30-day Public Comment Response Matrix

30-day Public Comment Response Matrix (High-Value).pdf

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Certain Information on Immigration Forms

30-day Public Comment Response Matrix

OMB:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Comment Summary

USCIS Response

0232
0233

Commenters argue that the proposed
"Identifying Information Collection" lacks
sufficient legal authority and violates federal
laws and constitutional principles. Below is a
summary of the key points:

Response: DHS disagrees with commenters that
its collection of high value information elements
exceeds the agency’s authority, is unnecessarily
duplicative, arbitrary and capricious, or imposes
unjustifiable costs. DHS has broad authority
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
and Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002, to
administer immigration laws including collecting
data identified in this information collection. See
generally, INA secs. 101, 103, 8 U.S.C. 1101,
1103; sec. 402 of the HSA. For example, INA
287(b), 8 U.S.C. 1357(b), and 8 CFR 287.5(a)(2)
empower officers and agents to “take and
consider evidence concerning the privilege of
any person to enter, reenter, pass through, or
reside in the United States.” Specific to the N400, INA 335, 8 U.S.C. 1446, requires “a personal
investigation of the person applying for
naturalization” and authorizes USCIS to take
testimony “in any way affecting the admissibility
of any applicant for naturalization” and to
require the production of relevant documents.

Legal Authority to
Collect

1. Lack of Executive Authority: The proposal
exceeds the executive branch's authority, as it
relies solely on an executive order (EO 14161)
without support from Congress or the
Constitution, as an executive order alone does
not provide sufficient legal authority for such a
broad and invasive data collection effort.
2. Violation of Federal Laws:
a. Administrative Procedure Act (APA):
Proposal lacks adequate justification,
fails to consider critical factors (e.g.,
costs, burdens on vulnerable
populations), and does not provide a
rational connection between the data
collection and stated goals of national
security.
3. Nature of the Proposal: Proposal is arbitrary
and capricious because it lacks justification,
imposes irrelevant blanket requirements, and
underestimates the burdens on applicants.
4. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Violation:
Requires agencies to demonstrate that
information collections are necessary, useful,
and minimally burdensome. The comments
argue that the proposed collections fail on all
counts, as they are unnecessary, duplicative, and
impose unjustifiable costs on applicants and the
government.

0235

Regulatory Action

Recommendations: Rescind proposal or revise it
to tailor data collection to specific forms, limit
scope of data collection, provide a grace period,
and ensure data security.
Key Regulatory Recommendations and Support:

DHS also has a reasonable basis and practical
utility for the collection of this information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This collection is
not a rule or a proposed rule under the
Administrative Procedure Act. This information
collection is necessary to ensure compliance with
Executive Order (E.O.) 14161, which directs the
Secretary of State, in coordination with the
Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Director of National
Intelligence, to “identify all resources that may
be used to ensure that all aliens seeking
admission to the United States, or who are
already in the United States, are vetted and
screened to the maximum degree possible.” This
collection will be used to conduct thorough
security checks and verify applicants’ identities
and eligibility for the immigration benefits they
are applying for.
Response: DHS appreciates the constructive and
positive feedback from this commenter and is

0233

Contradiction of
Executive Orders

Prohibited Activity

One commenter argued that the proposed
regulatory actions contradict President Trump’s
executive orders aimed at reducing regulatory
burdens. The comment includes that the
proposed actions contradict these mandates by:
• increasing the complexity of the
application process; and
• imposing additional burdens without
clear evidence that the changes will
achieve the stated goals of protecting
national security or improving vetting
processes.

Commenter raised concerns about the proposed
information collection activities by DHS in
relation to immigration forms. Key points are
below:
•

Prohibited Investigative and
Intelligence-Gathering Activities:
Commenter asserts that the proposed
collection may lead USCIS to engage in
investigative and intelligence-gathering
activities that are assigned exclusively to

receptive to including these suggestions in a
future regulation. For the time being, DHS will
proceed with the proposed form changes. This
will enable DHS to implement rigorous vetting
practices as quickly as possible and will also
serve as a basis for DHS to gain data and
experience that will better inform future rule
changes.
Finally, DHS is not required to codify information
collection elements in regulations as it already
has requisite statutory and regulatory authority
to collect the data elements contained in this
generic clearance, which as explained previously
are necessary for the adequate vetting and
screening related to various immigration
benefits.
Response: The two cited Executive Orders, E.O.
14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation, and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful
Governance and Implementing the President’s
“Department of Government Efficiency”
Deregulatory Initiative, do not apply in the
homeland security or immigration contexts.
Both orders specify that they do not apply to
regulations or actions related to a “homeland
security… or immigration-related function of the
United States.”
Additionally, as discussed more fully below, DHS
has taken into account the costs and burdens
involved in collecting this information and has
found these costs and burdens reasonable and
justified given the security and fraud prevention
benefits from this collection. See Topic 4.
Impacts on Immigration Benefit Processing,
Delay Benefit Processing.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA)
transferred to the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services (now USCIS) the functions
of “adjudications of immigration visa petitions,”
“adjudications of naturalization petitions,”
“adjudications of asylum and refugee
applications,” “adjudications performed at
service centers,” and “all other adjudications
performed by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service immediately before the
effective date” of the HSA. These adjudicative

Topic 2. Compliance with the PRA
0228
0230
0232
0233
0234

Practical Utility

Commenters consistently argue that the
proposed information collection lacks practical
utility. Key points are below:
1. Lack of Necessity:
 DHS and USCIS have not provided
evidence or justification that the
additional data collection (e.g. historical
phone numbers and family members'
data) is necessary to improve identity
verification, national security, or
eligibility determinations.
 No historical or statistical evidence
demonstrates that such information has
been effective in identifying security
threats or denying benefits to ineligible
applicants.
 Commenters expressed that data is
irrelevant to the adjudication of
immigration benefits and does not
contribute to verifying identity or
assessing security risks.
2. Alternative Processes Exists:
 Commenters allege that USCIS already
collects sufficient data on applicants
through existing forms, biometrics,
security and background checks, and
use of investigative databases. The
additional data being requested is

functions necessarily include the ability to
investigate whether an applicant is eligible for a
benefit, as the INA recognizes by providing for
investigations and evidence gathering in the
context of adjudications. As noted above,
examples include INA 287(b), 8 U.S.C. 1357(b),
which empowers officers and agents to “take
and consider evidence concerning the privilege
of any person to enter, reenter, pass through, or
reside in the United States,” and INA 335, 8
U.S.C. 1446, which requires “a personal
investigation of the person applying for
naturalization” and authorizes USCIS to take
testimony “in any way affecting the admissibility
of any applicant for naturalization” and to
require the production of relevant documents.
Response: 5 CFR 1320.9 states, “As part of an
agency’s submission to OMB of a proposed
collection of information, the agency,” in this
case, USCIS, “… shall certify… that the proposed
collection of information” “(a) [i]s necessary for
the proper performance of the function of the
agency, including that the information to be
collected will have practical utility.” This
collection will have immediate practical utility to
verify the applicant’s identity and eligibility.
DHS has practical utility to collect the
information covered by the generic clearance in
compliance with 5 CFR 1320.9(a). The
biographical information which will be
collected—including the names; addresses;
birthdates; nationalities; phone numbers; email
addresses; and employment history of the alien’s
living and deceased parents, siblings, spouses,
former spouses, and children—is relevant to
determining eligibility for Forms N-400, I-131, I485, I-751, I-590, I-829, I-730, I-192 and I-589
because it will allow USCIS and its national
security and law enforcement partners to better
vet applicants for potential information of
interest that could affect eligibility and/or
admissibility.
U.S. government departments and agencies
involved in screening and vetting, to include



redundant and does not add value to
the adjudication process.
Relevant information and family
member data could be requested on a
case-by-case basis through the Request
for Evidence (RFE) process, rather than
as a blanket requirement.

The commenters assert that the proposed
information collection is unnecessary,
redundant, and unsupported by evidence of
effectiveness. Existing processes already achieve
the stated goals, making the additional data
collection wasteful and unjustified.

USCIS, identified data elements that would
constitute a new baseline threshold of data to be
collected for identity verification and national
security vetting. The collection of this
information is necessary to comply with Section
2 of EO 14161, which requires the reestablishment of a “uniform baseline for
screening and vetting standards and procedures,
consistent with the uniform baseline that existed
on January 19, 2021, that will be used for any
alien seeking a visa or immigration benefit of any
kind”, to ensure these foreign nationals do not
represent a threat to the safety and security of
the United States. Specifically, it directs relevant
agencies to, “vet and screen to the maximum
degree possible all aliens who intend to be
admitted, enter, or are already inside the United
States, particularly those aliens coming from
regions or nations with identified security risks.”
These nine forms cover a majority of the
aforementioned pool of aliens seeking to travel
to the United States and other applicants seeking
immigration benefits.
Additionally, given the nature of USCIS’ mission,
it is important for USCIS to ask for and review
this information. All information provided by the
applicant may be used to verify his or her
identity, eligibility, and to vet the applicant. In
addition to checking government information,
DHS officers may use sources of publicly
available information as part of the existing
vetting process to screen the information
submitted.
If an initial screening indicates possible
information of concern or a need to further
validate information, a trained officer will have
timely visibility of the information provided by
the applicant, along with other information and
tools these officers regularly use in the
performance of their duties. The officer will
review in a manner consistent with policy and
regulations.
USCIS has a layered approach to security, and
information collected would be only one
element used in the analysis of the applicant’s

0230
0232
0233
0234

Duplication

Commenters consistently state that the
proposed information collection is unnecessarily
duplicative, highlighting the following points:
1. Repetition Across Forms and Immigration
Stages: Applicants are required to repeatedly
provide the same information (e.g., phone
numbers, email addresses, and family members'
data) across multiple forms (e.g., N-400, I-485, I131) and at different stages of the immigration
process, even when the data has not changed.
This redundancy adds to the burden on
applicants without improving efficiency.
2. Data Already Held by USCIS:
 Much of the requested information is
already collected and stored by USCIS
through prior applications, biometrics,
and existing investigative databases.
Requiring applicants to resubmit this
data is redundant and does not add
value to the adjudication process.
 Proposed collection imposes blanket
requirements for all applicants,
regardless of the type of immigration

The information collected will help USCIS’
mission to administer the nation’s lawful
immigration system. It may also be used to
identify potential deception or fraud. Further, it
may help detect potential threats. This new data
collection may also help distinguish individuals of
additional concern from those individuals whose
information substantiates their eligibility for
travel to or entry into the United States or
immigration benefits.
Response: USCIS is complying with the PRA, and
the PRA implementing regulations and will not
implement this generic information collection in
a way that is duplicative. To the extent that any
of the information collection instruments already
include some of the information contained in the
generic clearance, USCIS will combine those
elements to ensure that it is not duplicating the
collection. However, collecting the same
information across different forms, at different
stages of the immigration process, is not
duplicative because changes or lack of
consistency in the applicant’s responses may flag
areas of concern for an adjudicator to assess.
Please see response in Topic 2. Compliance with
the PRA, Practical Utility.

0232
0233
0234

Underestimation of
Burden

3. No Added Value or Security Benefit:
Duplication of information does not enhance
security, identity verification, or eligibility
determinations, as existing databases and
processes already provide sufficient data for
these purposes.
The commenters emphasize that the proposed
information collections impose excessive and
unnecessary burden on both applicants and
USCIS. Key points include:
1. Unrealistic Time Burden Estimates: USCIS
time estimates for completing the forms are
criticized as grossly underestimated, with the
actual time required likely to be significantly
longer. A commenter criticized USCIS’s claim that
compliance will take less than an hour, arguing
that tracking down the requested information
will require significantly more time and effort.
2. Burden on Applicants:
 Applicants are required to provide
extensive and detailed historical
information (e.g., phone numbers, email
addresses, and family members' data),
which is often difficult to recall, verify,
or access.
 Proposed changes would more than
double the length of most forms,
significantly increasing the time and
effort required for applicants to
complete them.
 Financial costs, such as legal fees and
administrative expenses, further
increase the burden on applicants.

Response: In USCIS’ response to public
comments from the 60-Day notice, as published
in the Federal Register at 90 FR 11054 on March
3, 2025, the estimated hour burden per response
was increased by an additional 3 hours for each
impacted information collection to more
accurately reflect the burden imposed on the
public, which totals to an overall increase by an
average of 3.8 hours on each application. USCIS
closely reviewed the estimated average hour
burden per response and the addition of the 24
data elements and instructional content to allow
the applicant to provide the requested
information, as necessary, and is confident that
this increase in burden addresses the
commenters’ concerns and accurately reflects
the estimated burden.
The estimated burden included on the Generic
Clearance reflects only the burden associated
with the 24 data elements being applied to the
affected information collections, where the
information is not already collected. By
identifying only the associated burden for the
identified 24 data elements for each affected
information collection in the Generic Clearance,
we can more clearly isolate the precise burden
impact the data elements institute.
The total burden impact for each affected
information collection will be outlined in each
Supporting Statement. Additionally, the overall
average burden per response for each affected
information collection can be found in the
information collection instrument with
instructions included on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal site at:
https://www.regulations.gov and entering
USCIS-2025-0002.

The estimated total annual cost burden
associated with a specific information collection
will be captured in those approved collections.
Any updates to the estimated annual cost
burden to respondents, which includes the
imposed out-of-pocket costs to respondents, will
be outlined in each Supporting Statement for the
affected information collection. Out-of-pocket
costs may include payments for document
translation and preparation services, attorney
and legal fees, postage, and costs associated
with gathering documentation. In addition, any
updates to the estimated cost to the federal
government will be outlined in each Supporting
Statement for the affected information
collection.
3. Burden on Family Members:
 Vulnerable populations, such as
refugees and victims of trafficking, face
disproportionate harm, as disclosing
family members' information could
endanger relatives in unsafe situations.

0232
0233
0234

Appropriateness of
generic clearance

The commenters strongly oppose the use of a
generic clearance for the proposed immigration
information collections, particularly the Form N400. They argue that generic clearance should
only be used for information collections that are
voluntary, low-burden, and uncontroversial, and
that these information collections do not meet
that criteria. Instead, they claim that the
proposed collection is mandatory, imposes

While some commenters expressed concerns for
vulnerable populations and disclosure of family
members’ information, USCIS does not deny an
application based solely on the applicant’s failure
to provide information that the applicant does
not know or provide. The information in this
collection constitutes a small portion of the
information used in the analysis of an
immigration benefit request. If any individual
does not have access to certain information, they
may so indicate on the affected forms. Any one
response (or lack thereof) to a certain additional
data element will not exclusively determine
whether an application is approved or denied.
Applicants may be asked to provide an
explanation regarding their lack of knowledge if
they are unable to answer particular questions
on a form. DHS makes case-by-case
determinations based on the totality of the
circumstances, consistent with its authorities.
Response: The process used by DHS to obtain
this generic clearance is similar to, but no less
demanding than, the process to obtain approval
of any new or revised information collection as it
still requires the standard 60 and 30-day notice
process. In addition, a generic information
collection clearance requires the same level of
justification, support, analysis, and level of
approval as any other information collection
approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and
implementing regulations. 1 The generic
clearance is being used to propose the identified
24 new data elements for the affected
information collections, which allows for the
public to review the new individual data
elements that will appear on the affected
information collections. This method provides a
single docket for the public to provide comments
on the proposed 24 data elements and affected
information collections, which reduces the
burden on the public, rather than the public
having to identify and comment on a separate
notice and docket for nine separate information
collections. The use of a generic clearance also
reduces burden and cost to the federal
government to publish separate Federal Register
notices. USCIS agrees that a generic clearance is
usually used for information collections that are
voluntary, low-burden, and non-controversial. 2
As per requirements under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and 5 CFR 1320, USCIS believes that a generic
clearance is appropriate to use for this process in
order to make the proposed necessary changes
to ensure a thorough screening and vetting
process.

USCIS published a 60-day Federal Register notice
and 30-day Federal Register notice for the
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Certain
Information on Immigration Forms. The 60-day
notice and the 30-day notice included each
affected information collection instrument with
instructions that included the proposed changes
on the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
https://www.regulations.gov and entering
USCIS-2025-0002.
Topic 3. Compliance with the Privacy Act/Records Act/Information Security/Data Integrity
0232
0233

The comments highlight significant privacy
concerns regarding the proposed collection. Key
issues include:

Response: DHS disagrees that this information
collection is an invasion of privacy. USCIS
complies with the Privacy Act and DHS policy
regarding collection and protection of
information as required. DHS understands that

44 U.S.C. chapter 35; 5 CFR Part 1320.
5 CFR 1320.3(c)(1); Sunstein, Cass R., Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and Independent
Regulatory Agencies: Paperwork Reduction Act – Generic Clearances (May 28, 2010)

1
2

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Certain Information on Immigration Forms - Responses to 30-day Public
Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2025-0002
30-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 90 FR 42604
Publish Dates: September 3, 2025 – October 3, 2025
1. Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974:
Collection of irrelevant or unnecessary data (e.g.,
historical contact information), including thirdparty information, without proper notice of how
it will be used, which violates the Privacy Act's
requirements for relevance, necessity, and direct
collection from the subject.
2. Invasion of Privacy: Collection of extensive
personal information about applicants and their
family members is deemed unwarranted and
intrusive. Data collection should be restricted to
only what is directly relevant and necessary for
adjudicating immigration benefits. Avoid blanket
collection of third-party information.
 Consent Issues: There is no mechanism
for obtaining consent from third parties
whose data is disclosed in applications.
Recommend establishing mechanisms
to secure consent from third parties
whose personal information is disclosed
in applications.
3. Lack of Transparency: DHS has not adequately
explained how the data will be used, stored, or
shared, nor updated privacy notices to reflect
the expanded data collection.
 Risk of Data Breaches: Past
cybersecurity incidents raise concerns
about the security of sensitive data,
especially for minors and vulnerable
groups, with potential risks of misuse or
targeting.
 Potential Misuse of Data: The data
could be used for enforcement or
surveillance beyond its stated purpose,
undermining trust and privacy
protections.
4. Impact on Vulnerable Groups: The collection
poses heightened risks for asylum seekers,
minors, and victims of crime, who may face
retaliation or harm. Recommend implementing
specific safeguards for vulnerable groups’
sensitive information.
5. Failure to Conduct a Privacy Impact
Assessment (PIA): DHS has not assessed the risks

information provided on its forms may be about
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who
are covered by the Privacy Act. Any personal
information gathered by DHS will only be used or
released in accordance with law and policy.
The new information collected will be used and
treated in the same manner as the information
that is already collected on the subject forms.
DHS’s proposal is respectful of individual privacy
and strictly adheres to federal privacy laws and
guidance and Departmental privacy policies and
procedures. DHS provides public notice about
collection and use of data under appropriate
System of Records Notices (SORNs) published
online and in the Federal Register, Privacy Impact
Assessments (PIAs) posted on the DHS website,
and privacy notices on DHS forms. DHS has
evaluated potential privacy risks and determined
that multiple published System of Records
Notices (SORNs) in the Federal Register and
associated Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs)
cover and apply to information gathered in this
collection.
Submission of information to DHS for an
immigration benefit is a voluntary action and
information provided on the form is provided by
the individual completing the form. Third party
information, such as that of family members and
associates, is provided by the individual applicant
for lawful purposes and is often needed to
determine identity and eligibility for a request.
For example, individuals who present a threat to
national security or public safety are not eligible
to travel to the United States under certain
travel programs and may be inadmissible to the
United States. U.S. immigration laws preclude
DHS from granting immigration and
naturalization benefits to individuals with certain
disqualifying characteristics including association
with terrorist organizations. See, e.g., INA
208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A) (mandatory
bars to asylum); INA 214, 8 U.S.C. 1184
(admission of nonimmigrants); INA 212(a), 8
U.S.C. 1182(a) (inadmissible aliens); INA 215, 8
U.S.C. 1185 (travel control of citizens and aliens);
INA 217, 8 U.S.C. 1187 (Visa Waiver Program

eligibility determination); INA 245(a)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1255(a)(2) (admissibility requirements for
adjustment of status applicants and agency
discretion); and INA 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3)
(good moral character requirement for
naturalization). A uniform baseline of data fields,
and screening and vetting standards will assist
DHS in making sure that these requirements are
met.
Federal laws, including the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) and Homeland Security Act
of 2002, provide authority for this information
collection. For example, INA 287(b), 8 U.S.C.
1357(b), and 8 CFR 287.5(a)(2) empower officers
and agents to “take and consider evidence
concerning the privilege of any person to enter,
reenter, pass through, or reside in the United
States.” Specific to the N-400, INA 335, 8 U.S.C.
1446, requires “a personal investigation of the
person applying of naturalization” and authorizes
USCIS to take testimony “in any way affecting
the admissibility of any applicant for
naturalization” and to require the production of
relevant documents. DHS takes the protection
and security of all personally identifiable
information (PII), including about third parties,
very seriously and strictly adheres to federal
privacy laws and guidance and Departmental
policies and procedures for protecting PII,
including adhering to federal information
technology data protection standards. USCIS
takes precautions to maintain the security,
confidentiality, and integrity of the information
collected. Safeguards include controls that limit
access of the information to only authorized
users. These safeguards employ advanced
security technologies to protect the information
stored on USCIS systems from unauthorized
access. To ensure compliance with these
policies, USCIS personnel complete training on
the use of information systems and sign Rules of
Behavior before any computer use and annually
thereafter. The data collected by USCIS will be
safeguarded and stored in accordance with the
following privacy SORNs and PIAs, respectively:
SORNs:

PIAs:
•

DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001 Alien File,
Index, and National File Tracking System
of Records, see 82 FR 43556 (September
18, 2017); DHS/USCIS-006 Fraud
Detection and National Security
Records, See 77 FR 47411 (August 8,
2012); DHS/USCIS-007 Benefits
Information System, see 84 FR 54622
(October 10, 2019); DHS/USCIS-010
Asylum Information and Pre-Screening
System of Records, See 80 FR 74781
(November 30, 2015); DHS/USCIS-017
Refugee Case Processing and Security
Screening Information System of
Records, See 81 FR 72075 (October 19,
2016); and DHS/USCIS-018 Immigration
Biometric and Background Check, See
83 FR 36950 (July 31, 2018).
DHS/USCIS/PIA-003(b) Integrated
Digitization Document Management
Program (IDDMP); DHS/USCIS/PIA-01301 Fraud Detection and National
Security Directorate; DHS/USCIS/PIA016(a) Computer Linked Application
Information Management System
(CLAIMS 3) and Associated Systems;
DHS/USCIS/PIA-027 USCIS Asylum
Division; DHS/USCIS/PIA-051 Case and
Activity Management for International
Operations (CAMINO); DHS/USCIS/PIA056 USCIS Electronic Immigration
System (USCIS ELIS); DHS/USCIS/PIA-064
myUSCIS; DHS/USCIS/PIA-068 Refugee
Case Processing and Security Vetting;
DHS/USCIS/PIA-079 Content
Management Services (CMS); and
DHS/USCIS/PIA-071 myUSCIS Account
Experience, which covers the electronic
submission of forms to USCIS.

All documents are available at:
https://www.dhs.gov/system-records-noticessorns and https://www.dhs.gov/uscis-pias-andsorns.

Topic 4. Impacts on Immigration Benefit Processing
0228
0233
0234

Delay Benefit
Processing

The summarized comments highlight the
following key points about how the proposed
collection of information could delay benefit
processing:
1. Increased Complexity: Longer, more complex
forms will take applicants more time to complete
and lead to more errors and omissions. Increased
burden may discourage eligible applicants from
pursuing naturalization, disrupt family unity, and
strain organizations that assist applicants.
2. Increased Burden on Adjudicators:
 Proposed changes would require USCIS
adjudicators to review a larger volume
of data, including complex and
potentially irrelevant information. This
would exacerbate existing backlogs,
slow adjudications, and require
additional resources and training,
further delaying processing times.

DHS staff also follow applicable law and policy
when redacting or releasing information in
response to FOIA requests.
Determinations for travel, entry, and
immigration benefits will be made by trained
USCIS officers and not by computer systems or
algorithms. USCIS does not use artificial
intelligence for data analysis and vetting of an
application. Immigration benefits will be
independently reviewed, and a case-by-case
determination will be made by USCIS officers
based on the totality of the circumstances. In
addition, generally, other than discretionary
overseas denials, USCIS would not deny a benefit
based on the new high value data elements
without first confronting the applicant,
petitioner, or benefit requestor with the
information and providing an opportunity to
explain it or rebut any negative inferences USCIS
may have drawn from it. See 8 CFR
103.2(b)(16)(i) and (ii).
If using AI tools in the future, USCIS will comply
with all applicable laws and policy.
Response: USCIS believes adding questions will
not increase the agency’s processing time in
many situations. While the collection of these
new data elements will add some work for
USCIS, the new data elements will help USCIS
validate information is correctly associated with
the applicant in relevant systems and will
provide trained DHS adjudication personnel with
more timely access to relevant information, all of
which may reduce unnecessary delays and costs
by allowing timelier confirmation of an
applicant’s identity and/or benefit eligibility.
Through efficient collaboration and information
sharing, over time, the government’s burden
may decrease.
DHS has considered the costs of greater use of
requested information from applicants for
certain immigration benefits in the case
adjudication process and recognizes it may take
more time for officers to adjudicate each case.

Additional training for officers to
handle complex data will increase
operational inefficiencies and costs.

3. Technological and Practical Limitations:
Automated tools are not reliable enough to
analyze the proposed data effectively, and
manual review could lead to misunderstandings
and inefficiencies, further slowing processing.

DHS may consider fee increases if necessary to
recover costs in future fee rules. DHS has taken
into account the cost involved in collecting this
information and has found it reasonable and
justified given the security and fraud prevention
benefits from this collection.

4. Contradiction with Policy Goals: Proposed
changes contradict stated goals of improving
government efficiency and reducing regulatory
burdens. Instead, they would increase
complexity, costs, and delays.

0233

Deter Immigration

The commenters collectively maintain that the
proposed information collection is unnecessary,
burdensome, and counterproductive. It will
significantly delay benefit processing and
undermine the efficiency of the immigration
system. The commenters urge USCIS to abandon
the proposals to maintain timely and effective
adjudication processes.
The proposed collection of information would
deter immigration by imposing excessive
burdens on applicants, including the need to
provide extensive historical data and sensitive
family information, which could discourage
individuals, especially in mixed-status families
and vulnerable populations like refugees and
asylees, due to fears of enforcement actions or
harm to relatives.
The use of immigration benefit forms as tools for
enforcement and intelligence gathering, rather
than focusing solely on eligibility, may intimidate
applicants and discourage them from engaging
with the legal immigration process.
Privacy concerns, fear of enforcement actions,
and the risk of errors leading to penalties further
intimidate applicants, discouraging even eligible
individuals from pursuing immigration benefits.
The proposed requirements would
disproportionately deter vulnerable populations,
such as those fleeing persecution, who may lack

Response: USCIS seeks to balance its national
security, public safety, and fraud missions with
the provision of immigration benefits to eligible
aliens. While we recognize that this collection
may influence the decisions of a limited number
of immigration benefit seekers, USCIS’ top
priority is the safety and security of the American
people. USCIS does not seek to unnecessarily
burden applicants but rather seeks to obtain all
information necessary to maintain a robust and
dynamic screening system. Additionally, DHS
does not anticipate that the collection of this
additional information will significantly affect
processing times for most applicants. The United
States will continue to attract the best and
brightest to our shores.

Topic 5. Constitutional Issues
0233

First Amendment
(out of scope)

access to the required information or fear
repercussions for their families.
The comment raises concerns that DHS's
proposed data collection practices could infringe
on First Amendment rights by:
1. Chilling Free Expression: Requiring disclosure
of extensive personal information, including data
on family members, may deter individuals from
engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
The fear of surveillance, misuse, or unintended
disclosure of this information could lead to selfcensorship.

Response: DHS did not address these comments
because they are outside the scope of the
proposed generic clearance. DHS believes there
is no plausible impact on free speech related to
these additional data fields.

2. Consent Issues: Collecting data on third
parties (e.g., family members) without their
consent raises privacy and association concerns.
3. Lack of Safeguards: DHS has not provided
adequate protections to prevent misuse of data
or ensure constitutional rights are upheld.
This comment also included several comments
on social media related to lack of clear standards
for social media data and activists or individuals
facing retaliation if their social media activity is
exposed.

0230
0232

Fifth Amendment
i. Due Process

Commenters argue that the proposal violates the
Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by failing
to meet procedural due process standards in
immigration proceedings and provide adequate
justification. Key points include:
1. Due Process Violations: Noncitizens, including
those in removal proceedings or who entered
unlawfully, are entitled to procedural due
process protections under the Fifth Amendment.
2. Unfair Burdens: The proposal imposes
significant and unnecessary burdens on
applicants, such as requiring irrelevant
information, which could lead to delays,

Disclosure of social media handles is not part of
this proposed collection but, rather, is part of
another proposed collection also posted for
public comment in the Federal Register at 90 FR
11324 on March 5, 2025, for a 60-day notice and
at 90 FR 44693 on September 16, 2025, for a 30day notice. Responses to concerns about social
media will be provided in that specific Federal
Register notice in a separate document.
Response: USCIS believes the commenters are
referring to the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment, which states, “No person shall…be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law…”. USCIS believes the additional
data elements in this collection are reasonable to
obtain and are not insurmountable. USCIS
already is authorized to collect information on
family members as part of the application
process, and DHS uses this information for
determining eligibility and to assess and identify
potential fraud, national security, and public
safety threats. Additionally, USCIS maintains and
stores all collected information in accordance
with federal regulatory, statutory, departmental,

and component privacy requirements,
mandates, directives, and policy.

3. Lack of Transparency: Collection process is
described as unfair and non-transparent, failing
to account for its impact on noncitizens and
resulting in a "due process loss of substantive
rights."

The proposed information collection does not
impact the due process rights of applicants,
petitioners, or benefit requestors. For example,
in general other than discretionary overseas
denials, USCIS would not deny a benefit based on
the new high value data elements without first
confronting the applicant, petitioner, or benefit
requestor with the information and providing an
opportunity to explain it or rebut any negative
inferences USCIS may have drawn from it. See 8
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) and (ii). Additionally, if
USCIS makes an adverse finding on any request
or application, the individual may be entitled to
additional immigration processes which may
include the right to appeal or appear before an
immigration judge.

Commenter includes that the proposed changes
represent a waste of taxpayer dollars for several
reasons:

Response: DHS disagrees with these comments
that categorize this collection as a waste.
Regarding tax dollars specifically, unlike many
other federal agencies, USCIS is primarily
(approximately 96%) fee-funded, meaning its
operations are funded by fees charged to
applicants for immigration or naturalization
benefits, rather than taxpayer money. Fees
collected by USCIS are deposited into the
Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA),
which is a special fund in the Treasury of the
United States used to cover the costs associated
with providing immigration and naturalization
benefits, such as adjudicating immigration
benefit requests, conducting interviews, and
screening and vetting. Congress provides a small
portion (approximately 4%) of the agency’s
budget through appropriations, typically for
activities like employment verification and civic
integration.

Topic 6. Waste of Taxpayer Dollars
0234

1. Increased Costs Without Justification:
Comments highlight that proposed changes
would impose financial and administrative
burdens on both applicants and USCIS. This
includes costs related to gathering hard-toaccess information and increased personnel time
for processing applications. These costs are seen
as unjustifiable given the lack of evidence that
the new measures would improve security or
efficiency.
2. Inefficiency in Government Operations:
Proposed changes are criticized for making USCIS
operations less efficient, slowing down
application processing times, and increasing
administrative complexity. This inefficiency
contradicts the goals of reducing wasteful
spending and improving government services.
3. Impact on Stakeholders: The inefficiencies
and delays caused by the proposals would
negatively affect applicants, their families, and

Comments concerning an increase in burden on
applicants and concerns that this data collection
is unnecessary have been answered in other
sections. Please see responses in Topic 2.
Compliance with the PRA, Practical Utility, and

Topic 7. Other Recommendations
0229

Topic 4. Impacts on Immigration Benefit
Processing, Delay Benefit Processing.

In summary, the comments argue that the
proposed changes would waste taxpayer dollars
by imposing unnecessary costs and creating
inefficiencies, all while burdening both the public
and the government.
The recommendations in this comment suggest
making immigration forms and processes more
rigorous and comprehensive. Recommendations
include:

Response: Please see USCIS’ responses below.

1. Increased Rigor in Forms: Require applicants
to provide all aliases, all countries of citizenship,
and all telephone numbers used in the last five
years to detect potential misuse.

1. USCIS already included these recommended
data elements in the identified 24 data elements
within this Generic Clearance for the Collection
of Certain Information on Immigration Forms.

2. Mandatory Personal Interviews: Conduct
personal interviews for all applicants to assess
the accuracy of their responses, their intentions
for coming to the U.S., and their political or
social activities.

2. Most applications and petitions are followed
by an in-person interview where the applicant is
testifying to information under oath. However,
each application and petition includes a
certification for the beneficiary, petitioner, or
applicant to sign, certifying under penalties of
perjury that responses provided and documents
submitted are complete, true and correct. DHS
appreciates the feedback and is receptive to
implementing expanded use of personal
interviews in future rule changes.

3. Additional Questions: Include questions about
applicants’ intention for coming to the U.S. and
whether they intend to be politically active in the
U.S.

3. USCIS will not be making this recommended
change. While intention for coming to the
United States is a data point collected in certain
immigration-related forms, many of the forms
involved in this generic clearance relate to
individuals already in the United States, so it
would not be an appropriate addition to all of
the impacted forms. Additionally, while certain
types of political activity may be relevant to
eligibility for particular immigration benefits (see,
e.g., INA 313, 8 U.S.C. 1424), there is no question
about political activity that would be relevant to
eligibility for all of the benefits impacted by this
generic clearance.

4. USCIS will not be making this recommended
change. This recommendation is overly broad,
and it would not yield pointed responses
necessary to meet the purpose USCIS seeks.
USCIS understands there is a delicate balance
between requesting information necessary for
national security and public safety vetting and
asking for information that would be considered
intrusive and irrelevant for vetting purposes.

Align with Executive Order 14161: Commenter
expressed support for strengthened vetting
standards to improve national security and
applicant screening.

Response: DHS appreciates the positive feedback
and comments.

Several commenters referenced information
collections or regulatory-related information that
does not pertain to this proposed generic
clearance. Some commenters also included
comments on social media data collection.

Response: These comments are out of scope for
the proposed generic clearance of the intended
information collection because they do not
provide feedback on the nature of the proposed
generic clearance or the actual information
collection instruments affected.

Topic 8. Support
0235

Topic 9. Out of Scope
0229
0231
0233
0234

File Type	application/pdf
Author	Stout, Samantha J
File Modified	2025-11-17
File Created	2025-11-17