants showing economic
necessity.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
28.
II. The Agency
0062
will advance its
humanitarian
interests by
exempting or
waiving filing
fees for
migrant
workers
seeking laborbased deferred
action and by
including an
option to
request a
Social Security
number on
Form G-325A.

Commenter: NILC
c. The revised G-325A should allow workers
to request automatic issuance of a Social
Security number upon approval of the laborbased deferred action request.
At present, Form I-765 contains the option for
applicants to request issuance of a Social
Security number (SSN) upon approval of the
underlying application for employment
authorization.40 However, the proposed G325A does not include this option despite
allowing inform requests for both labor-based
deferred action and employment
authorization. As Social Security numbers are
critical for lawful employment, as well as
providing access to other benefits and
services, we urge the Agency to reproduce
Questions 12 through 17 of Part 2 of the
current Form I-765 in the updated G-325A.
The Agency should additionally update the
corresponding forms instructions.
Although a worker can apply for an SSN after
having received Form I-766 (Employment
Authorization Document/EAD) from USCIS, the
worker must presently do so at their local
Social Security Administration (SSA) office by
submitting Form SS-5, Application for a Social
Security Card (see footnote 41). Additionally,
the recipient must present two documents
proving their identity and employmentauthorized immigration status (see footnote
42). The documents must be originals or
copies certified by the issuing agency (see
footnote 43). Instead, USCIS should allow--as
it does in other benefits requests--the
applicant to simply request a Social Security
number on the amended Form G-325A.
The separate application process for an SSN
imposes additional time and monetary
burdens on immigrant workers seeking to
access this process, especially those living in
rural areas with little or no transportation
options to the appropriate Social Security

Response: Thank you for your suggestion.
We have incorporated the suggestion into
the revised form.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
office. Additionally, an application for an SSN
may take several weeks to be processed, thus
further prolonging a worker’s inability to seek
lawful employment, a driver’s license, and
certain state and federal benefits (see
footnote 44). Advocates have further found
that Social Security offices differ in their
understanding of and ease with processing
requests for noncitizens, which further
exacerbates
these harms to workers, distracts them from
assisting the investigating agency, and
increases burdens on social service
organizations which often help applicants
liaise with SSA offices and other agencies.

29.
III. Allowing for
E-filing of
labor-based
deferred
action

0062

Undersigned acknowledge the Covid-19
pandemic’s detrimental impact to agency
revenue.45 Nevertheless, by amending Form
G-325A to include applications for
employment authorization and obviating the
need for a fee waiver request, the agency also
preserves the resources it would have spent
adjudicating Forms I-765, I-765WS, and I-912.
The subsequent reduction in operational costs
will offset the loss in revenue resulting from
such a fee exemption. In fact, the benefits
resulting from increased participation in the
deferred action program more than justify
amending controlling regulations (see
footnote 46). Additionally, USCIS should look
to recover any remaining loss in revenue from
Congressional appropriations rather than
raising fees for applicants whose
circumstances are analogous to those for
whom the filing fee is presently exempted
(see footnote 47). The agency’s demonstrated
history of success following financial support
from Congress is well documented by the
agency itself (see footnote 48).
Commenter: NILC
Given the lack of immigration services to
support workers seeking labor-based deferred
action, particularly in rural communities where
many large labor disputes have arisen, remote
representation has become critical to ensuring

Response: Thank you for your
recommendation. USCIS may consider this
recommendation in a future revision action
to Form G-325A.

Form G-325A Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2005-0024
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 89 FR 30388
Publish Dates: April 23, 2024 – June 24, 2024
requests and
applications
for work
authorization,
in addition to
paper filing,
would
streamline the
application
process and
enhance
access to
immigration
protections for
immigrant
workers
involved in
labor disputes.

workers can access the process. Thus far, the
streamlined process has only been available
through paper filing of the forms and
supporting
documents to the Montclair, California USCIS
filing location.
For those who can secure representation
remotely, paper filing adds another challenge
in terms of mailing documents back and forth
and getting signatures. Allowing electronic
filing would ensure greater access to this
process for workers unable to meet with
advocates in person.
With that said, some workers with in-person
legal assistance or applying pro se may still
find the process more accessible on paper.
Accordingly, we urge the agency to allow for
both paper and electronic filing to maximize
the flexibility and accessibility of the process.
E-filing would also further the agency’s 5-year
directive (under Section 4103 of the
Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act,
Title I, Div. D of Public Law (P.L.) 116-159 (8
U.S.C. 1103 note)) to enable e-filing and epayment for all applications as described in
2021 fiscal report to Congress (see footnote
49).

File Type	application/pdf
Author	Stout, Samantha J
File Modified	2024-08-21
File Created	2024-08-21