60-Day Comment Matrix

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

Download: pdf

Form G-1617-012 Revision - Responses to 60-day FRN Public Comments
Public Comments (regulations.gov): USCIS-2007-0023
60-day FRN Citation (federalregister.gov): 91 FR 27075
Publish Dates: MAY 13, 2026 – JULY 13, 2026
Comment ID/Topic
Topic 1. Mismatch
correction and
worker notice.
0098

Comment Summary
Commenter: Makita Thatcher

USCIS Response

1.

Response: Please see USCIS’s
responsesbelow.https://www.e-verify.gov/e-

Mismatch correction and worker notice.

USCIS should ensure that any tentative
nonconfirmation, final nonconfirmation, case
closure, referral, duplicate case, photo
mismatch, document mismatch, or data
mismatch is accompanied by clear worker
notice in plain language.
The notice should explain the specific issue,
the record or agency source involved, the
worker's deadline, the steps required to
contest or correct the result, and what the
employer may and may not do while the case
is pending.
2.

verify-records-retention-and-disposal-factsheethttps://www.e-verify.gov/faq/how-do-icorrect-a-case-with-invalidinformationhttps://www.uscis.gov/i-9
1.

USCIS currently provides the requested
information to employees and employers
in a Further Action Notice or FAN. The
FANs go through extensive clearance,
including plain language review, before
publication.

2.

The requested guidance is currently found
in all versions of the Memorandum of
Understanding. They are also outlined in
the proposed Terms of Service.

Employer obligations.

The collection instruments, memoranda of
understanding, training materials, and user
screens should clearly instruct employers that
they may not terminate, suspend, reduce
hours, delay training, withhold pay, or
otherwise penalize a worker solely because of
a tentative or unresolved E-Verify result.

Regarding the request for USCIS to require
employers to preserve required notices,
USCIS does not have the authority to
dictate a company’s internal records
retention policies. Form I-9 retention
obligations are outlined in 8 CFR
274a.2(b)(2). Guidance on E-Verify
records retention policies can be found on
the E-Verify Records Retention Download
Instructions webpage: https://www.everify.gov/e-verify-records-retentiondownload-instructions.

USCIS should require employers to preserve
proof that required notices were provided
and that workers were given a meaningful
opportunity to contest a mismatch.
3.

Audit logs and preservation of the
record.

USCIS should preserve records sufficient to
reconstruct each case, including information
entered by the employer, system responses,
timestamps, notices generated, referral
dates, worker decisions to contest or not
contest, employer actions, case closures, final
determinations, and any later correction or
reopening.
If an E-Verify result later affects employment,
immigration eligibility, benefits, enforcement,

3.

USCIS currently stores the suggested data
for the time period required underper the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) records retention
and disposal schedule (N 1-566-08-7).
Under this schedule, USCIS annually
disposes of E-Verify employer records that
are 10 years old or older. This reduces
security and privacy risks associated with
the U.S. government retaining personally
identifiable information. To access such
information beyond the required
retention period, a company’s program
administrator or corporate administrator

or adjudication, the worker and reviewing
authorities should be able to trace the record.
4.

may download and save a Historical
Records Report, See https://www.everify.gov/e-verify-records-retention-anddisposal-fact-sheet, to retain such E-Verify
case information.

Correction before consequence.

USCIS should provide clear correction
procedures for mistaken, incomplete,
outdated, or mismatched records before an
E-Verify result becomes a final employment
consequence.

4.

The process should address errors involving
name changes, transliteration, document
numbers, Social Security records, DHS
records, citizenship or immigration status
records, expired or renewed documents,
employer data-entry mistakes, and duplicate
or prematurely closed cases.
5.

Language access and digital access.

E-Verify notices and instructions should be
available in languages commonly used by
affected workers, and the process should not
depend on digital access alone. A worker
should not lose employment because the
correction pathway was linguistically
inaccessible, technically inaccessible, or
unclear.
6.

The burden estimate should reflect the
practical burden on workers who must
resolve mismatches.
7.

With respect to correcting errors in federal
databases, such correction methods are
set by the agency which provides such
data, not E-Verify. Instructions on
contacting these agencies are provided in
a Further Action Notice (FAN), if
applicable, which an employer may
provide to the employee in whichever
manner the employer elects, including
digitally, printed, translated, etc.

Burden and cost.

USCIS should include the time and burden
placed on workers, not only employers or
agency users. A worker may need to read
notices, contact an agency, gather records,
travel, take time away from work, obtain
assistance, or correct records held by more
than one system.

Aggregate auditability.

USCIS should maintain aggregate data on
tentative nonconfirmations, final
nonconfirmations, contests, corrections, case
closures, employer compliance findings,
appeals or reopened cases, known error
patterns, language-access needs, and average
resolution times.

With respect to data entry errors, an EVerify user may edit case information
before submitting the case. From the
Review Case screen, the user can correct
information before submitting the case by
selecting the Edit Case Details button.
Users can also use the Close Case link at
the bottom of the review page to close
the case without submitting it, then create
a new case with the correct information.
This guidance is provided in the E-Verify
Manual, as well as in E-Verify FAQs here:
https://www.e-verify.gov/faq/how-do-icorrect-a-case-with-invalid-information.
When a duplicate case is being created in
E-Verify, users receive a warning and must
select the reason for the duplication from
a dropdown.

5.

The longstanding USCIS policy to complete
the Form I-9 in English. Only employers
located in Puerto Rico may complete the
Spanish-language version of Form I-9
instead of the English-language version.
Any employer may use the Spanishlanguage form and instructions as a
translation tool. As a tool to assist
employers in meeting their employment
verification obligations, the same policy
applies. See https://www.uscis.gov/i-9. In
addition, Supplement A of the Form I-9
allows for a translator or interpreter to
assist with completing the Form I-9, which
provides the data an employer runs in EVerify.
All materials, including FANs, may be
printed by an employer from E-Verify.

This data should be available for appropriate
oversight by Congress, Inspectors General,
courts, and the public so that the program
can be evaluated for accuracy, fairness, and
burden.

Employers and/or employees are free to
enlist interpreter services, if needed.
6.

Burden estimates determine the average
time it takes a respondent to complete an
information collection, to include time to
review documentation, gather any
required documentation and information,
preparing statements, and attach any
necessary documentation. The impacted
respondents for completion of this
information collection include employers,
recruiters, referrers, state employment
agencies, and; employees
Regarding the estimated
burden for mismatches (TNCs) and
corrections, this has always been covered
in the burden estimate accounted for
employees. In the case of a correction, it
would require the employee to take steps
outlined in the Further Action Notice.

7.

Topic 2. The
Proposed Expansion
of E-Verify to Include
Reverification Raises
Significant Statutory
and Practical
Questions

Commenter: The American Immigration
Lawyers Association

0099

One of the most significant changes included
in this information collection is the proposal
to add reverification functionality to E-Verify.
According to the Summary of Changes, EVerify will now "support electronic
reverification when an employee's work
authorization expires," with the stated
objective of aligning the system more closely
with the existing Form I-9 reverification

E-Verify data is available for internal use,
applicable law enforcement
investigations, and for oversight purposes,
as appropriate, such as requests by
Congress. USCIS disagrees that this
information should be publicly available
since it contains Personally Identifiable
Information (PII).

Response: Please see USCIS’s responses below.
Reverification: The Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub.
L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, created three pilot
programs for employment eligibility confirmation.
E-Verify is one of these pilot programs. IIRIRA does
not explicitly limit the use of E-Verify in the

process. Left unclear is whether the program
will mandate such an action.
AILA is concerned that this proposal raises
threshold questions regarding the scope of
USCIS's statutory authority. Congress
authorized E-Verify as an electronic
employment eligibility verification pilot
program for newly hired employees. By
contrast, reverification has long existed as a
separate employer obligation completed
through Supplement B (formerly Section 3) of
Form I-9 pursuant to implementing
regulations. The materials accompanying this
proposal do not explain the statutory basis
for extending E-Verify beyond its traditional
hiring function or whether Congress intended
reverification to fall within the scope of the
existing E-Verify program. Because the
proposal appears to represent a significant
expansion of E-Verify's role, USCIS must fully
explain the statutory and policy basis for this
change before the information collection is
approved.
Separate from those threshold statutory
questions, the proposal also raises important
concerns under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The addition of reverification introduces an
entirely new E-Verify workflow governing
existing employees rather than newly hired
employees. Yet the published materials
consist primarily of interface screenshots and
a high-level summary, making it difficult for
stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate how
the proposed workflow is intended to
operate, assess its practical utility, or
determine whether the associated burden
has been accurately estimated.
For example, the proposal does not indicate
whether reverification is intended only for
employees who were previously submitted
through E-Verify or whether employers will
also be expected to initiate reverification
cases for employees who have never had an
E-Verify case. Similarly, while the proposed
workflow appears to permit updates to
certain identifying information, the published
materials do not describe how the process is
intended to account for an employee's
change in citizenship status to lawful
permanent resident after the original E-Verify
case was created.

reverification process. Regulations under INA §
274A define “hire” as “the actual commencement
of employment of an employee for wages or other
remuneration.” 8 C.F.R. 274a.1(c). DHS’s
implementation of regulations for the employment
verification process under INA § 274A (i.e., the
Form I-9 process) requires reverification of expired
temporary work authorization on Form I-9. 8 C.F.R.
274a.2(b)(1)(vii). At no point did either INS or DHS
ever vary from the position that reverification is a
necessary and integral component of the Form I-9
process, and that failure to reverify as required is a
violation of the requirement in 8 U.S.C. 1324a(1)(B)
not “to hire for employment in the United States
an individual without complying with the
requirements of [8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)].” Although the
E-Verify program historically limited its verification
processes to new hires, that was due to systems
limitations, not statutory restrictions. Thus, the
addition of reverification to E-Verify is consistent
with the continuing obligation on the employer to
verify that an employee with temporary work
authorization continues to be work authorized.
The addition of reverification to the E-Verify
process also supports the provision of Executive
Order 14159 that mandates “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).
Similar to the current reverification and rehire
process for Form I-9 required by 8 C.F.R. §
274a.2(b)(vii), the employer would not collect
identity documents or verify identity during
reverification in the E-Verify reverification process.
Instead, employers will be required to enter the
updated employment authorization
documentation information the employee
provided into E-Verify. The proposed E-Verify
reverification process does not change the
employer’s obligation to update Form I-9
Supplement B with the required reverification
information and retain Form I-9 as required by law.
As to concerns about which employees will be
impacted and how and when to complete a
reverification case in E-Verify, this will be outlined
in updated training and guidance materials. USCIS
acknowledges the questions raised and will address
them as part of the implementation process. The
published materials were intended to provide high-

Topic 3. USCIS Must
Further Explain the
Estimated Burden
Associated with
Reverification
0099

These are not merely technical
implementation details. They directly and
substantively affect an employer's ability to
understand the proposed collection, evaluate
its practical utility, and determine how the
new workflow should be incorporated into
existing Form I-9 compliance procedures.
Accordingly, USCIS must provide additional
explanation regarding the operation of the
proposed reverification workflow, clarify the
circumstances under which employers will be
expected to use it, and more fully explain the
statutory and policy basis for this significant
expansion of E-Verify.
Commenter: The American Immigration
Lawyers Association

As discussed above, the proposal introduces a
significant new workflow supporting
reverification within E-Verify. The Federal
Register notice estimates that employers will
require approximately 0.06 hours (3.6
minutes) to complete each reverification
transaction. While that estimate may
reasonably reflect the time required for an
experienced user to complete a
straightforward reverification once the
functionality has been fully implemented, the
published materials do not explain whether
the estimate also accounts for the broader
implementation activities that necessarily
accompany the introduction of a new
information collection.
The burden associated with a new
information collection extends beyond the
time required to complete an individual
transaction. Before employers can begin
using the proposed reverification
functionality, they will need to review revised
guidance, evaluate how the new workflow
interacts with existing Form I-9 reverification
obligations, update internal policies and
procedures, revise training materials, and
ensure that human resources personnel
understand when and how reverification
through E-Verify should be used. These
implementation activities represent a
meaningful component of the overall burden
associated with the proposal, yet the
published materials do not indicate whether

level description of an intended enhancement for
which a workflow is yet to be complete.
The new information collected will be used and
treated in the same manner as the information
that is already collected on the Form I-9 and EVerify. Submission of the information an employee
provides on their Form I-9 to USCIS in E-Verify is a
voluntary action. USCIS does not see this as a
substantial additional burden because, for most
employers, a minority of their employees have
expiring employment authorization documents. In
addition, with limited exceptions, use of E-Verify is
not mandatory.

Response: Analysis of the burden is based on the
number of cases in E-Verify whose employment
authorization expires, which would then generally
require reverification. At this time, the amount of
time to complete a reverification case in E-Verify is
an estimate based on user testing since it is new
functionality.

they were considered as part of the agency's
burden estimate.
The published materials also include
estimates regarding both the anticipated
number of respondents and the estimated
time associated with the various E-Verify
activities. However, the notice does not
explain the methodology or assumptions
used to develop these figures. Moreover,
based on the information provided, it is
difficult to reconcile the published total
annual burden with the individual respondent
counts and per-response burden estimates
set forth in the notice. The materials appear
to assume additional information, such as the
anticipated number of annual responses, that
has not been disclosed. Without additional
explanation regarding these assumptions,
stakeholders cannot meaningfully evaluate
whether the estimated burden has been
accurately calculated.

Topic 4. Additional
Recommendations
to Improve the
Clarity and Utility of
the Proposed
Information
Collection
0099

Accordingly, AILA recommends that USCIS
supplement its burden analysis to more fully
describe the assumptions underlying the
estimated burden for reverification in EVerify, including both the estimated time
required to complete individual transactions
and the methodology used to estimate
anticipated program participation. Providing
additional transparency regarding these
assumptions would better enable
stakeholders to evaluate the necessity,
practical utility, and burden of the proposed
information collection under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Commenter: The American Immigration
Lawyers Association

In addition to the comments above regarding
the proposed reverification functionality,
AILA offers the following recommendations
to improve the clarity, practical utility, and
implementation of other aspects of the
proposed information collection.
A. Provide Additional Information
Regarding the Proposed Terms of
Service

Response: Please see USCIS’s responses below.
A. Terms of Service: USCIS disagrees that
changing from “Memorandum of
Understanding” to “Terms of Service” is
confusing or misleading. This change is
being made in response to feedback from
E-Verify participants (received through EVerify Listens, previous information

The proposal would replace the longstanding
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
a new Terms of Service (TOS) governing
enrollment in E-Verify. While AILA
appreciates USCIS's efforts to consolidate
program documentation, the proposed TOS
itself does not appear to have been published
as part of the information collection
materials. Instead, references to the TOS
appear only within screenshots of the
proposed enrollment workflow. Because the
TOS will establish the legal obligations
governing participation in E-Verify,
stakeholders should have an opportunity to
review the document itself before submitting
comments on the proposal.
Separately, AILA has concerns regarding the
proposed change in terminology from
"Memorandum of Understanding" to "Terms
of Service." For more than two decades,
employers, practitioners, state legislatures,
and agency guidance have consistently
referred to the governing enrollment
document as the Memorandum of
Understanding or simply MOU. Replacing that
well-established terminology with "Terms of
Service" may inadvertently suggest that the
agreement is comparable to a standard
software license or online click-through
agreement rather than a document
establishing substantive program obligations.
If USCIS proceeds with this terminology,
additional explanation regarding the purpose
and legal significance of the revised
agreement would be beneficial.
B. Explain the Practical Utility of the
Proposed Document Information
Questions
The proposal would add three new questions
within the Document Information portion of
the E-Verify case creation process asking (1)
how the employer examined the employee's
documents, (2) whether the documents
submitted by the employee appear to be
correct, and (3) whether the employee is a
remote hire. AILA recommends that USCIS
more fully explain the practical utility of
collecting this additional information.

collection requests and through various
other channels), that DHS should create
one streamlined, consolidated TOS
agreement to replace the six MOUs
currently in use. This TOS is intended to
provide all E-Verify participants with the
terms and conditions governing their
rights and responsibilities in E-Verify
enrollment and use in one unified
document.
Under the new TOS, like other commonly
used agreements for accessing electronic
services, employers and other participants
wishing to enroll in E-Verify will review
and “click to accept” the electronic EVerify TOS agreement, which will provide
the most efficient means for agreeing to
the terms and conditions governing EVerify enrollment and use. The TOS
document has been written with a goal of
maintaining current user requirements,
responsibilities, and protections while
enhancing its organization, readability,
and ease of use, as well as updating some
terms in relation to E-Verify policies that
have changed since DHS last updated the
six E-Verify MOUs.
For program participants, the TOS will be
easier to read and access and eliminate
the need for an employer or other entity
to have to re-execute its MOU upon a
change in its business relationship with EVerify. For example, if an employer
decides to become an E-Verify Employer
Agent to create cases on behalf of others,
but is otherwise maintaining its legal
name and form, then it will not be
required to execute a new agreement to
reflect that change. In addition, the TOS
will more readily allow participants to
familiarize themselves with their E-Verify
responsibilities when enrolling in and
using E-Verify. Other potential benefits
for participants include decreased
enrollment time, easier enrollment for
small business users, and increased
transparency in that participants can more
easily review the requirements associated
with all of the different E-Verify user
types.

First, the proposal appears to collect
substantially the same information through
two separate questions. Employers are first
asked how they examined the employee's
documents, with the available responses
being either physical document examination
or remote document examination under
DHS's alternative procedure. Employers are
then separately asked whether the employee
is a remote hire. However, the accompanying
helper text appears to define a remote hire
by reference to the same alternative
procedure identified in the earlier question.
During USCIS’ April 14, 2026 listening session
regarding Version 32 of the E-Verify Interface
Control Agreement (ICA), USCIS explained
that these questions are intended to capture
different concepts – specifically, the
employee’s work location and the method
used to examine documents. That distinction,
however, is not apparent from the proposed
information collection materials. USCIS
should revise the accompanying instructions
or helper text to clearly explain the purpose
of each question and the circumstances in
which the responses may differ. In addition,
USCIS should explain the practical utility of
collecting this information and how it will be
used in administering the E-Verify program
C. Explain the Practical Utility of Additional
Interface Control Agreement Data
Elements
Concurrently with this information collection,
USCIS has announced revisions to the E-Verify
Interface Control Agreement (ICA) version 32,
which governs Web Services integrations
used by E-Verify employer agents and EVerify web services employers. Among other
changes, the updated ICA introduces several
new data elements, including an I-766
extension method, TPS designated country,
and DED covered country fields that appear
intended to support the functionality
proposed in this information collection.
Because employers are instructed that
information entered into E-Verify should be
taken from the completed Form I-9, it is not
apparent how employers are expected to
accurately provide these additional data
elements. Unlike many of the data elements
currently submitted to E-Verify, this

B. “Terms of Service” is already being used
for E-Verify+ users (both employees and
employers) and USCIS has received no
negative feedback, nor comments that it is
confusing. Document information
questions: As part of a final rule and
optional alternative procedure published
on July 25, 2023, and in connection with
the latest published Form I-9, certain
employers enrolled in E-Verify are able to
verify an employee’s employment
eligibility remotely. See 88 Fed. Reg. at
47990 (Final Rule) and 47749 (Optional
Alternative).
Responses to the proposed questions in EVerify will assist DHS in monitoring
employer adoption and use of the rule,
identifying possible avenues of necessary
guidance and addressing specific
noncompliance and fraud issues as it
monitors employer compliance with the EVerify TOS and the DHS optional
alternative rule.
This feature not only informs future
guidance but also aids DHS account
compliance in addressing specific
noncompliance issues, assisting employers
to return to full compliance and, if
necessary, to make external referrals to
agency and inter-governmental partners.
In addition, knowing if an employee was
verified remotely versus in person
ensures the program has a better
understanding of how remote document
examination is being used and whether
there is a correlation between detection
of fraudulent documentation and the
form of examination, which will help drive
decision making about possible future
policy and rulemaking improvements.
C. Additional Interface Control Agreement
Data Elements: USCIS will not address this
comment because it is outside the scope
of the current action. However, we will
take this feedback regarding the updated
ICA into consideration and address at the
appropriate time.
D. Hiring Sites: If an employer has multiple
hiring sites, USCIS proposes that the
employer will choose the employee’s
specific hiring site from a pre-populated

information generally is not recorded on
Form I-9, nor does existing Form I-9 guidance
instruct employers to capture or document it
during the employment eligibility verification
process. AILA recommends that the agency
provide additional explanation regarding
these issues before implementing the
proposed changes. To the extent that it is,
USCIS can infer the required information –
the type of extension being used – by running
the document number through its own
databases.
D. Explain the Purpose and Practical Utility
of the Proposed Hiring Site Requirement
The proposal would require employers to
identify the applicable hiring site when
creating an E-Verify case. While this
information may be readily available for some
employers, many long-standing E-Verify
participants have not routinely maintained or
updated hiring site information within their EVerify accounts because doing so has not
previously been necessary for case creation.
As a result, employers may need to create or
update hiring site information before they
can submit an E-Verify case. These additional
administrative steps may increase the time
required to complete cases, particularly
where employers discover outdated account
information during the three-business-day
period for creating an E-Verify case.
The proposal also does not explain the
practical utility of collecting hiring site
information or how USCIS intends to use the
data. AILA recommends that USCIS explain
the purpose of this new requirement and
consider whether the resulting administrative
burden is justified by the anticipated benefit.
E.

Publish Implementation Guidance Prior
to Deployment

Given the significance of the proposed
changes, particularly the addition of
reverification functionality within E-Verify,
AILA encourages USCIS to publish updated
policy guidance and educational materials
sufficiently in advance of implementation.
Advance guidance addressing the operation
of the new workflow, common compliance

dropdown when creating a case. This may
require that employers update their
profile; however, it will allow DHS to be
more responsive to users’ questions and
provide compliance guidance as the law
on the use of E-Verify varies from state to
state. This feature will also further aid the
government in identifying opportunities
for training by being able to see patterns
of activity and potential noncompliance
with E-Verify rules at a specific location(s)
within the employer’s operations.
E.

Guidance materials: USCIS policy has been
to publish updated training and guidance
materials for E-Verify at the time new
features are available in the system. USCIS
believes that publication prior to
implementation would cause confusion.

USCIS appreciates the thorough review, feedback,
and comments.

scenarios, and the interaction between EVerify and Form I-9 Supplement B would
promote more consistent employer
compliance, reduce avoidable errors, and
ultimately lessen the administrative burden
on both employers and the agency.
Conclusion
AILA appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the proposed revisions to the E-Verify
Program information collection. We
respectfully encourage USCIS to provide
additional explanation regarding the
statutory basis, practical utility, and
estimated burden associated with the
proposed changes, including the proposed
reverification functionality. Doing so will
assist stakeholders and OMB in meaningfully
evaluating the proposed collection under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. AILA appreciates
USCIS's consideration of these comments.