60-Day Public Comment Response Matrix

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Certain Biographic and Employment Identifiers on Immigration Forms Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2025-0006
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 90 FR 22750
Publish Dates: May 29, 2025 – July 28, 2025
Comment Topic
Comment Summary
Topic 1. Legal Authority to Collect
Violations of Statutory Authority:
The comments collectively assert that DHS and USCIS
lack the legal authority to collect the proposed
information. They argue that the requirements violate
the Privacy Act of 1974, exceed the statutory scope of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), misuse the
generic clearance process, and fail to meet the
standards of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Violations:
The proposed changes violate the PRA by failing to
demonstrate that the additional data collection is
necessary or minimizes the burden on the public. The
PRA requires agencies to justify the utility of the
information collected, but USCIS has not shown that
the new data fields are relevant to adjudicating
immigration benefits.

USCIS Response
DHS disagrees with commenters that its collection of
certain biographical and employment information is
outside the scope of its legal authority. DHS has broad
authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
and Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002, to administer
immigration laws including collecting information
included 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 C.F.R.
§ 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 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. Additionally, the Privacy Act System of
Records Notice DHS/USCIS-007 Benefit Information
System, 84 FR 54622, October 10, 2019, lists current,
former, and potential derivatives of requestors (family
members) in its Category of Individuals Covered by the
System.
This collection is also consistent with Supreme Court
rulings related to Fourth Amendment protections to the
extent such protections are applicable in this context. It is
not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to ask questions
of an individual who is not detained and may choose
whether or not to answer them. See, e.g., Florida v.
Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983) (citing cases). Individuals
who choose to seek admission to the United States or
apply for immigration benefits do so on a voluntary basis,
and as such, the inclusion of particular questions on USCIS
forms does not pose a Fourth Amendment concern.
DHS also has practical utility for the collection of this
information. 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 for which they are applying .
USCIS disagrees that this collection of information violates
the Administrative Procedure Act. USCIS’ statutory and
regulatory authorities permit the agency to request
information necessary for determining eligibility for an
immigration request. Here, USCIS is asking for additional
data points to enhance vetting that it already lawfully
conducts.
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes USCIS to
collect information needed to assess eligibility for an
immigration benefit. USCIS notes that identity is always
material to the immigration benefit sought, and the
information collected through the biographic and
employment identifiers will assist USCIS to determine
identity and evaluate other information key to benefit
eligibility.
Topic 2. Compliance with the PRA
Practical Utility
The comments argue that the proposed data collection
lacks practical utility because it is irrelevant, redundant,
and does not meaningfully contribute to the
adjudication of immigration benefits or national
security. They emphasize that the additional data fields
impose unnecessary burdens on applicants and
adjudicators, increases the risk of errors and delays,
and fails to meet the standards of the PRA.
Commenters urge USCIS to abandon the proposed
changes to ensure efficiency and fairness in the
immigration process.
Recommendation: USCIS should only collect
information that is directly relevant to determining an
applicant’s eligibility for immigration benefits.

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 information which will be collected –
including the social security numbers of the alien and of
the alien’s parents, siblings, spouses, and children, as well
as the business or employer name, its physical address, its
mailing address and Federal Employer Identification
Number (FIN) - is relevant to determining eligibility for
Forms N-400, I-131, I-485, I-751, I-590, I-829, I-730, I-192
and I-589 because it will allow USCIS’s national security
and law enforcement partners to better vet applicants for
potential information of interest that could affect
eligibility and/or admissibility and that the proposed
information collection is directly relevant to determining
the applicant’s eligibility for immigration benefits.
The information collection contains critical data elements
for identity verification and screening. USCIS has a
layered approach to security, and information collected
would be only one piece of a large mixture of information
used in the analysis of the applicant’s eligibility. Although
the potential exists for an applicant to provide false or
inaccurate information, the response (or lack thereof) the
applicant provides in the context of the larger picture will

guide the line of inquiry pursued by the officer. The
potential for inaccurate/false information does not
render the collection of this information unnecessary. In
addition, USCIS has established authorities to address
fraud and misrepresentation on immigration benefit
requests. USCIS makes case-by-case determinations
based on the totality of the circumstances consistent with
its authorities.
Duplication

Multiple commenters argue that requiring additional
data, such as Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of family
members or employer details, duplicates the
information already collected and vetted during earlier
processes. Commenters emphasize that this
redundancy imposes unnecessary burdens on
applicants without improving the adjudication process.

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.
U.S. Government departments and agencies involved in
screening and vetting, to include USCIS, identified 24 data
elements that would constitute a new baseline threshold
of data to be collected for improved identity verification
and national security vetting. These 24 core data
elements were published in the Federal Register at 90 FR
11326 on March 3, 2025. These six (6) new data elements
are in addition to and separate from the data elements
for which USCIS requested comments in the March 3,
2025, generic clearance notice, but they are also needed
for further identification and national security vetting and
will be added to certain immigration benefit request
forms where the information is not already collected. The
collection of this information is necessary to comply with
Section 2 of E.O. 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’s 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.
USCIS has a layered approach to security, and information
collected would be only one piece of a large mixture of

information used in the analysis of the applicant’s
eligibility. Although the potential exists for an applicant to
provide false or inaccurate information on the form, the
response (or lack thereof) the applicant provides in the
context of the larger picture will guide the line of inquiry
pursued by the officer. The potential for inaccurate/false
information does not render the collection of this
information unnecessary. USCIS makes case-by-case
determinations based on the totality of the circumstances
consistent with its authorities.
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.
Regarding collection of social security number, this data
element for the applicant/beneficiary/petitioner is
preexisting for the following affected information
collections: Form I-131, I-485, I-589, I-590, I-730, I-751, I829, and N-400. Depending on the stage of the alien’s
immigration journey, social security numbers may not yet
be available on certain affected applications, such as on
Forms I-131, I-192, I-589, I-590, I-730. Form N-400 would
capture any social security numbers that would
potentially be unavailable prior to the filing of this
particular application.
The collection of a social security number for family
members (parent(s), spouse, sibling(s), and child(ren)) is a
new data element being added to all impacted
information collections and therefore is not duplicative
based on the data collected on the currently approved
form.
The data elements for business/employer (name, address,
and Federal Employer Identification Number) are new
data elements being added to the affected information
collections and, therefore, are not duplicative based on
the data being collected on the currently approved form.
Underestimation
of Burden

The commenters argue that USCIS has significantly
underestimated the burden of the proposed data
collection. They emphasize that the actual time, effort,
and costs required to comply with the new
requirements are far greater than USCIS's estimates,
particularly for vulnerable populations. Commenters
urge USCIS to reassess the burden and abandon the
proposed changes to avoid imposing unnecessary
hardships on applicants.

Response: USCIS disagrees that the estimated hour
burden per response to complete these six (6) new data
elements has been significantly underestimated. USCIS
assessed that the estimated hour burden per response to
complete these new six (6) new data elements will have
an overall increase by an average of two (2) hours on
each information collection. USCIS has closely reviewed
the estimated average hour burden per response and the
addition of these six (6) new data elements and
instructional content to allow the applicant to provide the
requested information, as necessary, and is confident that

One commenter suggests the actual time burden could
be 20 hours or more per form, especially for applicants
who need to gather sensitive information from third
parties
Recommendation: USCIS should focus on simplifying
and streamlining immigration forms to reduce burdens
on applicants and adjudicators, rather than adding
unnecessary data fields.

Appropriateness of
generic clearance

The comments strongly criticize USCIS’s use of the
generic clearance process to collect sensitive
information such as SSNs, arguing that it is
inappropriate for significant and controversial changes
to immigration forms. They assert that this approach
circumvents proper rulemaking procedures, violates the
PRA, and imposes substantial burdens on applicants
and adjudicators. Commenters urge USCIS to abandon
the use of generic clearance for these changes and
follow the formal rulemaking process to ensure
transparency, accountability, and compliance with legal
standards.
Recommendation: USCIS should not use the generic
clearance process for significant and controversial
changes to immigration forms. Instead, the
commenters recommend USCIS follow the formal
rulemaking process for substantive changes, including
publishing detailed cost-benefit analyses and allowing
for public input.

the estimated increase in the hour burden per response
for each affected information collection accurately
reflects the burden imposed on the public.
The estimated increase in hour burden per response is an
overall average that may not capture every applicant's
individual experience when collecting information for
these six (6) new data elements, as it may take some
respondents less or more time based on the amount of
information to provide and research involved as
applicable to the applicant. USCIS acknowledges that
some respondents would take less or more time to
complete the new data elements, however, to report a
higher burden increase could overestimate the time
burden imposed on the overall average population of
respondents. With the collection of Social Security
Number for family members being identifying
information, this may be generally available to applicants
without extensive research involved. In addition, the
Business/Employer information should be readily
available to the public, such as on personal tax records or
publicly available sources of information.
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
six (6) 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 six (6) 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 proposed
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 noncontroversial. 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

44 U.S.C. chapter 35; 5 CFR Part 1320.
8 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

make the proposed necessary changes to ensure a
thorough screening and vetting process.
USCIS is publishing a 30-day Federal Register Notice for
the Generic Clearance for the New Collection of Certain
Biographic and Employment Identifiers on Immigration
Forms. The 60-day notice included, and the 30-day notice
will include, the proposed six (6) new data elements and
the programs affected on the Federal eRulemaking Portal
site at: https://www.regulations.gov and entering USCIS2025-0006.

Topic 2. Compliance with the Privacy Act/Records Act/Information Security/Data Integrity
The comments collectively raise the following key
Response: DHS disagrees that this information collection
privacy concerns regarding the proposed USCIS data
is an invasion of privacy. USCIS complies with the Privacy
collection:
Act and DHS policy regarding collection and protection of
1. Intrusion into Privacy:
information as required. DHS understands that
a. Requiring sensitive information, such as Social
information provided on its forms may be about U.S.
Security Numbers (SSNs) of family members
citizens and lawful permanent residents who are covered
and employer details, is viewed as an
by the Privacy Act. USCIS is authorized to perform
unnecessary and intrusive overreach.
background checks on all individuals associated with an
b. Collecting data about individuals who are not
immigration benefit petition. This includes sponsors,
applying for immigration benefits (e.g., family
representatives, and family members of the individual
members) is described as a violation of their
seeking the benefit. These background checks assist in
privacy rights.
mitigating fraud and threats to national security and
c. Collecting SSNs of relatives and employer data public safety. Any personal information gathered by DHS
raises concerns about potential misuse,
will only be used released in accordance with law and
including data-sharing with enforcement
policy.
agencies. This could lead to enforcement
The new information collected will be used and treated in
actions against individuals who did not
the same manner as the information that is already
consent to the disclosure of their information.
collected on the subject forms. DHS’s proposal is
respectful of individual privacy and strictly adheres to
2. Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974:
Federal privacy laws and guidance and Departmental
a. Many commenters expressed that the
privacy policies and procedures. DHS provides public
proposed data collection violates the Privacy
notice about collection and use of data under appropriate
Act of 1974, which requires that information
System of Records Notices (SORNs) published online and
collected by federal agencies be relevant and
in the Federal Register, Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs)
necessary to accomplish a clearly defined
purpose. USCIS has not demonstrated how the posted on the DHS website, and privacy notices on DHS
forms. DHS has evaluated potential privacy risks and
additional data fields meet this standard, nor
determined that multiple published System of Record
has it provided adequate notice to individuals
Notices (SORNs) in the Federal Register and associated
about the intended use of their data or the
Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) cover and apply to
consequences of non-compliance.
information gathered in this collection.
Commenters argue that the lack of
Submission of information to DHS for an immigration
transparency and accountability in the
benefit is a voluntary action and information provided on
proposal undermines the Privacy Act’s
the form is provided by the individual completing the
protections and raises concerns about
form. Third-party information, such as that of family
potential misuse of sensitive information for
members and associates, is provided by the individual
enforcement purposes.
b. Many commenters cited the Privacy Act of
applicant for lawful purposes and is often needed to
1974, which prohibits the government from
determine identity and eligibility for a request. For
denying benefits based on refusal to disclose
example, individuals who present a threat to national
an SSN. They argue that requiring SSNs of
security or public safety are not eligible to travel to the
family members violates this law.
United States under certain travel programs and may be

c.

Forcing applicants to provide third-party
information without consent is seen as a
breach of privacy protections.

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 C.F.R. § 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 related to 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 our systems from
unauthorized access. To ensure compliance with these
policies, USCIS personnel complete training on the use of
information systems and sign the 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 Privacy Impact Assessments, respectively:
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, and
the Privacy Impact Assessments: DHS/USCIS/PIA-003(b)
Integrated Digitization Document Management Program
(IDDMP), DHS/USCIS/PIA-013-01 Fraud Detection and
National Security Directorate, DHS/USCIS/PIA-016(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/PIA-056
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-notices-sorns and
https://www.dhs.gov/uscis-pias-and-sorns.
DHS staff also follow applicable law and policy when
redacting or releasing information in response to FOIA
requests.
USCIS officers are aware that there may be data integrity
issues with any information collected on its forms,
including some may inadvertently be inaccurate, out of
date, or otherwise compromised. USCIS verifies
information provided by various means and considers the
totality of evidence before making a final determination
on a case. In many instances, applicants are provided
notice and opportunity to explain any information that
may be inconsistent or deficient.
Topic 3. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Concerns:
The proposal is criticized as arbitrary and capricious
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because
USCIS has not provided a clear or reasoned explanation
for the necessity of collecting additional data. Agencies
are required to justify their decisions with evidence, but
USCIS has failed to demonstrate how the proposed data
fields improve vetting or adjudication processes.
Additionally, the proposal does not align with existing
statutory mandates, lacks transparency, and disregards
the burdens imposed on applicants, raising concerns
about administrative overreach and failure to meet APA
standards for reasoned decision-making.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters as the
justification has been provided in the Notice explaining
that the need for this information aligns with EO 14161 in
completing rigorous vetting and screening of all
applicants in order to protect the U.S. from national
security and public safety threats. USCIS’ statutory and
regulatory authorities permit the agency to request
information necessary for determining eligibility for an
immigration request.
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes USCIS to
collect information needed to assess eligibility for an
immigration benefit. USCIS notes that identity is always
material to the immigration benefit sought, and the

information collected through the biographic and
employment identifiers will assist USCIS to determine
identity and evaluate other information key to benefit
eligibility.
Topic 4. Impacts on Immigration Benefit Processing
Delay Benefit
The comments argue that the proposed data collection
Processing
will significantly delay benefit processing due to:
1.
2.

3.

4.

Increased Complexity: Longer, more complex
forms will take applicants more time to complete
and lead to more errors and omissions.
Requests for Evidence (RFEs): Applicants may
struggle to provide sensitive third-party
information (e.g., family members' SSNs), resulting
in RFEs, denials, and re-filings.
Burden on Adjudicators: Adjudicators will face
heavier workloads reviewing irrelevant or
redundant data, worsening backlogs and slowing
processing times.
Cumulative Impact: Multiple recent changes to
forms compound delays, which USCIS has failed to
account for.

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.

The comments emphasize that these delays will harm
applicants, overburden adjudicators, and undermine
the efficiency of the immigration system.
Deter Immigration

The comments argue that the proposed data collection
will deter immigration by creating unnecessary barriers,
particularly for mixed-status families, vulnerable
populations, and lawful permanent residents seeking
naturalization. Fear of enforcement actions, increased
complexity, and burdensome requirements discourage
eligible individuals from applying for benefits.

Topic 5. Constitutional Issues
Fifth Amendment
The proposed collection of Social Security Numbers
i. Due Process
(SSNs) and other biographic and employment
information on immigration forms raises Fifth
Amendment and due process concerns. The comments
argue that the policy imposes unjust and discriminatory
procedural burdens on applicants without adequate
justification, explanation, or opportunity to contest or
remedy these demands. Vulnerable populations, such
as survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking,
and asylum seekers, face disproportionate challenges in
providing the required information, violating their right
to fair and meaningful procedures. Additionally, the

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.
Response: The Fifth Amendment 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 is already 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,

proposal is arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasoned
explanation, failing to examine relevant data, and
disregarding adverse consequences, which undermines
constitutional due process protections.

statutory, departmental, and component privacy
requirements, mandate, directives, and policy.
The Fifth amendment prohibition against selfincrimination applies to proceedings in which the
Government seeks to compel testimony that a witness
reasonably believes could be used against him or her in a
state or federal criminal proceeding. The risk that the
testimony might subject the witness to deportation or
other civil consequences (such as, here, denial of an
immigration benefit) is not a sufficient ground for
asserting the privilege. See United States v. Balsys, 524
U.S. 666, 671–72 (1998). Despite the inapplicability of the
Fifth Amendment in this situation, DHS is not requiring
individuals to incriminate themselves by responding with
this information on USCIS forms. Filing for immigration
benefits and including requested information is a
voluntary action by an individual. Details about the use of
provided information by the government are explained in
SORNs, PIAs and the DHS Privacy Notice provided on
every USCIS form.
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes USCIS to
collect information needed to assess eligibility for an
immigration benefit. USCIS notes that identity is always
material to the immigration benefit sought, and the
information collected through the biographic and
employment identifiers will assist USCIS to determine
identity and evaluate other information key to benefit
eligibility. The goal is to enhance screening and vetting to
mitigate potential national security, public safety and
fraud concerns. Gathering potential useful information is
an essential step in the process of enhancing screening
and vetting. SSNs are a unique identifier that can
contribute to positive identification of individuals with a
nexus to national security, public safety concerns, and
fraud concerns. Additionally, definitively identifying
family members on current filings will assist in identifying
potential fraud in future filings by the applicant or listed
family member.

Topic 6. Waste of Taxpayer Dollars
The comments argue that the proposal wastes taxpayer
dollars by requiring unnecessary data collection, such
as Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of family members
and employer details, which creates excessive
paperwork and administrative delays. This inefficiency
diverts government resources toward processing
irrelevant or redundant information, which does not
improve national security or adjudication processing.
Commenters urge USCIS to withdraw the proposal to
avoid unnecessary expenditures and inefficiencies.

Response: DHS disagrees with these comments that
characterize this collection as wasteful. Regarding tax
dollars, and unlike many other federal agencies, USCIS is
primarily (approximately 96%) fee-funded, meaning its
operations are funded by fees paid by 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 USCIS budget

through appropriations, typically for activities like
employment verification and civic integration.
Comments concerning an increase in burden on
applicants and concerns that this data collection is
unnecessary and duplicative have been responded to in
other sections.
Topic 7. Discrimination/Vulnerable Populations
The comments argue that the proposed collection of
additional biographic and employment information is
disproportionately impacts marginalized and vulnerable
populations, including elderly, disabled, low-income,
limited English-proficient applicants, and those from
mixed-status households. These groups often face
significant barriers in accessing required information,
such as Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of family
members or employer details, due to estrangement,
trauma, safety issues, or precarious immigration
statuses. These requirements exacerbate existing
inequalities and create significant barriers for
marginalized groups, deterring eligible applicants from
seeking immigration benefits.
The proposal is described as prejudicial and retaliatory,
as it holds applicants accountable for information about
family members who have no bearing on their eligibility
for immigration benefits. Forcing applicants to disclose
sensitive data about relatives or employers creates risks
of harm, surveillance, and enforcement actions against
third parties, which disproportionately affects
marginalized communities. Commenters emphasize
that these burdens are unnecessary, harmful, and
disproportionately affect those most in need of
protection and relief.

Topic 8. Out of Scope

Several comments were out of scope for the proposed
collection because they did not provide feedback on
the nature of the proposed collection. One commenter
included comments on the Generic Clearance for the
new collection of certain information on immigration
forms.

Response: DHS disagrees with commenters who believe
the collection of additional biographic and employment
information disproportionately impacts vulnerable
populations. The collection of this information will be
used to help administer and enforce our immigration
laws. Information relating to family members as well as
employers is essential to complete the vetting process
that would ultimately effect whether the alien is eligible
for immigration benefits.
As indicated in the above responses, DHS handles all
information collected through DHS applications according
to relevant System of Records Notices (SORN) and Privacy
Impact Assessments (PIA), available on the DHS website
(www.dhs.gov/privacy).
DHS is committed to the highest standards of conduct,
especially when it comes to the fair, unbiased, and
transparent enforcement of our mission responsibilities.
The collection of this additional information will be used
to help enforce our immigration laws by assisting in the
adjudication of eligibility to travel to or be admitted to
the United States or be granted an immigration-related
benefit. Existing DHS policy prohibits the consideration of
race or ethnicity in our investigation, screening, and
enforcement activities in all but the most exceptional
instances. This policy is reaffirmed in manuals, policies,
directives, and guidelines. Existing DHS policy also
prohibits profiling, targeting, or discrimination against any
individual for exercising his or her First Amendment
rights.
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.