60-Day Comment Matrix

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

Form I-9-018 Extension - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2006-0068
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 91 FR 28615
Publish Dates: May 18, 2026 – July 17, 2026
Comment ID
1.
0725

Comment Summary
Commenter: Miles Strebeck
Information that is not necessary and low practical
utility
USCIS should eliminate the following data points from
Section 1:
1. Address: Street number and name, apt. number,
city or town, state, and zip code.

USCIS Response
Response: USCIS recognizes concerns about
collection of information on Form I-9. This form is
used to document verification of the identity and
employment authorization of each employee hired
after November 6, 1986, to work in the United States.
1.

The address of the employee is not needed on Form I-9.
It does not have any connection to employment
authorization. It is not used for communicating with the
employee. If it was, USCIS would clarify that a mailing
address is needed. As new hires, there is a notinsignificant chance the address is temporary.
A current address is also insufficient for an employer to
verify identity. The employer cannot request
documentation to verify it, and the employee is not
required to produce a document with an address. USCIS
has not provided any instructions to the employer
other than ensuring the form is complete. Does the
employer have an obligation to check for consistency
with documentation presented, practicality of
commute, plausibility of residence, actual existence of
residence, or other factors?

The employee’s address may also be used to
assist in ICE or Account Compliance
enforcement audits and detect or prevent
fraud. DHS does not request an employee’s
address history, only their current address.
DHS respectfully disagrees that it is a ”waste
of taxpayer resources” to investigate fraud
in the U.S. employment market. The
collection of this information is necessary to
ensure compliance with Executive Order
14159, “ensuring that employment
authorization is provided in a manner
consistent with section 274A of the INA (8
U.S.C. 1324a), and that employment
authorization is not provided to any
unauthorized alien in the United States.”
Executive Order 14159, Protecting the
American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20,
2025). This collection is used to verify
employees’ identities and work
authorization status in the United States.

It would be nearly impossible to make a finding of fraud
based on the address. There is nothing on the form that
indicates the type or term of the address, leaving
interpretation to the employee. The employer cannot
reasonably use the address on Form I-9 to verify the
identity of the employee.
The costs of investigating a potentially fraudulent
address are a waste of taxpayer resources, especially
when they would have such a low chance of resulting in
a fraud conviction. Form I-9 is intended for IEA
verification, not investigating a new hire's address
history. USCIS must either provide a rationale
explanation for requiring the address or remove it from
the form.
2. Employee's email address
3. Employee's telephone number
The form does not clarify that these are optional, which
leads to confusion from both employees and
employers. USCIS explains that these may be useful in
E-Verify for potential non-confirmation. That is not a
tenable reason for retaining these fields on Form I-9.

The address of the employee may be used to
verify identity, depending on which
document is presented by the employee.
See Form I-9 Instructions. Although an
employer cannot request an identity
document including the employee’s address,
8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(B)(1)(i) states, “If the
driver's license or identification card does
not contain a photograph, identifying
information shall be included such as: name,
date of birth, sex, height, color of eyes, and
address.” Therefore, an employee may
present a document with an address, which
can be used to verify identity

2.

Employers are required to provide the
instructions to the Form I-9 to the employee
with the Form; and, any confusion can be
resolved by reading the Instructions. The
Form I-9 Instructions use the words “must”
and “may” as applicable. The use of “must”

Neither of these are evidence of employment
authorization. Employers can request these
separately at their discretion; the form does not need
to ask on their behalf, nor does it provide obligatory
explanations of the company's use of those data points.
Nor are these reasonable as evidence of identity. They
are not unique identifiers; people share numbers and
email addresses, their ownership changes, and new
email addresses and phone numbers can be obtained
for free online through apps.
If this information is useful to E-Verify users, then it
should be moved to the E-Verify process. There is no
basis for requesting this information on Form I-9.

indicates the employee is required to
provide the information. The use of “may”
in the Instructions indicates an employee
could add the information, but it is not
required.
Under the header “Employee and Employer
Instructions Related to E-Verify,” bullet
number two says, “Providing your email
address and telephone number in Section 1
will allow you to receive notifications
associated with your E-Verify case.” DHS
believes this is sufficiently clear to indicate
that the email address is not required and, if
provided, how the email address would be
used. Neither the Form nor its Instructions
claim that an email address is evidence of
the employee’s identity. Both the phone
number and email address are used as
methods to contact the employee, when
necessary. They are not intended or used
for verifying the employee’s identity.
Further, in the M-274 Handbook for
Employers Section 3.0 Completing Section 1:
Employee Information and Attestation
states, “Employees are not required to
provide an email address or telephone
number in Section 1. If they do not wish to
enter an e-mail address or telephone
number, they may leave these fields blank.”
(emphasis added) See
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9resources/handbook-for-employers-m274/30-completing-section-1-employeeinformation-and-attestation . DHS believes
the Instructions and M-274 provide
sufficiently clear guidance on whether an
email and telephone number are required
when completing Form I-9.

2.
0725

Commenter: Miles Strebeck
USCIS would improve data quality by adding two fields
that clarify immigration status
USCIS would aid employers in complying with the
requirements of temporary work authorization by
adding two fields in Section 2 under documentation.
These would be optional and only needed for specific
categories of aliens authorized to work.
1. Form I-94 class of admission
2. I-766 category of employment
First, USCIS should add a field for the category of
admission when presented with Form I-94. This would
aid employers in adhering to expiration dates,

Response:
DHS appreciates this feedback and will take the
suggested changes under consideration for
potential inclusion in a future version of the
Form I-9.

identifying reverification strategies, and maintaining a
work force that is employment authorized.

3.
0725

Second, USCIS should add a field for the category listed
on Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document.
EAD have been subject to category-wide changes in
EAD validity (e.g. TPS, automatic extension validity,
etc.) that have required employers to manually review
the supporting
documentation for countless Form I-9s to check for
affected employees. A dedicated field for this data
would reduce the public burden through improved
recordkeeping.
Commenter: Miles Strebeck
Clarifying instructions
1. Section 1, Name
a. Harmonize naming conventions for those with
only one name. The M-274 instructions to use
"Unknown" conflict with USCIS practice ("No
name given") and visa issuance ("FNU" or
"LNU").
b. Clarify only need to list names on documents
provided. There is insufficient space for some
to list all names. Only relevant names are from
documents provided.

Response:
1.

b. DHS declines to make this change as
names used by the employee in the past or
presently other than those listed on the
documents provided can be relevant to the
employment verification process. DHS
further believes the name information
requested is already clear in the Instructions
and Handbook. The Instructions state “All
employees must provide their current legal
name,” in the Section 1 guidance. That
section goes on to explain what is also
outlined in the M-274 Handbook for
Employers Section 3.0 Completing Section 1:
Employee Information and Attestation
states, “Employees must enter their current
legal name and other last names that they
have used in the past or present (such as a
maiden name), if any.” See
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9resources/handbook-for-employers-m274/30-completing-section-1-employeeinformation-and-attestation.

2. List B, Item 1
a. Rephrase to explicitly include territories: On
form under List B, 1. Driver's license, rephrase
for territories: …issued by a State or
comparable entity (DC, PR, USVI, CNMI,
Guam, AS)
3. List A, Item 5
a. Remove explicit requirement of same name.
It's redundant. Why must I-94 and passport be
perfect match, and not account for marriage,
divorce, visa/I-94 differences in naming
conventions?
b. Allow spouses authorized to work by status to
also present passport and I-94; L-2 and E-2
spouses should be able to present passport
and I-94 just like spouses without presenting
List B doc.

a. DHS appreciates this feedback and will
take the suggested changes under
consideration.

2.

DHS appreciates this feedback. This
information is available in the M-274
Handbook for Employers. List B Option 1
currently states, “Driver’s license or ID card
issued by a state or outlying possession of
the United States…” An outlying possession
of the United States is defined by section
101(a)(29) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29). This
definition is explained in the M-274
Handbook for Employers Section 13.2 as, “A
driver’s license can be issued by any state or
territory of the United States (including the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and

the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands).” See

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/formi-9-resources/handbook-for-employersm-274/130-acceptable-documents-forverifying-employment-authorizationand-identity/132-list-b-documents-thatestablish-identity (emphasis added).
3.

a. Guidance on this question is found in the
Form I-9 Instructions as well as the M-274
Section 4, and comes from 8 CFR
274a.2(b)(1)(ii)(A) which states employers
must “[p]hysically examine (or otherwise
examine pursuant to an alternative
procedure authorized by the Secretary
under paragraph (b)(1)(ix) of this section)
the documentation presented by the
individual [employee] establishing identity
and employment authorization as set forth
in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section and
ensure that the documents presented
appear to be genuine and to relate to the
individual.”
The Form I-9 Instructions state, ”If your
documentation reasonably appears to be
genuine and to relate to you, your employer
must accept the documentation”
The M-274 Handbook for Employers Section
4 states, “You must allow the employee to
choose which documentation they will
present from the Form I-9 Lists of
Acceptable Documents and must accept
documentation that reasonably appears to
be genuine and relates to the person
presenting it.”
This specific situation is also addressed in
the M-274 Section 14.0 Some Questions You
May Have About Form I-9, #8: “You may
accept a document with a different name
than the name entered in Section 1 if the
document reasonably relates to the
employee. You also may attach a brief
memo to the employee’s Form I-9 stating
the reason for the name discrepancy, along
with any supporting documentation he or
she provides. An employee may provide
documentation to support a name change
but is not required to do so. If you
determine the document containing a
different name does not reasonably appear
to be genuine and to relate to the employee,
you may ask him or her to provide other
documents from the Lists of Acceptable
Documents on Form I-9.” See

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9resources/handbook-for-employers-m274/140-some-questions-you-may-haveabout-form-i-9.
DHS believes these Instructions and
Handbook give guidance on the scenario
raised – when there is a discrepancy in the
name on the passport and I-94.
b. There is no prohibition of either of these
visa categories using an I-94. Please see the
M-274 Handbook for Employers Section 7.9,
available at https://www.uscis.gov/i-9central/form-i-9-resources/handbook-foremployers-m-274/70-evidence-ofemployment-authorization-for-certaincategories/79-other-temporary-workers.
4.
0724

Commenter: WhoPoo App
End H1b and F1 visas. 7% of all AMERICAN computer
engineering graduates are unemployed!!

Response: This comment was out of scope for this
information collection and did not provide feedback
on the nature of the information collection. This
action is intended to extend approval of this
information collection for use under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.