30-Day Public Comment Response Matrix

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Certain Biographic and Employment Identifiers on Immigration Forms Responses to 30-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2025-0006
30-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 90 FR 47318
Publish Dates: October 1, 2025 – October 31, 2025
Comment Comment SubComment Summary
ID
Theme
Topic 1. Legal Authority to Collect
0024
The comments raise concerns about the legal
authorities for collecting certain biographic and
employment-related information as proposed.
Below is a summary of the issues highlighted:
1. Exceeds INA Authority: The comments argue
that USCIS's proposed collection of biographic and
employment-related information exceeds the
statutory limits set by the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA). The INA does not authorize
USCIS to collect sensitive data such as relatives'
Social Security Numbers (SSNs) or employer
identifiers like Federal Employer Identification
Numbers (FEINs). Congress has only delegated
narrow, benefit-specific discretion for data
collection, and the inclusion of these additional
data fields is not contemplated by the INA.
2. Executive Overreach: Executive Order 14161
cannot create legal obligations without
congressional authorization. Using it to impose
these mandates violates statutory limits and
undermines the separation of powers by enabling
administrative overreach.
3. Bypassing Rulemaking Processes: USCIS
sidestepped formal rulemaking requirements,
including issuing proposed regulations, conducting
cost-benefit analyses, and collecting meaningful
public input, by relying on a generic clearance
process.
4. Precedent for Undermining Congressional
Oversight: Allowing USCIS to unilaterally impose
these expansive data collection requirements risks
administrative overreach and sets a precedent for
bypassing congressional oversight in other
regulatory areas.
5. 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.
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.

Topic 2. Compliance with the PRA
0024
Practical Utility
The comments argue that USCIS has not provided
sufficient evidence, data, or analysis to justify how
collecting Social Security numbers (SSNs), employer
data (e.g., FEINs), or relatives' SSNs improves
vetting, enhances national security, or ensures
more accurate benefit determinations.
Additionally, the relevance of these data fields is
highly questionable for many application types,
such as asylum, humanitarian relief, or familybased petitions, as they appear unrelated to the
adjudication process and fail to serve a legitimate
adjudicatory or national security purpose. They
emphasize that the additional data fields impose
unnecessary burdens on applicants and
adjudicators, increase the risk of errors and delays,
and fail 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.
The recommendations suggest USCIS should
provide clear evidence and justification that
demonstrate collecting this information improves
vetting processes, enhances national security, or
results in more accurate benefit determinations.

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.
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 (FEIN) - is relevant to determining eligibility
for Forms N-400, I-131, I-485, I-751, I-590, I-829, I730, 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. Thus, 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

0024
0027

Underestimation
of Burden

The comments provided significant concerns about
the increased burden imposed by the proposed
changes. Below are the key points:
1. Increased Complexity and Stress for Applicants
• Length and Complexity of Forms: The
addition of new questions and data fields
(e.g., Social Security numbers, employer
information, family member details) increases
the length and complexity of forms, making
them more difficult to complete, particularly
for applicants without legal representation.
• Time Burden: The estimated time to
complete forms is criticized as unrealistic,
with commenters suggesting the actual time
burden could be significantly higher (e.g., 20
hours per form). This creates additional stress
and delays for applicants.
• Difficulty Accessing Required Information:
Applicants may struggle to provide details
such as past employment records, family
members' Social Security numbers, or
employer identification numbers (FEINs).

2. Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable
Populations: Proposed changes disproportionately
burden vulnerable groups, such as low-income
applicants, survivors of violence, and asylum
seekers, who may lack access to required
documentation due to trauma, estrangement, or
unsafe circumstances.

misrepresentation on immigration benefit requests.
USCIS makes case-by-case determinations based on
the totality of the circumstances consistent with its
authorities.
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 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 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.
USCIS disagrees that this collection will
disproportionately impact vulnerable populations.
This collection is not targeted at certain populations
or demographic groups. This collection will affect all
applicants completing relevant forms and USCIS
does not deny benefits based on the applicant’s
race, color, age, sexual orientation, religion, sex,
national origin, or disability. A universal collection is
more fair and equitable than requesting the
collection on a case-by-case basis or providing
accommodations to any particular group of
applicants.

3. Cumulative Burden: The comments highlight
that the cumulative burden of multiple recent
changes to USCIS forms is substantial, with the
agency allegedly attempting to obscure the full
impact by publishing separate notices.

0024

Appropriateness
of generic
clearance

Recommendations:
• Abandon or reconsider the proposed
changes, as they are seen as unnecessary,
overly burdensome, and unjustified.
• Focus on simplifying forms to reduce burdens
on applicants and adjudicators, rather than
adding unnecessary data fields.
• Instead of imposing blanket requirements,
USCIS should request additional information
on a case-by-case basis when necessary for
adjudication, reducing the burden on
applicants overall.
• USCIS should provide accommodations for
applicants who cannot access required
information due to trauma, domestic
violence, persecution, or socio-economic
barriers.
• USCIS should clearly define terms (e.g.,
"immediate family") and explain the
consequences of omissions or errors to help
applicants navigate the process.
The comments argue that the proposed
information collection is inappropriate for the
generic clearance process, which is intended for
voluntary, low-burden, and uncontroversial
collections, such as surveys or minor technical
adjustments. They highlight that the collection
imposes significant burdens on applicants, family
members, and employers by requiring invasive and
extensive data, such as Social Security Numbers
and employer identifiers, which are irrelevant to
many immigration benefits. Additionally, the
collection is described as controversial, linked to
broader immigration enforcement efforts, and
politically charged, further disqualifying it from
generic clearance. The commenters assert that
using generic clearance bypasses the formal
rulemaking process required for substantive
changes, undermines transparency, and violates
the Paperwork Reduction Act’s goals of minimizing
public burden and ensuring meaningful public
input. They recommend separate Federal Register
notices and detailed review for each affected form
instead of fast-tracking through generic clearance.
Recommendation: USCIS should not use the
generic clearance process for significant and
controversial changes to immigration forms.

1

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

USCIS has taken into account the cumulative burden
involved in collecting this information, along with
additional collections in related recent changes, and
has found that the cumulative burden is reasonable
and justified from a comprehensive perspective,
given the security and fraud prevention benefits
from these collections.
USCIS also believes that the key terms are
sufficiently defined and, in the event of any
potential confusion, USCIS generally would not deny
a benefit based on such inference 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).

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

Instead, the commenters recommend USCIS follow
the formal rulemaking process for substantive
changes, including publishing detailed cost-benefit
analyses and allowing for public input.
Commenters also suggest issuing separate 60-day
and 30-day Federal Register notices for each
affected form, allowing for detailed public review
and comment on the specific changes proposed, as
mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

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 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 New Collection of Certain
Biographic and Employment Identifiers on
Immigration Forms. The 60-day notice and the 30day notice included 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 3. Compliance with the Privacy Act/Records Act/Information Security/Data Integrity
0024
The comments collectively raise the following key
Response: DHS disagrees that this information
0027
privacy concerns regarding the proposed USCIS
collection is an invasion of privacy. USCIS complies
data collection:
with the Privacy Act and DHS policy regarding
collection and protection of information as required.
1. Concerns About Privacy Violations
DHS understands that information provided on its
forms may be about U.S. citizens and lawful
• Sensitive Information Collection: The
permanent residents who are covered by the
comments highlight that the collection of
Privacy Act. USCIS is authorized to perform
Social Security numbers, detailed
employment information, and data on family background checks on all individuals associated with
an immigration benefit petition. This includes
members (spouses, parents, children,
sponsors, representatives, and family members of
siblings) is invasive and raises privacy
the individual seeking the benefit. These
concerns. Such information is considered
background checks assist in mitigating fraud and
highly sensitive, and its collection must meet
threats to national security and public safety. Any
strict standards under the Privacy Act of
personal information gathered by DHS will only be
1974.
used and released in accordance with law and
• Necessity and Relevance: The Privacy Act
requires that information collected by federal policy.
agencies must be both relevant and
Social security numbers of individuals are voluntarily
necessary to accomplish a clearly defined
purpose. The comments argue that USCIS has provided by the applicant along with all other
information requested on a form. This is explained
not sufficiently demonstrated how the
in the applicable privacy notice on the form itself.
proposed data fields meet this threshold.
USCIS uses social security numbers as an additional
Without justification, the collection of this
way to confirm identity and legally administer
information could be seen as excessive and
immigration benefits.
inconsistent with the Privacy Act.
• Potential Misuse of Data: The comments
The new information collected will be used and
express concerns about inter-agency data
treated in the same manner as the information that
sharing between USCIS, ICE, and CBP, which
is already collected on the subject forms. DHS’s
could lead to enforcement actions against
proposal is respectful of individual privacy and
individuals who did not consent to the
strictly adheres to Federal privacy laws and
disclosure of their information. This raises
fears of misuse of personal data and a lack of guidance and Departmental privacy policies and
procedures. DHS provides public notice about
transparency about how the information will
collection and use of data under appropriate System
be used.
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).

2

2. Lack of Adequate Notice: The Privacy Act
requires agencies to inform individuals about the
intended use of their information and the
consequences of not providing it. The comments
argue that USCIS has not provided sufficient notice
about the routine uses of the collected information
or its potential impact on applicants.
3. Violation of Privacy Act Protections - Social
Security Numbers: The Privacy Act prohibits
denying benefits or privileges to individuals for
refusing to disclose their Social Security numbers
unless explicitly required by law. The comments
suggest that the proposed collection does not meet
this standard and fails to clarify whether providing
Social Security information is voluntary or
mandatory.
5. Concerns About Enforcement: The comments
suggest that the collection of detailed information
about family members and employers may be used
to identify additional targets for immigration
enforcement, rather than solely for adjudicating
benefits. This raises concerns about the
administration's broader immigration enforcement
objectives and the potential weaponization of
personal data.

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 USCIS 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 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 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/USCIS006 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/USCIS017 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/PIA071 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.

Topic 4. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Concerns:
0024
The comments argue that the proposed
information collection violates the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary,
capricious, and lacks adequate justification. Under
the APA, agencies are required to provide a
reasoned explanation for their decisions, consider
reasonable alternatives, and assess the costs and
impacts of their actions. The commenters assert
that USCIS has failed to meet these standards by
not citing data to support the need for the new
fields, neglecting to consider less burdensome
alternatives (such as case-specific data requests),
and failing to explain how the burdens on
applicants were assessed. Additionally, USCIS has
not defined key terms like "immediate family" or
clarified the consequences for omissions, which
could lead to denial of benefits or suspicion. The
commenters also highlight that USCIS has not
provided evidence to demonstrate how the
proposed data collection would materially enhance
vetting or adjudication processes, nor has it shown
that these changes would improve national
security. Instead, the agency relies on vague
appeals to executive authority and national
security, which are insufficient under APA
standards. Overall, the comments emphasize that
the proposed changes contravene administrative
law by imposing overly burdensome and
unjustified requirements without a clear, evidencebased rationale.
Topic 5. Impacts on Immigration Benefit Processing
0024
Delay Benefit
The comments argue that the proposed data
0027
Processing
collection will significantly delay benefit processing
due to:
1. Increased Complexity: Longer, more complex
forms will take applicants more time to complete
and lead to more errors, omissions, or erroneous
denials.

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.
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.

Response: USCIS believes that in most situations
adding the proposed questions will not increase the
agency’s processing time. While the collection of
these new data elements may increase the data
elements reviewed on a form by adjudicators, the
new data elements will help USCIS validate
information is correctly associated with the
applicant in relevant systems. This will provide
trained DHS adjudication personnel with more
timely access to relevant information, all of which

2. Burden on Adjudicators: Increased burden on
adjudicators is likely to exacerbate existing
backlogs and processing delays, reducing efficiency
in the immigration system.
3. Requests for Evidence (RFEs): Applicants may
have difficulties in gathering and providing
sensitive third-party information (e.g., family
members' SSNs or employer information), resulting
in RFEs, denials, and re-filings. Commenters
recommend that applicants should be given
opportunities to contest or remedy evidentiary
demands without facing automatic denials.

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.
Additionally, USCIS has taken into account the
burden involved in collecting this information and
has found this burden is reasonable and justified,
given the security and fraud prevention benefits
from this collection.

4. Cumulative Impact: Multiple recent changes to
forms compound delays, which USCIS has failed to
account for.

0024

Deter
Immigration

Topic 6. Constitutional Issues
0024
Fifth Amendment
i. Due Process

The comments emphasize that these delays will
harm applicants, overburden adjudicators, and
undermine the efficiency of the immigration
system.
The comments argue that the proposed data
collection will deter immigration by creating
unnecessary barriers, particularly for vulnerable
populations. The increased complexity and burden
of longer and more detailed forms may discourage
applicants, as they require extensive preparation,
guidance, and research. Financial barriers also play
a significant role, as the complexity of the forms
may force applicants to hire legal representation at
significant expense, discouraging low-income
individuals from pursuing benefits. The proposed
changes also blur the lines between immigration
benefits and enforcement, eroding trust in the
system and creating fear or uncertainty about
applying.

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.

Fear of enforcement actions, increased complexity,
and burdensome requirements collectively
discourage eligible individuals from accessing or
applying for benefits.
The proposed collection of Social Security Numbers
(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. Applicants are required to provide
sensitive data, such as Social Security Numbers
(SSNs) of family members and employer details,
under threat of application denial, without a clear
process to appeal or address these demands.

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, statutory, departmental, and component

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

Topic 7. Discrimination/Vulnerable Populations
0024
The comments raise significant concerns about the
proposed collection of biographic and
employment-identifying information by USCIS,
emphasizing that it is discriminatory and
disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations,
including asylum seekers, survivors of human
trafficking, and applicants under the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA). These individuals
often lack access to required documentation, such
as Social Security numbers or employer data, due
to estrangement from family members, informal
employment histories, or precarious work
environments. These requirements exacerbate
existing inequalities and create significant barriers
for marginalized groups, deterring eligible
applicants from seeking immigration benefits.

privacy requirements, mandates, directives, and
policy.
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
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.
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.
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 in
accordance with law and relevant System of Records
Notices (SORN) and Privacy Impact Assessments

Moreover, the requirement to contact former
employers or estranged family members could
expose applicants to retaliation, retribution, or
further harm, particularly in cases where these
parties were complicit in exploitation or abuse.
The comments also critique the one-size-fits-all
approach, which applies indiscriminately across
various immigration benefit types and fails to
account for the diverse realities and vulnerabilities
of different immigrant populations. Forcing
applicants to disclose or penalizing applicants for
failing 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. Other Recommendations
0023
The commenter provided the following
recommendations:

Topic 9. Out of Scope
0023
0028
0029
0030

(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: Please see USCIS’ responses below.

1. Commenter recommends extending the
proposed collection to include 15 years of past
history, as 5 years is considered insufficient for
understanding an applicant’s background.

USCIS will not be making this recommended change
to extend the length of time for information to 15
years. While we understand and agree with the
need for relevant information, USCIS believes that
the current 5-year timeframe is sufficient to assess
an applicant’s background and eligibility. This
timeframe aligns with existing statutory and
regulatory requirements, ensuring consistency
across immigration processes.

2. Commenter suggests incorporating questions
about past criminal and civil infractions to better
assess potential risks.

USCIS remains committed to balancing thorough
vetting with efficient processing to uphold the
integrity of the immigration system. As to the
commenter’s suggestion to include questions about
past criminal and civil infractions, USCIS already
incorporates questions about criminal history in its
adjudication processes and background checks,
including arrests, charges, and convictions, as these
are critical factors in assessing an applicant’s
eligibility and potential risks. However, expanding
these inquiries to include civil infractions would not
align at this time with the agency’s priorities or the
Administration’s agenda to streamline government
processes and focus resources on matters of
national security and public safety.

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: 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.

Public comments received on the generic clearance
for the new collection of certain information on
immigration forms 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 11054 on March 3, 2025,
for a 60-day notice and at 90 FR 42604 on
September 3, 2025, for a 30-day notice. Responses
to concerns about this proposed collection will be
provided in that specific Federal Register notice in a
separate document.