Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 56338-56422 [2020-19145]

Download as PDF 56338 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 1, 103, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 216, 235, 236, 240, 244, 245, 245a, 264, 287, 316, 333, and 335 [CIS No. 2644–19 USCIS Docket No. USCIS– 2019–0007] RIN 1615–AC14 Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: This rule proposes to amend DHS regulations concerning the use and collection of biometrics in the enforcement and administration of immigration laws by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). First, DHS proposes that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request, including United States citizens, must appear for biometrics collection without regard to age unless DHS waives or exempts the biometrics requirement. Second, DHS proposes to authorize biometric collection, without regard to age, upon arrest of an alien for purposes of processing, care, custody, and initiation of removal proceedings. Third, DHS proposes to define the term biometrics. Fourth, this rule proposes to increase the biometric modalities that DHS collects, to include iris image, palm print, and voice print. Fifth, this rule proposes that DHS may require, request, or accept DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, to prove the existence of a claimed genetic relationship and that DHS may use and store DNA test results for the relevant adjudications or to perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. Sixth, this rule would modify how VAWA and T nonimmigrant petitioners demonstrate good moral character, as well as remove the presumption of good moral character for those under the age of 14. Lastly, DHS proposes to further clarify the purposes for which biometrics are collected from individuals filing immigration applications or petitions, to include criminal history and national security background checks; identity enrollment, verification, and management; secure document SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 production, and to administer and enforce immigration and naturalization laws. The changes proposed in this rule are intended to: Provide DHS with the flexibility to change its biometrics collection practices and policies to ensure that necessary adjustments can be made to meet emerging needs, enhance the use of biometrics beyond background checks and document production to include identity verification and management in the immigration lifecycle, enhance vetting to lessen the dependence on paper documents to prove identity and familial relationships, preclude imposters, and improve the consistency in biometrics terminology within DHS . DATES: Written comments must be submitted on this rule on or before October 13, 2020. Comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this rule (the information collection discussed therein) must be received on or before November 10, 2020. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the entirety of this proposed rule package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS–2019–0007, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the website instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept any comments that are hand delivered or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. Due to COVID–19, USCIS is also not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment by using https://www.regulations.gov, please contact Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, by telephone at 202–272–8377 for alternate instructions. Collection of Information: You must submit comments on the collection of information discussed in this notice of proposed rulemaking to either DHS’ docket or the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA will have access to and view the comments submitted in the docket. OIRA submissions can also be sent PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 using any of the following alternative methods: • Email (alternative): DHSDeskOfficer@omb.eop.gov (include the docket number and ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS’’ in the subject line of the email). • Fax: 202–395–6566. • Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. McDermott, Security and Public Safety Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20529–2240, telephone (202) 272–8377 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Public Participation II. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action B. Summary of Costs and Benefits III. Background and Purpose IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. Family Assessment I. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) J. Congressional Review Act K. Executive Order 13175 L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act M. Executive Order 12630 N. Executive Order 13045 O. Executive Order 13211 P. Signature Table of Abbreviations AAC Accompanied Alien Children ASC Application Support Center AWA Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act BFR Biometrics fee ratio CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection CJIS FBI Criminal Justice Information Services CPMS Customer Profile Management System DHS Department of Homeland Security DNA deoxyribonucleic acid DOS Department of State FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules IDENT Automated Biometric Identification System IdHS Identity History Summary IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act IMBRA International Marriage Broker Regulation Act INA Immigration and Nationality Act NTA Notice to Appear (issued to initiate removal proceedings under INA section 240) OBIM DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management RAIO Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program TVPRA Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act UAC Unaccompanied Alien Children USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services USRAP United States Refugee Admissions Program VAWA Violence Against Women Act I. Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that provide the most assistance to DHS will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and USCIS Docket No. USCIS–2019–0007 for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https:// www.regulations.gov. II. Executive Summary As previously stated, this rule proposes to amend DHS regulations concerning the use and collection of biometrics in the administration and enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws as well as the adjudication of benefit requests. This Executive Summary summarizes the changes made by this rule so readers may obtain a brief overview of the changes DHS proposes herein without reading the entire rule. DHS has included full legal citations of authorities, explanations, and more details regarding the proposed changes VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 in the section of the main preamble that discusses the background, need, and authority for the change. A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action DHS has general and specific statutory authority to collect or require submission of biometrics from applicants, petitioners, and beneficiaries for immigration benefits; and from aliens upon their arrest for purposes of processing, care, custody, and initiation of removal proceedings.1 2 As detailed in the Authority section of the preamble that follows this Executive Summary, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) at section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), provides general authority for DHS to collect or require submission of biometrics and specific authority in several sections.3 DHS currently collects, stores, and uses biometrics for the following purposes: Conducting background checks to determine eligibility for a benefit or other request; document production associated with an application, petition, or other request for certain immigration and naturalization benefits or actions; and performing other functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws such as identity verification upon issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA) under section 240 of the INA. DHS is precluded in many cases from approving, granting, or providing immigration benefits to individuals with 1 This rule proposes changes to the regulations governing collection of biometrics for benefit requests administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It also impacts U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which have immigration enforcement responsibilities that may require collection, use, and storage of biometrics and use USCIS systems or service forms for which biometrics would be required by this rule. Those provisions are discussed further below. For example, ICE, Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) uses USCIS Form I–539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, and Form I–765, Application for Employment Authorization Document. This rule generally does not propose to authorize CBP or ICE to expand biometrics collections beyond either agency’s current, independent authorities. However, this rule does propose to authorize CBP and ICE to expand their current biometrics collections for immigration benefit requests to individuals under the age of 14 and authorizes collection of additional biometrics modalities. 2 For the purposes of this rule, DHS is including all requests processed by USCIS in the term ‘‘benefit request’’ or ‘‘immigration benefit request’’ although the form or request may not be to request a benefit. For example, deferred action is solely an exercise of prosecutorial discretion by DHS and not an immigration benefit, but would fit under the definition of ‘‘benefit request’’ at 8 CFR 1.2 for purposes of this rule. 3 The applicable statutory sections of each provision are explained in the body of the preamble which follows this Executive Summary. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56339 a record of certain criminal offenses or administrative violations. Criminal histories are relevant because they are used to determine eligibility for both discretionary and non-discretionary immigration benefits. Therefore, DHS must include national security considerations and criminal history background checks in its adjudications. Several statutes authorize DHS to conduct biometric collection in relation to national security and public safety purposes, as well as for document production. Other statutes authorize DHS to collect the biometrics of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident petitioners of family-based immigrant and nonimmigrant fianc&eacute;´(e) petitions to determine if a petitioner has been convicted of certain crimes. In addition, certain laws and executive branch guidance requires DHS to have a robust system for biometrics collection, storage, and use related to providing adjudicating immigration benefits and performing other functions necessary for administering and enforcing of immigration and naturalization laws. Current regulations also provide both general authorities for the collection of biometrics in connection with administering immigration and naturalization benefits requests and administering and enforcing immigration laws. For example, any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing a benefit request may be required to appear for biometrics collection. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). DHS currently has authority to require an individual to submit biometric information to conduct background and security checks and perform other functions related to administering and enforcing immigration laws. See 8 CFR 103.16(a). DHS proposes to change the regulations in a number of ways. The immigration benefit request adjudications process requires DHS to verify the identity of an individual applying for or seeking to receive any benefit, and also requires national security and criminal history background checks to determine if such an individual is eligible for the benefit. The adjudication includes a review of the individual’s current immigration status, current immigration filings, past immigration filings, and whether previous benefits were granted or denied. Immigration laws preclude DHS from granting many immigration and naturalization benefits to individuals with certain criminal or administrative violations, or with certain disqualifying characteristics, while also providing DHS discretion in granting an immigration benefit in many instances. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56340 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules DHS conducts checks to determine if an individual has a history that could render him or her inadmissible or removable, a criminal record, an association with human rights violations, or involvement in terrorist activities or organizations. The current DHS biometric collection process for benefits adjudication begins with the collection of an individual’s photograph, fingerprints, and signature at an authorized biometric collection site. Collections outside the United States may be conducted on behalf of DHS by other federal agencies. Under this rule, DHS may also require, request, or accept DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) test results as evidence of genetic relationships. While DHS has the authority to collect biometrics from any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, requestor, or individual filing or associated with a request, or to perform other functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws, submission of biometrics is only mandatory for certain benefit requests and enforcement actions upon request of DHS. For all other benefit requests and enforcement actions, DHS must decide, in accordance with its statutory and regulatory authorities, if the request or enforcement action justifies collection of biometrics and notify the individual where they will be collected when a collection is warranted and for what purposes they will be used. DHS has decided that the more limited focus on background checks and document production is outdated because immigration benefit request adjudication and the enforcement and administration of immigration laws include verifying identity and determining whether or not the individual poses a risk to national security or public safety. DHS has decided that it is necessary to increase routine biometric collections to include individuals associated with immigration benefits and to perform other functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws. Therefore, DHS proposes in this rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated 4 with a certain benefit or request, including U.S. citizens and without regard to age, must appear for biometrics collection unless DHS 4 By ‘‘associated’’ DHS means a person with substantial involvement in the immigration benefit request, such as a named derivative, beneficiary, petitioner’s signatory, or co-applicant. DHS will not require biometrics to be submitted by agents, representatives, interpreters, preparers, or guardians. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 waives or exempts the requirement.5 In addition to removing the age restrictions in the context of adjudicating immigration benefit requests, DHS is also removing the age restrictions for biometrics collection in the context of Notice to Appear (NTA) issuance for the same purposes (i.e., identity verification, national security and criminal history background checks, etc.). See Proposed 8 CFR 236.5. DHS emphasizes that it is not proposing an absolute biometrics collection requirement. Rather, the purpose of this rule is to provide notice that every individual requesting a benefit before or encountered by DHS is subject to the biometrics requirement unless DHS waives or exempts it. This notice will be added to relevant forms in the Privacy Notice. The increased use of biometrics by DHS will include identity management in the immigration lifecycle, which will enable it to transition to a person-centric model to organize and manage its records, manage unique identities, verify immigration records, and will reduce reliance on biographic data for identity management in the immigration lifecycle. Biographic data possess inherent inconsistencies that could result in immigration benefits being granted to ineligible applicants or imposters. Using biometrics for identity verification and management in the immigration lifecycle will help ensure that an individual’s immigration records pertain only to that individual, and help DHS locate, maintain, and update the individual’s immigration status, previously submitted identity documentation, as well as certain biographic data. DHS proposes to collect biometrics at any age to ensure the immigration records created for children can be related to their adult records later, help combat child trafficking, smuggling, and labor exploitation by facilitating identity verification, while confirming the absence of criminal history or associations with terrorist organizations or gang membership. DHS also plans to implement a program of continuous immigration vetting, and require that aliens be subjected to continued and subsequent evaluation to ensure they continue to present no risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This rule proposes that any individual alien who is present in the United States following an approved immigration benefit may be 5 The terms ‘‘file,’’ ‘‘submit,’’ ‘‘associated with’’ or variations thereof, as used throughout this rule, do not encompass attorneys and accredited representatives, although attorneys and accredited representatives may physically ‘‘file’’ or ‘‘submit’’ a request on behalf of a client. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 required to submit biometrics unless and until they are granted U.S. citizenship. The rule further proposes that a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen may be required to submit biometrics if he or she filed an application, petition, or request in the past and it was either reopened or the previous approval is relevant to an application, petition, or benefit request currently pending with DHS. The changes to the use and collection of biometrics and expanded scope of populations also are pertinent to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a component of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), given that immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) are prohibited from granting relief or protection from removal to an alien 14 years of age or older unless an ICE attorney reports that all required ‘‘identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations’’ have been completed. See INA section 262, and 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6), 1003.47(g). ICE relies, in part, on USCIS biometric collection in this regard. Further, DHS has leeway in terms of the exact types of such background and security checks. See Background and Security Investigations in Proceedings Before Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, 70 FR 4743, 4744 (2005) (‘‘There is no need for this rule to specify the exact types of background and security checks that DHS may conduct with respect to aliens in proceedings.’’). DHS recognizes that removing the age restrictions associated with biometrics collection in DHS regulations, without removing the age restrictions in DOJ EOIR regulations, could create disparate processes for biometric collections in immigration adjudications. Specifically, a child under 14 may be required to submit biometrics for an application submitted to USCIS, but the same child would be exempt from biometrics for an application submitted with DOJ EOIR. These disparate authorities could also cause confusion given USCIS collects biometrics at its ASCs for many applications and petitions adjudicated by EOIR. However, DHS and DOJ will continue to be bound by their respective regulations. To the extent that any controversy may arise interpreting DHS and DOJ regulations regarding the removal of age restrictions for biometrics collection, until DOJ removes its age restrictions DHS intends to follow DOJ regulations with respect to age restrictions when collecting E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules biometrics for an application or petition that will be adjudicated by EOIR. DHS anticipates that by removing age restrictions on the collection of biometrics this rule will enhance the ability of ICE and CBP to identify fraudulent biological relationships claimed at the border and upon apprehension.6 Under the current interpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement, DHS typically releases alien minors apprehended at the border from its detention facilities within 20 days— often in conjunction with the adults with whom these minors were encountered. This may encourage the proliferation of fraudulent family unit schemes wherein unrelated adults and children claim biological relationships in order to secure prompt release into the United States. Alien smuggling organizations are aware of this loophole and are taking full advantage of it, placing children into the hands of adult strangers, so they can pose as families and be released from immigration custody after crossing the border, creating another safety issue for these children. DHS’s ability to collect biometrics, including DNA, regardless of a minor’s age, will allow DHS to accurately verify or refute claimed genetic relationships among apprehended aliens and ensure that unaccompanied alien children (UACs) are properly identified and cared for.7 Regarding the use of DNA evidence, where evidence of a relationship is required, this rule proposes to grant DHS express authority to require, request, or accept DNA test results from relevant parties as evidence of a claimed genetic relationship.8 DHS recognizes that there are qualifying family members, such as adopted children, who do not have a genetic relationship to the individual who makes an immigration benefit request on their behalf. To the extent the rule discusses using DNA evidence to establish qualifying relationships in support of certain immigration benefit requests, it is referring only to genetic relationships that can be demonstrated through DNA testing. Current regulations generally 6 To clarify, DHS is not proposing DNA collection at ports of entry. 7 For example, between July 2019 and November 2019, DHS, identified 432 incidents of fraudulent family claims by conducting a Rapid DNA testing under a pilot program named Operation Double Helix. This is over 20% of the total family units tested (1,747). 8 This rule is not concerned with, and creates no authority to limit, DNA sample collection required by 34 U.S.C. 40702(a)(1)(A) and 28 CFR 28.12 from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 require documentary evidence such as marriage and birth certificates, and secondary evidence such as medical records, school records, religious documents, and affidavits to support claims based on familial relationships. DHS currently does not have in place express regulatory provisions to require, request, or accept DNA testing results to prove genetic relationships, but because documentary evidence may be unreliable or unavailable, in some situations, individuals are allowed to voluntarily submit DNA test results. Under this rule, DHS may expressly require, request, or accept DNA evidence to demonstrate the existence of the claimed genetic relationship. DHS proposes to treat raw DNA (the physical sample taken from the applicable individual) that is taken as a distinctive biometric modality from the other biometric modalities it is authorized to collect, and not handle or share any raw DNA for any reason beyond the original purpose of submission (e.g., to establish or verify a claimed genetic relationship), unless DHS is required to share by law. DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, like other evidence of a familial relationship, becomes part of the record, and DHS will store and share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, for adjudication purposes, or to perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws, to the extent permitted by law. In recent years, government agencies have grouped together identifying features and actions, such as fingerprints, photographs, and signatures under the broad term, biometrics. The terms, biometric ‘‘information,’’ ‘‘identifiers,’’ or ‘‘data,’’ are used to refer to all of these features, including additional features such as iris image, palm print, DNA, and voice print.As a result, DHS has adopted the practice of referring to fingerprints and photographs collectively as ‘‘biometrics,’’ ‘‘biometric information,’’ or ‘‘biometric services.’’ Most laws on the subject do not specify individual biometric modalities such as iris image, palm print, voice print, DNA, and/or any other biometric modalities that may be collected from an individual in the future. DHS is proposing to update the terminology in the applicable regulations to uniformly use the term ‘‘biometrics.’’ DHS seeks to utilize a single, inclusive term comprehensively throughout regulations and form instructions. DHS proposes to define the term, ‘‘biometrics,’’ to clarify and fully explain its authority to collect more PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56341 than just ‘‘fingerprints’’ in connection with administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization benefits or other services, and to expressly define ‘‘biometrics’’ to include a wider range of modalities than just fingerprints and photographs. DHS proposes to define the term ‘‘biometrics’’ to mean ‘‘the measurable biological (anatomical and physiological) or behavioral characteristics used for identification of an individual,’’ including a list of modalities of biometric collection. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2. Further, DHS proposes the following biometrics as authorized biometric modalities that DHS may request, require, or accept from individuals in connection with services provided by DHS and to perform other functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws: • Fingerprint; • palm print; • photograph (facial images specifically for facial recognition, as well as photographs of physical or anatomical features such as scars, skin marks, and tattoos); • signature; • voice print; • iris image; and • DNA (DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile attesting to genetic relationship). The proposed definition of biometrics would authorize the collection of specific biometric modalities and the use of biometrics for: Identity enrollment, verification, and management in the immigration lifecycle; national security and criminal history background checks to support determinations of eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits; the production of secure identity documents; and to perform other functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws. DHS has internal procedural safeguards to ensure technology used to collect, assess, and store the differing modalities is accurate, reliable, and valid. Further, as with any other USCIS petition or application, if a decision will be adverse to an applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory information the agency considered, he/she shall be advised of that fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). DNA, while a biometric, would only be collected in limited circumstances to verify the existence of a claimed genetic relationship. To conform to the proposed changes that would expand biometric collection, DHS proposes to E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56342 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules remove individual references to ‘‘fingerprints,’’ ‘‘photographs,’’ and/or ‘‘signatures’’ and replace them with the term ‘‘biometrics.’’ DHS originally codified restrictions on the ages of individuals from whom biometrics could be collected based on the policies, practice, or technological limitations. For biometrics use to expand to identity management and verification in the immigration lifecycle, this rule would allow for biometric collection from any individual, without age limitation; thus, DHS proposes to remove all age limitations or restrictions on biometrics collection from the regulations in the context of both immigration benefit requests, entering or exiting the United States, NTA issuance, and to perform other functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws. DHS also proposes to consolidate sections of 8 CFR providing what USCIS can or will do with an immigration benefit request when required biometrics are not submitted and how biometrics appointments can be rescheduled. In addition, DHS is proposing to remove and/or replace language that applies to paper filings with language that encourages electronic filing. References to position titles, form numbers, mailing addresses, copies, and office jurisdiction are proposed to be removed. In addition, internal USCIS processes are proposed to be removed from the regulatory text. DHS is also proposing to clarify submission of passport-style paper photographs with certain applications or petitions, and eliminating outdated requirements for submitting photographs with immigration benefit requests. Photograph submission and use requirements of the INA would be met in the future by electronic photograph collection. DHS is also proposing to require biometrics from U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents when they submit a family-based visa petition. DHS has determined that U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident petitioners must submit biometrics in order for DHS to comply with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (AWA),9 which prohibits DHS from approving family-based immigrant visa petitions and nonimmigrant fianc&eacute;´(e) visa petitions if the petitioner has been convicted of certain offenses. In addition, the International Marriage 9 Public Law 109–248, section 402; 120 Stat. 587, 622 (July 27, 2006); INA 204(a)(1)(A)(viii) & (B)((i)(I). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) 10 provides that petitioners for an alien fianc&eacute;´(e) or alien spouse must submit criminal conviction information for certain crimes. To comply with AWA and IMBRA, DHS proposes to require biometrics from all family-based petitioners, which would allow DHS to review a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report of the petitioner’s criminal history. The proposed requirement would extend to family-based petitions for a spouse, fianc&eacute;´(e), parent, unmarried child under 21 years of age, unmarried son or daughter 21 years of age or over, married son or daughter of any age, sibling, and any derivative beneficiary immigrant or nonimmigrant visa based on a familial relationship. DHS proposes to require Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) selfpetitioners appear for biometric collection, and to remove the requirement that self-petitioners who have resided in the United States submit police clearance letters as evidence of good moral character because DHS will be able to obtain the self-petitioner’s criminal history using the biometrics. VAWA self-petitioners are currently required to provide (1) a personal statement from the self-petitioner, (2) police clearance letters from the selfpetitioner’s places of residence for the three years before filing, and (3) other credible evidence, including affidavits from third parties attesting to the selfpetitioner’s good moral character. DHS proposes to require biometrics from VAWA self-petitioners to obtain the self-petitioner’s criminal history and support identity enrollment, verification, and management in the immigration lifecycle and conduct national security and criminal history background checks. The proposed change will reduce the evidence required to establish good moral character for many self-petitioners, however law enforcement clearances are still required for self-petitioners who recently resided outside the United States. In addition, DHS proposes that good moral character for a VAWA selfpetitioner may extend beyond the three years immediately before filing. See generally 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2). DHS further proposes to remove the automatic presumption of good moral character for VAWA self-petitioners under 14 years of age. Self-petitioners under 14 would submit biometrics like any other VAWA self-petitioner. 10 Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), Public Law 109–162, 119 Stat. 2960 (2006); and (VAWA 2013), Public Law 113–4, sections 807–8, 127 Stat. 54, 112–17; 8 U.S.C. 1375a); INA sections 214(d)(1), (3). PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Similarly, DHS proposes to eliminate the requirement that T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants submit self-reported police clearance letters, unless they lived outside the United States during the requisite period. Adjudicators would assess good moral character based on the applicant’s criminal history, national security background check, and any other credible and relevant evidence submitted. DHS also proposes to amend 8 CFR 245.23(g) to refer to the relevant ‘‘continuous period’’ rather than ‘‘continued presence,’’ and to provide that USCIS would be able to consider the applicant’s conduct beyond the requisite period, where earlier conduct is relevant to the applicant’s moral character and conduct during the requisite period does not reflect a reform of character. DHS also proposes to remove the presumption of good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants under 14 years of age. The rule provides that such applicants will submit biometrics that USCIS will use in the determination of good moral character and provides USCIS with the authority to require additional evidence of good moral character. Proposed 8 CFR 245.23(g). The proposed changes would remove the superfluous need for police clearance letters from T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants. DHS proposes to collect biometrics and perform background checks on U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident principals of a regional center. See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102–395, 106 Stat. 1828, 8 U.S.C. 1153 note (‘‘Such pilot program shall involve a regional center in the United States for the promotion of economic growth[.]’’). USCIS would review the results of national security and criminal history background checks in order to decide whether the principals of the intending or existing regional center, and the regional center itself, are bona fide and capable of credibly promoting such economic growth. This proposal would provide USCIS relevant information regarding whether the regional center will, or is continuing to, promote economic growth in accordance with regional center program requirements. DHS also proposes to remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) and (2), and 216.6(b)(1) and (2) to clarify interview procedures for conditional permanent residents, to reduce potential redundancies, and ensure greater uniformity within DHS operations. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules DHS does not plan to immediately expand all of its programs to provide that all new biometrics modalities would be required of all potentially amenable individuals as of the effective date of a potential final rule. Only those revised forms that propose to add a particular biometric collection or DNA submission requirement in conjunction with this rule (as described in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this preamble) will be immediately subject to new biometrics, modalities, or DNA requirements. DHS proposes that DHS component agencies may expand or contract their biometrics submission requirements within the parameters of this rule in the future by notice in the Federal Register or updated form instructions. USCIS is authorized to collect an $85 biometric services fee, but has proposed to incorporate the biometric services costs into the underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric services are applicable in a recent final rule. See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020) (Fee Rule). The $85 biometric services fee required by 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C) that DHS estimates will be collected as a result of this proposed rule will not be collected if the Fee Rule takes effect before this rule does. B. Summary of Costs and Benefits DHS proposes to expand the collection of biometrics to require any individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request to appear for biometrics collection, and, if applicable, pay the $85 biometric services fee unless exempted or waived from appearing and/or paying for such biometrics collection. This proposed rule would also change current regulations by defining the term ‘‘biometrics’’ to clarify and fully explain DHS’s regulatory authority to collect biometrics information. The proposal to expand the collection of biometrics would impact certain populations without regard to age or U.S. citizenship status. Additionally, DHS proposes to further clarify the purposes for which biometrics are collected, stored, and utilized. Last, this rule proposes that DHS may require, request, or accept the submission of DNA or DNA test results to verify a claimed genetic relationship. DHS estimates that under the proposed rule, from those seeking an immigration benefit, about 2.17 million new biometrics submissions will be collected annually, and the resulting biometrics submitting population will VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 increase from 3.90 million currently to 6.07 million, and, from a generalized collection rate across all forms of 46 percent currently to 71.2 percent (projected). The increase in biometrics submissions would accrue to three population segments: (i) A small subset of forms in which biometrics collection is collected routinely in which the ageeligible population will expand; (ii) the broadening of routine collection to a dozen or so forms in which collection is not currently routine; and (iii) the expansion of the age-eligible biometrics population to a collection of forms characterized by very low filing volumes, unspecified forms, and forms in which DHS does not intend to broadly extend collection on a routine basis at this time. USCIS is also removing the age restrictions for biometrics collection in the context of an NTA issuance. However, the issuance of an NTA is not an ‘‘application, petition, or other request for certain immigration and naturalization benefits.’’ See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C). For this stated reason, USCIS will not (and does not currently) collect the $85 biometrics services fee from those whose DNA was collected in the course of being issued NTAs or for other immigration law enforcement purposes. Based on FY 2018 statistics, the proposed rule, could result in DHS collecting biometrics from as many as 63,000 additional individuals under the age of 14 years annually associated with NTAs.11 The proposed rule would expand the collection of the $85 biometric services fee to include any individual appearing for biometrics collection in connection with a benefit request unless the individual is statutorily exempt from paying the biometric services fee or if he or she has received a fee waiver. DHS estimates that there will be 1.63 million new biometrics fee payments annually. The annual quantified costs associated with submitting new biometrics submissions could be $158.9 million, and the costs associated with the new fees could be $138.4 million, for a combined total of $297.3 million in quantified costs. There could be some unquantified impacts related to privacy concerns for risks associated with the collection and retention of biometric information, as discussed in DHS’s Privacy Act compliance documentation. However, this rule would not create 11 To be clear, DHS is not estimating that this rule would result in the issuance of 63,000 additional NTAs by its components; rather, 63,000 NTAs were issued in FY 2018 to minors under the age of 14 who would be subject to biometric collection (for the purpose of verifying identify) under the parameters of this proposed rule. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56343 new impacts in this regard but would expand the population that could have privacy concerns. When costs of $705,555 are incorporated to include fees the FBI would collect for providing fingerprint-based and name-based Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks for NTAs, the annual costs are about $298 million. In addition, DHS proposes to expand its regulatory authority so that it may require, request, or accept DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, to prove the existence of a genetic relationship for any benefit request where such a relationship must be established, such as certain familybased benefit requests, including but not limited to the following: • Petition for Alien Relative (Form I– 130); • Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition (Form I–730); • Application for T Nonimmigrant Status, Supplement A (Form I–914A); • Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, Supplement A (Form I–918A); • Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant (Form I–929); • Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N–600); • Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 (Form N–600K); • And any other form where the existence of a genetic relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, dependent, derivative, rider, or other qualifying family member. DHS is not proposing with this rule to require in all cases proof of a genetic relationship submission in connection with these forms via raw DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile. However, the rule will allow immediately for DHS, in its discretion, to request, require, or accept DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, for individual benefit requests requiring proof of a genetic relationship. Since the actual volume cannot be predicted at this time with accuracy, DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis using a range of 10 to 100 percent to estimate the potential costs for eligible populations associated with these family-based benefit requests. The costs to principal filers and beneficiaries/qualifying family members who may submit DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, to establish a genetic relationship in support of these benefit requests would range from $22.4 million to $224.1 million annually, in undiscounted terms. Combining the cost of the biometrics collection (in both the benefits and law E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56344 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules enforcement contexts) with the DNA costs, DHS estimated the total monetized costs of the proposed rule at three points of the DNA submission range, to represent a lower bound (10 percent), a midrange (50 percent), and a high range (90 percent). In undiscounted terms, the ten-year (2021– 2030) costs could range from $3,204.1 to $4,996.9 million, with a midrange of $4,100.5 million. At a 3 percent rate of discount, the ten-year present values could range from $2,773.2 million, to $4,262.4 million, with a midrange of $3,497.8 million. At a 7 percent rate of discount, the ten-year present values could range from $2,250.4 million to $3,509.6 million, with a midrange of $2,880.0 million. The average annualized equivalence costs could range from $320.4 million to $499.7 million, with a midrange of $410 million. The proposed rule would provide benefits that are not possible to quantify. Qualitatively, the proposed rule would provide individuals requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits with a more reliable system for verifying their identity when submitting a benefit request. This would limit the potential for identity theft while also reducing the likelihood that DHS would be unable to verify an individual’s identity and consequently deny the benefit. In addition, the proposal to allow individuals to use DNA testing as evidence to demonstrate the existence of a claimed genetic relationship would provide them the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship using a quicker and more effective technology than the blood testing method currently provided for in the regulations. See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi). The proposed rule would benefit the U.S. Government by enabling DHS with more fidelity and efficiency in identity verification, identity management in the immigration lifecycle, and vetting of individuals seeking certain immigration and naturalization benefits, as well as in DHS functions related to law enforcement purposes. The expanded use of biometrics stands to provide DHS with the improved ability to identify and limit fraud because biometrics technology measures unique physical characteristics that are more difficult to falsify than documentary evidence of biographic information, when collected under controlled circumstances and retained and used for a limited period of time. Biometrics would also help reduce the administrative burden involved in identity verification and the performance of criminal history checks, by reducing the need for manual document review and name-based security checks. The proposed rule also would enhance the U.S. Government’s capability to identify criminal activity and protect vulnerable groups by supporting identity enrollment and verification in the immigration lifecycle by extending the collection of biometrics to populations under certain benefit requests. Table 1 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed provisions and their impacts. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS Proposed change Expected cost of the provision Expected benefit of the provision DHS proposes to expand collection of biometrics to require any individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request to appear for biometrics collection without regard to age. Individuals Submitting Biometrics— ................ Quantitative: ..................................................... • Total annual direct costs of the proposed rule: Æ $158,940,196 for about 2.17 million ..... individuals to submit ........................................ biometrics ......................................................... Æ $138,356,283 for about 1.63 million new $85 biometric services fees. Individuals Submitting Biometrics— Qualitative: • The proposed rule provides individuals requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits with a more reliable system for verifying their identity when submitting a benefit request. This would limit the potential for identity theft. It would also reduce the likelihood that DHS would not be able to verify an individual’s identify and therefore possibly deny a benefit request. Government— Qualitative: • DHS would be able to routinely collect biometrics information from children under the age of 14, and therefore, increase the U.S. Government’s capabilities of determining the identity of a child who may be vulnerable to gang affiliation, human trafficking child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. • The proposed rule would provide a benefit to the U.S. Government by enabling DHS to know with greater certainty the identity of individuals requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits. The expanded use of biometric information would provide DHS with the ability to limit identity fraud because biometrics technologies measure unique physical characteristics and more difficult to falsify than biographic documents. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 56345 TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS—Continued Proposed change Expected cost of the provision Expected benefit of the provision DHS proposes to increase the biometric modalities that it uses to collect biometrics information for benefits adjudication and law enforcement purposes to include the following: Palm prints, facial and iris image, and voice prints. Government— .................................................. Qualitative: ....................................................... • DHS does not know what the costs of expanding biometrics collection to the government in terms of assets and equipment; it is possible that costs could be incurred for the new equipment and information technologies and typologies needed to collect, process, store, and utilize biometrics, including software updates; cameras that are able to collect iris and facial images; devices used to record a voice print; and other equipment. Individuals Submitting DNA Evidence— .......... Quantitative: ..................................................... • Potential annual costs for principal filers and beneficiaries/qualifying family members to submit DNA evidence range from $22.4 million to $224.1 million. These figures are based on current costs and depend on how many individuals submit DNA evidence in support of a family-based benefit request. Government— Qualitative: • Use of the new biometric technologies would allow DHS to keep up with technological developments in this area and adjust collection practices for both convenience for applicants and petitioners and to ensure the improved service for all stakeholders. DHS may require, request, or accept the submission of DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, to verify the existence of a claimed genetic relationship for benefits adjudication and law enforcement purposes. DHS is proposing to remove the age restrictions for biometrics collection in the context of Notice to Appear (NTA) issuance for the same reasons (i.e., identity verification, criminal history background checks, etc.). • There will be no cost to the individuals from whom DHS will require DNA sample for law enforcement purposes. Government— Qualitative: • USCIS facilitates collection of DNA from individuals outside the United States for transmission to accredited laboratories in the United States to ensure proper chain of custody. USCIS currently reimburses the Department of State for the collection of DNA in countries where it does not have a presence. DHS does not currently know how many individuals would submit DNA under the proposed rule but there is the potential for additional costs if the Department of State facilitates additional DNA testing. Individuals Submitting Biometrics— ................ Quantitative: ..................................................... None; there would be no opportunity or travel related costs associated with biometrics collection from individuals for NTAs. Individuals Submitting DNA test result Evidence— Quantitative: • DNA testing would provide a means to demonstrate a claimed genetic relationship using a quicker and more effective technology than the current reliance on primary and secondary records and documentbased evidence that may be unreliable or unavailable. Individuals Submitting Biometrics Government— Qualitative: The collection of biometrics on children under the age of 14 associated with NTAs would significantly assist DHS in its mission to combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. Government— Quantitative: There could be costs of $705,555 annually accruing to fees the FBI would collect for providing fingerprint-based and name-based Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks. In addition to the impacts summarized above and as required by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–4, Table 2 presents the prepared accounting statement showing the costs associated with this proposed regulation.12 12 OMB Circular A–4 is available at https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/ omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. The DHS notes that the primary estimate reported here reflects the average of the highest 50 percent DNA submission rate (100 percent) and the lowest (0 percent). It also corresponds to the 50 percent midrange along the spectrum 10–90 percent that we utilize on grounds that realistically, there will be some collection (a positive rate) but not complete (100 percent) collection. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56346 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT [$ millions, 2019] Primary estimate Category Minimum estimate Maximum estimate Source citation (RIA, preamble, etc.) BENEFITS Monetized Benefits ........................................... Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, benefits. Not estimated 0 ................... Not estimated 0 ................... Not estimated 0 ................... Unquantified Benefits ........................................ The proposed rule would limit identity fraud and improve USCIS identity management systems. Additionally, the proposed rule would enhance the U.S. Government’s capability to identify criminal activities and protect vulnerable populations. The removal of age restrictions and the proposal to collect on all NTAs under the age of 14 would assist DHS in its mission to combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. Preamble. Preamble. Preamble and RIA. COSTS Annualized monetized costs for 10 year period starting in 2021 to 2030 (discount rate in parenthesis). (3%) $410 .... (7%) $410 .... $320.4 .......... $320.4 .......... $499.7 .......... $499.7 .......... Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, costs There could be costs germane to the procurement of equipment, information technology and typology, and systems possibly needed to support the increased biometrics modalities. There could also be a cost for transferring information regarding biometrics for the NTAs issued to individuals under age 14. Qualitative (unquantified) costs ........................ N/A. RIA. RIA. Preamble and RIA. TRANSFERS Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘on budget’’ .. From whom to whom? ...................................... Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘off-budget’’ .. From whom to whom? ...................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A ............... ............... ............... ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A ............... ............... ............... ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A ............... ............... ............... ............... Preamble. Preamble. Preamble. Preamble. Source citation (RIA, preamble, etc.) Miscellaneous analyses/category Effects Effects on state, local, and/or tribal governments. Effects on small businesses ............................... None ............................................................... Preamble. There could be small entity impacts to EB–5 regional centers incurred by biometrics collection germane to the regional center principals. DHS believes these would be indirect but does not know how they could impact the regional center. There are currently 884 approved regional centers and DHS analysis based on limited available suggests that most regional centers could be small entities in terms of their RFA. None ............................................................... None ............................................................... Preamble. Effects on wages ................................................ Effects on growth ............................................... DHS emphasizes that the costs could vary from the figures reported herein. As is detailed in the analysis, in order to estimate the population of future biometrics submissions, it was necessary to extrapolate certain metrics and conditions to the non-existent (in context) future populations. Although VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 DHS believes the methodology employed is appropriate, because the future actual generalized and formspecific collection rate of biometrics are unknown, the actual populations and costs could vary. In addition, the costs rely on a lower-end average wage to account for opportunity costs associated PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Preamble Preamble. with biometrics submissions. If, on average, the wage is higher than that relied upon, the costs could vary as well. This regulatory impact analysis is the best available estimate of the future benefits and costs. Actual results will depend on a number of factors including programmatic, operational, E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules and practical considerations in the implementation of the collection of biometrics under this rule. In summary, the proposed rule would enable DHS to conduct the administration and adjudication of immigration benefit requests with increased fidelity, and is conducive to the evolution to a person-centric model for organizing and managing its records, enhanced and continuous vetting, and reduced dependence on paper documents, as is described more fully in the preamble. III. Background and Purpose A. Legal Authority and Guidance for DHS Collection and Use of Biometrics DHS has general and specific statutory authority to collect or require submission of biometrics from applicants, co-applicants, petitioners, requestors, derivatives, beneficiaries and others directly associated with a request for immigration benefits; and for purposes incident to apprehending, arresting, processing, and care and custody of aliens. First, the INA at section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), provides general authority to DHS to administer and enforce immigration laws, including issuing forms, regulations, instructions, other papers, and such other acts the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) deems necessary to carry out the INA. The INA also provides specific authority for DHS to collect or require submission of biometrics in several sections. • INA section 235(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(3), provides that the Secretary and any immigration officer will: . . . have power . . . to take and consider evidence of or from any person touching the privilege of any alien or person he believes or suspects to be an alien to enter, reenter, transit through, or reside in the United States or concerning any matter which is material and relevant to the enforcement of this chapter and the administration of the Service. • INA 287(b), 8 U.S.C. 1357(b), provides DHS authority to, ‘‘. . . take and consider evidence concerning the privilege of any person to enter, reenter, pass through, or reside in the United States, or concerning any matter which is material or relevant to the enforcement of this chapter and the administration of the Service.’’ • INA sections 333 and 335, 8 U.S.C. 1444 and 1446, require the submission of photographs and a personal investigation before an application for naturalization, citizenship or other similar requests may be approved. • INA section 262(a), 8 U.S.C. 1302(a), provides direct statutory VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 authority for the collection of fingerprints for the purpose of registering aliens. • INA section 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304(a), provides that the Secretary is authorized to prepare forms for the registration and fingerprinting of aliens, aged 14 and older, in the United States, as required by INA section 262. DHS interprets the broad statutory authority described above as authority for the collection of biometrics when such information is material or relevant to the furtherance of DHS’ delegated authority to administer and enforce the INA. DHS’ delegated authority includes the adjudication of requests for immigration benefits, as well as authority to ‘‘register and fingerprint aliens in the United States.’’ 13 Establishing and verifying an individual’s identity through the use of biometrics falls within DHS’ authority in the adjudication of immigration benefits and administration and enforcement of immigration laws. Several other statutes authorize the collection of biometrics by DHS. In 1997, when funding the agency for 1998, Congress directed the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which preceded the creation of DHS, not to accept any fingerprint cards collected by entities outside the INS for immigration benefits, except in certain instances when collected by law enforcement agencies and in certain overseas situations. See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998, Title I, Public Law 105–119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2447–2448 (1997). Previously, certain ‘‘designated fingerprint services’’ entities could collect fingerprints. After passage of this law, which necessitated a change in INS’ practices, INS established the Application Support Centers (ASCs) which exist nationwide today and are operated by DHS for the collection of biometrics for immigration benefits. See 63 FR 12979 (Mar. 17, 1998). The 1998 appropriations law also provided for the former INS to charge a fee for fingerprinting. A fingerprinting fee was first charged in March 1998, and has evolved into the biometric services fee in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C).14 13 6 U.S.C. 271(b); see also Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number: 0150.1, Delegation To the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (June 5, 2003), available at https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=234775 (viewed Nov. 12, 2019). 14 Another section of the INA specifically authorizes USCIS to collect fees for fingerprinting, biometric, and other necessary services under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. 8 U.S.C. 1254b; DHS Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111–83, sec. 549, 123 Stat. 2142, 2177 (2009). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56347 1. Background Checks DHS is precluded in many cases from approving, granting, or providing immigration benefits to individuals with a record of certain criminal offenses or administrative violations.15 Whether granting a benefit is discretionary or not, criminal histories are relevant because they are used to determine eligibility for both discretionary and nondiscretionary benefits. Additionally, DHS is mandated to protect the American public from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, by ‘‘identify[ing] individuals who seek to enter the United States . . . who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry.’’ See Executive Order (E.O.) No. 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, at section 5(a), 82 FR 13209, 13215 (Mar. 9, 2017) (E.O. 13780). Therefore, DHS adjudications must include national security considerations and criminal history background checks. For example, one statute precludes the filing of a family-based immigrant petition by someone who has been convicted of a ‘‘specified offense against a minor.’’ See INA section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii), 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii). The criminal and security-related grounds of inadmissibility found in INA section 212(a)(2)–(3), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)–(3), apply to many benefits, such as adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, refugee status, and Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The INA provides that refugee applicants must be admissible as immigrants and the criminal, security, and terrorismrelated grounds of inadmissibility apply to refugee applicants. See INA section 207(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(1); INA section 212, 8 U.S.C. 1182. The INA provides that asylum may be granted on a discretionary basis. See INA section 208(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(1)(A). It provides that asylum applicants are subject to mandatory criminal and security bars. See INA section 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A). Sections of the INA apply the criminal, security, and terrorism-related bars to TPS applicants, including the mandatory asylum bars above. See INA sections 244(c)(2)(A)(iii)–(B), 8 U.S.C. 15 DHS would like to note that limitations on biometric collection or use in this proposed rule would not impact existing law enforcement authorities or other national security or intelligence gathering activities. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56348 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 1254a (c)(2)(A)(iii)–(B). Various INA sections require that adjustment of status applicants be admissible in order to qualify. See, e.g., sections 245(a)(2) and 209(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. 1159(b)(5). The INA also provides a good moral character requirement for any applicant to be naturalized. See INA section 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3). Other statutes authorize DHS to conduct biometric services in relation to national security and public safety purposes. For example, Congress directed in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107– 56, 115 Stat. 354 (2001), reauthorized by Public Law 114–23, 129 Stat. 268 (2015) (codified at note to 8 U.S.C. 1365a), that ‘‘biometric technology’’ should be utilized in the development of the integrated entry-exit system originally mandated by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, Public Law 104– 208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1365a). The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108–458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1365b), required the completion of a biometric data system to facilitate efficient immigration benefits processing and to protect the United States by preventing the entry of terrorists. For USCIS, any limitations on the collection or use of biometrics in this draft rule does not impact DHS law enforcement authorities or other national security or intelligence gathering activities. Background checks are also required by EOIR regulation for aliens who apply for relief and protection in removal proceedings. Specifically, immigration judges and the BIA are prohibited from granting relief and protection to an alien unless an ICE attorney reports that all required ‘‘identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations’’ have been completed. See 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6), 1003.47(g). Indeed, as pertaining to asylum applications, there is a statutory basis for such background checks as well. See 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(i); see also 8 CFR 1208.10. Once again, to the extent that any controversy may arise interpreting DHS and DOJ regulations regarding the removal of age restrictions for biometrics collection, until DOJ removes its age restrictions, DHS intends to follow DOJ regulations with respect to age restrictions when collecting biometrics for an application or petition that will be adjudicated by EOIR. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 2. Secure Document Production 4. Administrative Guidance Still other statutes authorize or require the collection of biometrics for secure document production. For example, photographs are required by statute to create certificates of naturalization. INA section 333(a), 8 U.S.C. 1444(a). Additionally, an alien granted asylum will be granted an employment authorization document (EAD) that shall at a minimum contain the fingerprint and photograph of such alien. 8 U.S.C. 1738. Relatedly, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Border Security Act), Public Law 107–173, 116 Stat. 543 (2002), requires that DHS issue aliens machine-readable, tamperresistant visas and other travel and entry documents using biometric identifiers. 8 U.S.C. 1732(b)(1). This proposed rule is also consistent with non-statutory guidance on effective mechanisms for foreign national vetting, screening, and identification. DHS was directed by executive branch guidance to take actions that require a robust system for biometrics collection, storage, and use related to providing adjudication and naturalization services of immigration benefits. For example, with respect to secure documents, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 11, ‘‘Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures,’’ (August 27, 2004) directs DHS to ‘‘incorporate security features . . . that resist circumvention to the greatest extent possible.’’ DHS is directed to consider the ‘‘. . . information individuals must present, including, as appropriate, the type of biometric identifier[s] or other form of identification or identifying information to be presented, at particular screening opportunities.’’ DHS was also directed to expand the use of biometrics, consistent with applicable law, to identify and screen for individuals who may pose a threat to national security by HSPD 24, ‘‘Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security,’’ (June 5, 2008). In addition, E.O. 13780 requires DHS to implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. 82 FR 13209, 13215 (Mar. 9, 2017). The E.O. provides that the program must include screening and vetting standards and procedures, a mechanism to ensure that applicants are who they claim to be, assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States, and evaluation of all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits. Id. Further, National Security Presidential Memorandum—7 established the DHSled National Vetting Center to improve vetting ‘‘to identify potential threats to national security, border security, homeland security, and public safety’’, and included expanding biometric integration, sharing, and use to that end.16 3. Biometric Collection From U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents DHS is also authorized to collect the biometrics of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident petitioners of family-based immigrant petitions, and U.S. citizen petitioners of nonimmigrant fianc&eacute;´(e) petitions, to determine if a petitioner has been convicted of certain crimes pursuant to the AWA, Public Law 109–248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 and 42 U.S.C.) (see sections 402(a) and (b) for the applicable immigration provisions), and IMBRA, Public Law 109–162, 119 Stat. 2960 (2006) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1375a). The AWA: • Prohibits U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who have been convicted of any ‘‘specified offense against a minor’’ from filing a familybased immigrant visa petition on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary determines in his or her sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses ‘‘no risk’’ to the beneficiary. INA section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I), (B)(i)(II); 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I), (B)(i)(II). • Renders ineligible to file ‘‘K’’ nonimmigrant fianc&eacute;´(e) petitions those U.S. citizens convicted of such offenses, unless the Secretary determines in his or her sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses ‘‘no risk’’ to the fianc&eacute;´(e) beneficiary. INA section 101(a)(15)(K), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K). Independent of the AWA, USCIS is also required to disclose information regarding certain violent arrests and convictions for some U.S.C. petitioners who file K-visas for fianc&eacute;´s or spouses in accordance with IMBRA, 8 U.S.C. 1375a. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16 National Security Presidential Memorandum— 7, SUBJECT: Integration, Sharing, and Use of National Security Threat Actor Information to Protect Americans (Oct. 5, 2017), available at E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules B. The Use of Biometrics by DHS Current regulations provide both general authorities for the collection of biometrics in connection with administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization benefits as well as requirements specific to certain benefit types.17 In a related provision, an applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing a benefit request may be required to appear for biometrics. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). In addition, DHS has the authority to require biometrics and the associated biometric services fee from any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing or seeking a benefit request on a case-by-case basis, through form instructions, or through a Federal Register notice. Id. The former INS first used fingerprints for immigration processing solely for the purpose of performing criminal history background checks related to applications for which eligibility required good moral character or nonexistence of a record of certain criminal offenses. See, e.g., 63 FR 12979 (Mar. 17, 1998) (prohibiting the former INS from accepting fingerprints for the purpose of conducting criminal background checks unless collected by certain U.S. Government entities). The beneficiary or applicant would submit fingerprints which were then checked against FBI databases to determine if they matched any criminal activity on file. The fingerprints were not retained by the INS and delays in processing would often result in individuals needing to submit fingerprints multiple times for the same application. Photographs were not historically collected by INS as a biometric identifier. For those immigration benefit requests that required a photograph to produce a resulting identity document, the regulations required submission of a passport-style photograph. See, e.g., 8 CFR 264.1, 264.5 (requiring identical photographs). Today, DHS handles biometrics differently. Biometrics are still used in criminal history background checks for immigration benefits where good moral character or absence of certain criminal offenses are required, as well as for overall national security vetting. In addition, biometrics may be stored by https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ national-security-presidential-memorandum-7/. 17 See, e.g., 8 CFR 103.16(a), 204.2(a)(2) (requiring evidence of the claimed relationship), 204.3(c)(3) (requiring fingerprinting), 204.2(d)(2)(vi) (authorizing blood testing), 245a.2(d) (requiring photographs and a completed fingerprint card), 316.4(a) (referring to form instructions which may require photographs and fingerprinting). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 DHS and used to verify an individual’s identity in subsequent encounters with DHS. These encounters could vary from travel to and from the United States, where an individual may encounter CBP officers, to arrest and detention, by law enforcement components such as ICE, to initiation of removal proceedings. DHS also uses collected biometric information for document production related to immigration benefits and status, including but not limited to: Travel Documents (Form I–512L), Permanent Resident Cards (Form I–551), Employment Authorization Documents (Form I–766), Certificates of Citizenship (Form N–560), Certificates of Naturalization (Form N–550), Replacement Certificates of Citizenship (Form N–561), and Replacement Certificates of Naturalization (Form N– 570).18 Most of these secure documents are created using the photograph (and signature) that is taken by DHS at an ASC, and not the paper photograph mailed with the benefit request.19 As part of the benefit adjudications process, DHS must first verify the identity of an individual applying for or seeking any benefit. Identity verification protects against fraud and imposters. Second, DHS must determine if the individual is eligible to receive the requested benefit. That determination may focus on the criminal, national security, and immigration history of the individual, depending on the eligibility requirements for the particular benefit type, and is accomplished through national security and criminal history background checks. The immigration history review includes a review of the individual’s current immigration status, current immigration filings, past immigration filings, and whether previous benefits were granted or denied. DHS conducts national security and criminal history background checks on individuals applying for an immigration benefit because U.S. immigration laws preclude DHS from granting many immigration and naturalization benefits to individuals with certain criminal or administrative violations, or with 18 See also 8 U.S.C. 1732(b) (requiring machinereadable travel and entry documents containing biometric identifiers); 8 CFR 264.1(b); Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I–485); Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Form I–90); Application for Employment Authorization (Form I–765); Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N– 600); Application for Naturalization (Form N–400); Application for Replacement Naturalization/ Citizenship Document (N–565). 19 The paper photograph is retained and may be used to verify the identity of an applicant who is required to be interviewed by comparing it to the digitally captured photograph or the applicant’s motor vehicle operator’s license. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56349 certain disqualifying characteristics (e.g., certain communicable diseases or association with terrorist organizations), while also providing DHS discretion in granting an immigration benefit in many instances.20 DHS conducts multiple types of national security and criminal history background checks including but not limited to: (1) Name-based checks, (2) FBI fingerprint-based checks, and (3) biometrics checks against the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), the FBI Next Generation Identification system, and the Department of Defense (DoD) Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS).).21 22 23 DHS also uses biometrics to determine if an individual has activities in their background such as an association with human rights violations, involvement in terrorist activities, or affiliation with terrorist organizations rendering them inadmissible. To that end, DHS may vet an individual’s biometrics against data sets of foreign partners in accordance with international arrangements.24 20 See, e.g., INA section 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A) (mandatory bars to asylum); INA section 245(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(2) (admissibility requirements for adjustment of status applicants); INA section 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3) (good moral character requirement for naturalization). 21 IDENT will be replaced by a system called the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology (HART). DHS will use the term ‘‘IDENT’’ in this rule to refer to both the current and successor systems. 22 The FBI NGI system is operated by the FBI/CJIS Division, and provides the criminal justice community with multi-modal biometric and criminal history information. See Privacy Impact Assessment Update for Biometric Interoperability Between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice (Oct. 13, 2011). FBI’s NGI database, in turn, also provides access to DoD’s ABIS database. 23 DoD’s ABIS system is operated by the DoD, and contains biometric records of individuals encountered overseas by the DoD that include KSTs. The biographic and biometric data from ABIS is also transferred to the DoD’s Special Operations Force Exhibition (SOFEX) Portal for additional biometric matching. Once complete, the NGI system forwards responses back from both the NGI and the ABIS systems to the IDENT system. When data is initially submitted and processed through IDENT, NGI, and ABIS, an ICE Analyst conducts biometric and biographic checks against other law enforcement and classified Intelligence Community databases before processing, exploiting, summarizing, and disseminating findings to the relevant ICE Attache´ and Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program (BITMAP) PMT. 24 See, e.g., Five Country Conference High Value Data Sharing Protocol, Nov. 2009; Statement of Mutual Understanding on Information Sharing among the Department of Citizenship Immigration Canada (CIC) and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS), Feb. 2003; Agreement between the U.S. and Canada for the sharing of Visa and Immigration Information, Dec. 13, 2012, T.I.A.S. No. 13–1121; and Agreement between the E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM Continued 11SEP2 56350 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules The DHS biometrics process for benefits adjudication purposes begins with the collection of an individual’s biometrics at an authorized biometrics collection site, including DHS offices, ASCs, military installations, U.S. consular offices abroad, and, in some cases, federal, state, and local law enforcement installations. Domestically, DHS established a robust program to allow individuals to provide biometrics at ASC facilities, and generally individuals are scheduled to appear at a location close to their address of record. DHS also established mobile biometrics collection capabilities domestically for those who are homebound, or for certain remote locations, as well as outside the United States to support biometrics collection in the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). For other collections outside the United States, biometrics may be handled differently. When biometrics are required on a DHS-adjudicated form and DHS does not have a presence in that country, the Department of State (DOS) will continue to collect biometrics on behalf of DHS. In cases where DOS will issue a boarding foil, immigrant visa, or non-immigrant visa associated with a DHS form, DOS will continue to collect biometrics under its existing authority. Currently, DHS biometrics consist of a photograph, fingerprints, and signature to conduct identity, eligibility, national security, criminal history background checks, and in certain situations, voluntary DNA testing to verify a claimed genetic relationship. For certain family-based benefit requests, where other evidence proves inconclusive, DHS accepts DNA test results obtained from approved laboratories (along with other necessary identifiers, such as a name and date of birth), as evidence to assist in establishing the existence of genetic relationships. See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi). In these limited cases, DHS requires that DNA test results establish a sufficient probability of the existence of the alleged relationship to be accepted as probative evidence of that relationship. DHS is bound by the confidentiality provisions of Section 1367 of title 8 of the U.S. Code, ‘‘Penalties for disclosure of information’’ (originally enacted as Section 384 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)). All DHS officers and employees are generally prohibited from permitting use by or disclosure to U.S. and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Sharing of Visa, Immigration, and Nationality Information, April 18, 2013, T.I.A.S. No. 13–1108. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 anyone other than a sworn officer or employee of DHS, DOS, or DOJ of any information relating to a beneficiary of a pending or approved request for certain victim-based immigration benefits, such as an abused spouse waiver of the joint filing requirement, a VAWA self-petition by a spouse or child of an abused U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, VAWA cancellation of removal or suspension of deportation, or application for T or U nonimmigrant status, including the fact that they have applied for such a benefit. Importantly, the protection against disclosure extends to all records or other information, including those that do not specifically identify the individual as an applicant or beneficiary of the T Visa, U Visa, or VAWA protections. Therefore, the biometric collection contemplated here would also be protected from disclosure in accordance with the requirements and exceptions found in 8 U.S.C. 1367. Thus, DHS has not separately codified the Section 1367 protections in this proposed rule. IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes A. Use Biometrics for Identity Management and Enhanced Vetting DHS requires the submission of biometrics for several immigration benefit requests and for law enforcement purposes, including functions incident to apprehending, arresting, processing, and care and custody of aliens.25 In addition, DHS has the authority to require biometrics and the associated biometric services fee from any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing a request on a case-by-case basis, through form instructions or as provided in a Federal Register notice. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C), 103.17. Under that construct, although DHS has the authority to collect biometrics from any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing a request, biometrics are only mandatory for certain benefit requests. For all others, DHS must decide if the benefit requested, or circumstances of the request, justifies collection of biometrics and, if so, notify an individual that their biometrics are required along with when and where they should be collected. DHS’s use of biometrics for criminal history background checks and document production is outdated and not fully in conformity with current 25 See, e.g., 8 CFR 204.310(a)(3)(ii), 210.2(c)(2)(i), 210.5(b)(2), 212.7(e)(3)(i), 214.11(d)(5)–(7), 214.11(m)(2), 214.2(w)(15), 244.6, 244.17, 245.15(g)(1), 245.21(b), 245a.2(d), 245a4(b)(4), 248.3, 1(a)–(b). PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 biometrics use policies by government agencies.26 In addition, as outlined above, DHS has the legal authority to administer and enforce immigration laws and collect biometrics when such information is necessary to that authority. For individuals, any adjudication necessarily includes verifying identity and determining whether or not the individual poses a risk to national security or public safety in those instances where these factors may impact eligibility for an immigration benefit and upon arrest of an alien for purposes of processing, care, custody, and initiation of removal proceedings. Biometrics collection upon apprehension or arrest by DHS will accurately identify the individuals encountered, and verify any claimed genetic relationship. This in turn will allow DHS to make better informed decisions as to the processing, transporting, and managing custody of aliens subject to DHS’s law enforcement authorities. Having more reliable data about detainees’ identities will increase safety of DHS detention facilities for both DHS law enforcement officers and the detainees. It would also eliminate an incentive that currently exists for unscrupulous individuals to jeopardize the health and safety of minors to whom they are unrelated, transporting the minors on a dangerous journey across the United States border, and claiming to be the parents of unrelated minors in order to claim to be a ‘‘family unit’’ and thus obtain a relatively quick release from DHS custody. Thus, DHS decided that it is necessary to increase the use of collected biometric information beyond only eligibility and admissibility determinations to include identity management in the immigration lifecycle and continuous immigration vetting. To accomplish this goal, DHS proposes in this rule to flip the current construct from one where biometrics may be collected based on past practices, regulations, or the form instructions for a particular benefit, to a system under which biometrics are required for any immigration benefit 26 See, e.g., Individuals with Multiple Identities in Historical Fingerprint Enrollment Records Who Have Received Immigration Benefits, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG–17– 111 (Sept. 2017); Potentially Ineligible Individuals Have Been Granted U.S. Citizenship Because of Incomplete Fingerprint Records, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG–16– 130 (Sept. 2016); Review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Alien Security Checks, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG–06–06 (Nov. 2005). E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules request unless DHS determines that biometrics are unnecessary. Therefore, DHS proposes that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit or other request, including U.S. citizens and without regard to age, must appear for biometrics collection, unless DHS or its designee affirmatively decides to not issue a biometrics appointment notice to the individual, or unless DHS waives or exempts the requirement in the form instructions, a Federal Register notice, or as otherwise provided by law or regulation. DHS may waive or exempt the biometrics requirement at its discretion or based on a request for reasonable accommodation. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(1). The Department will make reasonable efforts that are also consistent with the Government’s need for biometrics in certain contexts, and will follow all required procedures that are applicable under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act.27 However, DHS does not propose to impose an absolute biometrics collection requirement in all instances for all forms filed with the agency.28 There may be limited circumstances where biometric collection would be unnecessary or duplicative. A particular application or petition (e.g., an inadmissibility waiver request) may not require its own biometric collection because a different application or petition filed in conjunction with the first application or petition already carries a biometrics collection requirement. Under limited circumstances, DHS proposes to retain discretion to exempt certain forms from the biometric collection requirement because it would result in waste or redundancy to both the agency and the public. For example, when an applicant files an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I–485) biometrics are collected from all applicants. However, if the same applicant also files an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (Form I–601) due to an inadmissibility concern, that form is associated with the Form I–485. There is no need to independently require biometrics collection in conjunction with Form I– 27 As explained more fully later in this preamble, DHS is not proposing that the requirement that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit or other request, including U.S. citizens and without regard to age, must appear for biometrics collection will apply to DNA. 28 Only certain family-based benefit requests would be impacted by the proposed provision to allow, request, or require DNA evidence to establish a claimed genetic relationship. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 601 because DHS is already collecting biometrics in association with Form I– 485. Form I–601 would never be filed without an associated form carrying a biometrics collection requirement (i.e., an immigrant visa application, adjustment of status application, certain non-immigrant visa applications, etc.). In this type of situation, DHS recognizes that there is no value in imposing a biometric collection for forms that are only filed in conjunction with other forms that already require biometrics collection. Consequently, the DHS forms that are being revised and posted in accordance with the PRA for public comments do not include an absolute requirement for biometrics collection. Instead, the revised form instructions put the applicant on notice that every individual who is an applicant, petitioner, derivative, beneficiary, or sponsor of an immigration benefit request or other request submitted to DHS is required to provide biometrics unless DHS waives or exempts the requirement and that the applicant will be notified of the time and place for the appointment. For those forms for which DHS proposes to mandate biometrics in all cases as proposed under this rule, DHS included the requirement for payment of the biometric services fee with the underlying application or petition filing (unless there is an approved fee waiver). See the PRA section of this rule for information on how to comment on the proposed form instructions for implementing the changes proposed in this rule. 1. Identity Management DHS is proposing to use biometrics for identity management in the immigration lifecycle for several reasons. Most importantly, DHS is transitioning to a person-centric model for organizing and managing its records. DHS plans to begin using biometrics to establish and manage unique identities as it organizes and verifies immigration records in a highly-reliable, on-going, and continuous manner. Currently, DHS relies on declared biographic data for identity management in the immigration lifecycle. Once an identity has been enrolled in IDENT and established within DHS, future activities and encounters may be added to the original enrollment and will be confirmed through identity verification at various points in the immigration lifecycle. Identity verification may be done outside of the United States (by DHS or DOS) or within the United States (at ASCs, USCIS offices, or other DHS facilities). Identity verification also allows the reuse of enrolled identity PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56351 data (both biometric and biographic) that has already been vetted. Such reuse reduces the amount of erroneous or conflicting data that can be entered into systems, and reduces the cost and complexity of repetitive collection and validation. Reusable fingerprints allow for more immediate and recurrent background checks, and reusable photographs allow for quick production of documents with high consistency and integrity. DHS recognizes that biometric reuse is acceptable, when there is identity verification, but in the case of children biometric reuse could be impacted by the rapidly changing physical attributes of children. DHS has a duty to the public to ensure that immigration benefits are granted only to those who are eligible for them, to ensure that no benefit is provided to the wrong individual, and to verify that individuals entering the country are who they say they are. See generally INA section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103 (charging DHS with the administration and enforcement of the INA). A biometrically-based, person-centric records model would ensure that an individual’s records are complete and pertain only to that individual. Under this model, DHS would be able to easily locate, maintain, and update the correct individual’s information such as: Current address (physical and mailing), immigration status, or to associate previously submitted identity documentation, such as birth certificates and marriage licenses, in future adjudications thereby reducing duplicative biographic or evidentiary collections. Biometrics are unique to each individual and provide USCIS with tools for identity management while improving the services provided to those who submit immigration benefit requests. With regard to age, DHS proposes to reserve the authority to collect biometrics at any age to ensure the immigration records created for children can more assuredly be related to their subsequent adult records despite changes to their biographic information. USCIS notes that with respect to these biometrics, as with any other agency decision on a petition or application, if a decision will be adverse to an applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory information the agency considered, he/she will be advised of that fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). Another key driver for eliminating the age restrictions for biometric collection is the number of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and Accompanied E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56352 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules Alien Children (AAC) being intercepted at the border. The DHS proposal to remove age restrictions will help combat human trafficking, specifically human trafficking of children, including the trafficking and exploitation of children forced to accompany adults traveling to the United States with the goal of avoiding detention and exploit immigration laws. Beginning in July 2019 DHS has been conducting a small-scale pilot program where, with consent from individuals presenting themselves as family units, officers use Rapid DNA testing technologies as a precise and focused investigative tool to identify suspected fraudulent families and vulnerable children who may be potentially exploited. Between July 1, 2019 and November 7, 2019, DHS encountered 1747 self-identified family units with indicators of fraud who were referred for additional screening. Of this number, DHS identified 432 incidents of fraudulent family claims (over 2020 percent). Collecting biometrics on children that DHS encounters would permit definitive identification of them and may show that they have been reported missing. Generally, DHS plans to use the biometric information collected from children for identity management in the immigration lifecycle only, but will retain the authority for other uses in its discretion, such as background checks and for law enforcement purposes. DHS does not intend to routinely submit all UAC or AAC biometrics to the FBI for criminal history background checks; rather, the biometrics collected from the majority of these children would be stored in IDENT 29 to help DHS with future encounters. USCIS is authorized to share relevant information with law enforcement or other DHS components, including ‘‘biometrics’’ for identity verification and, consequently, it may share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, with other agencies as it does other record information pursuant to existing law. DHS will have the express authority to send UAC or AAC biometrics to the FBI for criminal history background checks, but depending on the DHS component encountering the individual, may only send biometrics to the FBI if 29 IDENT is the DHS enterprise repository for biometrics and provides biometric identification management services to DHS Components with technology for matching, storing, and sharing biometric data. DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) is the lead designated provider of biometric identity services for DHS, and maintains the largest biometric repository in the U.S. government. See www.dhs.gov/obim (last visited June 15, 2020). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 DHS had some articulable derogatory information on the subject and needed to confirm criminal history or an association with other illegal or terrorist organizations in the interests of public safety and national security. Biometrics collected for the identification of genetic relationships at the border would be maintained in law enforcement systems for future identify verification, subject to the restrictions found in proposed 8 CFR 103.16. 2. Enhanced and Continuous Vetting Individuals with certain types of criminal convictions, or those who present a threat to national security or public safety are not eligible for certain benefits. Benefit eligibility determinations in these cases often focus on the criminal, national security, and immigration history of the individual. The immigration history review considers the individual’s current immigration status, past immigration filings, and whether previous benefits were granted or denied. DHS conducts national security and criminal history background checks on individuals applying for or seeking an immigration benefit because U.S. immigration laws preclude DHS from granting many immigration and naturalization benefits to individuals with certain criminal or administrative violations, or with certain disqualifying characteristics (e.g., certain communicable diseases or association with terrorist organizations), while also providing DHS discretion in granting an immigration benefit in many instances. See, e.g., INA section 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A) (mandatory bars to asylum); INA section 245(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(2) (admissibility requirements for adjustment of status applicants and agency discretion); and INA section 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3) (good moral character requirement for naturalization). Biometrics are collected and or referenced throughout the immigration law administration and enforcement lifecycle, from first application, encounter, or apprehension to naturalization or removal. In the enforcement context, biometric collection when an individual is first encountered can help officers detect fraudulent identities and relationships between adults and children. This helps identify child smuggling, trafficking, and exploitation. It can also help identify when an adult who has been previously encountered is posing as child. Collection of biometrics during removal proceedings is primarily to identify that the individual is the correct individual being removed. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 As part of the adjudication process, DHS needs a strong system for the collection and use of biometrics from foreign nationals who enter or wish to enter the United States in order to, as directed by the President, ‘‘identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry.’’ See E.O. 13780 section 5, 82 FR 13209, 13215 (Mar. 9, 2017). The changes proposed in this rule would assist DHS in developing appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary for a rigorous evaluation of any grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of an immigration benefit. Id. In addition, as part of the effort to implement Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs, DHS plans to implement a program of continuous immigration vetting. Under continuous vetting, DHS may require aliens to be subjected to continued and subsequent evaluation of eligibility for their immigration benefits to ensure they continue to present no risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This rule proposes that any individual alien who is present in the United States following an approved immigration benefit may be required to submit biometrics unless and until they are granted U.S. citizenship.30 The rule further proposes that a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen may be required to submit biometrics if he or she filed an application, petition, or request in the past, and it was either reopened or the previous approval is relevant to an application, petition, or benefit request currently pending with USCIS. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(c)(2). DHS welcomes public comment on the increased use of biometrics beyond criminal history background checks, to include identity management in the immigration lifecycle and enhanced vetting or other purposes, as well as any relevant data, information, or proposals. B. Verify Identity, Familial Relationships, and Preclude Imposters 1. Use of DNA Evidence 31 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents petitioning for a biological 30 See DHS Privacy Impact Assessment for Continuous Immigration Vetting (Feb. 14, 2019), available at https://www.dhs.gov/privacy. 31 T The DNA Fingerprint Act authorizes the Attorney General to collect DNA from individuals arrested, facing charges, convicted, or from nonU.S. persons who are detained under the authority E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules family member, or individuals seeking to include a biological family member as a dependent or derivative (accompanying or follow-to-join) in an application for an immigration benefit, must demonstrate the existence of the claimed genetic relationship, and current regulations generally require documentary evidence such as marriage and birth certificates as primary evidence of such a claimed relationship.32 In the absence of primary evidence, acceptable secondary evidence includes medical records, school records, religious documents, and affidavits. See, e.g., 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2). However, documentary evidence may be unreliable or unavailable, and individuals need additional means to establish claimed genetic relationships to avoid denial of a petition, application, or other benefit request. USCIS currently accepts DNA test results from laboratories accredited by the AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) as proof of the existence of a claimed genetic relationship where other evidence is unavailable.33 DHS proposes to revise its regulations to provide that DNA genetic testing can be required, requested, or accepted as probative evidence, either primary or secondary, to establish a claimed genetic relationship where required.34 See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e). DNA is the only biometric that can verify a claimed genetic relationship. Current regulations allow USCIS to require Blood Group Antigen or Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) of the United States. 34 U.S.C. 40702. The implementing DOJ regulations require any agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States. 28 CFR 28.12(b). DHS notes that the DNA collection requirements of 34 U.S.C. 40702 and 28 CFR part 28, subpart B are for law enforcement identification purposes, whereas this rule proposes to establish the authority for the use of DNA to verify claimed genetic relationships in the adjudication of immigration benefit requests. 32 See, e.g., 8 CFR 103.2(b)(2)(i); 204.2(c)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(i)–(iii), (d)(5)(ii), (f)(2)(i)–(iii), (g)(2)(i)–(iii); 207.7(e); 208.21(f), 245.11(b), 245.15(l)(2), 254.24(h)(1)(iii). 33 Although most of the collection of DNA samples is performed by the AABB-accredited laboratory conducting the testing, for individuals residing overseas, DHS or the Department of State facilitate collection and transmission of the DNA sample to the laboratory to ensure regularity in the collection and proper chain of custody of the DNA sample. 34 This includes requiring, requesting, or accepting DNA testing to establish a genetic relationship with a birth parent in the context of a petition to classify a beneficiary as an orphan under INA 101(b)(1)(F) or as a Convention adoptee under INA 101(b)(1)(G). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 tests to prove parentage only after other forms of evidence were inconclusive. See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi). But those tests are no longer widely available and are not as conclusive as a DNA test because, while blood-typing can be used as proof that an individual is not a child’s biological parent, it cannot be used to confirm the individual is the child’s parent.35 According to the AABB, DNA testing provides the most reliable scientific test available to resolve a genetic relationship and replaced older serological testing such as blood typing and serological HLA typing.36 Blood tests are also more invasive than DNA tests, DNA collection generally does not require blood to be drawn from any individuals tested, and the most common method is a noninvasive buccal (mouth) swab. DHS proposes to define the term ‘‘DNA’’ in regulation as ‘‘deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning, and reproduction of all known living organisms.’’ Proposed 8 CFR 1.2. When DHS uses the term ‘‘DNA’’ in this rule it is a reference to the raw genetic material, typically saliva, collected via buccal swab from an individual in order to facilitate DNA testing to establish genetic relationships. DHS will only require, request, or accept DNA testing to verify a claimed genetic relationship. DHS will not store or share any raw DNA or biological samples, other than to the extent necessary to facilitate the DNA testing (by using an on-site automated machine or transmitting to the AABB-accredited laboratory conducting the testing), unless DHS is required to share by law. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e). For DHS, there are two different means of actually testing the raw DNA to verify a claimed genetic relationship. After DNA samples are collected, an individual’s raw DNA material would then be either tested locally by an automated machine (i.e., Rapid DNA) 37 or mailed to a traditional AABBaccredited laboratory for testing. This testing allows for the comparison of 35 Gunther Geserick & Ingo Wirth, Genetic Kinship Investigation from Blood Groups to DNA Markers, 39 Transfus Med Hemother 163–75 (2012), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3375130/. 36 AABB, Standards for Relationship Testing Laboratories, Appendix 10—Immigration Testing (14th ed. 2019). 37 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) has been working in conjunction with DoD and DOJ to fund the development of cost-effective Rapid DNA equipment to allow non-technical users with appropriate training to analyze the DNA of individuals in a field setting and receive reliable results in about one hour. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56353 partial DNA profiles to determine the statistical probability that the individuals tested have the claimed genetic relationship. In either case, a partial DNA profile would be produced as a result of the test. When DHS uses the term ‘‘partial DNA profile’’ it is a reference to a visual or printed partial representation of a small portion of an individual’s particular DNA characteristics. An individual’s partial DNA profile is a biometric identifier as unique as their fingerprints. Significantly, when an individual’s DNA is tested in order to verify a claimed genetic relationship, the test does not reveal medical or hereditary conditions. The particular genetic markers profiled for relationship testing are markers used to verify the claimed genetic relationship. More specifically, the partial DNA profile created for relationship testing is actually a very small portion of an individual’s full DNA characteristics. At present, DHS relationship tests profile between 16 and 24 genetic markers out of the nearly two million genetic markers typically contained in human DNA. In contrast with raw DNA or biological samples, which will not be shared or stored under any circumstances unless required to share by law, DHS may store or share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, with other law enforcement agencies to the extent permitted by and necessary to enforce and administer the immigration and naturalization laws. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e). The testing entity conducts the DNA test, either automatically by machine or in a traditional laboratory environment, and generates a DNA test result. DHS uses the term ‘‘DNA test result’’ as a reference to the ultimate scientific conclusion made by the AABBaccredited testing entity as to the claimed genetic relationship. The DNA test result is represented by a probability or percentage of the likelihood of the existence of the claimed genetic relationship as a result of comparing at least two partial DNA profiles. DHS has established by policy what minimum threshold probability for the relationship that it would accept in verifying a claimed genetic relationship, depending on the particular relationship claimed (i.e., parent, full-sibling, halfsibling, etc.).38 DNA test results which 38 See DNA Evidence of Sibling Relationships, PM 602.0106.1, issued April 17, 2018 (establishing the threshold probabilities for full and half sibling relationships); Genetic Relationship Testing; Suggesting DNA Tests Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 21 (AFM Update AD07–25), signed by Michael Aytes, Associate E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM Continued 11SEP2 56354 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules include a partial DNA profile, where they indicate a sufficient probability of the existence of the relationship tested, are now accepted as a probative evidence to establish parent and sibling genetic relationships. See Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2016). Consistent with current practice, the DNA test results obtained by DHS, which contain the ultimate probability of relationship and a partial DNA profile, would be retained in the individual’s Alien file (A-file) and made part of the record. USCIS may use and store DNA test results with other law enforcement agencies to the extent permitted by and necessary to administer and enforce the immigration and naturalization laws. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e). Currently, DHS allows individuals in certain situations to voluntarily submit DNA test results from AABB-accredited laboratories 39 where other documentary evidence is inconclusive or unavailable.40 This rule proposes to clarify that DHS may require, request, or accept DNA testing from relevant parties to a benefit request, where probative, as evidence of a claimed genetic relationship. It also proposes to clarify that DHS may consider DNA test results in adjudicating certain immigration benefits as a means of verifying a claimed genetic relationship. And the rule proposes to clarify DHS’s authority to collect raw DNA from relevant parties and either perform a DNA relationship test with an AABB-accredited machine in-house or send the raw DNA to a traditional AABB-accredited lab for DNA testing. DHS requests comments on all aspects of this proposal, including the collection, use, and retention of DNA evidence. Director, Domestic Operations, issued March 19, 2008 (establishing voluntary or suggested nature of DNA testing to verify claimed relationships and citing AABB testing standards); DOS, Foreign Affairs Manual 9 FAM 601.11–1(A)(a)(2) (CT: VISA–936 Sept. 10, 2019) (stating that DNA ‘‘test results reporting a 99.5 percent or greater degree of certainty’’ may be accepted by consular officers as ‘‘sufficient to support a biological relationship between a parent and child in visa cases’’); see also Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2016) (holding direct sibling-to-sibling DNA test results reflecting a 99.5 percent degree of certainty or higher that a full sibling biological relationship exists should be accepted and considered to be probative evidence of the relationship). 39 See AABB home page at https://www.aabb.org/ Pages/default.aspx (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). 40 See Genetic Relationship Testing; Suggesting DNA Tests Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 21 (AFM Update AD07–25), signed by Michael Aytes, Associate Director, Domestic Operations, issued March 19, 2008 (establishing voluntary or suggested nature of DNA testing to verify claimed relationships and citing AABB testing standards). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 2. Special Treatment of DNA Evidence While DNA is fundamentally a biometric identifier, DHS recognizes the increased sensitivity surrounding the use of genetic information. DHS believes the other biometric modalities that will be collected are sufficient for most of the goals of this rule. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2 (definition of biometrics); proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a) (biometric collection). Therefore, DHS proposes to treat raw DNA as a distinctive biometric modality from the other biometric modalities it is authorized to collect. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2 (definition of DNA); proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e). For purposes of DNA collected under this rule, DHS proposes that it will not handle or share any raw DNA for any reason beyond the original purpose of submission (i.e., to establish or verify the claimed genetic relationship), unless DHS is required to share by law. DHS would only store, use, and share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile derived from the raw DNA, as provided by the testing entity or as produced by DHS, for adjudication purposes and would retain the results to perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws, to the extent permitted by law. DHS would also only use the raw DNA and DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, for the original purpose of submission (i.e., to establish or verify the claimed genetic relationship) or as authorized by the immigration and naturalization laws. DHS components are authorized to share relevant information with law enforcement or other DHS components and, consequently, it may share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, with other agencies when there are national security, public safety, fraud, or other investigative needs, but always pursuant to existing law. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e). DHS especially welcomes comments on these proposed provisions. 3. Identity Management DHS must ensure that immigration benefits are not fraudulently obtained and are granted to the rightful person, and that individuals entering the country are who they say they are. As part of the benefit adjudications process, USCIS must verify the identity of an individual applying for or seeking any benefit to protect against fraud and imposters. In all circumstances, DHS must identify persons using aliases after prior immigration encounters and assist in efforts to prevent human smuggling and trafficking. Currently DHS relies PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 mainly on documentary, paper evidence of identity in administering its programs. Unfortunately, there is no guaranteed way to prevent the manufacturing, counterfeiting, alteration, sale, and/or use of identity documents or other fraudulent documents to circumvent immigration laws or for identity theft. On the other hand, biometric identifiers are not transferrable and may provide confirmation of an individual’s identity. Therefore, DHS believes that the best approach to address the vulnerabilities in the immigration process, preclude imposters, and deter fraud would be to rely more on biometrics for identity management in the immigration lifecycle. C. Flexibility in Biometrics Requirements 1. Definition of Biometrics In recent years, government agencies have grouped together identifying features and actions, such as fingerprints, photographs, and signatures under the broad term, biometrics.41 The terms, biometric ‘‘information,’’ ‘‘identifiers,’’ or ‘‘data’’ are used to refer to all of these features, including additional features such as iris image, palm print, DNA, and voice print.42 For example, authorities such as 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7)(B) and 17 CFR 162.30(b)(8) refer to identifying information including ‘‘unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print or iris image, or other unique physical representation.’’ The term ‘‘biometrics’’ is also used in other laws and regulations. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7)(B), 17 CFR 162.30(b)(8), 21 CFR 11.3(b)(3), and 27 CFR 73.3. As a result, DHS has adopted the practice of referring to fingerprints and photographs collectively as ‘‘biometrics,’’ ‘‘biometric information,’’ or ‘‘biometric services.’’ For example, the instructions for Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Form I–90) refer to a ‘‘biometric services appointment,’’ while the, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I– 589), refers to ‘‘biometrics, including fingerprints and photographs.’’ Many forms also include a signature as a type of biometric identifier. See instructions 41 See Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), Fingerprints and Other Biometrics, Next Generation Identification (NGI), https:// www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-otherbiometrics/ngi (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). 42 See FBI, CJIS, Fingerprints and Other Biometrics, https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ fingerprints-and-other-biometrics (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules for Form I–485 which references providing ‘‘fingerprints, photograph, and/or signature.’’ Most laws on the subject do not specify individual biometric modalities such as iris image, palm print, voice print, DNA, and/or any other biometric modalities that may be collected from an individual in the future. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1732(b)(1) (requiring the issuance of travel documents that use biometric identifiers recognized by international standards organizations). By proposing to update the terminology in the regulations to uniformly use the term ‘‘biometrics’’ DHS seeks to utilize a single, inclusive term comprehensively throughout regulations and form instructions. DHS proposes to define the term, ‘‘biometrics,’’ to clarify and expand its authority to collect more than just fingerprints in connection while administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization benefits or other services. To do this, DHS proposes to expressly define ‘‘biometrics’’ to include a wider range of modalities than just fingerprints and photographs. DHS proposes to define the term ‘‘biometrics’’ to mean ‘‘the measurable biological (anatomical and physiological) or behavioral characteristics used for identification of an individual.’’ Proposed 8 CFR 1.2. Further, DHS proposes the following biometrics as authorized biometric modalities that may be requested or required from individuals in connection the administration and enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws: • Fingerprint; • palm print; • photograph (including facial images specifically for facial recognition, as well as photographs of physical or anatomical features such as scars, skin marks, and tattoos); • signature; • voice print; • iris image; and • DNA (DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile attesting to genetic relationship). The term ‘‘biometric modality’’ is used to describe a type or class of biometric system. The collection of a biometric implies its use in a system used to identify an individual; hence the use of the term ‘‘modality.’’ ‘‘Modality’’ is often interchanged, or used in conjunction, with the term ‘‘biometric’’ because the collection of a biometric implies automation. For example, an individual’s face is a biometric, but DHS intends to collect a photograph or image of an individual’s face, making a facial photograph the modality. Similarly, an individual’s iris is a biometric, but DHS intends to VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 collect a photograph or image of an individual’s iris, making an iris image the ‘‘modality.’’ An individual’s voice is a ‘‘biometric,’’ but DHS intends to collect an audible recording of an individual’s voice, making a voice print the ‘‘modality.’’ Finally, an individual’s raw DNA is a ‘‘biometric,’’ but upon testing, the partial DNA profile becomes the ‘‘modality’’ and the DNA test result is the memorialization or evidence of the existence of the claimed genetic relationship. DHS will collect a photograph, fingerprint, audible recording, DNA, etc., for use in facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, iris image recognition, voice recognition, DNA testing, etc. The proposed definition of biometrics would authorize the collection of specific biometric modalities and the use of biometrics for: Identity enrollment, verification, and management in the immigration lifecycle; national security and criminal history background checks; determinations of eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits; and the production of secure identity documents. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2. DNA, while a biometric, would only be collected by USCIS in limited circumstances to verify the existence of a claimed genetic relationship where relevant to the administration and enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2 and 8 CFR 103.16(e). 2. Additional Modalities In addition to the current use of fingerprints 43 as a biometric modality, DHS proposes to begin requesting biometric collection (now and through emerging technologies) with the following additional biometric modalities: Iris, palm, face, voice, and DNA.44 The technology for collecting and using biometrics has undergone constant and rapid change.45 DHS needs to keep up with technological developments that will be used by the FBI and agencies with which we will be sharing and comparing biometrics in this area and adjust collection and retention practices for both convenience and security, and to ensure the maximum level of service for all stakeholders. USCIS also has internal 43 Currently USCIS does not routinely use photographs or signatures for identity verification purposes other than for document production and visual verification of the photo. 44 DNA, while included in the list of additional modalities, is a distinct modality and is discussed at length separately above. 45 FBI, Science and Technology Branch, https:// www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/ science-and-technology-branch (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56355 procedural safeguards to ensure technology used to collect, assess, and store the differing modalities is accurate, reliable, and valid. Additionally, as with any other USCIS petition or application, if a decision will be adverse to an applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory information the agency considered, he/she shall be advised of that fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). Therefore, DHS proposes that, as of the effective date of this rule, it would begin collecting new biometrics modalities as follows. a. Iris Image DHS proposes to collect and use iris images as a biometric modality. Iris as a biometric modality is a valuable identifier especially for individuals whose fingerprints are unclassifiable or unattainable through loss of fingers, hand amputation, normal wear in the ridges and patterns over time (i.e., due to age, types of employment, etc.), or deliberate eradication/distortion of fingerprint ridges to avoid identification and detection. Iris scanning biometric technology measures the unique patterns in the colored circle of the eye to verify and authenticate identity. Biometric iris recognition is fast, accurate, and offers a form of identification verification that requires no physical contact to collect an iris image. DHS intends to collect iris images as part of the ASC and mobile biometric enrollment process to enroll and verify identity against IDENT, as well as to assist in the adjudication process by verifying against previous immigration encounters. b. Palm Print DHS proposes to add palm prints as a biometrics modality in this rule. This proposal is consistent with what the FBI has announced as part of its Next Generation Identification (NGI) initiative for the development of the requirements for and deployment of an integrated National Palm Print Service.46 Law enforcement agencies indicate that at least 30 percent of the prints lifted from crime scenes—from knife hilts, gun grips, steering wheels, 46 See Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Committee on Homeland and National Security, Subcommittee on Biometrics, Palm Print Recognition, https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/ about-us-cjis-fingerprints_biometrics-biometriccenter-of-excellences-palm-print-recognition.pdf/ view. For a basic explanation of NGI, see also https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-andother-biometrics/ngi.https://www.fbi.gov/filerepository/about-us-cjis-fingerprints_biometricsbiometric-center-of-excellences-palm-printrecognition.pdf/view. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56356 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules and window panes—are of palms, not fingers. For this reason, capturing and scanning latent palm prints is becoming an area of increasing interest among the law enforcement community. The National Palm Print Service is being developed to improve law enforcement’s ability to exchange a more complete set of biometric information, make additional identifications, and improve the overall accuracy of identification through criminal history records. Collecting palm prints would permit DHS to align our background checks capability with the total available records at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), keep current with the changing records of law enforcement, and make sure immigration benefit background checks are as accurate and complete as possible. Therefore, DHS proposes to reserve the authority to incorporate palm prints into its biometrics collection. DHS is proposing to increase the authorized use of a previously collected biometric modality, facial photographs, to include a facial recognition system. d. Voice Print DHS proposes to collect and use voice prints as a biometric modality. DHS can use voice as a biometric in several ways to improve identity verification in several business processes. First, when immigration benefits are submitted electronically, an individual’s voice print can be used to indicate that the individual who submitted the application is the same person who subsequently returns to access or change information. Second, an individual’s voice print can be used for integration into the call center process to accomplish faster, automated identification. Collecting and using an individual’s voice print may reduce concerns about the caller’s identity. With simpler identification c. Facial Image and less effort, individuals will more DHS proposes to use facial effectively be able to call for assistance photographs to reduce the burden of or inquire about the status of a pending visiting an ASC for individuals immigration benefit request. The current previously biometrically enrolled by identity verification process is typically USCIS. For example, 1:1 face biometric more time-consuming than voice; on an verification can be used in determining average day USCIS receives 50,000 whether an applicant is who he/she is phone calls 48 on the toll-free national claiming to be and allowing EAD recall center line and the use of a voice issuance for certain immigration biometric holds the promise of benefits. Facial recognition can also be significantly reducing the time to verify used to verify an identity if fingerprints are unobtainable subsequent to the a person’s identity. Voice biometrics can initial biometric enrollment at an ASC. be passive, where the user can say Currently, CBP is undergoing a separate anything and a match is made from the rulemaking and concurrently piloting voice to a voiceprint, or it can be active, the use of facial recognition at several where the caller is asked to recite a airports and early results are very previously captured passphrase. Either favorable, with suggested potential way, the process is a natural, effortless benefits of the program in identifying way to identify the caller. fraud. CBP has identified three Third, voice verification could be imposters in less than 40 days using facial recognition.47 DHS would also use used for identity verification in remote locations where an interview is required facial images and facial recognition to adjudicate a benefit being sought, technology for fraud, public safety or reducing the need for an applicant to criminal history background checks, travel to a USCIS Office. Finally, USCIS and national security screening and may also use voice prints, where vetting. Facial photographs, as a applicable, to identify indicia of fraud, biometric modality, are already screen for public safety or criminal collected by DHS primarily for the purpose of secure document production. history, and vet potential national DHS has collected facial photographs security issues. for some time, such as for identity DHS welcomes public comment on verification at ports of entry; however, the various proposed modalities, reliability of technology, suggestions for 47 See Customs and Border Protection, Dulles alternative modalities, as well as its CBP’s New Biometric Verification Technology Catches Third Impostor in 40 Days (Oct. 2, 2018), proposal for future modalities. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-mediarelease/dulles-cbp-s-new-biometric-verificationtechnology-catches-third. More generally, for the use of facial biometrics for international travelers, see Biometrics at https://www.cbp.gov/travel/ biometrics (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 3. Improve Regulations To Facilitate Electronic Filing a. Clarify Terms To conform with the proposed changes to expand biometric collection as previously discussed, DHS proposes to remove restrictive language elsewhere in regulations. Therefore, DHS proposes to remove individual references to ‘‘fingerprints,’’ ‘‘photographs,’’ and/or ‘‘signatures’’ where appropriate, and replace them with the more appropriate term ‘‘biometrics.’’ DHS proposes the following changes to replace references to ‘‘fingerprint’’ with ‘‘biometrics’’ or to remove ‘‘biometrics’’ references on account of proposed 8 CFR 103.16: • Deleting 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3), which requires biometric submissions from prospective adoptive parent(s), or adult members of the adoptive parents’ household, and outlining potential waivers; • Removing the fingerprint requirement at 8 CFR 204.4(d)(1), and references to fingerprint and completed background checks as elements specifically mentioned in 8 CFR 204.4(g)(2)(ii) regarding the determination that a sponsor is of good moral character; • Deleting biometric submission and fee requirements in 8 CFR 204.5(p)(4); • Deleting and reserving 8 CFR 204.310(b), which outlines the biometrics, waiver, and alternative evidentiary requirements for the Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country (Form I–800A); • Deleting the reference to biometric information and 8 CFR 1.2 in 8 CFR 207.1(a); • Replacing ‘‘fingerprint processing’’ in the second sentence of 8 CFR 208.7(a)(2) with ‘‘an interview or biometric collection’’; • Removing the biometrics submission requirement from 8 CFR 209.1(b); • Revising 8 CFR 208.10, on account of proposed 8 CFR 103.2 and 103.16; • Removing and reserving 8 CFR 210.1(b); and • Replacing ‘‘must be fingerprinted for the purpose of issuance of Form I– 688A’’ with ‘‘submit biometrics’’, and replacing ‘‘shall’’ with ‘‘will’’ in proposed 8 CFR 210.2(c)(2)(iv), and ‘‘presentation or completion of Form FD–258 (Fingerprint Card)’’ with ‘‘biometric collection’’ in proposed 8 CFR 210.2(c)(3)(iv). b. Remove Age Restrictions 48 See DHS, USCIS, A Day in the Life of USCIS, https://www.uscis.gov/about-us-0 (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 DHS originally codified several of its regulatory biometric submission requirements with restrictions on the E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules ages of individuals from whom biometrics could be collected. The codified ages were based on the policies and practices at the time such as not running criminal history background checks on children 49 or technological limitations on collecting fingerprints from elderly persons.50 As stated earlier, DHS proposes that biometrics uses expand beyond criminal history background checks to include identity management and verification in the immigration lifecycle. Identity verification and management in the immigration lifecycle via biometrics is even more important in the case of children because their physical appearances can change relatively rapidly and children often lack identity documents. Consistent with this determination, DHS is removing the age restrictions for biometric collection writ large, including those for NTA issuance. See 8 CFR 236.5. DHS has authority, under the immigration laws,51 to issue Notice to Appear (Form I–862) and Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge (Form I– 863), which are thereafter filed with the Immigration Court to commence removal proceedings under the INA. In removing the age restrictions for biometric collection relating to NTA issuance, DHS is ensuring that every individual’s identity is established or verified—regardless of age—when they are placed in removal proceedings under the INA. Just as with the granting of immigration benefits, biographical identifiers are of limited use when verifying identity because individuals share common names and an individual may misrepresent his or her identity when facing immigration enforcement action. Furthermore, with respect to children under the age of 14 issued who are issued NTAs, the collection of biometric information to determine identity will significantly assist DHS in its mission to combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling, while simultaneously promoting national 49 ‘‘Children’’ and ‘‘minor’’ are used interchangeably here and without regard to any single or specific INA definition. 50 See Fingerprint Waiver Policy for All Applicants for Benefits under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and Procedures for Applicants Whose Fingerprint Responses Expire after the Age Range during Which Fingerprints are Required by Michael Pearson, Executive Associate Commissioner, Office of Field Operations United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, dated July 20, 2001 (waiving general fingerprinting requirements for certain ages and classifications of individuals otherwise required under regulation). 51 See, e.g., INA sections 103(a), 239; 8 CFR 2.1, 239.1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. DHS is authorized to share relevant information internally and with other law enforcement agencies, including ‘‘biometrics’’ and, consequently, is proposing that it may share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, with other agencies where there are national security, public safety, fraud, or other investigative needs, but always consistent with any legal limitations on such information sharing. For those reasons, the removal of age restrictions may lead to more frequent biometric collections compared to adults. Therefore, because the proposed requirements in this rule, requiring appearance for biometric collection or interview would apply to any individual, without age limitation, DHS proposes to remove all age limitations or restrictions on biometrics collection. However, DHS also proposes that the biometric collection may be waived at DHS’s discretion. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16. Under the authority granted by the proposed rule, individual DHS components will be able to establish an age threshold for biometric collection specific to that component’s operational needs. Immigration officers may collect biometrics, pursuant to the authority granted in 8 U.S.C. 1357(b) from individuals under the age of 14 categorically or on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances. DHS interprets 8 U.S.C. 1357(f)(1) as requiring fingerprinting and photographing of aliens 14 years or older in removal proceedings, but DHS interprets that authority as not prohibiting the collection of biometrics from aliens younger than 14 as authorized by other laws. Removing the age restrictions associated with biometric collections from the regulations will permit DHS components maximum flexibility in their day-to-day operations. DHS reviewed statutes containing requirements for individuals to submit biometrics to DHS at a certain age and determined those statutes do not restrict or limit the collection of biometrics to these ages. First, INA section 262(b), 8 U.S.C. 1302, states, ‘‘Whenever any alien attains his fourteenth birthday in the United States he shall, within thirty days thereafter, apply in person for registration and to be fingerprinted.’’ Second, INA section 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304, provides that the Secretary is authorized ‘‘to prepare forms for the registration and fingerprinting of aliens’’ aged 14 and older in the United States, as required by INA section 262. DHS interprets section 264(a) as requiring PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56357 that biometrics be submitted by lawful permanent residents aged 14 and older, but not as imposing a lower age limit prohibiting DHS from requiring anyone, including lawful permanent residents or individuals seeking immigration benefits who are under the age of 14, from submitting biometrics as authorized by other laws. c. Remove Redundant Provisions DHS proposes in this rule to have one regulatory provision that governs the requirement to submit biometrics for all immigration benefit requests. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16. This new provision will also include the requirements for rescheduling and the acceptable reasons for failure to submit biometrics unless waived. Id. In addition, DHS proposes to consolidate the multiple sections of 8 CFR providing what USCIS can or will do with an immigration benefit request when required biometrics are not submitted. For example, 8 CFR 240.68(b) currently provides that failure to comply with fingerprint processing requirements without reasonable excuse may result in dismissal of the asylum application or waiver of the right to adjudication by an asylum officer. Because proposed 8 CFR 103.16 will apply to all immigration benefits adjudicated by USCIS, there is no need for a separate provision for what happens in the context of an asylum application submitted pursuant to 8 CFR 240.68. Therefore, DHS is proposing to either revise separate provisions regarding failure to submit biometrics to cross-reference 8 CFR 103.16 or remove them entirely. See proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 103.16(b), 208.10, 240.68, 240.70(d)(4), and 245.7. d. Remove Unnecessary Procedures and Requirements DHS is proposing changes in this rule consistent with continued efforts to provide flexibility for applicants, petitioners, requestors and associated individuals to submit biometrics, file benefit requests, and provide supporting documentation, as well as for USCIS to receive and process those requests in an electronic environment. In sections of the regulations governing biometrics submission requirements, DHS is also proposing to remove and/or replace language that applies solely to paper filings and benefit requests with language that is applicable in both a paper and electronic environment. For example, references to position titles, form numbers, mailing, copies, and office jurisdiction are proposed to be removed, replacing ‘‘the director,’’ ‘‘service office having jurisdiction over the prior petition,’’ ‘‘service legalization E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56358 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules office,’’ ‘‘legalization office,’’ ‘‘service office designated for this purpose,’’ and ‘‘The INS,’’ with ‘‘USCIS’’ in 8 CFR 204.4(d)(1), 210.2(c)(2)(iv), 210.2(c)(4)(iii) and 210.5(b). In proposed 8 CFR 204.4(d)(1), the internal USCIS process is removed from the regulatory text, by replacing the requirement that petitioners submit documents within one year of the date requested, with a deadline provided in the request. Similarly, in proposed 8 CFR 208.21(d), the specific procedure regarding transmissions to the U.S. Embassy or consulate is deleted from the regulatory text. In other sections, requirements to provide a paper fingerprint card or FD– 258 are revised to simply require ‘‘biometrics.’’ See 8 CFR 210.2(c)(2)(i), 210.2(c)(4), 240.68, 240.70, 245a.2(e)(1)(iii) and 245a.4(b)(5)(i)(C). To promote electronic filing and lessen dependence on paper, DHS is also proposing to clarify the regulatory requirements for submitting passportstyle paper photographs with certain applications or petitions. DHS proposes to eliminate references to the ‘‘ADITstyle’’ photograph requirement as outdated and revising any requirement for submitting photographs with immigration benefit requests to reference photographs ‘‘as required by form instruction.’’ See proposed 8 CFR 103.16 and 333.1. USCIS may continue requiring paper photographs to be submitted with a benefit request, where required by form instruction, to use in its adjudications for either identity verification or document production. However, as proposed, under no circumstances would submission of passport-style photographs relieve an individual from their obligation to appear for biometric collection. DHS believes that the photograph submission and use requirements in the INA may be met in the future by electronic photographs collected by USCIS as a biometric identifier. INA section 333, 8 U.S.C. 1444, states: (a) Three identical photographs of the applicant shall be signed by and furnished by each applicant for naturalization or citizenship. One of such photographs shall be affixed by the Attorney General to the original certificate of naturalization issued to the naturalized citizen and one to the duplicate certificate of naturalization required to be forwarded to the Service. (b) Three identical photographs of the applicant shall be furnished by each applicant for— (1) a record of lawful admission for permanent residence to be made under section 249; (2) a certificate of derivative citizenship; (3) a certificate of naturalization or of citizenship; (4) a special certificate of naturalization; VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (5) a certificate of naturalization or of citizenship, in lieu of one lost, mutilated, or destroyed; (6) a new certificate of citizenship in the new name of any naturalized citizen who, subsequent to naturalization, has had his name changed by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or by marriage; and (7) a declaration of intention. One such photograph shall be affixed to each such certificate issued by the Attorney General and one shall be affixed to the copy of such certificate retained by the Service. As DHS interprets INA section 333, its requirements may be met when an individual’s photographs are obtained by USCIS, signed, and furnished by the individual when USCIS or its designee collects the individual’s biometrics. Therefore, DHS proposes to revise 8 CFR 333.1 to provide that every applicant under section 333 of the Act must provide photographs as prescribed by USCIS in the applicable form instructions. D. Biometrics Requirement for United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents While the focus of attention in the immigration context is usually on foreign nationals, aliens, and immigrants, DHS is also proposing to require biometrics from U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents when they submit a family-based visa petition. See proposed 8 CFR 103.16. Current regulations only require biometrics from applicants, petitioners, their spouses, and all adult members of the household in the intercountry adoption context involving orphan and Hague Adoption Convention cases. See 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3); 8 CFR 204.310(b). For family-based petitioners filing Petition for Alien Relative (Form I–130) or Petition for Alien fianc&eacute;´(e) (Form I–129F), the regulations are silent with respect to the routine submission of a petitioner’s biometrics in support of a petition. See generally 8 CFR 204.1 and 214.2(k). As discussed below, DHS has determined that U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident petitioners must submit biometrics in order for DHS to comply with existing laws. 1. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 The INA bars USCIS from approving any family-based immigrant visa petitions and nonimmigrant fianc&eacute;´(e) visa petitions filed by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident petitioner if he or she has been convicted of any ‘‘specified offense against a minor’’ unless the Secretary first determines in his or her sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses ‘‘no risk’’ to the beneficiary and/or PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 derivative beneficiaries. See INA sections 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) & (B)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) & (B)(i)(II), and 101(a)(15)(K), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), as amended. The AWA 52 defines ‘‘specified offense against a minor’’ as an offense against a minor that involves any of the following: • An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping. • An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment. • Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct. • Use in a sexual performance. • Solicitation to practice prostitution. • Video voyeurism as described in 18 U.S.C. 1801. • Possession, production, or distribution of child pornography. • Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct. • Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor. 2. The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act IMBRA 53 provides that petitioners for a K nonimmigrant visa for an alien fianc&eacute;´(e) (K–1) or alien spouse (K–3) must submit with his or her Form I– 129F criminal conviction information for the petitioner on any of the following ‘‘specified crimes’’: • Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, dating violence, elder abuse, and stalking; • Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture, trafficking, peonage, holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, or an attempt to commit any of these crimes; and • Crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol where the petitioner has been convicted on at least three occasions and where such crimes did not arise from a single act. If a petitioner indicates that he or she has been convicted by a court or by a military tribunal for one of these specified crimes, or if USCIS ascertains through relevant background checks that the petitioner was convicted, the 52 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 section 111(7), Public Law 109–248, 120 Stat. 587, 592 (2006) (codified at 34 U.S.C. 20911(7) after editorial reclassification). 53 Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (T 2005), Public Law 109–162, 119 Stat. 2960 (2006); and (VAWA 2013), Public Law 113–4, sections 807–8, 127 Stat. 54, 112–17; 8 U.S.C. 1375a); INA sections 214(d)(1), (3). E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules petitioner is required to submit certified copies of all court and police records showing the charges and dispositions for every such conviction. See USCIS Form I–129F and Form I–129F Instructions, Part 3. If the petition is approved, the petitioner’s Form I–129F (including all criminal background information submitted by the petitioner and any related criminal conviction information that USCIS discovers during the course of conducting its routine background check) must be provided to DOS. Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. 1375a(a)(5)(A)(iii). DOS will then disclose this information to the beneficiary during the consular interview. See Form I–129F Instructions, Part 3. 3. All Family-Based Petitioners USCIS is committed to complying with and furthering the purposes of AWA and IMBRA so that intended beneficiaries of family-based visa petitions are not placed at risk of harm from the persons who seek to facilitate their immigration to the United States. Without complete biometrics for all family-based petitioners, USCIS is required to rely only on name-based criminal checks to assess AWA and IMBRA. These name-based checks do not identify all offenders with visa petitions who have been convicted of qualifying crimes under AWA and/or IMBRA. Name-based checks only yield petitioners who are currently required to register as a sex offender or who have a current order of protection in place. However, AWA and IMBRA apply to all family-based petitioners with qualifying convictions regardless of when the criminality occurred, and whether they are currently registered sex offenders or subject to an order of protection. The current reliance on name-based checks means that certain family-based visa petitioners are not currently identified and vetted under AWA and IMBRA because USCIS does not routinely request biometrics from these populations. Requiring biometrics collection for all family-based petitioners will result in production of an official FBI criminal history result (currently referred to as an Identity History Summary ‘‘IdHS’’ and formerly referred to as a Record of Arrest and Prosecution ‘‘RAP sheet’’) which provides greater accuracy and detail relating to the petitioner’s criminal history. USCIS already requires biometrics from all applicants, petitioners, their spouses, and all adult members of the household in the intercountry adoption context involving orphan and Hague Adoption Convention cases as part of its VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 evaluation of the prospective adoptive parents’ suitability to adopt a foreignborn child.54 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3), 8 CFR 204.310(b). USCIS likewise needs to review the criminal histories of other petitioners before approving a familybased immigration benefit. USCIS needs to utilize biometrics to conduct criminal history background checks to identify individuals convicted of any ‘‘specified offense against a minor’’ or ‘‘specified crime’’ and prevent the approval of a petition in violation of the AWA or without the proper disclosure required by IMBRA.55 Therefore, DHS proposes to amend the regulations governing the requirements for USCIS Form I–130 and Form I–129F to require those petitioners to routinely submit biometrics as required by proposed 8 CFR 103.16. See proposed 8 CFR 204.1(h) and 8 CFR 214.2(k)(1). Affected family-based petitions include those petitioning for the following individuals: • Spouse; • fianc&eacute;´(e); • Parent; • Unmarried child under 21 years of age; • Unmarried son or daughter over 21 years of age or over; • Married son or daughter of any age; • Sibling; or • Any derivative beneficiary permitted to receive an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa based on his or her familial relationship to the beneficiary of such petition. See INA sections 101(a)(15)(K), 201(b)(2)(A)(i) and 203(a) and (d), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) and 1153(a) and (d) (governing nonimmigrant fianc&eacute;´(e)s, immediate relatives, and family-based preference and derivative categories/ classifications). 4. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Self-Petitioners Separate from the AWA and IMBRA provisions discussed above, VAWA selfpetitioners are currently not generally required to submit biometrics for adjudication. For many immigrant victims of domestic violence, battery, or extreme cruelty, the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family members who sponsor their applications threaten to withhold legal 54 In intercountry adoption cases, DHS must be satisfied that proper care will be provided to the child if admitted to the United States. INA section 101(b)(1)(F), (G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(F), (G). 55 INA section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) & (B)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) & (B)(i)(II), and INA section 101(a)(15)(K), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), as amended by the Adam Walsh Act, tit. IV, sec. 402, 120 Stat. at 622. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56359 immigration sponsorship as a tool of abuse. VAWA allows abused immigrants to petition for legal status in the United States without relying on abusive U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouses, parents, or children to petition for and sponsor their immigrant petition and Form I– 485. The purpose of the VAWA program is to allow victims the opportunity to ‘‘self-petition’’ or independently seek legal immigration status. DHS proposes in this rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit or other request must appear for biometrics collection unless biometrics are waived. Accordingly, DHS proposes to remove the regulations that provide that VAWA self-petitioners are not required to appear for biometric collection. In addition, as noted in the PRA section of this preamble, DHS proposes to revise the applicable forms to require VAWA self-petitioners to comply with the biometrics submission requirement proposed in this rule. VAWA self-petitioners are currently not subject to biometric collection and they establish good moral character required under 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v) and 204.2(e)(2)(v) by: (1) Personal statement from the self-petitioner; (2) police clearance letters from the selfpetitioner’s places of residence for the three years before filing; and (3) other credible evidence, including affidavits from third parties attesting to the selfpetitioner’s good moral character. USCIS does not currently use biometrics to verify the identity of the selfpetitioner or verify the accuracy or completeness of the disclosed criminal history information. The proposed requirement for biometrics collection for VAWA selfpetitioners would result in production of the self-petitioner’s IdHS which provides greater accuracy and detail relating to the self-petitioner’s criminal history. This would accomplish several goals. First, it would support the identity enrollment, verification, and management in the immigration lifecycle purpose for USCIS biometrics collection. Second, it supports the national security and criminal history background checks purpose for USCIS biometrics collection because relying on self-petitioners to obtain and present appropriate local police clearance letters is not the most reliable means of obtaining, or verifying, an accurate and complete criminal history for a selfpetitioner. Third, it will simplify the petition for the self-petitioner as well as the adjudication for USCIS by reducing the evidence required to establish good moral character. The self-petitioner will E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56360 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules not need to contact the police department in every city in which he or she has lived and USCIS will not need to analyze multiple police letters for their findings. Due to certain limitations with biometric information sharing among foreign countries, self-petitioners who resided outside the United States in the three years before filing will still have to provide a law enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report issued by an appropriate authority from any jurisdiction in which the self-petitioner resided for six or more months during the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition. The proposed revision to 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v) and 204.2(e)(2)(v) to require biometrics from VAWA selfpetitioners will eliminate the need for self-petitioners who resided in the United States three years before filing to obtain multiple police or law enforcement clearance letters. The majority of self-petitioners would only need to travel to one USCIS ASC for biometrics collection. Further, USCIS adjudicators would no longer need to verify past addresses against police clearance letters, as the information discovered by collecting biometrics for a criminal history and national security background checks will be credible and relevant evidence when considering the good moral character requirement. Consistent with other adjudicative determinations of good moral character, DHS proposes that, when assessing good moral character for a VAWA selfpetitioner, USCIS may consider the selfpetitioner’s conduct beyond the three years immediately before filing, where: (1) The earlier conduct or acts appear relevant to a determination of the selfpetitioner’s present moral character; and (2) the conduct of the self-petitioner during the three years immediately before filing does not reflect that there has been a reform of character from an earlier period. See generally 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2). USCIS currently allows officers to look outside the 3-year period if there is reason to believe that the selfpetitioner may not have been a person of good moral character during that time. This has been a long-standing practice at USCIS and memorialized in both a 2005 policy and the preamble to the 1996 VAWA regulation. See, Policy Memorandum, William R. Yates, Associate Director of Operations, USCIS Memorandum Determinations of Good Moral Character in VAWA-Based SelfPetitions—HQOPRD 70/8.1/8.2 (January 19, 2005); 61 FR 13065, 13066 (Mar. 26, 1996); USCIS is simply clarifying this point in the regulatory text. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 DHS further proposes to revise 8 CFR 204.2(e)(2)(v) to remove the automatic presumption of good moral character for VAWA self-petitioners under 14 years of age. Rather, DHS proposes that VAWA self-petitioners under 14 years of age will submit biometrics like any other VAWA self-petitioner, which USCIS will use in the determination of good moral character and which preserves USCIS’s discretionary authority to require that VAWA self-petitioners provide additional evidence of good moral character. See proposed 8 CFR 204.2(e)(2)(v). DHS does not believe this change is a significant departure from the existing regulatory scheme or that it will burden self-petitioners under 14 generally, because they will still not be required to submit evidence of good moral character apart from biometrics as initial evidence with their self-petitions. Furthermore, the existing presumption is rebuttable. USCIS may currently request evidence of good moral character for self-petitioning children under 14 years of age if USCIS has reason to believe the self-petitioning child lacks good moral character. The proposed structure is intended to align the VAWA provisions with the agency’s goals regarding biometrics collection from all applicants, petitioners, sponsors, derivatives, dependents, beneficiaries and individuals, without regard to age, unless USCIS waives or exempts the biometrics requirement, while still preserving USCIS’ authority to define evidentiary requirements for demonstrating good moral character for child VAWA self-petitioners in its discretion. Additionally, as with any other USCIS petition or application, if a decision will be adverse to an applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory information the agency considered, he/ she shall be advised of that fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). 5. T Nonimmigrant Adjustment of Status Applicants Similar to the VAWA self-petitioners discussed above, applicants applying to adjust status based on underlying T nonimmigrant status also have a good moral character requirement. The INA permits the Secretary to grant T nonimmigrant status to individuals who are or were victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons who have complied with any reasonable request by a law enforcement agency for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of a crime involving acts of trafficking in persons (unless they are under 18 years of age or are unable to cooperate due to physical or psychological trauma). See INA section PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I), (III), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I), (III). After the grant of T nonimmigrant status, an individual can apply for lawful permanent residence under INA section 245(l) and 8 CFR 245.23 by filing a Form I–485. Among several other eligibility requirements, an applicant seeking to adjust under INA 245(l) must demonstrate good moral character from the date of lawful admission as a T nonimmigrant until the time USCIS adjudicates his or her adjustment of status application. 8 CFR 245.23(g). Good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants is presently assessed by the applicant’s affidavits, the results of biometric-based security checks, the submission of a ‘‘local police clearance or a state-issued criminal background check,’’ and other credible evidence. 8 CFR 245.23(g). There are several concerns with the use of affidavits and police clearance letters to establish good moral character where the applicant has resided domestically for the requisite period. First, local police clearance letters for domestic residences will become unnecessary with the publication of this rule, which will authorize biometrics for all applicants and petitioners, including T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants. DHS proposes in this rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit or other request must appear for biometrics collection unless biometrics are exempted or waived. Second, official criminal history results from biometric-based security checks provide a more reliable means for obtaining, or verifying, an accurate and complete criminal history for an applicant than official criminal history results from that rely on applicants to obtain and present appropriate local police clearances or state-issued criminal background checks. Third, the submission of local police clearance letters is already redundant, because T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants are currently subject to a biometrics requirement, and it logically follows that the regulation should reflect that adjudicators assess good moral character with the most reliable and comprehensive evidence available for good moral character (i.e., official criminal history results from the biometric-based security checks). Cf. Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664, 666–67 (A.G. 2019) (discussing meaning of ‘‘good moral character’’ and explaining that ‘‘an alien’s criminal record is highly probative of whether he possesses good moral character’’). E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules Presently, USCIS requires biometrics for T adjustment of status applicants, however, the regulations also require applicants to submit police clearance letters, if available, which adjudicators consider in addition to other credible evidence when determining good moral character. For these reasons, DHS proposes to eliminate the requirement that applicants applying to adjust status based on underlying T nonimmigrant status submit self-obtained police clearance letters, unless they lived outside the United States during the requisite period. There are several benefits to eliminating this police clearance requirement. First, requiring adjudicators to assess good moral character based in part on an official FBI criminal history result or IdHS provides greater accuracy and detail relating to the T nonimmigrant adjustment applicant’s criminal history. Second, it supports the national security and criminal history background checks purpose for USCIS biometrics collection. Third, it will simplify the application and adjudication for the T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applications. The applicant will not need to contact the police department in every city in which he or she has lived and USCIS will not need to analyze multiple police letters for their findings. Due to certain limitations with biometric information sharing among foreign countries, applicants who resided outside the United States in the requisite period will still have to provide a law enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report issued by an appropriate authority from any jurisdiction in which the applicant resided during the requisite period. DHS notes that USCIS currently assesses good moral character based on biometric-based security check results and other relevant evidence in the file and it does not require T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants to obtain multiple police or law enforcement clearance letters unless they lived outside the United States. Thus the proposed revision of 8 CFR 245.23(g) would simply codify the current USCIS policy and practice. Applicants would only need to travel to a USCIS ASC for biometrics collection. Further, USCIS adjudicators would no longer be required to verify past addresses against police clearance letters, because the information discovered by reviewing the applicant’s criminal history and national security background check result will be the most relevant, probative, and reliable evidence when VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 assessing the good moral character requirement. DHS also proposes to clarify language referring to the requisite period of good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants. The current regulation references evaluating good moral character during a requisite period of ‘‘continued presence.’’ 8 CFR 245.23(g)(1). ‘‘Continued presence’’ is an established term in the immigration and trafficking in persons context, but is not the correct term to refer to the period relevant to USCIS’ evaluation of good moral character. Rather, USCIS believes the current language was intended to refer to the requirement that the applicant be physically present ‘‘for a continuous period of at least 3 years since the date of admission as a nonimmigrant’’ or ‘‘continuous period during the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking.’’ See INA 245(l)(1)(A). Therefore, DHS proposes to amend 8 CFR 245.23(g) to refer to the relevant ‘‘continuous period’’ rather than ‘‘continued presence.’’ Consistent with other adjudicative determinations of good moral character, when assessing good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants, USCIS would be able to consider the applicant’s conduct beyond the requisite period, where: (1) The earlier conduct or acts appear relevant to a determination of the applicant’s present moral character; and (2) the conduct of the applicant during the requisite period does not reflect that there has been a reform of character from an earlier period. See generally 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2). DHS further proposes to revise 8 CFR 245.23(g) to remove the presumption of good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants under 14 years of age. Rather, the rule provides that such applicants will submit biometrics like any other applicant, and it preserves USCIS’ discretionary authority to require that applicants provide additional evidence of good moral character. Proposed 8 CFR 245.23(g). DHS does not believe this change is a significant departure from the existing regulatory scheme or that it will burden applicants under 14 generally, because they will still not be required to submit evidence of good moral character apart from biometrics as initial evidence with their applications. Furthermore, the existing presumption is rebuttable. USCIS may currently request evidence of good moral character for applicants under 14 years of age if USCIS has reason to believe the applicant lacks good moral character. The proposed changes would remove the superfluous need for police PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56361 clearance letters from T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants and remove the good moral character presumption for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants under age 14. As noted in the PRA section of this preamble, DHS will revise the applicable forms to eliminate the police clearance letter requirement for T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants concomitant with this rule. DHS proposes this change to align the T nonimmigrant adjustment of status provisions with the agency’s goals regarding biometrics collection from all applicants, petitioners, sponsors, derivatives, dependents, beneficiaries and individuals, including identity management in the immigration lifecycle, without regard to age, unless USCIS waives or exempts the biometrics requirement, while still preserving USCIS’ authority to define the evidentiary requirements for child applicants to demonstrate good moral character requirements in its discretion. 6. Regional Center Principals Under the EB–5 Program DHS proposes to require biometrics collection and perform biometric-based criminal history and national security background checks, as well as for purposes of identity verification, on all regional center principals, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, of an intending or existing regional center as part of its determination of whether the regional center will, or is continuing to, promote economic growth in accordance with regional center program requirements. DHS proposes that the biometric collection for background checks also extend, if the regional center principal is a legal entity or organization, to those persons having ownership, control, or beneficial interest in such principal legal entity or organization. Further, DHS proposes that the biometrics requirement may also include additional collections or checks for purposes of continuous vetting. INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), authorizes the EB–5 program, and the regional center program was authorized in 1992 in an appropriations act.56 The regulations at 8 CFR 204.6 contain the requirements for employment creation aliens under INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), including those investing under the regional center program (also known as the Immigrant Investor Program), and criteria for the designation of regional centers. 56 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Public Law 102–395, sec. 610, 106 Stat 1828, 1874 (1992). E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56362 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules With respect to the requirements for regional centers, DHS regulations at 8 CFR 204.6 require the submission of a proposal describing how the regional center, an economic unit, will promote economic growth. DHS regulation at 8 CFR 204.6 also requires updated information to demonstrate continued promotion of economic growth in compliance with program requirements once an economic unit is designated as a regional center. As part of these determinations, USCIS considers whether the principals of the intending or designated regional center, and the regional center itself, are bona fide and capable of credibly promoting such economic growth. Background checks using the biometrics of the principals would provide information relevant to this determination such as instances of fraud, financial crimes, or other activities that would demonstrate a lack of ability to promote economic growth. For example, USCIS could consider whether an applicant for regional center principal had convictions for fraud or financial misconduct, as directly bearing on their ability to promote economic growth, as required by 8 CFR 204.6. Using biometrics, USCIS would screen and vet the applicant for regional center principal in an effort to protect the investors in the regional center. In the EB–5 regional center program, the applicant is the entity seeking regional center designation. ‘‘Principals’’ of a regional center are collectively any persons or entities that own, are in a position of executive managerial authority over, or are otherwise in a position to control, influence, or direct the management or policies of, the regional center entity. In the event that the principal of the regional center entity is a legal entity or organization, USCIS will require biometrics from all persons having ownership, control, or beneficial interest in that legal entity or organization. To identify potential national security concerns relating to regional centers and the individuals who operate them, biometric-based background checks on principals would provide USCIS with relevant information on the people who control the regional centers and interact with immigrant investors and the credibility of the projects they sponsor. USCIS already conducts background checks on regional center principals based on Social Security numbers. Biometric-based background checks would also help USCIS verify identities of principals, because there are identified trends of regional centers VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 engaging in fraud.57 USCIS tracks when regional centers are terminated; a list is publicly available from USCIS.58 With respect to regional center termination, mandating biometrics and conducting biometric-based background checks would strengthen USCIS’ ability to determine whether a regional center, including through its principals, continues to serve the purpose of promoting economic growth in compliance with program requirements. See 8 CFR 204.6(m)(6). DHS welcomes public comment on all aspects of this proposal, including expanding biometric collection to U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family-based petitioners in order to comply with AWA and IMBRA, expanding biometric collection to VAWA self-petitioners, eliminating police clearance letters for VAWA selfpetitioners and T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants, modifying the VAWA self-petitioner and T nonimmigrant adjustment applicant’s good moral character requirements for those under 14 years of age, and expanding biometric collection to U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident principals of an intending or existing regional center under the EB–5 program, as well as additional collections or checks for purposes of continuous vetting. E. Interviews DHS also proposes to amend its regulations to remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) and (2), and 216.6(b)(1) and (2) because the four sections are purely operational and superfluous given the statutory requirements and regulatory revisions at proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). See INA sections 216 and 216A; 8 U.S.C. 1186a and 1186b. The proposed changes would not alter regulatory eligibility requirements, but rather would clarify certain interview procedures for conditional permanent residents to reduce potential redundancies and 57 See U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO–15–696, Immigrant Investor Program: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fraud Risks and Report Economic Benefits (2015), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15696; GAO, GAO–16–431T, Immigrant Investor Program: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fraud Risks and Report Economic Benefits (2016), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/ GAO-16-431T; and GAO, GAO–16–828, Immigrant Investor Program: Progress Made to Detect and Prevent Fraud, but Additional Actions Could Further Agency Efforts (2016), available at https:// www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-828. 58 See Regional Center Terminations, https:// www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanentworkers/employment-based-immigration-fifthpreference-eb-5/eb-5-immigrant-investor-process/ regional-center-terminations (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ensure greater uniformity within USCIS operations. 1. Alien Spouses Seeking the removal of the conditional basis for status—under INA section 216, 8 U.S.C. 1186a, and INA section 216(c)(2), 8 U.S.C 1186a(c)(2)— requires that the alien spouse and the petitioning spouse appear for a personal interview, although DHS may waive the interview requirement in its discretion. See INA section 216(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1186a(d)(3). Under this rule, DHS is proposing to remove current 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) because it simply repeats the authority in INA section 216(d)(3), which allows DHS to waive the interview requirement in its discretion in such cases as may be appropriate. Furthermore, proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(ii) provides equivalent discretionary authority to waive such interviews. Because the decision to waive the mandatory interview is purely discretionary, and 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) simply reiterates this discretion, it serves no purpose, especially since determining whether the eligibility requirements for removal of conditions in 8 CFR 216.4(c) were established is central to the adjudication of the petition itself. DHS also proposes to remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) because it contains unnecessary procedural requirements and outdated terms. For example, the mention of ‘‘regional service center director’’ is unnecessary because 8 CFR 1.2 already describes the interchangeability of certain terms such as ‘‘director.’’ Such references are purely internal and operational. 2. Alien Investors When seeking the removal of the conditional basis for status under INA section 216A, 8 U.S.C. 1186b, INA section 216A(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(c)(1)(B), generally requires petitioners who file a USCIS Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status (Form I–829) to be interviewed before final adjudication of the petition, although DHS may waive the interview requirement in its discretion. INA section 216A(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(d)(3). USCIS recently updated 8 CFR 216.6 to make certain technical changes in the EB–5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization, Final Rule. See 84 FR 35750. Under current regulations, USCIS reviews the petition to remove conditions and the supporting documents to determine whether to waive the interview. 8 CFR 216.6(b)(1). If the eligibility requirements for removal of conditions in 8 CFR E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 216.6(c)(1) have been satisfied, USCIS may waive the interview and approve the petition. 8 CFR 216.6(b)(1). If the eligibility requirements for removal of conditions in 8 CFR 216.6(c)(1) have not been satisfied, USCIS may require that an interview of the investor be conducted. 8 CFR 216.6(b)(1). In addition, under current 8 CFR 216.6(b)(2), unless waived, an interview is conducted by a USCIS immigration officer at the office that has jurisdiction over the location of the investor’s commercial enterprise in the United States, the investor’s residence in the United States, or the location of the adjudication of the petition, at the agency’s discretion. DHS proposes to modify 8 CFR 216.6 in this rule, because DHS is seeking to reduce redundancy and make its interview and waiver procedures more uniform and consistent across adjudications, as permitted by law. DHS proposes to remove current 8 CFR 216.6(b)(1) because it is redundant with INA section 216A(d)(3), which allows DHS to waive the interview requirement in its discretion in such cases as may be appropriate, and it is not necessary to codify the reason such a waiver may be appropriate in regulations. In addition, proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(ii) provides that an interview may be waived by DHS (for an entire population or on a case-by-case basis) solely at its discretion. As the decision whether to waive the mandatory interview is purely discretionary, and the regulation simply reiterates this discretion, the regulation serves no purpose, especially since determining whether the eligibility requirements for removal of conditions in 8 CFR 216.6(c)(1) were established is central to the adjudication of the petition itself. Additionally, for both alien spouses and investors, DHS is proposing to remove current 8 CFR 216.4(b)(2) and 216.6(b)(2) regarding interview location because the statute already sets parameters for the location of the interview, requiring the interview to be conducted at a location convenient to the parties involved. See INA section 216(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1186a(d)(3); INA section 216A(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(d)(3). Furthermore, proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) will address interview requirements generally, making 216.4(b)(2) unnecessary. DHS is also proposing to remove current 8 CFR 216.6(b)(2) so that interviews may be conducted at the locations listed above or at other locations convenient to the parties, taking into account workload, operational needs and capabilities as they evolve. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 Lastly, 8 CFR 216.4(b)(3) and 216.6(b)(3) will be redesignated as proposed 8 CFR 216.4(b) and 216.6(b) respectively. Proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(iv) provides that failure to appear for a scheduled interview without prior authorization may result in a variety of consequences, including termination of conditional permanent resident status. Under proposed 8 CFR 216.4(b) and 216.6(b), failure to appear for an interview in connection with an alien spouse or investor petition, when requested by USCIS, will result in automatic termination of the alien’s permanent resident status. DHS proposes that the petitioners may, before the interview, request, for good cause, (such as, for lack of proper notice of the interview) that the interview be rescheduled or withdraw the petition. Proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(v). However, the provisions at proposed 8 CFR 216.4(b) and 216.6(b) would still permit petitioners to request rescheduling or waiver of the interview, for good cause, if the petitioners failed to appear. With respect to a showing of exceptional circumstances for good cause in the asylum context, USCIS proposes to maintain the status quo. The exceptional circumstances standard is vital to the asylum context as it is a part of the existing regulations, an important tool to referring missed interview cases to an immigration judge without adjudication, and is also applied when an applicant misses a hearing before the immigration judge and is ordered removed in absentia—an order which can only be re-opened by showing exceptional circumstances. F. Proposed Implementation 1. Phased-In Additional Biometrics Collection DHS does not plan to immediately expand all biometric programs to provide that all populations or all new modalities would be required as of the date the new regulations proposed in this rule take effect. Only those revised forms that propose to add a particular biometric submission requirement in conjunction with this rule (as described in the PRA section of this preamble) will be immediately subject to new biometric requirements, though this rule permits DHS to request, require, or accept DNA and associated DNA test results for individual benefit requests at its discretion. As provided in proposed 8 CFR 103.16, DHS may expand or contract its biometrics submission requirements in the future by notice in the Federal Register or updated form instructions. DHS will comply with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56363 requirements for imposing new information collections when it decides to collect biometrics from a new category of filers or to collect new biometric modalities.59 2. Collection of the Biometric Services Fee USCIS is authorized to collect an $85 biometric services fee from any individual who is required to submit biometric information to pay for background checks and have their biometric information collected, stored, and used for certain immigration and naturalization benefits (other than asylum or refugee status). 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C). Effective October 2, 2020, DHS is incorporating the fee for biometric services into the underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric services are applicable to simplify the fee structure, reduce rejections of benefit requests for failure to include the biometric services fee, and better reflect how USCIS uses biometric information. 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020). The additional fees that DHS estimates will be collected as a result of this proposed rule will not materialize if that rule takes effect before this rule does. G. Evidence of Age and Birth Parentage for an Adopted Child DHS proposes to require a copy of a prospective adopted child beneficiary’s birth certificate to establish the child’s identity and age, and the identities of the child’s birth parents. Proposed 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vii). INA section 101(b)(1)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E), can be the basis of the approval of an immigrant visa petition filed by a U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on behalf of an adopted child whose adoption meets the requirements of INA 101(b)(1)(E). Under INA 101(b)(1)(E), an adopted child is the adoptive parent’s child for immigration purposes, if the adoptive parent adopted the child before the child reached the age of 16 (or 18 if the sibling exception at INA 101(b)(1)(E)(ii) applies), and the child has jointly resided with the adoptive parent in a bona fide parent child relationship for at least two years, and has been under the legal custody of the adoptive parent for at least two years. To show that the adopted child was under the requisite age, the petitioner must prove the beneficiary’s date of birth. To show a bona fide parent child relationship, the petitioner must, 59 Form revisions requiring a new biometric submission will also be subjected to public notice in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3512, and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56364 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules among other things, identify the beneficiary’s birth parents and show that they no longer reside with the child in a parent-child relationship and no longer exert primary parental control over the child. The best evidence to show age and birth parentage is a birth certificate issued by civil authorities. Therefore, DHS proposes to require that the petitioner submit a copy of the beneficiary’s birth certificate, if available, to establish the beneficiary’s identity, age, and the identities of the beneficiary’s birth parents. Proposed 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vii). DHS additionally proposes to update the regulation to align with INA section 101(b)(1)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E)(ii), which provides that a beneficiary adopted while under age 18 (rather than age 16) may qualify as an adopted child under that provision if he or she is the birth sibling of a child described in INA section 101(b)(1)(E)(i) or (F)(i), was adopted by the same adoptive parent(s), and otherwise meet the requirements of INA section 101(b)(1)(E). While the INA uses the term ‘‘natural sibling,’’ DHS generally uses the term ‘‘birth siblings’’ synonymously, which includes halfsiblings but does not include adoptive siblings. Proposed 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vii). DHS is soliciting public comment on all aspects of implementation, including alternative implementation plans (phased-in or otherwise). V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is an economically significant regulatory action because it exceeds the $100 million threshold, under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the OMB has reviewed this proposed regulation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 1. Summary DHS proposes to expand the collection of biometrics to require any individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request to appear for biometrics collection, and, if applicable, pay the $85 biometric services fee unless exempted or waived from appearing and/or paying for such biometrics collection. This proposed rule would also change current regulations by defining the term ‘‘biometrics’’ to clarify and expand DHS’ regulatory authority to collect biometrics information. The proposal to expand the collection of biometrics would impact certain populations without regard to age or U.S. citizenship status. Additionally, DHS proposes to further clarify the purposes for which biometrics are collected, stored, and utilized. Last, this rule proposes that DHS may require, request, or accept the submission of DNA or DNA test results to verify a claimed genetic relationship. DHS estimates that under the proposed rule, about 2.17 million new biometrics submissions will be collected annually, and the resulting biometrics submitting population will increase from 3.90 million currently to 6.07 million, and, from a generalized collection rate across all forms of 46 percent currently to 71.2 percent (projected). The increase in biometrics submissions would accrue to three population segments: (i) A small subset of forms in which biometrics collection is collected routinely in which the ageeligible population will expand; (ii) the broadening of routine collection to a dozen or so forms in which collection is not currently routine; and (iii) the expansion of the age-eligible biometrics population to a collection of forms characterized by very low filing volumes, unspecified forms, and forms in which DHS does not intend to broadly extend collection on a routine basis at this time. DHS is also removing the age restrictions for biometrics collection in the context of an NTA issuance. However, the issuance of an NTA is not an ‘‘application, petition, or other request for certain immigration and naturalization benefits.’’ See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C). For this stated reason, USCIS will not (and does not currently) collect the $85 biometrics services fee from individuals whose DNA was collected in the course of being issued NTAs or for other immigration law enforcement purposes. Based on FY 2018 statistics, under the proposed rule DHS could collect biometrics from as many as 63,000 individuals under the PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 age of 14 years old annually associated with NTAs.60 The proposed rule would expand the collection of the $85 biometric services fee to include any individual appearing for biometrics collection in connection with a benefit request unless the individual is statutorily exempt from paying the biometric services fee or if he or she has received a fee waiver. DHS estimates that there will be 1.63 million new biometrics fee payments annually. The annual quantified costs associated with submitting new biometrics submissions could be $158.9 million, and the costs associated with the new fees could be $138.4 million, for a combined total of $297.3 million in quantified costs. There could be some unquantified impacts related to privacy concerns for risks associated with the collection and retention of biometric information, as discussed in DHS’s Privacy Act compliance documentation. However, this rule would not create new impacts in this regard but would expand the population that could have privacy concerns. When costs of $705,555 are incorporated to include fees the FBI would collect for providing fingerprint-based and name-based Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks for NTAs, the annual costs are about $298 million. The proposed rule would expand the collection of the $85 biometric services fee to include any individual appearing for biometrics collection unless the individual is statutorily exempt from paying the biometric services fee or if they have received a fee waiver. DHS estimates that there will be 1.63 million new biometrics fee payments annually. The annual costs associated with submitting new biometrics submissions could be $158.9 million, and the costs associated with the new fees could be $138.4 million, for a combined total of $297.3 million. When costs of $705,555 are incorporated to include fees the FBI would collect for providing fingerprintbased and name-based Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks for NTAs, the annual costs are $280 million. In addition, DHS proposes to expand its regulatory authority so that it may require, request, or accept DNA evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genetic relationship for any benefit request where such a relationship must be established, such as certain family60 As noted earlier, DHS is not estimating that this rule would result in the issuance of 63,000 additional NTAs by its components; rather, 63,000 NTAs were issued in FY 2018 to minors under the age of 14 who would be subject to biometric collection (for the purpose of verifying identify) under the parameters of this proposed rule. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules based benefit requests, including but not limited to the following: • Petition for Alien Relative (Form I– 130); • Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition (Form I–730); • Application for T Nonimmigrant Status Supplement A (Form I–914A); • Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status Supplement A (Form I–918A); • Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant (Form I–929); • Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N–600); • Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 (Form N–600K); • And any other form where the existence of a genetic relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, dependent, derivative, rider, or other qualifying family member. DHS is not proposing with this rule to require DNA submission for such forms generally. However, the rule will immediately allow DHS to require, request, or accept DNA or DNA test results, in its discretion, for individual benefit requests to verify a claimed genetic relationship, where establishing a claimed genetic relationship is required. Since the actual volume cannot be predicted at this time with accuracy, DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis using a range of 10 to 100 percent to estimate the potential costs for eligible populations associated with these family-based benefit requests. The costs to principal filers and beneficiaries/qualifying family members who may submit biometrics to establish a genetic relationship in support of these benefit requests would range from $22.4 million to $224.1 million annually, in undiscounted terms. Depending on the actual future DNA submission rate, the total annual costs of the rule could range from $319.6 to $521.3 million annually. Combining the cost of the biometrics (which includes the service fees and NTA fees) with the DNA costs, DHS estimated the total monetized costs of the proposed rule at three parts of the DNA submission range to represent a lower bound (10 percent), a midrange (50 percent), and a high range (90 percent). In undiscounted terms, the ten-year (2021–2030) costs could range from $3,204.1 to $4,996.9 million, with a midrange of $4,100.5 million. At a 3 percent rate of discount, the ten-year present values could range from $2,773.2 million, to $4,262.4 million, with a midrange of $3,497.8 million. At a 7 percent rate of discount, the tenyear present values could range from $2,250.4 million, to $3,509.6 million, with a midrange of $2,880.0 million. The average annualized costs could range from $320.4 million to $499.7 million, with a midrange of $410 million. The proposed rule would provide benefits that DHS has not been able to quantify. Qualitatively, the proposed rule would provide individuals requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits with a more reliable system for verifying their identity when submitting a benefit request. This would limit the potential for identity theft while also reducing the 56365 likelihood that DHS would be unable to verify an individual’s identity and consequently deny the benefit. In addition, the proposal to allow individuals to use DNA testing as evidence to demonstrate the existence of a claimed genetic relationship would provide them the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship using a quicker, less intrusive, and more effective technology than the blood tests currently provided for in the regulations. See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi). The proposed rule would benefit the U.S. Government by enabling DHS with more fidelity and efficiency in identity management in the immigration lifecycle and vetting of individuals seeking certain immigration and naturalization benefits. The expanded use of biometrics stands to provide DHS with the ability to identify and limit fraud because biometrics comprise unique physical characteristics that are difficult to falsify and that do not change over time. Biometrics would also help reduce the administrative burden involved in identity verification and the performance of criminal history checks, by reducing the need for manual document review and name-based security checks. The proposed rule would also enhance the U.S. Government’s capability to identify criminal activity and protect vulnerable groups by extending the collection of biometrics to populations under certain benefit requests. Table 1 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed provisions and their impacts. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS Proposed change Expected cost of the provision Expected benefit of the provision DHS proposes to expand collection of biometrics to require any individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request to appear for biometrics collection without regard to age. Individuals Submitting Biometrics— ................ Quantitative: • Total annual direct costs of the proposed rule:. Æ $158,940,196 for about 2.17 million individuals to submit biometrics. Æ $138,356,283 for about 1.63 million new $85 biometric services fees. Individuals Submitting Biometrics— Qualitative: • The proposed rule provides individuals requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits with a more reliable system for verifying their identity when submitting a benefit request. This would limit the potential for identity theft. It would also reduce the likelihood that DHS would not be able to verify an individual’s identify and therefore possibly deny a benefit request. Government— Qualitative: • DHS would be able to routinely collect biometrics information from children under the age of 14, and therefore, increase the U.S. Government’s capabilities of determining the identity of a child who may be vulnerable to gang affiliation, human trafficking child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56366 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS—Continued Proposed change Expected benefit of the provision Expected cost of the provision DHS proposes to increase the biometric modalities that it uses to collect biometrics information to include the following: Palm prints, facial and iris image, and voice prints. DHS may require, request, or accept the submission of DNA or DNA test results to verify the existence of a claimed genetic relationship. DHS is proposing to remove the age restrictions for biometrics collection in the context of Notice to Appear (NTA) issuance for the same reasons (i.e., identity verification, criminal history background checks, etc.). Government— Qualitative: • DHS does not know what the costs of expanding biometrics collection to the government in terms of assets and equipment; it is possible that costs could be incurred for the new equipment and information technologies and typologies needed to collect, process, store, and utilize biometrics, including software updates; cameras that are able to collect iris and facial images; devices used to record a voice print; and other equipment. • DHS does not know what the costs of expanding biometrics collection to the DHS in terms of assets and equipment; it is possible that costs could be incurred for the new equipment and information technologies and typologies needed to collect, process, store, and utilize biometrics, including software updates; cameras that are able to collect iris and facial images; devices used to record a voice print; and other equipment. Individuals Submitting DNA Evidence— .......... Quantitative: • Potential annual costs for principal filers and beneficiaries/qualifying family members to submit DNA evidence range from $22.4 million to $224.1 million depending on how many individuals submit DNA evidence in support of a family-based benefit request. Government— Qualitative: • USCIS currently reimburses the Department of State for the collection of DNA in countries where it does not have a presence. DHS does not currently know how many individuals would submit DNA under the proposed rule but there is the potential for additional costs if the Department of State facilitates additional DNA testing. Individuals Submitting Biometrics— ................ Quantitative: None; there would be no opportunity or travel related costs associated with NTA collection to individuals. • The proposed rule would provide a benefit to the U.S. Government by enabling DHS to verify with greater certainty the identity of individuals requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits. The expanded use of biometric information would provide DHS with the ability to limit identity fraud because biometrics are unique physical characteristics and more difficult to falsify. Government— Qualitative: • Use of the new biometric technologies would allow DHS to keep up with technological developments in this area and adjust collection practices for both convenience and to ensure the maximum level of service for all stakeholders. Individuals Submitting DNA Evidence— Quantitative: • DNA testing would give individuals the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship using a quicker, less intrusive, and more effective technology. Individuals Submitting Biometrics Government— Qualitative: The collection of biometrics on children under the age of 14 associated with NTAs would significantly assist DHS in its mission to combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. Government— Quantitative: There could costs of $705,555 annually accruing to fees the FBI would collect for providing fingerprint-based and name-based Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules In addition to the impacts summarized above and as required by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–4, Table 2 presents the prepared accounting statement 56367 showing the costs associated with this proposed regulation.61 TABLE 2—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT [$ millions, 2019] Primary estimate Category Minimum estimate Maximum estimate Source citation (RIA, preamble, etc.) Benefits Monetized Benefits ........................................... Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, benefits. Not estimated 0 ................... Not estimated 0 ................... Not estimated 0 ................... Unquantified Benefits ........................................ The proposed rule would limit identity fraud and improve USCIS identity management systems. Additionally, the proposed rule would enhance the U.S. Government’s capability to identify criminal activities and protect vulnerable populations. The removal of age restrictions and the proposal to collect on all NTAs under the age of 14 would assist DHS in its mission to combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. Preamble. Preamble. Preamble and RIA. Costs Annualized monetized costs for 10 year period starting in 2021 to 2030 (discount rate in parenthesis). (3%) $410 .... (7%) $410 .... $320.4 .......... $320.4 .......... $499.7 .......... $499.7 .......... Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, costs There could be costs germane to the procurement of equipment, information technology and typology, and systems possibly needed to support the increased biometrics modalities. There could also be a cost to transferring information regarding biometrics for the NTAs issued to individuals under age 14. Qualitative (unquantified) costs ........................ N/A. RIA. RIA. Preamble and RIA. TRANSFERS Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘on budget’’ .. From whom to whom? ...................................... Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘Off-budget’’ From whom to whom? ...................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A ............... ............... ............... ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A ............... ............... ............... ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A ............... ............... ............... ............... Preamble. Preamble. Preamble. Preamble. Source citation (RIA, preamble, etc.) Miscellaneous analyses/category Effects Effects on state, local, and/or tribal governments. Effects on small businesses ............................... None ............................................................... Preamble. There could be small entity impacts to EB–5 regional centers incurred by biometrics collection germane to the regional center principals. DHS believes these would be indirect but does not know how they could impact the regional center. There are currently 884 approved regional centers and DHS analysis based on limited available suggests that most regional centers could be small entities in terms of the RFA. None ............................................................... None ............................................................... Preamble. Effects on wages ................................................ Effects on growth ............................................... 61 OMB Circular A–4 is available at https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/ omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. The primary estimate reported here reflects the average of the highest VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 DNA submission rate (100 percent) and the lowest (0 percent). It also corresponds to the 50 percent midrange along the spectrum 10–90 percent that we utilize on grounds that realistically, there will be PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Preamble. Preamble. some collection (a positive rate) but not complete (100 percent) collection. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56368 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules DHS emphasizes that the costs could vary from the figures reported herein. As detailed in the analysis, in order to estimate the population of future biometrics submissions, it was necessary to extrapolate certain metrics and conditions to the non-existent (in context) future populations. Although DHS believes the methodology employed is appropriate, because the future actual generalized and formspecific collection rate of biometrics are unknown, the actual populations and costs could vary. In addition, the costs rely on a lower-end average wage to account for opportunity costs associated with biometrics submissions. If, on average, the wage is higher than that relied upon, the costs could vary as well. This regulatory impact analysis is the best available estimate of the future benefits and costs. Actual results will depend on a number of factors, including policy, programmatic, operational and practical considerations in the implementation of the collection of biometrics requirements under this rule. In summary, the proposed rule would enable USCIS to conduct the administration and adjudication of immigration benefit requests with increased fidelity, and is conducive to the evolution to a person-centric model for organizing and managing its records, enhanced and continuous vetting, and reduced dependence on paper documents, as is described more fully in the preamble. 2. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule Current statutes and regulations provide USCIS the authority to collect biometrics information with immigration and naturalization benefit requests.62 USCIS has the authority to collect biometrics and the associated biometric services fee from an applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, requestor, or individual filing an immigration request on a case-by-case basis, through form instructions, or through a Federal Register notice.63 Based on the relevant statutory and regulatory authorities, USCIS collects, stores, and utilizes biometrics to conduct background checks to determine eligibility for an immigration benefit or other request; and, for document production associated with 62 See generally INA section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103, INA section 235(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(3), and INA section 287(b), 8 U.S.C. 1357(b). For a list of specific authorities, refer to the preamble, Section III. Background. A. Legal Authority and Guidance for USCIS Collection and Use of Biometrics. 63 See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 certain immigration and naturalization benefits or actions. The USCIS biometrics process begins with the collection of an individual’s biometric information at an authorized location, including USCIS offices, ASCs, military installations, and U.S. consular offices abroad. Currently, the types of biometrics information that USCIS collects generally consist of a photograph, fingerprints, and signature. For certain refugee or asylum familybased petitions, USCIS also suggests the submission of DNA test results obtained from approved laboratories, as either primary or secondary evidence to assist in establishing the existence of claimed genetic relationships. Although DHS has broad authority to collect biometrics from populations associated with immigration benefit requests, collection is only mandatory and routine for certain age groups and forms.64 As a result, there are substantial populations associated with immigration benefit requests that do not routinely submit biometrics. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, for example, about 3.93 million people submitted biometrics across 8.53 million immigration applications, petitions, and requests, yielding a generalized biometrics collection rate of 46 percent for that year.65 For individuals who currently do not provide biometric information in support of an immigration benefit request, USCIS mainly relies on biographical information for identity management in the immigration lifecycle. Such biographical information is provided as part of the benefit request package.66 However, biographical information provided by individuals is generally not constant, consistent, or inherently unique. For example, biographical information can include an individual’s height, weight, or other physical characteristics that are very likely to change over time and can be similar to the physical characteristics of others. Additionally, biographical information utilized for identity management in the immigration lifecycle imposes an administrative burden for USCIS adjudicators, as the document management and review associated with maintaining immigration files and verifying 64 USCIS routinely collects biometric information and the $85 biometric services fee from individuals between the ages of 14 and 79. 65 Multiple people may be associated with one filing or one person may submit multiple, simultaneous or sequential requests. 66 Biographic information provided by individuals can include birth certificates and marriage licenses, among other physical types of information. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 identities involve intensive manual processes. Finally, some biographical information is not inherently unique by definition, as there are numerous individuals around the world share names and dates of birth. Some individuals who are not currently required to submit biometrics information may pose a risk to vulnerable populations. For example, U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident petitioners are not currently required to routinely submit biometrics information in support of family-based immigrant and nonimmigrant fianc&eacute;´(e) petitions, except for orphan and Hague Adoption Convention-related applications and petitions. Accordingly, DHS has limited capabilities to determine if a petitioner has been convicted of criminal conduct associated with the AWA and the IMBRA.67 Moreover, DHS does not routinely collect biometric information from children under the age of 14, and therefore, has limited capabilities to determine the identity of a child who may be vulnerable to human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, alien smuggling, or other exploitative transgressions. For example, a vulnerable child with similar characteristics to a child who has lawful immigration status may be moved across U.S. state and international borders under the assumed identity of that other child. Collecting biometrics from individuals who do not currently submit such information would provide DHS with further data, information, and tools to more effectively protect such vulnerable populations. The proposed rule would change current regulations and the overall DHS biometrics protocol in several ways. First, DHS proposes to define the term ‘‘biometrics’’ to clarify and expand its regulatory authority to collect biometrics information. Second, DHS proposes to expand the collection of biometrics information to require any individual filing or associated with immigration benefits or requests to appear for biometrics collection without regard to age or U.S. citizenship status. The expansion of biometrics would concurrently expand the collection of the $85 biometric services fee.68 Third, DHS proposes to further clarify the purposes for which biometrics are 67 USCIS currently uses name-based checks to determine if a petitioner has been convicted of a criminal activity. 68 This proposal would not include any individual that receives a fee waiver or any individual who is statutorily exempt from paying the $85 biometric services fee. The proposal would also remove any existing age requirements for submitting the $85 biometric services fee. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules collected, stored, and utilized. Fourth, DHS proposes to increase the biometric modalities that it is authorized to collect to include the following: Palm prints, facial and iris image, voice prints, and DNA. Fifth, this rule proposes that DHS may require, request or accept the submission of DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, to verify the existence of a claimed genetic relationship. The proposed rule would provide the U.S. Government with tools to verify with greater certainty the identity of individuals requesting immigration and naturalization benefits. The expanded use of biometrics technologies and information provides DHS with the ability to strengthen national security and limit identity fraud because biometrics are unique characteristics and more difficult to falsify than biographic information alone. In addition, the use of biometrics information for identity verification would be more efficient and reduce the administrative burdens associated with verifying identities and performing criminal history checks. The proposed rule would also enhance the U.S. Government’s capability to identify criminal activities and protect vulnerable populations. Further, it is conducive and relevant to the evolution to a person-centric model for organizing and managing of immigration records, enhanced and continuous vetting, and reduced dependence on paper documents. 3. Population The ensuing analysis presents an extensive array of data points, calculations, and technical details. Estimating the populations that would be impacted requires multiple interlinked steps across overlapping population segments. To assist readability, some key points applicable to the biometrics-specific (i.e., nonDNA) proposal are presented upfront. DHS identified the baseline population as the annual average volume of biometrics submissions, which has been heavily concentrated within in a small subset of specific USCIS forms. It is necessary to identify this baseline because technically it will be impacted by the rule, even though DHS does not expect it to incur additional monetized costs. The new populations that the rule will impact accrue to the ‘‘expansion’’ of the baseline in terms of the heavyconcentration forms due to the removal of age restrictions, as well as a broadening of biometrics collection to forms in which biometrics have not been routinely collected. The expansion of the population subject to biometrics VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 would also increase the fee-paying population. Because the new populations do not exist yet in context—including those involving the expanded baseline—DHS must develop logically and mathematically sound procedures in order to carry out the calculations needed to estimate these populations who are newly subject to biometric collection and fees. Such estimation requires extrapolations, and while the methodology employed is sound, it is possible that the past will not mimic the future, as it relates to a specific form, grouping of forms, or biometrics collection in general. For the five-year span from FY 2013 to FY 2017, an average of 3.61 million individuals who filed for an immigration benefit or request were required to submit biometrics. In this analysis, DHS assumes that this population would continue to submit biometrics, although the modalities would expand, as has been noted above and explained in more detail in the preamble. First, DHS would collect biometrics from certain populations from which DHS already has the authority to collect biometrics without a change in the regulations, but does not currently do so routinely. The biometrics-submitting population would be broadened across form types as a result. Second, the elimination of the current age restrictions for submitting biometrics so that individuals of any age might be requested to submit biometrics information under the proposed rule would expand the biometrics submissions within the form types already embedded in the existing population (and will apply to the new populations appropriate to the expanded form types). Finally, DHS would require, request, or accept DNA evidence from certain populations to establish or verify a claimed genetic relationship. DHS estimates the different populations that would be impacted by this proposed rule through five analytical phases. The first phase (Phase I) involves identifying the number of individuals who would continue to submit biometrics in the absence of this proposed rule. This group is referred to throughout this analysis as ‘‘baseline’’ (interchangeable with ‘‘past,’’ ‘‘current,’’ or ‘‘existing’’) population and is derived by using historical biometric submissions data. This group would likely face a very minor additional time burden to submit biometrics information, including palm prints, facial and iris image, or voice prints as a result of this proposed rule due to the increased modalities, but DHS did not estimate any additional monetized costs PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56369 for this because the time increase for this group is expected to be small. In the second phase (Phase II), DHS presents the underlying logic and formulas that are used to estimate the additional populations, not yet existent in context, that could be impacted by the proposed rule. These resultant formulas will be applied to the populations that would be impacted by the proposed elimination of the age restrictions, the broadening of collection across forms, the biometrics service fee, proposal to require, request, or accept DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic relationship. In the third phase (Phase III), DHS develops the additional populations that could be impacted as a result of the proposed elimination of the age restrictions for collecting biometrics and the broadening of biometrics collection. Four such formulas are requisite. The fourth phase (Phase IV) focuses on the biometric fee payments. The final phase estimates the populations that would be impacted by the proposed provision to require, request, or accept DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic relationship. a. Phase I Baseline Data—Populations Who Currently Submit Biometrics and DNA Evidence In Phase I of this analysis, DHS develops the baseline, as the set of biometrics submitted in the past. It is the population who would continue to submit biometrics in the absence of the proposed rule, including all eligible applicants, petitioners, sponsors, beneficiaries, requestors, or individuals who currently submit biometrics information at an ASC in support of an immigration or naturalization benefit request. Because specific USCIS forms are used to request immigration benefits, and biometrics are submitted under certain USCIS form types, DHS uses the form type to group data and then formulate its baseline population estimates. To derive the baseline population, DHS has delineated Phase I into five steps. The first step provides a description of the data sources and technical approach for deriving the baseline population. Second, DHS presents the number of biometric submissions by form. The third step quantifies the filing volume for Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I–539) including the total number of applicants, co-applicants, and derivative family members, pursuant to the following. As of March 22, 2019, DHS started to routinely collect biometrics information from all Form I–539 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56370 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules applicants, co-applicants, and derivative family members.69 Therefore, DHS includes the Form I–539 population in the baseline. Fourth, DHS quantifies the baseline biometrics fee-paying volume. Fifth, DHS identifies the number of current DNA tests that are used to demonstrate a claimed genetic relationship in support of a familybased benefit request. (i) Step 1: Data Description and Technical Approach Based on current practice, when an individual appears at a USCIS facility for a biometrics appointment, their photograph, signature, and right index fingerprint is digitally collected and stored in the Customer Profile Management System (CPMS) database, which is the USCIS data repository for biometrics information. For eligible populations between the ages of 14 and 79, ten fingerprints are also collected and stored in CPMS. For this baseline analysis, the biometrics collection volume data originates from the CPMS database. The baseline population consists of individuals who submit biometric information under one immigration benefit request. For certain forms, as well as for certain biometric appointments, an individual may submit biometrics in support of each individual immigration benefit request. Under these circumstances, there is a one-to-one match between the biometrics information submitted and the benefit request. However, there are instances where it is possible for an individual to have a single biometrics appointment in support of multiple forms, meaning the individual would only submit biometric information once, and not separately, for each individual immigration benefit request. Although this scenario represents a one-tomultiple match between the biometric information submitted and the immigration benefits requested, the physical act of submitting biometric information can be tracked under a primary form type in the CPMS database. A form may be logged as the primary form based upon the type of biometric data being submitted, the type of benefit being requested, or the order with which an individual’s paperwork is received. Conversely, there are also instances where it is possible for multiple individuals to have biometrics appointments in support of a single form, meaning one immigration benefit request would yield multiple biometrics appointments and collections (i.e., Form I–539 requiring biometrics for primary applicant and any derivatives/family members, Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition (Form I–600A) requiring biometrics for all adult household members, etc.). In the baseline population, a single physical biometric transaction is accounted for under one primary form type to avoid double-counting. (ii) Step 2: Baseline Biometric Submissions by Form Data captured in CPMS reveals that for the five-year span of FY 2013 to FY 2017, an average of 3.61 million individuals submitted biometrics information annually to USCIS in support of immigration and naturalization benefit requests (Table 5).70 In FY 2017, a total of 3.93 million individuals submitted biometrics information compared to 3.19 million in FY 2013. The largest volume over the period occurred in FY 2015, when over 4.20 million individuals submitted biometrics information to USCIS. TABLE 5—BIOMETRIC SUBMISSIONS BY FORM GROUPING [FY 2013–FY 2017] Form FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 5-year average 5-year percent of total ‘‘Prev-9’’: N–400 ................... I–90 ....................... I–765 ..................... I–485 ..................... I–589 ..................... I–821D .................. I–131 ..................... I–751 ..................... I–601A ................... 778,172 554,918 421,011 459,298 95,938 350,339 89,146 185,587 16,381 779,221 790,069 391,650 506,991 116,668 102,192 87,012 172,478 37,293 772,648 780,050 800,711 494,664 173,248 242,101 87,755 93,359 48,978 961,092 743,589 489,553 500,369 230,900 125,489 88,977 71,823 52,654 1,013,252 770,552 588,008 547,755 304,308 224,899 86,299 83,417 67,494 860,877 727,836 538,187 501,815 184,212 209,004 87,838 121,333 44,560 23.78 20.11 14.87 13.86 5.09 5.77 2.43 3.35 1.23 Prev-9 ........................... Phase III ....................... Other ............................ 2,950,790 1,310 240,295 2,983,574 944 197,593 3,493,514 949 708,628 3,264,446 1,307 327,032 3,685,984 874 241,730 3,275,662 1,077 343,055 90.49 0.03 9.48 Total ...................... 3,192,395 3,182,111 4,203,091 3,592,785 3,928,588 3,619,794 100 Over this 5-year period, 90.49 percent 71 of biometric submissions were associated with the following nine forms: a. Application for Naturalization (Form N–400); b. Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Form I–90); c. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I–765); d. Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I– 485); e. Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I–589); f. Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Form I–821D); g. Application for Travel Document (Form I–131); 69 See USCIS, Update: USCIS to Publish Revised Form I–539 and New Form I–539A on March 8, https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/update-uscispublish-revised-form-i-539-and-new-form-i-539amarch-8 (last reviewed/updated March 5, 2019). 70 Biometric data can be processed and stored on other USCIS systems, but CPMS is the database that represents the aggregated collection of biometrics by primary form type. We note that not all biometric modalities were covered in every data point we count as a biometric submission. The figures in the baseline represent at least one type of biometric collected with an associated benefit request. In this sense, we treat ‘‘biometric’’ as essentially a binary action—either it was collected or it was not without passing out individual modalities. 71 Calculation: 3,275,662 average biometric submissions by 9 form-types/3,619,794 total biometric submissions = 90.49 percent (rounded). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56371 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules h. Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence (Form I–751); and i. Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (Form I– 601A). Because this set of forms is central to the ensuing analysis, we designate their prevalence under the term ‘‘Prev-9.’’ The remaining forms not broken out by specific type in Table 5 have been separated into two groups. The first group is referred to in this analysis as Phase III Forms and represents the set under which DHS does not routinely collect biometrics information, but instead collect biometric information on a case-by-case basis.72 Under the proposed rule, DHS would broaden routine collection of biometrics to these existing forms (the new populations apropos to this group are developed in Phase III of this analysis, which is why we label them as such, although they are not the only set discussed in that phase). From FY 2013 to FY 2017, the Phase III Forms accounted for a very small 0.03 percent of total biometric submissions.73 The second group is referred to as ‘‘Other’’ and includes three subcategories of forms. The first sub- category includes forms where DHS does not routinely collect biometrics information but does so on a case-bycase basis. However, in contradistinction to the Phase III Forms, DHS does not plan currently to broadly increase biometrics collection for eligible populations under these forms.74 The second category includes forms where DHS does routinely collect biometrics; the overall volume of biometric data makes up less than 10 percent of biometric submissions. For these forms, DHS will rely on characteristics from Prev-9 to estimate the additional populations who would submit biometrics specifically as a result of the proposed removal of the age restrictions for submitting biometrics. The third category includes forms for which there is no specific form designation within the CPMS database.75 From FY 2013 to FY 2017, the Other group represented just under a tenth, 9.48 percent, of biometric submissions.76 (iii) Step 3: Filing Volume for Form I– 539 DHS calculates the filing volumes for Form I–539 to account for populations who began to routinely submit biometrics information in the second quarter of 2019. USCIS made revisions to Form I–539, informing the public of DHS’s intention to collect biometrics information from all eligible nonimmigrant principal applicants, coapplicants, and derivative family members. Because DHS started to collect biometrics information from the Form I–539 population before the publication of this proposed rule, DHS includes this population in its baseline. From FY 2013 to FY 2017, USCIS received an average of 280,767 Form I– 539 applications annually consisting of 199,696 primary applicants and 81,017 co-applicants and derivative family members (Table 6). Because all Form I– 539 applicants, co-applicants, and their derivative family members are now required to submit biometric data, DHS relies on the historic filing volumes for the baseline number of individuals who submit biometric information in support of a Form I–539 benefit request.77 TABLE 6—FORM I–539 VOLUMES BY APPLICANTS, CO-APPLICANTS AND DERIVATIVES [FY 2013–FY 2017] Sub-population FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 5-year avg. Primary Applicant ..................................... Applicants, Co-applicants and Derivative Family Members ................................... 149,581 158,513 181,080 216,302 293,004 199,696 56,643 63,552 73,976 88,236 122,947 81,071 Total .................................................. 206,224 222,065 255,056 304,538 415,951 280,767 To estimate the number of individuals who currently submit biometric data, DHS uses the five-year average population of biometric submissions for each form type, which includes the Prev-9, Phase III Forms, the Other categories from Table 5 and the Form I– 539 population (Table 6). In total, DHS uses a baseline population of 3,900,561 average biometric submissions per year, which is comprised of the 3,275,662 biometric submissions under Prev-9; 1,077 under the Phase V form types; 343,055 under the Other form types; and, 280,767 under the Form I–539 population. The relevant figures are condensed in Table 7, and DHS utilizes these baseline in support of remaining sections of the analysis. 72 DHS may request biometrics on a case-by-case basis when the adjudicating officer would like to establish an identity prior to adjudicating a benefit. This could occur when there are any potential identify or fraud issues. DHS may also request biometrics information in compliance with the AWA or IMBRA. 73 Calculation: 1,077 average biometric submissions by Phase V forms/3,619,794 average biometric submissions = 0.03 percent (rounded). 74 For some of the forms in the Other category, biometrics submissions were actually zero. However, many of these had very small filing volumes as well. For some forms in the Other category, DHS is removing the requirement to submit biometrics information in support of a benefit request. DHS is removing the biometrics requirement because these individuals need to concurrently file with other forms where biometrics information is currently required. 75 This may happen when biometrics information has not been assigned to a primary form in the CPMS database. 76 Calculation: 343,055 average biometric submissions by Other forms/3,619,794 average biometric submissions = 9.48 percent. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 TABLE 7—CURRENT BIOMETRIC SUBMISSIONS BY CATEGORIES [Baseline, 5-year average] Form category 5-year average Prev-9 Forms ........................ Phase V Form Types ........... Other Forms ......................... 3,275,662 1,077 343,055 Subtotal ......................... + Form I–539 ........................ 3,619,794 280,767 77 DHS expects less than 100 percent of Form I– 539 applicants, co-applicants, and derivative family members to submit biometrics due to the existence of exemptions and waivers. However, DHS is not able to identify Form I–539 filers that file concurrently with other forms from current existing data sources. Therefore, DHS assumes that 100 percent of Form I–539 applicants, co-applicants, and derivative family members will submit biometrics for the purposes of this analysis. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56372 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7—CURRENT BIOMETRIC SUB- reviewed by considering whether the MISSIONS BY CATEGORIES—Contin- applicant is receiving a means-tested benefit, whether the applicant’s ued [Baseline, 5-year average] Form category Baseline (Total) ............. 5-year average 3,900,561 (iv) Step 4: Baseline Biometrics FeePaying Volume The proposed expansion of biometrics collection would increase the volume of service fees. DHS currently collects the $85 biometric services fee payments from all individuals submitting biometrics associated with a benefit request unless there are specific age restrictions for submitting the $85 biometric services fee associated with each benefit request or there is an approved fee waiver.78 However, several factors warrant consideration before assessing the populations that currently submit the $85 biometric services collection fee. Foremost, anyone who submitted a biometrics fee by definition also submitted biometrics—but the converse does not hold. As such, the volume of biometric submissions by primary form does not reflect the volume of $85 biometrics service fee payments. This discrepancy is primarily due to the existence of fee exemptions and fee waivers for immigration benefit requests. DHS grants fee exemptions that are required by statute.79 Under this proposed rule, the appropriate portions of the biometrics fee-paying population will continue to receive fee exemptions for biometric services. The current (and future) biometrics fee population is by definition smaller than the biometrics population. In addition, individuals may apply for and be granted a fee waiver for certain immigration benefits and services.80 In general, fee-waiver requests are 78 Certain benefit requests, such as Form I–765 and Form I–131, have specific age requirements for paying the $85 biometric services fee. DHS proposes to remove these age requirements. 79 See INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7). DHS is required by law to permit certain applicants to request a fee waivers including Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners, INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7), T Visas—Victims of Severe Form of Trafficking, INA section 101(a)(15)(T), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T), U Visas— Victims of Criminal Activity, INA section 101(a)(15)(U), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U), Battered spouses of A, G, E–3, or H nonimmigrants, INA section 106, 8 U.S.C. 1105a, Battered spouses or children of a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen, INA section 240A(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2), and Temporary Protected Status—as in effect on March 31, 1997, INA section 244(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(3). 80 See 8 CFR 103.7(c) and https://www.uscis.gov/ i-912. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 household income level renders him or her unable to pay, or whether recent financial hardship renders an inability to pay. With regard to the biometric services fee, USCIS waives the $85 fee based on the inability to pay if the underlying benefit application is granted a fee waiver. For instance, if an applicant receives a fee waiver for a particular form filing fee, he or she will generally also receive a waiver for the biometrics fee. Under this proposed rule, DHS assumes that the same portions of the biometrics fee-paying population would continue to receive fee waivers for biometric services fees. In other words, the rule does not alter or impact the fee waiver protocol currently in place. For the three-year span of FY 2015 to FY 2017, an average of 2,771,279 biometric services fee payments were received by USCIS (Table 8).81 DHS uses the average baseline value of 2,771,279 individual payments and the baseline volume of biometric submissions to derive population estimates for the number of individuals who would pay the $85 biometric services fee as a result of the proposed provision to eliminate the age restrictions for submitting biometrics and paying the biometric services fee. TABLE 8—BIOMETRIC FEE VOLUMES, ALL FORMS [FY 2015–FY 2017] Fee-paying volume Fiscal year FY 2015 ................................ FY 2016 ................................ FY 2017 ................................ 2,765,927 2,746,261 2,801,648 Average ......................... 2,771,279 (v) Step 5: DNA Testing Volume The proposed rule would provide USCIS with the authority to require, request, or accept DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic relationship. The proposed rule would allow relevant filers to use DNA evidence to establish a claimed genetic relationship where relevant for certain immigration benefit requests, including but not limited to the following: 82 81 As a result of possible inaccuracies regarding the volume of biometric service fee payments in FY 2013 and FY 2014, the fee-paying volume for biometrics services is only reported from FY 2015 to FY 2017. The source of the data is USCIS, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). 82 As was mentioned earlier in the preamble, DHS recognizes that there are qualifying family PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 • Petition for Alien Relative (Form I– 130); • Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition (Form I–730); • Application of T Nonimmigrant Status (Form I–914A); • Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (Form I–918A); • Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant (Form I–929); • Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N–600); • Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 (Form N–600K); and • Any other form where the existence of a claimed genetic relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, derivative, rider, or qualifying family member.83 These family-based applications and petitions have been included in the proposed rule because DNA testing is a technology that can be used to verify a claimed genetic relationship where one is required for these benefit requests. Additionally, DNA testing, by verifying or not verifying genetic relationships, would help DHS to identify criminal activity (i.e., immigration fraud, visa fraud, etc.) and protect vulnerable populations associated with human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. Certain immigration benefit requestors are currently able to establish the existence of a genetic relationship with family who wish to immigrate to the United States. The petitioner may submit, on a voluntary basis, DNA test results as evidence to establish authenticity of the claimed genetic relationship. DNA test results are only accepted by USCIS from laboratories accredited by the AABB. However, testing occurs between the petitioner and his or her claimed biological relative, the latter of whom may be located domestically or abroad. In general, the petitioner submits his or her DNA evidence at a U.S.-accredited AABB lab, while the beneficiary/qualifying family member submits his or her DNA evidence at an members, such as adopted children, who do not have a genetic relationship to the individual who files an immigration benefit request on their behalf. To the extent the rule discusses using DNA evidence to establish qualifying relationships in support of certain immigration benefit requests, it is referring only to genetic relationships that can be demonstrated through DNA testing. 83 This includes requiring, requesting, or accepting DNA testing to establish a genetic relationship with a birth parent in the context of a petition to classify a beneficiary as an orphan under INA section 101(b)(1)(F) or as a Convention adoptee under INA section 101(b)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(F) or (G), respectively. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules overseas facility.84 For DNA evidence submitted at an international U.S. Government facility, DHS historically facilitated the collection through USCIS Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations (RAIO) Directorate’s international offices, and it has a memorandum of understanding with DOS to facilitate the collection in countries where USCIS does not have a presence. The data used to make the following calculations come from the RAIO Directorate. Table 9 summarizes the total number of DNA tests that were submitted to USCIS and DOS in support of immigration benefit requests for Forms I–130, I–730, and the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program.85 From FY 2015 to FY 2017, a total of 34,150 DNA tests were submitted to USCIS including 18,345 DNA tests that 56373 were collected by USCIS and 15,805 DNA tests that were collected by DOS.86 During this period, an annual average of 11,383 DNA tests were submitted to USCIS, including an average of 6,115 DNA tests collected by USCIS and 5,268 DNA tests collected by DOS. DHS uses these annual average volumes to account for the current collection of DNA evidence in support of an immigration benefit request. TABLE 9—DNA TEST SUBMISSIONS AT INTERNATIONAL FACILITIES FOR FORM I–130, FORM I–730, THE HAITIAN FAMILY REUNIFICATION PAROLE PROGRAM, THE CUBAN FAMILY REUNIFICATION PAROLE PROGRAM, AND THE FILIPINO WWII VETERANS PAROLE PROGRAM [FY 2015–FY 2017] Number of DNA collections (USCIS) Number of DNA collections (DOS) Total 2015 ........................................................................................................................... 2016 ........................................................................................................................... 2017 ........................................................................................................................... 7,769 6,735 3,841 5,748 5,961 4,096 13,517 12,696 7,937 Total .................................................................................................................... 18,345 15,805 34,150 Average .............................................................................................................. 6,115 5,268 11,383 New populations would be created by the rule, in context, via the general proposals to broaden collection across an expanded set of forms and remove age restrictions, and the proposal to allow more DNA submissions. Since the populations are not yet existent in context, DHS must develop appropriate tools to extrapolate certain conditions forward. Here, formulas to estimate the additional populations (and subpopulations relevant to specific cost factors) that would be impacted by the proposed rule are developed. Specifically, four formulas are required, and the purpose of this current Phase II is to motivate their underlying logic and setup. • Biometrics Collection Rate (BCR): A measurement of the proportion of biometric submissions out of the total age-eligible population within a form type. • Biometrics Fee Ratio (BFR): A measurement of the proportion of biometric services fee payments out of the total age-eligible biometrics feepaying population. • Biometrics Age Multiplier (BAM): A measurement of the extra number of biometric submissions for the Other form type category due to the proposed elimination of the age restrictions for submitting biometrics. • Dependents Multiplier (DM): A measurement of the number of principal applicants or petitioners relative to the number of claimed genetic relationships. 84 DNA tests can be submitted in the United States at an accredited AABB lab if the principal and biological family members are all in the country. Alternatively, DNA tests can be submitted at an official overseas government facility. DHS is only able to quantify the exact number of DNA tests where at least one of the individuals is submitting his or her DNA evidence overseas. Although DHS does not track the location of the petitioner or biological family members giving his or her DNA evidence, based on the experience of USCIS’ Refugee, Asylum and International Operations (RAIO), DHS expects that most DNA submissions at overseas facilities are from eligible biological family members and most principal applicants or petitioners submitting DNA would submit their DNA evidence within the United States. 85 Only certain family-based benefit requests would be impacted by the proposed provision to allow, request, or require DNA evidence to establish a biological relationship. The DNA tests associated with Form I–130 and Form I–730 are the only family-based benefit requests that would be impacted by the proposed rule that currently use DNA evidence to establish a biological relationship. Additionally, DHS is unable to identify separately the specific number of DNA tests associated with each form, the Haitian Family Reunification Parole (HFRP) Program, the Cuban Family Reunification Parole (CFRP) Program, and the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole (FWVP) Program. Therefore, DHS is using the aggregate number of DNA submissions to estimate the baseline population. 86 The relevant data and information in Table 10 was provided by USCIS RAIO was only available for 3 fiscal years, from FY 2015 to FY 2017. b. Phase II—Formulas for Estimating Additional Biometrics Populations VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 (i) Biometrics Collection Rate DHS develops a BCR, a formula estimating the proportion of biometric submissions out of the total current ageeligible population within a form type. In this analysis, the BCR will be applied to certain populations to estimate the additional population that would submit biometrics. The BCR formula is provided below (Formula 1): E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 EP11SE20.000</GPH> Fiscal year 56374 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules Where BCR represents the Biometrics Collection Rate for a specific form type, BI represents intensity, as the average number of individuals who currently submit biometrics information by form type in a fiscal year and P represents the volume of age-eligible benefit requests associated with a form type by fiscal year.87 Calibration will be undertaken in the next phase, when the actual population estimates are conducted, but we introduce point of discussion here. An important consideration relevant to biometrics collection for eligible populations under each of the Prev-9 forms involves the number of biometric submissions that are collected as a proportion of the total filing volume for specific forms. There may be a low volume of biometric submissions relative to the filing volume (a low BCR). The heavy concentration of biometric submissions within this grouping does not map directly to a relatively intense rate of biometric collection within each form in this group. The reason is that biometrics may be submitted under a separate primary form when someone concurrently files multiple immigration benefit requests. As will be shown in Phase III, two prevalent forms, Forms I– 765 and I–131, invoke ‘‘artificially’’ low BCRs, as biometrics information is only collected on certain requests, or, biometrics information may be collected under another form if an individual concurrently files multiple forms. (ii) Biometrics Fee Ratio DHS uses the current volumes of biometric services fee payments (Table 8) and current volume of biometric submissions (Table 5) to estimate the additional populations that would pay the $85 biometric services fee (due to the removal of age restrictions and the broadening of collection). Although USCIS accounts for the financial inflow of resources originating from the $85 biometric services fee, the CPMS database accounts for the number of biometric submissions by primary form type, which may not match the form type for which the $85 biometric services fee is collected. For example, an individual concurrently files Form I– 821D and Form I–765 but would only have to submit the $85 biometric services fee with the Form I–765 application. However, the individual’s biometric information may be logged under Form I–821D in the CPMS database. This is true for all form types with the exception of Form I–589, as these applicants may not submit biometrics information under another form type and they are exempt from the $85 biometric services fee. As a result, DHS uses the total volume of biometric services fee payments and the overall volume of biometric submissions (with the exception of Form I–589) to derive a BFR, a formula identifying the portion of individuals who pay the biometric services fee out of the total population of those submitting biometrics who may be required to pay the $85 biometrics fee. The formula for the BFR calculation is provided below (Formula 2): Where BFR represents the Biometrics Fee Ratio, F is the estimated number of individuals who pay the biometric services fee in a fiscal year and BI represents the number of biometric submissions in a given fiscal year, which was introduced above in the BCR setup. The BFR is calculated by comparing the biometric fee-paying volumes to total biometric submissions (with the exception for Form I–589) for each fiscal year, for reasons explained above. In FY 2017, for example, a BFR of 0.77 obtains by dividing a volume of 2.80 million biometric service fee payments by a total of by 3.62 million biometric submissions (Table 10). For every known non-exempt benefit request with a biometric submission, DHS estimates that in 2017, 77 percent of individuals pay the biometric services fee payment while the remaining 23 percent of individuals receive a fee exemption, a biometric services fee waiver, or they fall outside of the current age restrictions for submitting the $85 biometric services fee. Since the calculation of the BFR is relatively straightforward, it is compiled here and referred to downstream as needed. Table 10 provides the BFR calculations for each fiscal year, including a 3-year average BFR of 0.75 that will be used for subsequent calculations.88 TABLE 10—BIOMETRIC FEE RATIO, ALL FORMS [FY 2015–FY 2017] Biometric submissions (excludes Form I–589) Biometrics fee rate (BFR) FY 2015 ..................................................................................................................... FY 2016 ..................................................................................................................... FY 2017 ..................................................................................................................... 2,765,927 2,746,261 2,801,648 4,029,843 3,361,885 3,624,280 0.69 0.82 0.77 Average .............................................................................................................. 2,771,279 3,672,003 0.75 From FY 2013 to FY 2017, an average of 343,055 biometric submissions (just under 10 percent of the total) annually were classified as Other. DHS does not explicitly plan to broadly increase collection here, but nonetheless, there are populations within this classification that could be impacted by the proposed elimination of the age restrictions for collecting biometrics. Since this group contains non-specific form types, DHS cannot determine the appropriate filing volumes, and therefore an additional step (in addition to the employment of the BCR, as will be shown) will be needed to estimate the new biometrics population under this Other category. DHS constructs an age multiplier to estimate the maximum population within the Other classification who would submit biometrics information as a result of the proposed provision to eliminate the age restrictions for submitting biometrics. 87 The BCR for different form types may vary due to the eligibility categories and age characteristics of the filers and dependents. 88 DHS notes that the general BFR of .75 is essentially weighted by year since it is calculated by dividing the total three-year fee payments by the three-year volume of biometrics. The unweighted (raw) average would be very similar, at .76. It is noted that the BFR calculation of .75 relies on the total volumes across the three years, and is thus implicitly weighted (it takes into account the relative magnitude of yearly submissions). However, the unweighted average would be very similar, at 0.76. (iii) Biometrics Age Multiplier VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 EP11SE20.001</GPH> Fee-paying volume Fiscal year Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 56375 The relevant metric is an age multiplier based on the proportion of filers or benefit requests for individuals between the ages of 14 and 79 relative to the total volume of filers or benefit requests for each of the Prev-9 form types where biometrics are routinely collected. The formula for the age multiplier is (Formula 3): Where BAM is the 5-year average age multiplier for a form type; T is the 5-year total number of filers or benefit requests; and, ESP (Eligible Sub-population) is the 5-year total number of filers or benefit requests between the ages of 14 and 79. To annotate one specific example, between FY 2013 and FY 2017, a Form I–485 BAM of 1.095 is calculated by dividing a total of 670,560 benefit requests by 612,148 benefit requests for individuals between the ages of 14 and 79.89 For every Form I–485 benefit request for individuals between the ages of 14 and 79, there are approximately 1.095 Form I–485 benefit requests for individuals of all ages. form types, including the total number of filers and benefit requestors by age segment between FY 2013 and FY 2017. Using these figures, the 5-year average age multiplier across all 9 form types would be 1.047. Table 11 provides a summary of the age multiplier for each of the Prev-9 TABLE 11—AGE MULTIPLIER, PREV-9 FORM TYPES [FY 2013–FY 2017] Age segments (5-year average) Form type Age multiplier Ages 14–79 Ages under 14; +79 N–400 .............................................................................................................. I–90 .................................................................................................................. I–765 ................................................................................................................ I–485 ................................................................................................................ I–821D ............................................................................................................. I–589 ................................................................................................................ I–751 ................................................................................................................ I–131 ................................................................................................................ I–601A .............................................................................................................. 850,695 738,704 1,960,672 670,560 371,068 127,499 165,738 441,226 45,640 839,601 703,707 1,892,366 612,148 370,838 111,597 164,441 409,699 45,633 11,094 34,997 68,307 58,412 230 15,902 1,297 31,527 7 1.013 1.050 1.036 1.095 1.001 1.142 1.008 1.077 1.000 Average Age Multiplier ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 1.047 The proposed rule would allow or require certain filers to use DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic relationship in support of certain immigration benefit requests, including, but not limited to: Form I–130; Form I– 360, Form I–730; Form I–914A; Form I– 918A; Form I–929; and any other form where the existence of a claimed genetic relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, derivative, rider, or qualifying family member. Based on current processes, each individual DNA test would incur a separate cost. For instance, a principal seeking a benefit request for 3 eligible beneficiaries or qualifying family members would incur 3 separate costs for the DNA testing.90 Therefore, DHS is using a dependents multiplier (DM) to estimate the average number of dependents who may be required to submit DNA tests with the principal immigration benefit requestor. Specifically, DHS calculates a DM based on the proportion of applicants or petitioners relative to the number of applications or beneficiaries/qualifying family members for each of the forms where DNA evidence would likely be used to verify a claimed genetic relationship.91 In certain circumstances, DHS uses the 5-year 92 average DM to estimate the number of applicants or petitioners and beneficiaries/qualifying family members who could be eligible to submit DNA evidence under the proposed rule. The formula for the DM is (Formula 4): 89 Calculation: 670,560 average Form I–485 benefit requests/612,148 average Form I–485 benefit requests between the ages of 14 and 79 = 1.095 (rounded). When you multiply an age multiplier of 1.095 by 612,148, the number of Form I–485 beneficiaries between the ages of 14 and 79, the resulting figure is 670,032. This figure is less than the overall number of Form I–485 beneficiaries (670,560) because the age multiplier has been rounded. 90 The principal would need to pay 3 separate fees. The first fee would cover the cost of the DNA test with the first dependent, while the second and third fee would cover the additional costs for the remaining family members. However, the principal petitioner and the dependents would each incur separate travel and time burden costs. 91 In instances where it is possible to identify the claimed biological relationship between the principal applicant and petitioner, DHS is using only these figures to derive the DM. In instances where it is not possible to identify the claimed biological relationship, DHS derives a DM based upon the total volume of principal applicants and their dependents. 92 DHS uses data from FY 2013 to FY 2017 to make these calculations. In contradistinction to the BFR, the BAM is a raw average; that is, it is unweighted across form types volumes, such that each form’s particular value receives an equal weight. (iv) Dependents Multiplier VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 EP11SE20.002</GPH> All ages 56376 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules Where DM is the dependents multiplier for a form type in a given fiscal year; T is the total number of benefit requests; and P is the number of petitioners or principal benefit requests by form type. For example, the FY 2017 Form I–130 DM of 1.38 is obtained by dividing a total of 455,275 benefit requests for beneficiaries with a claimed genetic relationship by a total of 328,737 unique petitioners who are directly affiliated with these Form I–130 petitions.93 Based on this approach, DHS is estimating the average DM for forms where it is possible to verify the principal filers’ claimed genetic relationship with beneficiaries or qualifying family members, including DMs for Forms I–130, I– 730, and I–929. DHS is using the average DM for these forms to estimate the number of petitioners and beneficiaries or qualifying family members who could submit DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic relationship in instances where it is not possible to identify the petitioner’s relationship with the beneficiary or qualifying family member, including calculations for Form I–914A and Form I– 918A.94 The calibration for a generalized DM will be provided in the relevant following section. c. Phase III—Estimating New Populations That Would Submit Biometrics Having first identified the baseline volume of biometric submissions and, second, having developed requisite metrics, DHS can proceed to estimate the new populations that would submit biometrics under the proposed rule. Foremost, Table 12 provides the BCRs for Prev-9. TABLE 12—BIOMETRICS COLLECTION RATE (BCR) FOR THE PREV-9 FORMS Form Biometrics N–400 .......................................................................................................................................... I–90 .............................................................................................................................................. I–765 ............................................................................................................................................ I–485 ............................................................................................................................................ I–589 ............................................................................................................................................ I–821D ......................................................................................................................................... I–131 ............................................................................................................................................ I–751 ............................................................................................................................................ I–601A .......................................................................................................................................... Table 12 reproduces the average fiveyear biometrics submissions (Table 5) and introduces the baseline population—the current age-eligible population from which the biometrics was obtained (in other words, the basis of BCR). An explanation of the results in Table 12 is needed before proceeding to estimation. Forms N–400 and I–90 currently have complete collection, essentially, which is evidenced by the respective BCRs near unity. Forms N– 400 and I–90 currently do not have age restrictions for biometrics collection. The BCR of 2.092 for Form I–765, is driven by derivative family members submitting biometrics along with the principal asylum applicants. For the Forms I–765 and I–131, significant portions of these populations currently do not submit biometrics information under these primary forms, and the BCRs are artificially low. The primary issue for Form I–765 is the large amount of concurrent filings. Form I–131 has concurrent filings as well, but the low collection rate is because of the limited number of eligibility categories that currently are required to submit biometrics.95 To estimate the new populations, DHS proceeded as follows. First, DHS analyzed Forms I–765 and I–131 separately so removed them from this 860,877 727,836 538,187 501,815 184,212 209,004 87,838 121,333 44,560 Baseline population 850,695 738,704 1,892,366 612,148 88,072 370,838 409,699 164,441 45,633 BCR 1.012 0.985 0.284 0.820 2.092 0.564 0.214 0.738 0.976 analysis. Second, Forms N–400, I–90, and I–589 essentially have no additional eligible population to draw from and have been excluded. DHS obtained the average five-year filing volumes for the requisite sub-group of four forms and subtracted the current baseline. The resulting figures shown in Table 13 represent the population for each form that currently is not age-eligible but would be under the rule. The BCR for each form was multiplied by the new age-eligible population to obtain the new biometrics population for each form. The results are presented in the last column of Table 13, and total to 48,992. TABLE 13—NEW BIOMETRICS POPULATION WITHIN THE PREV-9 SET DUE TO THE REMOVAL OF AGE RESTRICTIONS I–485 ............................................................................................................................................ I–821D ......................................................................................................................................... 93 Calculation: FY 2017 DM for Form I–130 = 328,737 Form I–130 eligible benefit requests/ 455,275 Unique Petitioners = 1.38 DM (rounded). 94 For these forms, DHS is only able to identify the number of dependents who have an eligibility category based upon a claimed biological VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 relationship. All information pertaining to the petitioner has been removed to protect the identities of applicants and petitioners under Form I–914A and Form I–918A. 95 Only two eligibility categories under Form I– 131 are required to submit biometrics. Specifically, PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58,412 230 BCR 0.820 0.564 New population 47,898 130 all applicants for a Refugee Travel Document or a Reentry Permit must complete biometrics at a USCIS ASC or, if applying for a Refugee Travel Document while outside of the United States, at an overseas USCIS facility. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 EP11SE20.003</GPH> New age-eligible Form Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 56377 TABLE 13—NEW BIOMETRICS POPULATION WITHIN THE PREV-9 SET DUE TO THE REMOVAL OF AGE RESTRICTIONS— Continued New age-eligible Form BCR New population I–751 ............................................................................................................................................ I–601A .......................................................................................................................................... 1,297 7 0.738 0.976 957 7 Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 48,992 The first component of the new biometrics population is 48,992 (Table 13 above), obtained above for a subgroup of four forms within Prev-9, for which there are three more. Three other sub-groups will be examined. As has been stated earlier, the goal is to broadly collect biometrics while taking into consideration that there will be exemptions and waivers. Consequently, a proxy for BCR for estimation should be less than unity, but be positive and relatively high. Table 14 shows the five BCRs selected from Prev-9, noting that Form I–90 is retained here even though collection is almost complete for this form. The representative group is assessed to be reasonable and have a good deal of range, from .584 to .985. Since it is desirable to have as many relevant forms as possible in the proxy collection, we examined the BCRs for the remaining forms in the Other category (for cases in which the form type was not ambiguous or unspecified) and proceeded to add two, which are the only forms peripheral to Prev-9 that have high BCRs: Form I–914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; and Form I–918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status. The respective BCRs for these two additional forms, in order, are .952 and .819, as is shown in Table 14. TABLE 14—AVERAGE BCR FOR SET OF APPROPRIATE FORMS Selected Prev-9 Forms BCR I–90 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... I–485 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... I–821D ................................................................................................................................................................................................. I–751 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... I–601A .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Added Forms: I–918 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. I–914 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Raw BCR for regrouped set ................................................................................................................................................................ The unweighted (raw) average is utilized because we do not have a priori information on which forms (or subgroup of them) would have a BCR closest to the not yet existing, in context, rule population. Similarly, there is no ‘‘target’’ or desired BCR that we seek to impugn to the generalized population under the proposed rule. Hence, we use the raw average as opposed to a weighted one, because the former weights each BCR in the group equally. For the subgroup of forms, we obtain the unweighted average BCR of .8363 (or 86.63 percent). Equipped with a workable BCR metric to extrapolate, the second new population component can be estimated. First, DHS obtained filing information for the Form I–765 and was able to parse out filings that were nonconcurrent with other forms. Excluding the I–765 biometrics population submitted in the baseline, there was an average of 1,124,648 annual filings for which biometrics could be collected in the future. Multiplying this population by the BCR of .8363 yields 940,543 potential new biometrics submissions. We do not have enough information to VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 parse out concurrent filings for the I– 131, but obtained the difference in average filings and biometrics submissions, of 353,388. Applying the general BCR yields 295,539 possible new biometrics submissions. The total of the two forms is 1,236,082, which is the second component of the new biometrics population. The third new population component accrues to the set of forms described as Phase III forms, in which biometrics is not broadly collected on currently, but that DHS plans to routinely collect on in the future. DHS obtained the total average filing volume for this set of forms, and annotates the discussion with one particular form, Application for Regional Center Designation Under the Immigrant Investor Program, (Form I–924). As explained in the preamble, DHS will collect biometrics for the principals of regional centers. Regional center principals are typically key leaders in the center, but information concerning them are not captured in formal DHS databases, but rather in individual adjudication reports involving the business plans. DHS was able to sample 130 Annual Certification PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 0.985 0.820 0.564 0.738 0.976 .819 .952 .8363 of Regional Center (Form I–924A) filings from 2017 and found that the average number of principals per regional center is 2.6, which we round up to three. The average filing figure is 428, which is the annual filings for the Forms I–924 and I–924A, which results in a population of 1,284.96 The total filing volume for the relevant group of forms, including the above estimate for regional center principals, is 1,043,606. Subtracting from this total the average of just 1,077 current biometrics collections yields 1,042,529, which, when multiplied by the BCR of .8363, yields 871,867. This is the third component of the new biometrics population, and it is the portion that applies to the dozen or so forms for which DHS would routinely collect biometrics under the rubric of the proposed rule. Denoting the current biometrics collection for the Other category as OB, 96 This population that combines I–924 initial and I–924 Amendments essentially captures new regional center applications plus filings from the 884 regional centers (as of June 13, 2019) that are approved by USCIS via earlier initial filings but submit revised or updated projects. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56378 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules which is 343,055 (Table 5), the new population is obtained via the equation: OB × BCR × (BAM¥1), which yields 13,484. This is the fourth and final component of the new biometrics population. The four new sub-populations representing future biometrics are summarized in Table 15. TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF NEW BIOMETRICS POPULATIONS Group Baseline New Total Regrouped prevalent set ............................................................................................................. Forms I–765/I–131 ....................................................................................................................... Phase III forms expansion ........................................................................................................... Other ............................................................................................................................................ 2,649,637 626,025 1,077 343,055 48,992 1,236,082 871,867 13,484 2,698,629 1,862,107 872,944 356,539 Sums ..................................................................................................................................... 3,619,794 2,170,425 5,790,219 As Table 15 connotes in the final row, the biometrics submitting population will grow by about 2.17 million annually. The baseline excludes the biometrics recently collected for the Form I–539. When the average biometrics for this form (280,767) are added back, the total biometrics submitting population would jump from 3.90 million (the current baseline derived earlier in the analysis) to 6.07 million. As a result, the generalized biometrics collection rate would rise from 46 to 71.2 percent (based on 2017 figures). d. Phase IV—Population Estimates for the Biometric Services Fee In Phase III DHS estimated that the biometrics submitting population would grow by over 2.17 million due to removing age restrictions and expanding collection across more forms. Having made this estimate, it is straightforward to take the next step and estimate the new biometrics fee paying population. The I–589 population is statutorily exempt from the fee, and N–400 applicants over 75 years of age do not pay the fee. However, neither of these two forms incurred new biometrics population segments, and are thus immaterial to this portion of the analysis. There is not a biometric services fee for the Form I–821D, to which we subtract the very small number of its 130 estimated new biometrics submissions (Table 14) from the new population. Applying the BFR of .75 to the adjusted new population, the new biometrics fee population is 1,627,721 and a total of 4,399,000 fee submissions would be collected annually in the future. The fee paying population would increase from 32.5 percent to 51.6 percent. e. Phase V—Expanded DNA Collection The proposed rule would allow, request, or require certain populations to use DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic relationship in support of certain benefit requests. This current VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 Phase V focuses on population estimates for certain benefit requests where an individual would be eligible to submit DNA evidence in support of a claimed genetic relationship. DNA test results can be used to establish or verify a claimed genetic relationship.97 Therefore, where possible, DHS estimates the number of individuals who would submit DNA tests due to the proposed rule by first identifying the total number of applicants or petitioners and beneficiaries/qualifying family members who may be eligible to submit DNA tests from the total annual volume of receipts for the form types including Forms I–130, I–730, I–914, Form I–918, and I–929.98 DHS then uses statistical characteristics from these population estimates to calibrate a DM, which is used to estimate eligible populations when there is missing information regarding the number of principal applicants or petitioners filing on behalf of their beneficiaries/qualifying family members. For example, Table 16 provides a list of relative categories that a Form I–130 petitioner can file on behalf of. Of these 97 DNA test results from an AABB-accredited lab can be used to validate a biological relationship. Although there is no expiration date for DNA test results examining a specific biological relationship, some AABB labs only keep the DNA test results for around 30 days. This means the test result documentation would either need to be maintained in the applicant, petitioner or beneficiary’s USCIS file or the documentation would need to be maintained by the applicant or petitioner paying for the DNA test. For the purposes of this analysis, DHS assumes that any applicant, petitioner or beneficiary associated with a benefit request would only submit his or her DNA evidence once annually regardless of the number of benefit requests with which they may be associated. These estimates are made by using a unique ID for each eligible applicant, petitioner or beneficiary to include the full name, birth date and fiscal year of the form receipt for each individual. 98 DHS proposes to require, request, or accept DNA evidence in support of these family-based benefit requests because DNA testing is an established technology that can help determine if there is a biological relationship between two individuals. Additionally, DNA testing for these family-based benefit requests would help DHS identify criminals and protect vulnerable populations under AWA and IMBRA. PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 different relative types, 7 relative types represent a potential for a claimed genetic relationship between the petitioner and beneficiary (see highlighted Form I–130 relative types). For instance, a Form I–130 petitioner filing on behalf of a 17-year old child under the eligibility category, ‘‘unmarried child under 21 of permanent resident, 203(a)(2)(A) INA,’’ represents one claimed genetic relationship that could be verified through DNA testing. To estimate the number of Form I–130 petitioners and beneficiaries who could submit DNA evidence, DHS quantifies the number of unique petitioners and beneficiaries who submit a Form I–130 based on one of the 7 relative types that would allow for DNA testing.99 In FY 2017, for example, DHS estimates 466,148 Form I–130 beneficiaries were classified under one of the 7 relative types that involved a claimed genetic relationship.100 At the same time, DHS estimates that 344,032 Form I–130 petitioners filed on behalf of these beneficiaries. Therefore, the FY 2017 DM for Form I–130 is 1.35.101 In the context of this, there were 11.35 99 The petitioner may file on behalf of multiple family members, and though this includes individuals to whom the petitioner is not biologically related, such as stepchildren and adopted children, most of these claimed relationships are relationships that could be verified through DNA testing. The petitioner would only need to submit DNA evidence on one occasion, as would each of his or her genetic relatives. . . . In addition, the DNA test results are valid indefinitely, meaning the test results could be used in subsequent benefit requests if the results are retained in USCIS files or the petitioner has an official copy of the test results. Therefore, DHS has used the fiscal year time stamp, full name and date of birth of the applicant, petitioner, and beneficiary to count the number of unique identities within a given fiscal year. This is done to avoid instances where one filer may be filing on behalf of multiple relatives or the same individuals could be filing multiple benefit requests in a given year for which previous DNA test results would be valid. 100 Data provided by the USCIS Office of Performance and Quality. 101 Calculation: 344,032 Form I–130 beneficiaries/ 466,148 Form I–130 petitioners = 1.35. (rounded) E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 56379 beneficiaries with a claimed genetic relationship per unique petitioner.102 TABLE 16—RELATIVE TYPES CONSIDERED FOR DNA TESTING FOR FORM I–130 BENEFICIARIES Husband or wife of U.S. Citizen, 201(b) INA. Unmarried child (under age 21) of U.S. Citizen, 201(b) INA. Unmarried son or daughter (21 or older) of U.S.C., 203(a)(1) INA. Married son or daughter of U.S. Citizen, 203(a)(3) INA. Parent of U.S. Citizen, 201(b) INA. Brother or sister of U.S. Citizen, 203(a)(4) INA. fianc&eacute;´(e) of U.S. Citizen, 214(k) INA. Husband or wife of permanent resident, 203(a)(2)(A) INA. Unmarried child under 21 of permanent resident, 203(a)(2)(A) INA. Unmarried son or daughter (21 or older) of permanent resident, 203(a)(2)(B) INA. Source: USCIS Analysis. * Note: Relatives with claimed genetic relationships are highlighted in gray. Although DHS is able to estimate the number of eligible genetic relationships within the total annual volume of receipts for certain form types, such as populations under Forms I–130, I–730, and I–929, for other form types the definitive nature of the genetic relationship is missing or there is not enough data to provide statistically valid inferences.103 Therefore, DHS uses the average DM of Forms I–130, I–730, and I–929, and the average number of eligible qualifying family members for Forms I–914A, and I–918A, with a claimed genetic relationship to estimate the number of eligible Form I–914 applicants and Form I–918 petitioners who could submit DNA evidence under the proposed rule.104 This grouping of forms are non-exhaustive, as USCIS may require, request, or accept DNA evidence to verify the existence of a claimed genetic relationship for other forms where the existence of a genetic relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, derivative, rider, or qualifying family member. From FY 2013 to FY 2017, DHS estimates an average of 328,737 Form I– 130 petitioners filing on behalf of 455,275 Form I–130 beneficiaries with a claimed genetic relationship. Over this same period of time, an average of 6,252 Form I–730 petitioners filed on behalf of 11,098 Form I–730 beneficiaries with a claimed genetic relationship. Also, from FY 2013 to FY 2017, an average of 131 Form I–929 petitioners filed on behalf of 174 Form I–929 qualifying family members with a claimed genetic relationship. The unweighted average DM for these three forms is 1.50,105 comprising a Form I–130 DM of 1.38,106 a Form I–730 DM of 1.78,107 and a Form I–929 of 1.34.108 TABLE 17—POPULATIONS WITH CLAIMED GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS, FORM I–130, FORM I–730 AND FORM I–929 [FY 2013–FY 2017] Form Beneficiary/qualifying family member (genetic relationship) Petitioner/applicant Dependents multiplier I–130 ............................................................................................ I–730 ............................................................................................ I–929 ............................................................................................ 328,737 6,252 131 455,275 11,098 174 1.38 1.78 1.33 Average ................................................................................ ........................................ ........................................ 1.50 From FY 2013 to FY 2017, an average of 528 Form I–914A qualifying family members and 13,151 Form I–918A qualifying family members requested an immigration benefit based upon a claimed genetic relationship (Table 17). Applying the average for Forms I–130, I–730, and I–929 DM of 1.50 to these populations, DHS estimates an average of 352 109 Form I–914A applicants and 8,767 Form I–918A petitioners filing on behalf of qualifying family members with a claimed genetic relationship. 102 A Form I–130 petitioner must file a benefit request for each eligible family member. As a result, these figures represent the total number of petitioners and beneficiaries in a given fiscal year. 103 Those filing under Form I–914 and Form I– 918 are able to file a benefit request on behalf of themselves or an eligible family member. Those applying for their own benefit request are required to file Form I–914 and Form I–918, while those filing for an eligible family member are required to file Form I–914A and Form I–918A. 104 DHS uses this approach because it assumes the number of applicants or petitioners relative to the number of dependents to be similar for these family-based benefit requests. 105 Calculation: (Form I–130 DM of 1.38 + Form I–730 DM of 1.78 + Form I–929 DM of 1.33)/3 = 1.50 (rounded). 106 Calculation: 455,275 Form I–130 dependents/ 328,737 Form I–130 petitioners = 1.38 (rounded). 107 Calculation: 11,098 Form I–730 dependents/ 6,252 Form I–730 petitioners = 1.78 (rounded). 108 Calculation: 174 Form I–929 dependents/131 Form I–929 petitioners = 1.33 (rounded). 109 Calculation: 528 Form I–929 DNA tests for dependents/1.50 DM = 352 principal filers (rounded). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56380 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 18—POPULATIONS WITH CLAIMED GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS, FORM I–914A, FORM I–918A [FY 2013–FY 2017] Derived principal petitioner/applicant (genetic relationship) Form I–914A .......................................................................................... I–918A .......................................................................................... Eligible qualifying family members (genetic relationship) 352 8,767 Average dependents multiplier (Form I–130, Form I–730 and Form I–929) 528 13,151 1.50 1.50 Source: USCIS Analysis using data from USCIS Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ). In total, DHS estimates 824,465 individuals who are associated with a benefit request based upon a claimed genetic relationship (Table 18). Of this total, 344,239 were principal applicants and petitioners who claimed genetic relationships with 480,226 beneficiaries/qualifying family members. Under the proposed rule, DHS would require, request, or accept DNA evidence to establish or verify a claimed genetic relationship. However, DHS currently accepts DNA test results for 11,383 beneficiaries (on average, Table 8). Using the average DM of 1.50, DHS estimates there are currently 7,589 principal filers who submit DNA evidence in support of a claimed genetic relationship.110 After accounting for the number of individuals who are currently submitting DNA evidence, DHS estimates there are 805,493 individuals who could be impacted by the proposed rule. Of this total, there are 336,650 principal applicants and petitioners with claimed genetic relationships with 468,843 beneficiaries/qualifying family members. TABLE 19—POPULATIONS WITH CLAIMED GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS, FORM I–130, FORM I–730, FORM I–929, FORM I– 914A AND FORM I–918A [FY 2013–FY 2017] Principal petitioner/ applicant Form Eligible dependent (genetic relationship) Total I–130 ............................................................................................ I–730 ............................................................................................ I–914A .......................................................................................... I–918A .......................................................................................... I–929 ............................................................................................ 328,737 6,252 352 8,767 131 455,275 11,098 528 13,151 174 784,012 17,350 880 21,918 305 Total ...................................................................................... Baseline ....................................................................................... 344,239 7,589 480,226 11,383 824,465 18,972 Total Incremental ........................................................... 336,650 468,843 805,493 DNA evidence to establish a claimed genetic relationship. Supplemental Population—NTAs Figures were provided by DHS components for FY 2018 for the NTAs under age 14, and the relevant population 111 is 62,716.112 The benefit-cost analysis is separated into two sections. The first section focuses on the total costs of submitting biometrics, including the proposed use of new modalities to collect biometric information. The increased biometrics services fees are also covered here. The second section is concerned with the costs associated with the proposed provision to require, request, or accept a. Costs to the Biometric-Submitting New Population The proposed rule would increase the types of biometric modalities required to establish and verify an identity, including the potential use of iris and facial image, palm print, and voice print. Although DHS would implement the use of these proposed technologies, it does not expect a considerable increase in the time burden for an individual to submit biometric information to USCIS. Currently, an individual submits a photograph as part of their biometrics appointment. Under the proposed rule, DHS would be able 110 Calculation: 13,151 Form I–918A DNA tests for dependents/1.50 DM = 8,767 principal filers (rounded). 111 The collection of biometrics will not result in 62,716 additional NTAs being issued by DHS components, rather this population of 62,716 received NTAs in FY2018. Under the proposed authority in this rule, DHS estimates that it would issue NTAs to the same population but collect biometrics from the under-14-year-old population that receives an NTA to establish or verify their identity. 112 The population figure is broken out as follows: Under ICE Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO), Administrative actions, 1,712, Criminal cases, 0, and other NTAs, 2,083. Under Homeland Security 4. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to collect an individual’s iris and facial image by using the same process to take a photograph.113 Similarly, during a biometrics appointment an individual currently submits an index finger press print, an 8 fingerprints, or a full ‘10-roll’ fingerprint. Under the proposed rule, DHS would also collect an individual’s palm print by using the same procedure and equipment, which may take a few additional seconds. The proposed rule would also include an individual’s voice print, which would take a few seconds to record. For these reasons, DHS does not expect the time burden to increase substantially beyond the current estimate of 1 hour and 10 minutes. However, DHS has not Investigations, 123. Under CBP, Office of Field Operations, 19,340, Border Patrol (apprehensions), 39,458. 113 The photograph would be taken with a camera that has the capacity to collect iris image or facial recognition. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules conducted any pilot programs or field tests to test this expectation. Therefore, the population that we have described throughout this analysis as the baseline that currently submits biometrics would not incur a quantified impact from this proposed rule in terms of costs. New populations that would submit biometrics would incur the opportunity costs of time to submit biometric information at an ASC. Because of this, the wage that individuals earn becomes central to the cost estimates. DHS will rely on the minimum wage. In some DHS rule-makings, the estimates of distributional impacts and time related opportunity costs were linked to the federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is $7.25, which, when burdened for benefits by a multiple of 1.46, is $10.59 per hour.114 This reliance is grounded in the notion that most would be new entrants to the labor force and would not be expected to earn relatively high wages. In this proposed rule-making, we rely on a slightly more robust ‘‘prevailing’’ minimum wage of $8.25. As is reported by the Economic Policy Institute, many states have their own minimum wage, and, even within states, there are multiple tiers.115 Although the minimum wage could be considered a lower-end bound on true earnings, the prevailing minimum wage is fully burdened, at $12.05, which is 13.8 percent higher than the federal minimum wage.116 DHS is aware that some forms, such as the Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur (Form I–526) and Form I– 924 are linked to investmentauthorization and that the minimum wage may not be realistic for these forms. However, the populations associated with these forms are relatively very small, and therefore it would not make much difference to overall costs to assign them a higher 114 The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as (Total Employee Compensation per hour)/(Wages and Salaries per hour) = $36.32/$24.91 = 1.458 (1.46 rounded). See https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ archives/ecec_03192019.pdf. Calculation for annual federal minimum salary: Hourly wage of $10.59 × 2,080 annual work hours = $15,080. 115 The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) report (2016) is available at: https://www.epi.org/ publication/when-it-comes-to-the-minimum-wagewe-cannot-just-leave-it-to-the-states-effective-stateminimum-wages-today-and-projected-for-2020//. There are multiple tiers of minimum wages across many states that apply to size of business (revenue and employment), occupations, working hours, and other criteria. Some of these variations per state are described at: https://www.minimum-wage.org (last visited Apr 7, 2020). 116 Calculations (1) for prevailing minimum wage: $8.25 hourly wage × benefits burden of 1.46 = $12.05; (2) (($12.05 wage¥$10.59 wage)/$10.59)) wage = .1378, which rounded and multiplied by 100 = 13.8 percent. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 wage. While DHS does not rule out the possibility that some portion of the population might earn wages at the average level for all occupations, without solid a priori information, relying on the prevailing and benefits burdened minimum wage is justifiable. DHS welcomes public comment on this issue. Individuals would need to travel to an ASC for their appointment.117 DHS estimates that the average round-trip distance to an ASC is 50 miles, and that the average travel time for the trip is 2.5 hours.118 The cost of travel also includes a mileage charge based on the estimated 50-mile round trip at the 2019 General Services Administration rate of $0.58 per mile.119 DHS estimates the total cost of traveling to an ASC to submit biometrics is $59.13, which is the sum of $29 in direct travel costs and $30.13 in time-related opportunity costs.120 Because an individual would spend one hour and 10 minutes (1.17 hours) at an ASC to submit biometric information, the total opportunity cost of time is $14.10 per appointment (separate from the fee and travel-related costs). DHS estimates the total cost for an individual to submit biometrics by summing the opportunity cost of time to submit biometrics and the total traveling costs for biometric services. The total cost for an individual to submit biometrics is $73.23 without the service fee and $158.23 with the $85 fee. To determine the annual cost of submitting biometrics, DHS applies the previously discussed individual costs to the populations estimated in Phase III of the analysis. DHS estimated that 2,170,425 additional individuals would submit biometrics under the proposed 117 DHS expects the majority of biometrics appointments to occur in the United States at an ASC facility. However, in certain instances individuals may submit biometrics at an overseas USCIS or Department of State facility. However, because DHS does not currently have data tracking the specific number of biometric appointments that occur overseas, it uses the cost and travel time estimates for submitting biometrics at an ASC as an approximate estimate for all populations submitting biometrics in support of a benefit request. 118 See DHS Final Rule, Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives, 78 FR 535 (Jan. 3, 2013). 119 The General Services Administration mileage rate of $0.58, effective January 1, 2019, available at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/ transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-ownedvehicle-mileage-rates/pov-mileage-rates-archived (last visited Apr. 7, 2020). 120 We note here that in a particular aspect, the costs that would accrue to travel to an ASC may be overstated. It is logical that since children cannot drive, families could travel together, reducing the number of individuals separately incurring travel costs. We do not have salient information for which we could quantify this possibility. PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56381 rule. At a per-filer cost of $73.23, total biometrics submission costs would be $158,940,196. An estimated 1,627,721 new biometrics fee payments would generate $138,356,283 in new feerelated costs. The two cost segments tally to $297,296,479. In terms of biometric collection from individuals encountered by DHS for law enforcement purposes, e.g., upon apprehension for removal from the United States, under the INA, any scenario there is not likely to be a cost to these individuals whose biometrics are collected for purposes of NTA issuance. With respect to other DHS components (i.e., ICE ERO, CBP OFO, and Border Patrol) individuals who fall into the category would generally be in custody when biometrics are collected, and, as such, there would be no opportunity costs or travel-related costs to the individual . . . USCIS does not take individuals into custody, so the biometric collections for USCIS will not be in a custodial setting, but will nevertheless result in no cost to individuals. USCIS NTA issuance is currently, as well as historically, predicated on the denial of an immigration benefit request. USCIS resubmits the previously collected biometrics associated with the underlying, denied benefit request to the FBI for updated criminal history information prior to NTA issuance. We expect that there will be some costs that can be monetized that would accrue to USCIS as part of the fees it pays to the FBI for Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks submitted by authorized users (it is noted that law enforcement agencies within DHS do not pay the fee, but USCIS is not a law enforcement agency). There could be relatively minor costs to USCIS associated with transferring background check data. The fee that the FBI charges to USCIS was revised most recently to $11.25 at 83 FR 48335.121 Based on the population of 62,716, the costs annually would be $705,555 (62,716 NTAs multiplied by $11.25). Adding this to the biometrics costs above yields a total cost of $298,002,034 annually. Over a 10-year time period, in nondiscounted terms, the costs would be $2,980 million. At three and seven percent rates of discount, the 10-year present values of the combined costs are, in order, $2,542 million and $2,093 million. Since the annual inputs to the discounting system is the same each year, the average annualized 121 The notice, with an effective date of January 1, 2019, is found at: https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/24/ 2018-20644/fbi-criminal-justice-informationservices-division-user-fee-schedule. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56382 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules equivalence cost, at either rate of discount, is the same as the nondiscounted annual cost, which is $298 million. b. Costs Involving DNA Submissions The second section of this analysis evaluates the total cost of submitting DNA evidence in support of a benefit request. DHS performs this analysis by first considering the fees associated with submitting evidence for DNA testing. Next, DHS considers the time burden for submitting DNA evidence. Finally, DHS addresses the travel and time burden costs of traveling to an accredited AABB lab and an overseas USCIS or DOS facility. The compilation of these costs segments will comprise the total costs involving new DNA submissions. The process for submitting DNA evidence begins when the principal applicant or petitioner submits DNA evidence at an accredited AABB laboratory, including a fee of approximately $440 to test the first genetic relationship, and $220 for each additional test.122 The principal applicant or petitioner would pay the fee directly to the accredited AABB laboratory. For beneficiaries/qualifying family members outside of the United States, a DNA testing kit is sent from the AABB lab to a USCIS or DOS facility located overseas.123 For all DNA tests conducted outside of the United States, the beneficiaries/qualifying family members would be responsible for paying a trained professional who swabs his or her cheek to collect the DNA sample. DHS estimates this DNA swab test would cost the beneficiary an average of $100 per DNA collection.124 Therefore, for a DNA test conducted overseas, the total cost would be $540 to test the first genetic relationship and $320 for each additional test.125 DHS does not currently track the time burden estimates for submitting DNA evidence at an AABB accredited lab or to a trained professional at a U.S. Government/DOS international facility. Therefore, DHS does not attempt to quantify these specific costs in the proposed rule. Similarly, DHS does not currently track the travel cost or time burden for traveling to an AABB lab. However, most AABB labs have affiliates throughout the country where applicants and petitioners can submit DNA evidence. There would be added travel/other costs involved, and DHS welcomes public comment on such costs. Some petitioners and beneficiaries/ qualifying family members who submit DNA evidence to establish a genetic relationship in support of a benefit request would have to travel to an international USCIS or DOS U.S. Government office. Once again, DHS does not have specific information regarding the distance needed to travel to an approved international facility. Furthermore, DHS expects the travel distance to visit an overseas U.S. Government office to be higher due to a limited presence in most foreign countries. In the first year this rule becomes effective, DHS estimates there would be a maximum of 336,650 principal applicants or petitioners filing on behalf of 468,843 beneficiaries/qualifying family members based upon a claimed genetic relationship. Because the DNA testing costs decline once the first genetic relationship has been tested, DHS estimates there are 336,650 DNA tests affiliated with the first DNA test and 132,193 DNA tests affiliated with additional family members.126 Based on these possibilities the total DNA testing fees would be $224,092,760, which comprise $181,791,000 to test a first genetic relationship and $42,301,760 to test additional family members with a claimed genetic relationship (Table 20). TABLE 20—DNA TESTS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS Principal petitioner/ applicant (genetic relationship) Population/fee Eligible beneficiaries/ qualifying family members (genetic relationship) Total DNA Fees: Population ............................................................................. Test Fees .............................................................................. 336,650 $540.00 132,193 $320.00 468,843 Total Cost ...................................................................... $181,791,000 $42,301,760 $224,092,760 Source: USCIS Analysis using data from USCIS Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ) and Refugee, Asylum and International Operations. Because DHS does not know with certainty how many individuals would be requested or required (or would elect to submit) DNA evidence to be used to verify a claimed genetic relationship, we present the following sensitivity analysis in order to cover potential range of costs. Table 21 shows the range of values for the percentage of principal applicants or petitioners and the percentage of beneficiaries/qualifying family members who would be eligible to submit DNA evidence in support of a benefit request under this proposed rule. TABLE 21—TOTAL RANGE OF COSTS FOR SUBMITTING DNA EVIDENCE Percent of principal petitioners/applicants and dependents submitting DNA evidence 10% .............................................................................................................................................. 20% .............................................................................................................................................. 122 United States Department of State, P–3 Frequently Asked Questions: DNA, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. 123 DHS expects most DNA tests for dependents to occur at an overseas facility. However, it is possible for a dependent to submit their DNA evidence at an AABB lab. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 124 USCIS International Operations Division (IO) in the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate (RAIO) estimates $100 for such costs. 125 Calculation (total DNA Cost when 1st Beneficiary is Residing Overseas) = $440 DNA Test + $100 Swab Fee = $540. Calculation (total DNA Cost for Each Additional Beneficiary Residing PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Number of principal petitioners 33,665 67,330 Number of dependents 46,884 93,769 Total cost $22,409,276 44,818,552 Overseas) = $220 DNA Test + $100 Swab Fee = $320. 126 Calculation: 468,843 beneficiaries/qualifying family members with a claimed biological relationship—336,650 principal applicants or petitioners = 132,193 DNA tests for additional family members. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 56383 TABLE 21—TOTAL RANGE OF COSTS FOR SUBMITTING DNA EVIDENCE—Continued Percent of principal petitioners/applicants and dependents submitting DNA evidence 30% .............................................................................................................................................. 40% .............................................................................................................................................. 50% .............................................................................................................................................. 60% .............................................................................................................................................. 70% .............................................................................................................................................. 80% .............................................................................................................................................. 90% .............................................................................................................................................. 100% ............................................................................................................................................ DHS will not attempt to discount all of the range, above, and instead provides low, midrange, and high-end estimates. Since it is reasonable to assume that some collection will occur, but, that it will not be complete (100 percent), we set the range values at 10, 50, and 90 percent. In that order, the undiscounted ten-year costs in millions are $224.1, $1,120.5, and $2.016.8. In order again, the ten-year discounted present values at a 3 percent rate of discount, are, in millions, $191.2, $955.8, and $1,720.4. In order again, the ten-year discounted present values at a 7 percent rate of discount, are, in millions, $157.4, $787.0, and $1,416.5. The biometrics consist of a photograph, fingerprints, and signature to conduct identity, eligibility, national security, criminal history background checks, and in certain situations, biological average annualized equivalence costs are the same at either rate of discount Number of principal petitioners Number of dependents 100,995 134,660 168,325 201,990 235,655 269,320 302,985 336,650 140,653 187,537 234,422 281,306 328,190 375,074 421,959 468,843 Total cost 67,227,828 89,637,104 112,046,380 134,455,656 156,864,932 179,274,208 201,683,484 224,092,760 and correspond to the undiscounted figures in Table 21. Having parsed out the biometrics (which includes the service fees and NTA fees) costs and the DNA-related costs, the two bins can next be collated to estimate the total costs of the proposed rule. For this we present Table 22, which provides the undiscounted and discounted costs based on the three DNA data-range points suggested above. TABLE 22—TOTAL MONETIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED BIOMETRICS RULE [Millions] DNA-low (10%) 10 year costs: • Undiscounted .................................................................................................................... • 3% discount ...................................................................................................................... • 7% discount ...................................................................................................................... Average Annual: • Undiscounted .................................................................................................................... • 3% discount ...................................................................................................................... • 7% discount ...................................................................................................................... c. Costs to the Federal Government Under the proposed rule, three cost modules could impact the Federal Government. The first cost module is attendant with the capacity of DHS to process biometrics for additional populations. As previously stated, the population that would submit biometrics at an ASC would increase due to elimination of the age restrictions and the expansion of collection across a broadened set of form types. In annual terms, the population that would submit biometrics would increase from a baseline volume of 3,900,561 to an estimated volume of 6,070,986. This 127 Economies of scale is a technical term that is used to describe the process whereby the greater the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 DNA-midrange (50%) DNA-high (90%) $3,204.1 2,733.2 2,250.4 $4,100.5 3,497.8 2,880.0 $4,996.9 4,262.4 3,509.6 320.4 320.4 320.4 410.0 410.0 410.0 499.7 499.7 499.7 increase would represent an increase of 2.17 million annual biometric submissions and pull up the general collection rate across all USCIS forms above 70 percent. The DHS ASC contract was designed to be flexible in order to process varying benefit request volumes. The pricing mechanism within this contract embodies such flexibility. Specifically, the ASC contract is aggregated by USCIS District and each District has five volume bands with its pricing mechanism. As a general principle, the pricing strategy takes advantage of economies of scale in that larger biometric processing volumes have smaller corresponding biometric processing prices.127 For example, Table 23 provides an illustrative example of the pricing mechanism for a USCIS District. This particular district has a monthly fixed cost of $25,477.79, which would cover all biometric submissions under a volume of 8,564. However, the price per biometric submission decreases from an average cost of $6.66 for volumes between a range of 8,565 and 20,524 to an average of $5.19 once the total monthly volume exceeds 63,503. In other words, average cost is a decreasing function of the biometrics submissions volume. quantity of output produced (in this case more biometric service appointments) the lower the perunit fixed cost or per-unit variable costs. PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56384 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 23—ILLUSTRATIVE PRICING MECHANISM FOR A DISTRICT PROCESSING BIOMETRIC APPOINTMENTS Volume band District X Baseline: Fixed price per month .................................................................................. Fixed price per person processed ............................................................................... Fixed price per person processed ............................................................................... Fixed price per person processed ............................................................................... Fixed price per person processed ............................................................................... AA AB AC AD AE ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... Min volume 0 8,565 20,525 31,753 63,505 Max volume 8,564 20,524 31,752 63,504 95,256 Costs $25,477.79 6.66 5.94 5.53 5.19 Source: USCIS, Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate (IRIS). In addition, the maximum monthly volume of biometric submissions allowed by the current ASC contract is 1,633,968 and the maximum annual volume is 19,607,616. It is important to note that these are theoretical volumes, as DHS has never processed this many applicants in a month or in a year. However, based on the current ASC contract, DHS expects that an additional 2.17 million biometric submissions per year would not impact DHS’ ability to process these additional populations. In addition, DHS does not expect the Federal Government to incur additional costs as a result of the additional volumes that may submit biometrics under the proposed rule due to the diminishing cost structure presented in Table 23. Stated differently, even though volumes could vary from those estimated in this analyses, the upper bound on the maximum volume stipulated by the ASC contract is many times greater than the realistic volume increase due to the proposed rule (and is in fact greater than the total volume of USCIS filings). It is noted here that our claim against rising costs to ASCs is based on the total volume of the ASC contract and the total volume of expected biometric submissions; and, the example we provided showing decreasing unit costs (on average) was for a specific USCIS processing district. It is possible that for any individual district, the volume of new biometrics submissions might pull the totals to a level that would surpass the budget allocation for that district. If this occurs, costs could conceivably rise or budgets may need to be increased. While the above discussion centers on USCIS budgetary costs, it is possible that real resource costs to the economy could accrue to higher volumes. The second cost module accrues to the ability to use and implement the proposed modalities, such as iris and facial images, palm print, and voice print, to collect biometrics in support of a benefit request. Although DHS is not currently able to quantify the aggregate cost for implementing the proposed modalities, it does calculate a unit cost estimate to provide an demonstrative VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 example of the costs that may be incurred by the Federal Government. The camera that is currently used to collect an applicant, petitioner, beneficiary or sponsor’s photograph has a unit cost of $471.128 Under the proposed rule, a camera that has the capacity to collect iris image or facial recognition would cost an average of $650, representing an additional cost of $179 per camera.129 DHS does not know yet whether existing cameras could be upgraded to collect iris images and facial recognition, so it is possible that the rule would result in costs equal to the full costs of replacing cameras ($650 plus any costs of removing old cameras and installing new ones). However, DHS believes that because the current cameras were purchased in 2016, USCIS likely would have refreshed these cameras before the implementation date of this rule, even in the absence of the rule. Under the proposed rule, palm print may also be used for identity management in the immigration lifecycle. While DHS currently has the equipment that could collect the palm print of an individual, there may be some computing software updates that would need to be modified to accommodate the appropriate collection of this biometric evidence. Although DHS does not have cost estimates for such software or any associated information technology typology at this time, it has no reason to expect that such software updates would impose significant costs. Another modality that may be used to collect biometrics is related to an individual’s voice print. It is possible to collect a voice print using standard electronic equipment such as microphones installed in cell phones, desk phones, computers, and laptops. However, USCIS, in collaboration with DHS Science and Technology, is searching for a cost-effective and ergonomic device that will ensure, among other things, the quality of the recording; provide consistency across 128 Source: USCIS, IRIS. $650¥$471 = $179 additional cost to purchase a camera that can collect iris print or facial images. 129 Calculation: PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 different communication networks (e.g., network carriers such as AT&T and Verizon); and, ensure enough flexibility to accommodate individuals with various physical characteristics, but does not know yet how many such devices it may need to procure.130 At this time, DHS is not planning to procure expensive or specialized equipment to collect an individual’s voice print. DHS cannot predict the costs of such equipment at this time. The third cost module involves the costs of facilitating DNA collection to establish or verify a claimed genetic relationship. As previously stated, individuals submitting DNA evidence in the United States would be responsible for paying the associated DNA testing fees. However, when the applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary/qualifying family member submits DNA evidence outside of the United States, DHS facilitates DNA collection at USCIS Government offices or, if USCIS does not have an office in that country, DOS has agreed to facilitate collection of DNA. DHS does not currently charge a fee for facilitating the collection of DNA. At this time, DHS plans to incur all future costs for facilitating the collection of DNA evidence. As previously stated, DOS facilitates the collection of DNA and USCIS reimburses DOS on a per case basis. Table 24 provides a summary of costs associated with DNA collection facilitated by DOS. From FY 2015 to FY 2017, USCIS paid DOS an average of $263.95 per DNA collection facilitated by DOS.131 Of the average 11,383 DNA tests that were used to establish a genetic relationship annually between FY 2015 and FY 2017, DHS facilitated 53.7 percent 132 and DOS facilitated 46.3 percent.133 130 The device would have similar features to a webcam and it would be able to adjust for a person’s height. 131 Calculation: $1,390,595 Average Cost/5,268 average number of DNA tests = $263.95 (rounded). 132 Calculation: 6,115 USCIS-facilitated DNA tests/11,383 total DNA tests = 53.72 percent (rounded). 133 Calculation: 5,268 DOS-facilitated DNA tests/ 11,383 total DNA tests = 46.28 percent (rounded). E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules DHS is unable to project how many new DNA tests facilitated by DOS will take place annually. DHS will not be conducting a DNA test for all the applications or petitions where a genetic relationship is relevant or claimed. Instead, DHS will only require or request DNA when a claimed genetic relationship cannot be verified through other/documentary means. In addition, applicants can volunteer on their own to submit DNA, but DHS has no method to project the number of people who will submit it. Additionally, a percentage of 56385 people will receive a request from USCIS to appear for DNA collection, but will fail to appear (resulting in no collection). For the reasons, projecting a number is difficult. TABLE 24—USCIS COSTS PER OVERSEAS DNA COLLECTION FACILITATED BY DOS [FY 2015–FY 2017] # of DNA collections (USCIS) Fiscal year # of DNA collections (DOS) Total DNA tests Total cost for DOS facilitation 2015 ......................................................................... 2016 ......................................................................... 2017 ......................................................................... 7,769 6,735 3,841 5,748 5,961 4,096 13,517 12,696 7,937 $1,862,697 1,368,646 940,442 Total ................................................................. 18,345 15,805 34,150 4,171,785 Average ............................................................ 6,115 5,268 11,383 1,390,595 Avg. cost per DNA test facilitated by DOS $324.06 229.60 229.60 263.95 Source: USCIS analysis using data from Refugee, Asylum and International Operations. d. Benefits to the Federal Government, Applicants, Petitioners, Sponsors, Beneficiaries, Requestors, or Individuals Filing an Immigration Request The proposed rule provides individuals requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits with a more reliable system for verifying their identity when submitting a benefit request. This would limit the potential for identity theft and reduce the likelihood that DHS would not be able to verify an individual’s identity and consequently deny an otherwise approvable benefit. In addition, the proposed rule would allow individuals to use DNA testing as primary or secondary evidence to establish or verify a claimed genetic relationship.134 According to AABB, DNA testing provides the most reliable scientific test currently available to establish a genetic relationship.135 Therefore, DNA testing would give individuals the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship using a more expedient, less intrusive, and more effective technology than the blood tests currently provided for in the regulations. See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi) The proposed rule would provide a benefit to the U.S. Government by enabling DHS to know with greater certainty the identity of individuals requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits. The expanded use of biometrics would provide DHS 134 Currently, DNA evidence is only used as secondary evidence, after primary evidence (e.g., medical records; school records) have proved inconclusive. 135 AABB, Standards for Relationship Testing Laboratories, App. 9—Immigration Testing. (13th ed. Jan. 1, 2018), available at https://www.aabb.org/ sa/Pages/Standards-Portal.aspx. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 with the ability to limit identity fraud because biometrics are unique physical characteristics and more difficult to falsify. In addition, using biometrics for identity verification would reduce the administrative burden of manual paper review involved in verifying identities and performing criminal history checks. The proposed rule would also enhance the U.S. Government’s capability to identify criminal activity and protect vulnerable populations. For example, the proposed provision to collect biometrics of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident petitioners of family-based immigrant and nonimmigrant fianc&eacute;´(e) petitions would enable DHS to determine if a petitioner has been convicted of certain crimes under the AWA and IMBRA. The proposed rule would also improve the capability of the U.S. Government to combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. Currently, individuals under the age of 14 do not routinely submit biometrics in support of a benefit request. As a result, DHS’ system for verifying the identity of vulnerable children is not as robust as it could be. For example, a vulnerable child with similar biographical characteristics to a child who has lawful immigration status in the United States may be moved across the border under the assumed identity of that other child, although DHS does not have specific data to identify the entire scope of this problem.136 Under the proposed rule, 136 See generally, Department of Homeland Security Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking, the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor, and Child Sexual Exploitation (January 2020). https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 DHS would be able to use biometrics to verify a child’s identity, which would be particularly useful in instances where biometrics are used to verify the identities of UAC and AAC. There could be some unquantified impacts related to privacy concerns for risks associated with the collection and retention of biometric information, as discussed in DHS’s Privacy Act compliance documentation. However, this rule would not create new impacts in this regard but would expand the population that could have privacy concerns. Finally, the provisions proposed in this biometrics rule provide DHS with the flexibility needed to implement, and are conducive to and compatible with, the USCIS evolution toward a personcentric model for organizing and managing its records, enhanced and continuous vetting, and a reduced dependence on paper documents. 5. Other Impacts DHS does not expect that the proposed rule would create impacts to the national labor force or that of individual states. In addition, DHS does not expect tax impacts or any distributional impacts from the proposed rule. In the below supplemental section, information and data is provided concerning additional DHS component activity linked to this proposed rule. publications/20_0115_plcy_human-traffickingforced-labor-child-exploit-strategy.pdf. See also, ‘‘ICE HSI El Paso, USBP identify more than 200 ’fraudulent families’ in last 6 months,’’ ICE News Release, dated October 17, 2019. https:// www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-hsi-el-paso-usbpidentify-more-200-fraudulent-families-last-6months. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56386 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules Summary Under this proposed rule DHS will authorize biometric collection from aliens regardless of age during enforcement actions requiring identity verification. In addition, DHS will be authorized collect biometrics, such as DNA, to verify claimed genetic relationships in cases where we suspect fraud. The authority to collect biometrics without any age restrictions will aid in criminal investigations or to identify victims in human trafficking cases and child smuggling. As a result of this proposed rule, DHS will be able to collect the biometrics of all minors during their initial immigration enforcement processing, which will require some operational changes for agents in the field. No new resources or system changes would be required as a result of this proposed rule. The current equipment, including the mobile biometrics units and the databases used to record the case files of aliens in custody, have the capabilities and capacity to include biometrics for the new population cohorts of under 14 years old and over 79 years old. The most significant impact will be informing and retraining staff of the change. Background Currently, the use of DNA is almost exclusively used to support the investigation of criminal cases when ICE is prosecuting aliens. The removal of age limits for the collection of biometrics and simultaneously authorizing DNA testing in order to verify a claimed genetic relationship under the proposed rule will assist ICE in performing functions necessary for effectively administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. Currently, when ICE arrests an alien, fingerprints are collected as part of the process of building an A-file on the alien. A handheld mobile biometrics application called ‘‘EDDIE’’ is used to facilitate the collection and recordkeeping of aliens in ICE custody. This handheld application effectively and efficiently collects fingerprints and photographs in about 30 seconds, which are then transferred to IDENT. Collecting biometrics is essential to determining what action to take in an individual’s immigration case. ICE does this by sending a query to IDENT and multiple databases managed by the FBI. The results from this query will reveal the individual’s immigration history, including past removal orders, criminal charges, or historical custodial information from CBP or ICE. As part of current procedures, ICE collects fingerprints from aliens (between the ages of 14 years and 79 years) when they are first encountered and when they are being removed. In FY 2018, ICE made 158,581 administrative arrests, which includes the taking of fingerprints and, if it is the individual’s first encounter with DHS, creating a file. As part of the removal process, ICE will take a person’s fingerprints again to verify identity prior to departure; in FY 2018, 256,085 individuals were removed, including 2,711 family units (at least one adult and one child) and 5,571 UAC. Table S1 provides data on ICE arrests and removals, noting that ICE ‘‘Arrests’’ represent only arrests by ICE law enforcement personnel, are generally within the boards of the continental United States, and do not include the cases that CBP initially apprehends and referrers to ICE for detention. FY 2016 Table S1(A)—ICE FY 2017 FY 2018 Arrests 137 Administrative Arrests .................................................................................................................. 110,104 143,470 158,581 240,255 1,728 2,545 226,119 2,326 3,598 256,085 2,711 5,571 Table S1(B)—ICE Removals 138 Adult ............................................................................................................................................. Family Units ................................................................................................................................. UAC ............................................................................................................................................. Currently, ICE collects DNA in two limited situations, first, on a case-bycase basis to identify instances of fraudulent claims of biological relationships at the border and, second, to support the investigation of criminal prosecutions. This NPRM relates to the first ICE purpose of DNA collection, specifically, to identify instances of fraudulent claims of biological relationships at the border. This fraud scheme generally involves adult nonU.S. persons and unrelated children posing as family units to DHS authorities. Family unit fraud can lead to, or stem from, other crimes, including immigration violations, identity and benefit fraud, alien smuggling, human 137 Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, available at: https:// www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/ eroFY2018Report.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 trafficking, foreign government corruption, and child exploitation. DHS initiated a pilot program in FY 2019 to combat fraudulent family claims using Rapid DNA testing kits provided through a contract with a vendor for $5.28 million. The contract included an estimated 50,000 DNA testing kits, and equipment to enable the collection of DNA from an individual using a cheek swab, and running an analysis using a desktop unit. Results from this process takes approximately 90 minutes. The collection of Rapid DNA profiles for identification and comparison can only be applied for determining if a family unit exists. As such, any Rapid DNA profile match that is less than a parentchild match (i.e., less than a 99.5 percent DNA profile match) will be 138 Id. 139 Privacy Impact Assessment for the Rapid DNA Operational Use https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/ PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 considered a negative match under ICE’s Rapid DNA testing.139 Population As part of its enforcement actions, ICE encounters two types of minors, those accompanied by an adult purported family member and those not accompanied by an adult family member. All minors will go through ICE’s current initial book-in process, which includes collecting fingerprints and, when needed, a photograph. However, under the proposed rule minors, regardless of age, will also have their biometrics collected and enrolled in IDENT. Table S2 breaks out ICE UACs Taken into custody be certain age groups. files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-rapiddna-june 2019_1.pdf. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56387 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE S2—UACS TAKEN INTO ICE CUSTODY Age groups FY 2015 0–4 years ......................................................................................................... 5 years–14 years ............................................................................................. The removal of age restrictions associated with biometrics collection, specifically those found at 8 CFR 215.8 and 8 CFR 235.1, will also impact CBP operations. CBP currently has the FY 2016 674 9,466 1,176 17,096 authority to collect biometrics for individuals applying for admission to the United States at points of entry (POEs) only if they are age 14 and above and under the age of 79. See 8 CFR FY 2017 FY 2018 YTD (4/21/2018) 853 11,300 549 5,310 235.1. CBP has the same authority, and restrictions, for those departing the United States at POEs. See 8 CFR 215.8. CBP data on applicants for admission are included below at Table S3. TABLE S3—CBP GENERAL ADMISSIONS DATA Passenger volume (arrivals) Alien/Non-Immigrant ................................................................................................................................................ <14 ........................................................................................................................................................................... >79 ........................................................................................................................................................................... The new populations for purpose of this rule are the ‘‘under 14’’ and ‘‘over 79’’ only. Additionally, it should be noted that CBP biometric collection at the POEs is fundamentally different than USCIS biometric collection at the ASCs. Unlike collection at the ASCs, there is no appointment made, no time to travel to a collection site, no biometrics services fee, and CBP is not charged a fee by the FBI for criminal history information (where necessary). Furthermore, CBP does not currently track all departures from the United States POEs. For purposes of this economic analysis, DHS assumes that every individual who enters subsequently departs, so CBP would have the authority to collect biometrics for the departing populations under 14 and over 79 as well. Costs and Benefits The costs of the proposed rule to DHS will stem from new guidance that will inform the staff of the change in operational procedures for booking in minors. DHS’ equipment used for collecting biometrics and the systems that house the information will not be impacted. DHS has enough mobile biometric devices to meet the needs of ICE as a result of this rule. ERO guidance on biometric collection will announce via a broadcast message, and in the training academy where agents are instructed in the proper procedures for biometric collection. Lastly, the annual refresher training required of all ERO staff will also need to be updated to reflect the elimination of age restrictions for biometrics. After the first year there will only be the reoccurring cost of the annual refresher training and the instructions given at the training academy. The new guidance and training required as a result of removing the age restrictions for biometrics collection will take on average one hour of each FY 2018 FY 2019 185,593,344 13,756,960 1,788,112 187,851,637 13,460,997 1,825,199 employee’s time. All ERO staff at headquarters, in the field, and at the academy will be required to take the training which will cost approximately $288,373 in the first year. In September 2019, there were 6,814 ERO staff nationally across 24 field offices, the average Federal Government General Schedule (GS) pay scale for staff in the field was a GS 10. In September 2019, there were 1,001 ERO staff, the average GS at headquarters was a GS 12. During FY 2018, there were 326 new agents at the academy who would spend an estimated one hour on the correct procedures for biometrics collection. The cost of informing all of ERO would occur within the first year, and no new additional training would be required after the first year. The current refresher training on biometrics collection would be updated to no longer include the age restrictions for biometrics, but would not require retraining of current procedures. TABLE S3—EXPECTED TRAINING COSTS Headquarters Field offices Academy Size of ERO Staff ........................................................................................... Average GS level ............................................................................................ 1,001 .............. GS–12 step 07 6,814 .............. GS–10 step 07 326 ................. GS–8 step 01. 8,141 Total cost for per hour of training ............................................................ $47,998 .......... $233,099 ........ $7,276 ............ $288,373 The proposed changes will result in numerous operational benefits, such as improving the identification of all minors throughout the duration of their immigration cases, and will help DHS better protect vulnerable populations from human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. By removing the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 age restrictions to allow the biometrics collection for minors, DHS can identify situations where a minor was trafficked multiple times or smuggled by transnational organized crime groups to the U.S. border. Using DNA to verify claimed genetic relationships is the most effective tool to deter fraud and trafficking. Further, by allowing DHS PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Total components to identify previously encountered aliens quickly and accurately, the rule efforts helps to preserve DHS resources and improve records management. This rule generally does not propose to authorize CBP or ICE to expand biometrics collections beyond either agency’s current, independent E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56388 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules authorities. However, this rule does propose to authorize CBP and ICE to expand their current biometrics collections for immigration benefit requests to individuals under the age of 14 and authorizes collection of additional biometrics modalities. DHS proposes to collect biometrics, without regard to age, upon apprehension, arrest, or repatriation for purposes of processing, care, and custody of aliens. DHS anticipates that this rule will assist ICE and CBP in identifying fraudulent familial relation claims at the border and upon apprehension. Collecting DNA to verify a claimed genetic relationship with an accompanying adult would aid DHS with the identification and care of UACs. In FY 2017 ICE had 12,153 minors under the age of 14 in custody, and in FY 2018 (year to date 4/21/2018) there were a total of 5,859 minors under the age of 14 in ICE custody. DHS recognizes that some individuals who submit biometrics/DNA could possibly be apprehensive about doing so and may be have concerns germane to privacy, intrusiveness, and security Data security can be considered a cost. For example, companies insure against data breaches, as the insurance payment can be a valuation proxy for security. In terms of this proposed rule, data security is an intangible cost, and we do not rule out the possibility that there are costs that cannot be monetized that accrue to aspects of privacy and data security. Finally, DHS notes that based on the discussion above, a salient estimate of future ICE and CBP biometrics collections cannot be determined. Furthermore, the logistics associated with such collections are not expected to impose costs to CBP or ICE. However, DHS cannot rule out the possibility that there could be costs that cannot be presently identified. DHS welcomes public comment on this and related topics. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–121 (March 29, 1996), requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during the development of their rules. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. DHS has reviewed this regulation in accordance with the RFA and believes that the vast majority of the population VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 impacted will not involve small entities. DHS estimates that about 2.17 million individuals and entities could be impacted by this proposed rule annually in terms of incurring monetized costs. Almost all of this total involves individuals who would submit biometrics in support of individual benefit requests which are not covered by the RFA. However, the population accruing to regional centers, which are the regional center principals, could be considered entities in terms of the RFA. Therefore, DHS has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). In addition, DHS will discuss one hypothetical scenario that could involve small entities. 1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Under the Regional Center Program, foreign nationals base their EB–5 petitions on investments in new commercial enterprises (NCEs) located within ‘‘regional centers.’’ DHS regulations define a regional center as an economic unit, public or private, that promotes economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. The small entity status of regional centers is difficult to assess because there is a lack of official data on employment, income, and industry classification for these entities, primarily because these centers generally are not actual businesses. Such a determination is also difficult because regional centers can be structured in a variety of different ways, and can involve multiple business and financial activities, some of which may play a direct or indirect role in linking investor funds to new commercial enterprises and job-creating projects or entities. DHS was not able to identify most of the entities in any of the public or private databases. For purposes of the small entity analysis, DHS did not focus on the bundled capital investment amounts (either $1 million or $500,000 minimum per investor) that currently are invested into an NCE. Such investments amounts are not indicative of whether the regional center is appropriately characterized as a small entity for purposes of the RFA. Due to the lack of regional center revenue data, DHS assumes regional centers collect revenue primarily through the administrative fees charged to investors. DHS was able, despite data constraints, to obtain some information under some specific assumptions to develop a methodology to analyze the small entity status of regional centers, as will be explained in detail under section D. In summary, DHS was able to determine PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 that a significant number of regional centers may be small entities. However, DHS cannot conclusively determine the impact of this proposed rule on those small entities. a. Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is Being Considered While DHS has the authority to collect biometrics from any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing a benefit request, biometrics are only mandatory for certain benefit requests. For all others, USCIS must decide if the request justifies collection of biometrics and, if so, notify the individual of where they will be collected. DHS has decided that this focus on background checks and document production is outdated because immigration benefit request adjudication includes verifying identity and determining whether or not the individual poses a risk to national security or public safety, in those instances where these factors may impact eligibility for an immigration benefit. DHS has decided that it is necessary to increase the use of biometrics from determining when biometrics may or should be collected in a case, to requiring routine biometric collections from individuals associated with certain immigration benefits. Therefore, DHS proposes in this rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit or other request, including U.S. citizens and without regard to age, must appear for biometrics collection, unless USCIS waives or exempts the requirement. b. Succinct Statement of the Objectives and Legal Basis the Proposed Rule The changes proposed in this rule would provide DHS with the flexibility to change its biometrics collection practices and policies to ensure that DHS can make adjustments necessary to meet emerging needs, such as national security, public safety, or fraud concerns; enhance the use of biometrics beyond national security and criminal history background checks and document production, to include identity management in the immigration lifecycle and enhanced vetting, to lessen the dependence on paper documents to prove identity and familial relationships and preclude imposters; and improve the consistency in biometrics terminology within DHS. USCIS has broad general and specific authority to collect or require submission of biometrics from applicants, petitioners, and beneficiaries for immigration benefits. Section 103(a) E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), provides general authority to DHS to administer and enforce immigration laws, including issuing forms, regulations, instructions, other papers, and such other acts the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the INA. The INA also provides specific authority for DHS to collect or require submission of biometrics in several sections, as is described more fully in the preamble. c. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply To perform the small entity analysis, DHS reviewed data from Form I–924 submissions. Specifically, DHS reviewed certain data for 574 regional centers with approved Forms I–924 in FY 2017, that actually had Form I–526 investment petitions submitted under their purview that year, such as the administrative fee that the regional center may charge to investors as well as plans and projections concerning investors. DHS assumes that these administrative fees contribute to the revenues of regional centers.140 Thus, to approximate regional center revenue, DHS multiplied the administrative fees by the number of associated EB–5 investors who filed a Form I–526 per regional center. DHS obtained the number of investors per regional center and proceeded to refine the regional center cohort by removing regional centers that did not have relevant data, that have been terminated, and that had no affiliated Form I–526 petitions associated with them (as those would present no information that could be used in the analysis). For the purposes of this analysis, DHS assumes that each Form I–526 associated with a regional center represents an instance in which the regional center will receive an administrative fee that will contribute to the regional center’s revenue. Although DHS cannot assume that administrative fees are paid when the forms are filed, this analysis assumes the fees will be paid eventually. For the approved regional centers that had data available for analysis, we obtained a cohort of 95 regional centers that were associated with 6,308 individual investors. Analysis reveals that the number of investors per regional center varies substantially, with a range of 2,272. The distribution is highly right-skewed, with a mean of 85, a median of 39, and a skewness value 140 The administrative fees charged to the investor may cover various charges related to the economic impact analysis, legal fees, business plan development, and immigration services fees. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 of 8. These results indicate that the median is a proper measure for central location. Next, DHS analyzed the administrative fees in the cohort. The distribution is tight (or clustered closely together) with both the mean and median at $50,000. Next DHS estimated revenues for each regional center in the analytical cohort by multiplying the total number of investors who filed a Form I–526 per regional center by its administrative fee, which yielded a median revenue amount of $1,250,000 over the period considered. To determine the appropriate size standard for the regional centers, DHS extensively reviewed various NAICS codes. DHS determined that NAICS code 522310, Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers defined as an ‘‘industry [that] comprises establishments primarily engaged in arranging loans by bringing borrowers and lenders together on a commission or fee basis,’’ may be an appropriate NAICS industry in which regional centers might be found given the typical activities undertaken by regional centerassociated NCEs (loaning EB–5 capital to the job-creating entities) and the role typically undertaken by regional centers in facilitating those activities. The SBA size standard for the NAICS category chosen is based on a revenue of $7.5 million. DHS compared the revenues of the 95 regional centers against this size standard and concludes that approximately 89 percent of regional centers may be small entities for the purposes of this IRFA. While DHS believes the methodology described in this section can lead to reasonable assumptions on the number of small entities that may be regional centers, DHS still cannot determine the exact impact of this rule on those small entities from the proposal. For example, if the costs related to biometrics and the service fee are incurred to regional centers via the principal, it is possible that the costs could be passed on to investors. Furthermore, we have identified the population related to Form I–924 and Form I–924A based on investor submissions in 2018. The entire cohort of 884 currently approved regional centers could also be considered small entities since they could, in any future year, also have submissions under their purview. In addition to the discussion of regional centers, DHS also highlights a possible scenario that could involve small entities. In some cases, a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident sole proprietor could petition for family members using an employment based form. However, in such a case the biometrics would apply to identity PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56389 management in the immigration lifecycle and vetting of both the petitioner and the beneficiary, but for the petitioner it would be on a case-bycase basis, not a routine biometrics collection. For such an instance, USCIS may need to verify identity or screen for fraud, but the likelihood of such a scenario is remote. Hence DHS expects minimal to no impact to small entities under this possible scenario. DHS welcomes public comment on the small entity status and any potential impacts to such small entities involving EB–5 regional centers or other entities. c. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record This rule would not directly impose any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small entities. Additionally, this rule would not require any additional professional skills. d. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed Rule DHS is unaware of any relevant federal rule that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. e. Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities DHS is not aware of any alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives and that would minimize the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities as this rule imposes no direct costs on small entities. If there are costs incurred to small entities, the costs would be indirect since they accrue to the regional center principal rather than directly to the regional center. Biometrics are a unique system for identity vetting and management and DHS does not believe there are alternatives in the context of the needs outlined for the proposed rule. DHS requests comments and seeks alternatives from the public that will accomplish the same objectives. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56390 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules f. Description of Combating Family Unit Fraud at the Southern Border and the Impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Use of Rapid DNA on Small Entities To combat family unit fraud in the immigration system, following a competitive solicitation process, ICE contracted with a vendor to provide personnel and equipment to conduct Rapid DNA analysis at the southern border. Rapid DNA, or Rapid DNA analysis, is a term used to describe the streamlined process of developing a DNA profile from a reference sample buccal (cheek) swab and permitting a trained human technician to analyze any inconclusive DNA results. The entire Rapid DNA testing process takes approximately 90 minutes. ICE’s Rapid DNA testing contract cost $5.28 million and covered a 5-month period between June and November of 2019. This fixedcost contract included up to 50,000 testing kits and 14 DNA processing instruments. The entity that received this contract with ICE is not a small business according to the Small Business Administration size standard for testing laboratories which is set at a maximum revenue of $16.5 million. Rather, it is part of the testing laboratories industry and in 2018 it had a total revenue of $18.16 million, with a total of 126 employees. individuals to provide biometrics information would not result in any expenditures by the State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector. The requirements of Title II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA. C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This proposed rule is a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This proposed rule would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. As small businesses may be impacted under this proposed regulation, DHS has prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis. E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Title II of UMRA requires each federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2018 levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumer (CPI–U) is $165 million. Although this proposed rule does exceed the $100 million expenditure threshold in an annual year when adjusted for inflation ($165 million in 2018 dollars), this rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. Requiring This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of E.O. 13132 (Federalism), it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996). G. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, all agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. Table 24 identifies the PRA action being taken on the listed information collections as a result of this rulemaking. TABLE 24—IMPACTS TO USCIS FORMS Form No. Form title PRA action I–102 .................. I–129 .................. Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document. Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker ............................................ I–129CW ............ I–129F ................ I–129S ................ Petition for CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transition Worker ........ Petition for Alien fianc&eacute;´e ......................................................... Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition ................ I–130 (I–130A) ... I–131 .................. I–290B ................ Petition for Alien Relative ......................................................... Application for Travel Document—Reentry Permit, Refugee Travel Document, Advance Parole Document. Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation) ...... Affidavit of Support ................................................................... Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers ....................................... Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the INA. Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant Pursuant to Section 212(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the INA, Section 212(d)(13) of the INA, or Section 212(d)(14) of the INA. Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States after Deportation or Removal. Notice of Appeal or Motion ...................................................... No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. I–360 .................. Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant ....... I–131A ................ I–134 .................. I–140 .................. I–191 .................. I–192 .................. I–212 .................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Revision Revision Revision Revision of of of of a a a a currently currently currently currently approved approved approved approved collection. collection. collection. collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 56391 TABLE 24—IMPACTS TO USCIS FORMS—Continued Form No. Form title I–485 .................. Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Supplement A to Form I–485, Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i). Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j). Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur ................................ Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status ............... Supplemental Information for Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. Inter-Agency Record of Request—A, G or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/From A, G, NATO Status. Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal ......... Registration for Classification as a Refugee ........................... Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative and Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition. Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition .... Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility ................. Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver ............ Application by Refugee for Waiver of Grounds of Excludability. Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement of Section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility ............... I–485 Sup A ....... I–485J ................ I–526 .................. I–539 .................. I–539A ................ I–566 .................. I–589 .................. I–590 .................. I–600 .................. I–600A ................ I–601 .................. I–601A ................ I–602 .................. I–612 .................. I–690 .................. I–698 .................. PRA action I–817 .................. I–821 .................. I–821D ................ Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident. Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition ............................................. Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence ................... Application for Employment Authorization ............................... Application for Employment Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse. Application for Benefits Under the Family Unity Program ....... Application for Temporary Protected Status ............................ Request for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival .................. I–824 .................. Application for Action on an Approved Application ................. I–829 .................. I–864 .................. I–864A ................ I–864EZ .............. I–864W ............... Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions ..................... Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act ................ Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member .............. Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act ................ Request for Exemption for Intending Immigrant’s Affidavit of Support. Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Sec. 203 of Pub. L. 105–100). Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card .................. I–730 .................. I–751 .................. I–765 .................. I–765V ................ I–881 .................. I–90 .................... I–907 .................. I–914 .................. I–914A ................ I–914B ................ I–918 .................. I–918A ................ I–918B ................ I–924 .................. I–924A ................ I–929 .................. N–300 ................. N–336 ................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Request for Premium Processing Service ............................... Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; Application for Immediate Family Member of T–1 Recipient; & Declaration of Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons. Supplement A to Form I–914, Application for Family Member of T–1 Recipient. Supplement B to Form I–914, Declaration of Law Enforcement Office for Victim of Trafficking in Persons. Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status ......................................... Form I–918, Supplement A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U–1 Recipient. Form I–918, Supplement B, U Nonimmigrant Status Certification. Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. Annual Certification of Regional Center .................................. Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant. Application to File Declaration of Intention .............................. Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings Under Section 336. 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision Revision Revision Revision of of of of a a a a currently currently currently currently approved approved approved approved collection. collection. collection. collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision. Revision. Revision of a currently approved collection. No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56392 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 24—IMPACTS TO USCIS FORMS—Continued Form No. Form title N–400 ................. N–470 ................. N–565 ................. Application for Naturalization ................................................... Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization ............. Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document. Application for Certificate of Citizenship .................................. Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322. N–600 ................. N–600K .............. 1. Various USCIS Forms Under the PRA, all agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. This rule will require non-substantive edits to the forms identified in the table above as ‘‘No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved collection.’’ These edits include: Updates to the Biometric Services Appointment language; removal of a biometric services fee paragraph; and removal of references to specific biometrics modalities, such as fingerprints. In accordance with the PRA, USCIS has submitted a PRA Change Worksheet, Form OMB 83–C, and amended information collection instruments for each of these forms to OMB for review and approval. USCIS Form I–129CW DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0111 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 PRA action Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. Revision of a currently approved collection. (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transition Worker. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–129CW; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. An employer uses this form to petition USCIS for an alien to temporarily enter as a nonimmigrant into the CNMI to perform services or labor as a CNMI-Only Transitional Worker (CW–1). An employer also uses this form to request an extension of stay or change of status on behalf of the alien worker. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–129CW is 3,749 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 7,498 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 38,765 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $459,253. USCIS Form I–129F DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0001 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Alien fianc&eacute;´(e). E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–129F; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. To date, through the filing of this form a U.S. citizen may facilitate the entry of his/her spouse or fianc&eacute;´(e) into the United States so that a marriage may be concluded within 90 days of entry between the U.S. citizen and the beneficiary of the petition. This form must be used to cover the provisions of section 1103 of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000 which allows the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant. The Form I–129F is the only existing form which collects the requisite information so that an adjudicator can make the appropriate decisions. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–129F is 52,135 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 52,135 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 360,774 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $8,941,153. USCIS Form I–130 (I–130A) DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0012 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Alien Relative. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–130; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information collected on this form is used to establish the existence of a relationship between the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident petitioner and certain alien relative beneficiaries who wish to immigrate to the United States. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–130 is 978,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–130A is 45,614 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.8333 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 1,024,114 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 5,753,495 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56393 cost burden associated with this collection of information is $391,400,000. USCIS Form I–131 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0013 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–131; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Certain aliens, principally permanent or conditional residents, refugees or asylees, applicants for adjustment of status, aliens in TPS, and aliens abroad seeking humanitarian parole must apply for a travel document to lawfully enter or reenter the United E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56394 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules States. Eligible recipients of deferred action under childhood arrivals (DACA) may now request an advance parole documents based on humanitarian, educational and employment reasons. Lawful permanent residents may now file requests for travel permits (transportation letter or boarding foil). (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–131 is 483,920 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.9 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 84,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–131 passport-style photos is 380,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 1,417,728 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $146,072,480. USCIS Form I–131A DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0135 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation). (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–131A; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses the information provided on Form I–131A to verify the status of permanent or conditional residents, and determine whether the applicant is eligible for the requested travel document. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–131A is 4,110 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.92 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 4,110 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 15,084 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $704,620. USCIS Form I–134 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0014 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–134; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS and DOS consular officers use this form to determine whether an applicant for a visa, adjustment of status, or entry to the United States may possibly be excludable on the ground that he or she is likely to become a public charge. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–134 is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.75 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 13,550 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $10,625. USCIS Form I–140 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0015 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I–140; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for- VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 profit U.S. employers may file this petition for certain alien beneficiaries to receive an employment-based immigrant visa. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–140 is 225,637 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.08 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the collection biometrics is 225,637 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 1,071,776 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $93,977,810. USCIS Form I–191 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0016 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56395 technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Relief under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–191; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS and EOIR use the information on the form to properly assess and determine whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver under former section 212(c) of INA. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–191 is 240 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.50 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 240 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 1,241 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $30,300. USCIS Form I–192 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0017 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56396 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–192; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data collected will be used by CBP and USCIS to determine whether the applicant is eligible to enter the United States temporarily under the provisions of section 212(d)(3), 212(d)(13), and 212(d)(14) of the INA. The respondents for this information collection are certain inadmissible nonimmigrant aliens who wish to apply for permission to enter the United States and applicants for T or petitioners for U nonimmigrant status. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–192 is 68,050 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 102,075 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 collection of information is $16,672,250.00. USCIS Form I–212 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0018 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–212; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Sections 212(a)(9)(A) and 212(a)(9)(C) of the INA render an alien inadmissible to the United States unless he or she obtains the consent to reapply (also known as permission to reapply) for admission to the United States. An PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 alien who is inadmissible under these provisions has either been removed (deported, or excluded) from the United States, or illegally reentered after having been removed (deported, or excluded), or illegally reentered after having accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States. The information collection required on Form I–212, is necessary for USCIS to determine whether the applicant is eligible to file the waiver. If the application is approved, the alien will be permitted to apply for admission to the United States, after being granted a visa with DOS as either an immigrant or a nonimmigrant. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–212 is 4,183 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I–212, CBP e-SAFE Filing is 700 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 4,183 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 25,118 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $613,854. USCIS Form I–360 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0020 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–360; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I–360 may be used by an Amerasian; a widow or widower of a U.S. citizen; a battered or abused spouse or child of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; a battered or abused parent of a U.S. citizen son or daughter; or a special immigrant (religious worker, Panama Canal company employee, Canal Zone government employee, U.S. Government employee in the Canal Zone; physician, international organization employee or family member, juvenile court dependent; armed forces member; Afghanistan or Iraq national who supported the U.S. Armed Forces as a translator; Iraq national who worked for the or on behalf of the U.S. Government in Iraq; or Afghan national who worked for or on behalf of the U.S. Government or the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan) who intend to establish their eligibility to immigrate to the United States. The data collected on this form is reviewed by USCIS to determine if the petitioner may be qualified to obtain the benefit. The data collected on this form will also be used to issue an EAD upon approval of the petition for battered or abused spouses, children, and parents, if requested. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–360 (Iraqi & Afghan Petitioners) is 2,874 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.1 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–360 (Religious Worker) is 2,393 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.35 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I– 360 (All Others) is 14,362 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.1 hours; and the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics for VAWA and Special Immigrant Juvenile self-petitioners is 32,240 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 154,105 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $2,404,430. USCIS Form I–485 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0023 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56397 (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–485; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information on Form I– 485 will be used to request and determine eligibility for adjustment of permanent residence status. Supplement A is used to adjust status under section 245(i) of the INA. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–485 is 382,264 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6.42 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–485A is 36,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I– 485 Supplement J is 28,039 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 382,264 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 3,930,353 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $131,116,552. USCIS Form I–526 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56398 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0026 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–526; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form is used to petition for classification as an alien entrepreneur as provided by sections 121(b) and 162(b) of the Immigration Act of 1990. The data collected on this form will be used by USCIS to determine eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 collection Form I–526 is 15,799 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.83 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection of biometrics is 15,799 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 86,895 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $17,378,900. USCIS Form I–539 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0003 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–539; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form will be used for nonimmigrants to apply for an extension of stay, for a change to another nonimmigrant classification, or for obtaining V nonimmigrant classification. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–539 (paper) is 174,289 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–539 (efile) is 74,696 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.083 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Supplement A is 54,375 and the estimated hour burden per response is .50 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for biometrics processing is 373,477 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 1,827,323 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $42,700,928. USCIS Form I–566 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0027 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Interagency Record of Request A, G, or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/From A, G, or NATO Status. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–566; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data on this form is used by DOS to certify to USCIS the eligibility of dependents of A or G principals requesting employment authorization, as well as for NATO/ Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (NATO/HQ SACT) to certify to USCIS similar eligibility for dependents of NATO principals. DOS also uses this form to certify to USCIS that certain A, G or NATO nonimmigrants may change their status to another nonimmigrant status. USCIS uses data collected on this form in the adjudication of change or adjustment of status applications from aliens in A, G, or NATO classifications. USCIS also uses Form I–566 to notify DOS of the results of these adjudications. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–566 is 5,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.42 hours. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 8,236 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $746,750.00. USCIS Form I–589 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0067 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–589; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56399 abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I–589 is necessary to determine whether an alien applying for asylum and/or withholding of removal in the United States is classified as refugee, and is eligible to remain in the United States. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–589 is approximately 114,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 12 hours per response; and the estimated number of respondents providing biometrics is 110,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 1,771,700 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $46,968,000. USCIS Form I–590 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0068 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56400 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Registration for Classification as a Refugee. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–590; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The Form I–590 is the primary document in all refugee case files and becomes part of the applicant’s A-file. It is the application form by which a person seeks refugee classification and resettlement in the United States. It documents an applicant’s legal testimony (under oath) as to his or her identity and claim to refugee status, as well as other pertinent information including marital status, number of children, military service, organizational memberships, and violations of law. In addition to being the application form submitted by a person seeking refugee classification, Form I–590 is used to document that an applicant was interviewed by USCIS and record the decision by the USCIS officer to approve or deny the applicant for classification as a refugee. Regardless of age, each person included in the case must have his or her own Form I–590. Refugees applying to CBP for admission must have a stamped I–590 in their travel packet in order to gain admission as a refugee. They do not have refugee status until they are admitted by CBP. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–590 is 50,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I–590 Request for Review is 1,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–590 DNA evidence is 100 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 51,600 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.33 hours. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 181,228 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $12,000. USCIS Form I–600, I–600A DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0028 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative and Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–600; I– PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 600A; Supplement 1; Supplement 2; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households; A U.S. adoptive parent may file a petition to classify an orphan as an immediate relative through Form I– 600 under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the INA. A U.S. prospective adoptive parent may file Form I–600A in advance of the Form I–600 filing and USCIS will make a determination regarding the prospective adoptive parent’s eligibility to file Form I–600A and their suitability and eligibility to properly parent an orphan. A U.S. adoptive parent may file a petition to classify an orphan as an immediate relative through Form I–600 under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the INA. If a U.S. prospective/adoptive parent has an adult member of his or her household, as defined at 8 CFR 204.301, the prospective/adoptive parent must include the Supplement 1 when filing both Form I–600A and Form I–600. Form I–600/I–600A Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose Information, is an optional form that may be filed to authorize USCIS to disclose case-related information that would otherwise be protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a to adoption service providers or other individuals. Authorized disclosures will assist USCIS in the adjudication of Forms I– 600A and I–600. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–600 is 1,200 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–600A is 2,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–600A Supplement 1 is 301 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–600A Supplement 2 is 1,260 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the home study information collection is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the biometrics information collection is 2,520 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours; and the estimated total number of respondents for the biometrics-DNA information collection E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules is 2 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 75,576 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $7,679,232. USCIS Form I–601 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0029 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–601; USCIS. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I–601 is necessary for USCIS to determine whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212 of the INA. Furthermore, this information collection is used by individuals who are seeking TPS. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–601 is 20,194 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.75 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 35,340 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $7,497,023. USCIS Form I–601A DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0123 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56401 use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver of Inadmissibility. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–601A; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households: Individuals who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and who are applying from within the United States for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) prior to obtaining an immigrant visa abroad. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–601A is 63,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents to the information collection biometrics is 63,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 325,710 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $3,413,812. USCIS Form I–698 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0035 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56402 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–698; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals and households. The data collected on Form I–698 is used by USCIS to determine the eligibility to adjust an applicant’s residence status. The form serves the purpose of standardizing requests for the benefit, and ensuring that basic information required to assess eligibility is provided by applicants. A person who has been granted temporary residence under Section 245A of the INA is eligible to apply to USCIS to adjust to permanent resident status no later than 43 months after their approval for temporary residence. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–698 is 100 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.25 hours; and the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 100 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 492 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $49,000. USCIS Form I–730 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0037 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–730; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 households. Form I–730 is used by a refugee or asylee to file on behalf of his or her spouse and/or children for follow-to-join benefits provided that the relationship to the refugee/asylee existed prior to their admission to the United States. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–730 is 6,039 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.677 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 6,039 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 26,191 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $1,592,500. USCIS Form I–751 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0038 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Extension. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–751; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information collected on Form I–751 is used by USCIS to verify the alien’s status and determine whether he or she is eligible to have the conditions on his or her status removed. Form I–751 serves the purpose of standardizing requests for benefits and ensuring that basic information required to assess eligibility is provided by petitioners. USCIS also collects biometric information from the alien to verify their identity and check or update their background information. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–751 is 159,119 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.75 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 160,076 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 1,771,654 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $19,492,078. USCIS Form I–765 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0040 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Employment Authorization. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–765; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses Form I–765 to collect the information that is necessary to determine if an alien is eligible for an initial EAD, a new replacement EAD, or a subsequent EAD upon the expiration of a previous EAD under the same eligibility category. Aliens in many immigration statuses are required to possess an EAD as evidence of work authorization. To be authorized for employment, an alien must be lawfully admitted for permanent residence or authorized to be so employed by the INA or under regulations issued by DHS. Pursuant to statutory or regulatory authorization, certain classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes. USCIS may determine PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56403 the validity period assigned to any document issued evidencing an alien’s authorization to work in the United States. These classes are listed in 8 CFR 274a.12. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–765 is 2,096,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 2,096,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–765WS is 266,148 and the estimated hour burden per response is .50 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 17,145,276 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $346,615,520. USCIS Form I–765V DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0137 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56404 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Employment Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–765V; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS will use Form I– 765V to collect the information that is necessary to determine if the applicant is eligible for an initial EAD or renewal EAD as a qualifying abused nonimmigrant spouse. Aliens are required to possess an EAD as evidence of work authorization. To be authorized for employment, an alien must be lawfully admitted for permanent residence or authorized to be so employed by the INA or under regulations issued by DHS. Pursuant to statutory or regulatory authorization, certain classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes. USCIS may determine the validity period assigned to any document issued evidencing an alien’s authorization to work in the United States. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I–765V is 1,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 1,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 6,670 hours. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $265,000. USCIS Form I–817 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0005 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Family Unity Benefits. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–817; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households: This information collected will be used to determine whether the applicant meets the eligibility requirements for benefits under 8 CFR 236.14 and 245a.33. Per 8 CFR PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 236.15(d), an alien under Family Unity Program is authorized to be employed in the United States and will receive an EAD after USCIS granted the benefits. Therefore, USCIS will issue an EAD and approval notice to the applicant. The respondents for this information collection are foreign nationals who apply for Family Unity Benefits in the United States. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–817 is 1,358 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 1,358 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 7,700 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $166,355. USCIS Form I–821 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0043 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Temporary Protected Status. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–821; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information provided will be used by the USCIS to determine whether an applicant for TPS meets eligibility requirements. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–821 is 4,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.41 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 4,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 24,320 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $490,000. USCIS Form I–821D DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0124 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–821D; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. As part of the administration of its programs, USCIS exercises its prosecutorial discretion on a case by case basis to defer action on instituting removal proceedings against individuals. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–821D initial requests is 40,819 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–821D renewal requests is 418,775 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 459,594 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56405 collection of information is 3,065,492 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $50,555,340. USCIS Form I–824 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0044 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–824; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This information collection is used to request a duplicate approval E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56406 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules notice, as well as to notify and to verify the U.S. consulate that a petition has been approved or that a person has been adjusted to permanent resident status. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–824 is 11,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.42 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 11,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 47,035 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $1,480,625. USCIS Form I–829 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0045 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–829; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form is used by a conditional resident alien entrepreneur who obtained such status through a qualifying investment, to apply to remove conditions on his or her conditional residence. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–829 is 3,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 3,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 26,845 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $428,750. USCIS Form I–864, I–864A, I–864EZ DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0075 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support under Section 213A of the INA and Notification of Reimbursement of Means-Tested Benefits. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–864; I– 864EZ; I–864A; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses the data collected on Form I–864 to determine whether the sponsor has the ability to support the sponsored alien under section 213A of the INA. This form standardizes evaluation of a sponsor’s ability to support the sponsored alien and ensures that basic information required to assess eligibility is provided by petitioners. Form I–864A is a contract between the sponsor and the sponsor’s household members. It is only required if the sponsor used the income of his or her household members to reach the required 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. The contract holds these household members jointly and severally liable for the support of the sponsored immigrant. The information collection required on Form I–864A is necessary for public benefit agencies to enforce the Affidavit of Support in the event the sponsor used income of his or her household members to reach the required income level and the public benefit agencies are E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules requesting reimbursement from the sponsor. USCIS uses Form I–864EZ in exactly the same way as Form I–864; however, less information is collected from the sponsors as less information is needed from those who qualify in order to make a thorough adjudication. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for Form I–864 is 453,345 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for Form I–864A is 215,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.75 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for Form I–864EZ is 100,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.5 hours; the information collection biometrics is 2,822,762 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this information collection of information is 6,170,482 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this information collection is $135,569,525. USCIS Form I–881 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0072 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–881; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I–881 is used by USCIS asylum officers, EOIR immigration judges, and BIA board members to determine eligibility for suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–881 is 520 and the estimated hour burden per response is 12 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 858 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 9,389 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $258,505. USCIS Form I–907 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56407 regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0048 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Premium Processing Service. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–907; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses the information provided on Form I–907 to provide petitioners the opportunity to request faster processing of certain employmentbased petitions and applications. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection form I–907 is 319,301 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.58 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56408 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules collection of information is 185,195 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $78,228,500. USCIS Form I–914, I–914A DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0099 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for T Nonimmigrant Status. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–914; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information on all three parts of the form will be used to determine whether applicants meet the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 eligibility requirements for benefits. This application incorporates information pertinent to eligibility under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA), Public Law 106–386, and a request for employment. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–914 is 980 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–914A is 1,024 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–914B law enforcement officer completion activity is 245 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–914B contact by respondent to law enforcement is 245 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 1,759 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 11,502 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $1,986,400. USCIS Form I–918, I–918A DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0104 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition For U Nonimmigrant Status. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–918 Supplements A and B; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households; Federal, State, and local governments. This petition permits victims of certain qualifying criminal activity and their immediate family members to apply for temporary nonimmigrant classification. This nonimmigrant classification provides temporary immigration benefits, potentially leading to permanent resident status, to certain victims of criminal activity who: Suffered substantial mental or physical abuse as a result of having been a victim of criminal activity; have information regarding the criminal activity; and assist government officials in investigating and prosecuting such criminal activity. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–918 is 36,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–918A is 25,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–918B is 36,000 and the estimated hour burden per response E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 61,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 477,370 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $259,250. USCIS Form I–924, I–924A DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0061 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Program. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–924; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data collected on Form I–924 and Form I–924A is used by USCIS to determine eligibility for an entity to be designated as a regional center, under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program created by section 610 of Public Law 102–395 (October 6, 1992). A regional center is defined as any economic unit, public or private, engaged in the promotion of economic growth, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. Alien entrepreneurs (EB–5 alien investors) admitted to the United States under section 203(b)(5) of the INA may meet the job creation requirements under INA section 203(b)(5)(A)(ii) through the creation of indirect jobs through capital investments made in commercial enterprises that are affiliated with regional centers that are designated for participation in the pilot program. The requirements for obtaining and terminating the regional center designation for participation in the pilot program are in 8 CFR 204.6(m)(3). (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection of Form I–924 is 400 and the estimated hour burden per response is 51 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection of Form I–924A Instructions is 882 and the estimated hour burden per response is 14 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection of Form I–924A Compliant Review is 40 and the estimated hour burden per response is 24 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection of Form I–924A Site Visit is 40 and the estimated hour burden per response is 16 hours; biometrics is 400 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 34,216 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56409 cost burden associated with this collection of information is $1,410,200. USCIS Form I–929 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0106 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I–929; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Section 245(m) of the INA allows certain qualifying family members who have never held U nonimmigrant status to seek lawful permanent residence or apply for immigrant visas. Before such family members may apply for adjustment of E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56410 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules status or seek immigrant visas, the U– 1 nonimmigrant who has been granted adjustment of status must file an immigrant petition on behalf of the qualifying family member using Form I– 929. Form I–929 is necessary for USCIS to make a determination that the eligibility requirements and conditions are met regarding the qualifying family member. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I–929 is 1,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 1,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 7,005 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $183,750. USCIS Form N–336 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0050 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings under Section 336. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N–336; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form provides a method for applicants, whose applications for naturalization are denied, to request a new hearing by an Immigration Officer of the same or higher rank as the denying officer, within 30 days of the original decision. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–336 (paper) is 4,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.75 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–336 (efiling) is 500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.5 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 13,625 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $2,317,500. USCIS Form N–400 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0052 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Naturalization. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N–400; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N–400 allows USCIS to fulfill its mission of fairly adjudicating naturalization applications and only naturalizing statutorily eligible individuals. Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the INA. USCIS uses Form N–400 to verify that the applicant has met the requirements for naturalization. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–400 (paper) is 567,314 and the estimated hour burden per response is 9.17 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N– 400 (e-filing) is 214,186 and the E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules estimated hour burden per response is 3.5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 778,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 8,807,180 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $346,768,928. USCIS Form N–470 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0056 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N–470; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The information collected on Form N–470 will be used to determine whether an alien who intends to be absent from the United States for a period of one year or more is eligible to preserve residence for naturalization purposes. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–470 is 330 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.6 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics processing is 330 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 561 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $40,425. USCIS Form N–565 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–009 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56411 (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N–565; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form is provided by USCIS to determine the applicant’s eligibility for a replacement document. An applicant may file for a replacement if he or she was issued one of the documents described above and it was lost, mutilated, or destroyed, or if the applicant’s name was changed by a marriage or by court order after the document was issued and now seeks a document in the new name. If the applicant is a naturalized citizen who desires to obtain recognition as a citizen of the United States by a foreign country, he or she may apply for a special certificate for that purpose. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–565 (paper filing) is 18,552 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.33 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N– 565 (online filing) is 9,138 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.917 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 27,690 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56412 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules collection of information is 138,450 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $3,392,025. USCIS Form N–600 DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0057 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Certificate of Citizenship. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N–600; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N–600 collects VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 information from respondents who are requesting a Certificate of Citizenship because they acquired U.S. citizenship either by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s), adoption by a U. S. citizen parent(s), or after meeting eligibility requirements after the naturalization of a foreign born parent. This form is also used by applicants requesting a Certificate of Citizenship because they automatically became a citizen of the United States after meeting eligibility requirements for acquisition of citizenship by foreign-born children. USCIS uses the information collected on Form N–600 to determine if a Certificate of Citizenship can be issued to the applicant. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–600 (paper) is 33,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.58 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–600 (efiling) is 34,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is .75 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 67,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 323,530 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $8,331,250. USCIS Form N–600K DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0087 in the body of the letter and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection should address one or more of the following four points: PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N–600K; USCIS. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N–600K is used by children who regularly reside in a foreign country to claim U.S. citizenship based on eligibility criteria met by their U.S. citizen parent(s) or grandparent(s). The form may be used by both biological and adopted children under age 18. USCIS uses information collected on this form to determine that the child has met all of the eligibility requirements for naturalization under section 322 of the INA. If determined eligible, USCIS will naturalize and issue the child a Certificate of Citizenship before the child reaches age 18. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–600K (paper) is 1,300 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.08 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N–600K (efiling) is 1,700 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 3,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection of information is 16,264 hours. (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $372,375. H. Family Assessment This regulation may affect family well-being as that term is defined in section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105–277, Div. A, 112 Stat. 2681–528 (Oct. 21, 1998), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601 note. This action has been assessed in accordance with the criteria specified by section 654(c). This regulation will enhance family well-being by helping DHS adjudicate immigration benefit requests, address national security, public safety, fraud concerns, and preclude imposters. I. National Environmental Policy Act DHS Directive (Dir) 023–01 Rev. 01 establishes the procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA. 40 CFR parts 1500–1508. The CEQ regulations allow federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions (‘‘categorical exclusions’’) which experience has shown do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii) and 1508.4. Dir. 023–01 Rev. 01 establishes categorical exclusions that DHS has found to have no such effect. Dir. 023–01 Rev. 01 Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review, Dir. 023–01 Rev. 01 requires the action to satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Dir. 023–01 Rev. 01 section V.B (1)–(3). DHS analyzed this action and does not consider it to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This proposed rule would only change USCIS biometrics collection and a few VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 immigration benefit request requirements. DHS has determined that this rule does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment because it fits within categorical exclusion number A3(d) in Dir. 023–01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1, for rules that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect. This rule is not part of a larger action and presents no extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental effects. This rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) requires rules to be submitted to Congress before taking effect. If implemented as proposed, we will submit to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States a report regarding the issuance of the final rule before its effective date, as required by 5 U.S.C. 801. K. Executive Order 13175 This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. M. Executive Order 12630 This rule would not cause the taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56413 Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. N. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 requires agencies to consider the impacts of environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. DHS has reviewed this rule and determined that this rule is not a covered regulatory action under Executive Order 13045. Although the rule is economically significant, it would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Therefore, DHS has not prepared a statement under this executive order. O. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to consider the impact of rules that significantly impact the supply, distribution, and use of energy. DHS has reviewed this rule and determined that this rule would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, this rule does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. P. Signature The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, who is the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel for DHS, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register. List of Subjects 8 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration. 8 CFR Part 103 Administrative practice and procedure, Powers and Duties; Availability of Records; Authority delegations (Government agencies), Freedom of information, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 8 CFR Part 204 Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Employment, Petitions, Reporting, Passports and visas, and recordkeeping requirements. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56414 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules 8 CFR Part 207 Immigration, Refugees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 8 CFR Part 208 Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 8 CFR Part 316 Citizenship and naturalization, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 8 CFR Part 333 Photographs. 8 CFR Part 209 Aliens, Immigration, Refugees. 8 CFR Part 210 Aliens, Migrant labor, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 8 CFR Part 212 Documentary requirements: Nonimmigrants; Waivers; Admission of certain inadmissible aliens; Parole. 8 CFR Part 214 Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students. 8 CFR Part 335 Examination on application for naturalization. Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—DEFINITIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 5 U.S.C. 301; Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). 2. Section 1.2 is amended by adding definitions for ‘‘Biometrics’’ and ‘‘DNA’’ in alphaetical order to read as follows: ■ § 1.2 Definitions. 8 CFR Part 236 Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration. * * * * Biometrics means the measurable biological (anatomical and physiological) or behavioral characteristics of an individual, including an individual’s fingerprints, palm prints, photograph (facial image), signature, iris (iris image), voice (voice print), and/or DNA (partial DNA profile) (subject to the limitations in 8 CFR 103.16(d)(2). * * * * * DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning, and reproduction of all known living organisms. * * * * * 8 CFR Part 240 Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration. PART 103—IMMIGRATION BENEFITS; BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS; AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 8 CFR Part 244 Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. ■ 8 CFR Part 215 Controls of Aliens Departing from the United States; Electronic Visa Update System. 8 CFR Part 216 Conditional Basis of Lawful Permanent Residence Status. 8 CFR Part 235 Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 8 CFR Part 245 Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 8 CFR Part 245a Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 8 CFR Part 264 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 8 CFR Part 287 Immigration, Law enforcement officers. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 * 3. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557; 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 112–54. 4. Section 103.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(9), and (b)(13) to read as follows: ■ § 103.2 Submission and adjudication of benefit requests. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * (i) General. The non-existence or other unavailability of required PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, an applicant, petitioner, or requestor must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as church or school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does not exist or cannot be obtained, the applicant, petitioner, or requestor must demonstrate the unavailability of both the required document and relevant secondary evidence, and submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and circumstances. Secondary evidence must overcome the unavailability of primary evidence, and affidavits must overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence. If DHS requires submission of specific biometrics, under 8 CFR part 103.16, neither secondary evidence nor affidavits will overcome the unavailability of the requested biometrics. * * * * * (9) Appearance for interview. (i) DHS may require any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing a benefit or other request, or any group or class of such individuals submitting requests, to appear for an interview at any time. Such appearance may also be required by law, regulation, form instructions, or Federal Register notice applicable to the request type. (ii) An interview may be waived by DHS, for an entire population or on a case-by-case basis, solely at its discretion. (iii) Each individual required to appear under this paragraph will be provided notice of the date, time, and location of an interview. (iv) Failure to appear for a scheduled interview without prior authorization from USCIS may result in denial, administrative closure, dismissal of the applicable immigration benefit request or other request, waiver of the right to an interview, or termination of status, if applicable. USCIS may reschedule the interview at its discretion. (v) Any individual required to appear under this paragraph or any individual authorized to file an application, petition, or benefit request on behalf of an individual who may be required to appear under this paragraph may, before the scheduled date and time of the appearance, either: (A) For good cause, request that the interview be rescheduled; or (B) If applicable, withdraw the application, petition, benefit request, or E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules any other request as provided in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(6). (vi) For an asylum application or asylum-related benefit, see 8 CFR 208.10. * * * * * (13) Effect of failure to respond to a request for evidence or failure to submit evidence or respond to a notice of intent to deny. If the petitioner, applicant, or requestor fails to respond to a request for evidence or to a notice of intent to deny by the required date, the benefit request may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both reasons. If other requested material necessary to the processing and approval of a case are not submitted by the required date, the application, petition, benefit request, or any other request may be summarily denied as abandoned. ■ 5. Revise § 103.16 to read as follows: § 103.16 Biometrics services. (a) Collection—(1) Required unless waived. Any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with benefit requests as defined in this chapter, or any other request or form of relief, must submit biometrics to DHS unless the request is exempted or the requirement is waived by DHS. DHS may waive the requirement in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this section, a Federal Register notice, or as otherwise provided by law or regulation. This section applies only to individuals submitting applications, petitions, or requests to USCIS, including United States citizens, without regard to age. (2) Frequency of submission. DHS may collect biometrics for an individual more than once or, at its discretion, reuse previously collected biometrics, as necessary. (3) Method of submission. When not exempted or waived, DHS will prescribe the manner in which biometric collection is to be conducted in a notice to the individual. Each individual will be provided notice of the date, time, and location of his or her appointment for biometrics collection. DHS will schedule the biometric collection at the nearest appropriate location to the individual, unless there is good cause to schedule at another location. (4) Removal of exemption. DHS may change its decision to exempt biometrics for a form, program, or group at a later date and will provide public notification of the change. (5) Waiver of biometrics. DHS may waive the biometrics collection requirement for an individual or grant VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 an exemption thereof for an entire group as follows: (i) For an individual waiver, initiated by DHS at DHS’s discretion, or based on a request for a reasonable accommodation because of age, disability, or other reasons making it impossible or unreasonable to appear for biometrics or provide a prescribed biometric. In such instances, when photographs are required as part of the biometrics collection, USCIS will provide an alternative mechanism to meet the requirement. (ii) For exemption of an entire group, if the Secretary (or Secretary’s designee) determines that biometrics, or certain biometric modalities, for that form, program, or group are not required and that an exemption would be in the Government’s interest and consistent with other applicable law, DHS will provide notice in the applicable form instructions, a Federal Register notice, by posting notification on the USCIS website, or any combination thereof. (iii) As otherwise provided by law or regulation. (iv) Aliens who request a benefit that results in a secure identity document must submit a photograph in accordance with the requirements prescribed by DHS regardless of any exemption or waiver on the submission of biometrics that he or she may be provided. (6) Intercountry adoption biometrics. For intercountry adoption-related applications and petitions under 8 CFR 204.3, or 8 CFR 204.301 to 204.314, in addition to the individuals identified in paragraph (a)(1), USCIS will collect biometrics for the applicant or petitioner’s spouse and each additional adult member of the prospective adoptive parents’ household, regardless of citizenship, as defined at 8 CFR 204.301. The particular intercountry adoption-related application or petition will state this requirement, where it applies, in the form instructions. (7) Reschedule submission. DHS or its designee may reschedule the biometrics collection at its discretion, or where, before issuing the biometrics notice, DHS received a valid change of address request but the biometrics notice was not sent to the updated address. (8) Reschedule timing. An individual may reschedule their biometrics collection appointment prior to the appointment, for any cause, one time. (b) Failure to appear for biometrics collection. If an individual fails to appear without good cause when DHS or its designee scheduled a biometrics appointment: (1) Waiver of rights. DHS will, as appropriate, deem any right to an PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56415 interview waived, deny, reopen, refer to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, dismiss, and/or take any other administrative action on any associated pending immigration benefit or other request; or (2) Revocation. DHS may terminate, rescind, or revoke the individual’s immigration status, petition, benefit, or relief, where authorized by law. (3) Asylum applicants. For an asylum application or asylum-related benefit, ‘‘good cause’’ requires a showing of exceptional circumstances see 8 CFR 208.10. (c) Updates to biometrics—(1) During adjudication. Unless waived or exempted, any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or certain individuals associated with a benefit or other request as described in this chapter, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, must appear as requested to submit biometrics to DHS upon notice while the benefit or other request is pending with DHS. (2) After approval. Any individual alien may be required to submit biometrics again for purposes of continuous vetting, unless and until he or she is granted U.S. citizenship. A lawful permanent resident or United States citizen may be required to submit biometrics if he or she filed an application, petition, or request in the past and it was either reopened or the previous approval is relevant to an application, petition, or benefit request currently pending with DHS. Regional center principals and, if the principal is a legal entity or organization, persons having ownership, control, or a beneficial interest in the principal legal entity or organization, including U.S. citizens, may also be required to submit biometrics again for purposes of continuous vetting. (d) Use and retention—(1) Biometrics other than DNA. DHS may store biometrics, other than raw DNA, submitted by an individual as required by this section and use or reuse these biometrics to conduct background and security checks, verify identity, produce documents, determine eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits, or as necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. Biometrics collected, other than DNA, may be shared with appropriate federal, state, and local law enforcement; or intelligence community entities; foreign governments, as authorized by law and/ or international agreements. (2) DNA evidence as proof of a genetic relationship. (i) DHS may require, request, or accept the submission of E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56416 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules DNA or DNA test results to verify a claimed genetic relationship or determine whether a genetic relationship exists. DHS may use and store DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, as evidence of a claimed genetic relationship: (A) To determine eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits; or, (B) To perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. (ii) DHS may at its discretion consider DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, as primary or secondary evidence of the claimed genetic relationships for any benefit or request. (iii) DHS will only use and handle raw DNA as long as necessary to obtain DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile. DHS will destroy raw DNA once these test results are obtained, and DHS will not share DNA test results unless required by law. The DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, on any individual obtained as part of the benefit request will remain a part of the file and record of proceeding, DHS will store and may share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, for immigration adjudication purposes or for law enforcement purposes to the extent permitted by law. PART 204—IMMIGRANT PETITIONS 6. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1255, 1324a, 1641; 8 CFR part 2. 7. Section 204.2 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(2)(v), (d)(2)(iv); ■ b. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(vi); ■ c. Redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(vii) as (d)(2)(vi); and ■ d. Revising (e)(2)(v); The revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 204.2 Petitions for relatives, widows and widowers, and abused spouses, children, and parents. * * * * * (a) * * * (2) Evidence for petition for a spouse. In addition to evidence of United States citizenship or lawful permanent resident status, the petitioner must also provide evidence of the claimed relationship. A petition submitted on behalf of a spouse must be accompanied by: (i) Photograph(s) of the petitioner as described in the relevant form instructions, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 (ii) Photograph(s) of the beneficiary as described in the relevant form instructions, (iii) A certificate of marriage issued by civil authorities; and, (iv) Proof of the legal termination of all previous marriages of both the petitioner and the beneficiary. (v) Photographs that do not comply with form instructions may be accepted by USCIS when the petitioner or beneficiary reside(s) in a region where such photographs are unavailable. (c) * * * (2) * * * (v) Good moral character. The selfpetitioner’s good moral character is determined upon review of any credible and relevant evidence, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence submitted by the self-petitioner and criminal history information obtained through the self-petitioner’s biometrics. USCIS will assess the good moral character of the self-petitioner for a three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition. USCIS may consider the self-petitioner’s conduct beyond the three years preceding the petition filing, if the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a determination of the selfpetitioner’s present moral character, and the conduct of the self-petitioner during the three-year period does not reflect that there has been a reform of character from an earlier period. Self-petitioners who lived outside the United States during the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition must submit a law enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report issued by an appropriate authority from any jurisdiction in which the selfpetitioner resided for six or more months during the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) * * * (vii) Primary evidence for an adopted child or son or daughter. A petition may be submitted on behalf of an adopted child or son or daughter by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident if the adoption took place before the beneficiary’s sixteenth birthday (or eighteenth birthday if the sibling exception at INA 101(b)(1)(E)(ii) applies), and if the child has been in the legal custody of the adopting parent or parents and has resided with the adopting parent or parents for at least two years. A copy of the beneficiary’s birth certificate issued by the appropriate civil authority, establishing the beneficiary’s identity, age, and birth PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 parentage, and a certified copy of the adoption decree, issued by the appropriate civil authority, must accompany the petition. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) * * * (v) Good moral character. The selfpetitioner’s good moral character is determined upon review of any credible and relevant evidence, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence submitted by the self-petitioner and criminal history information obtained through the self-petitioner’s biometrics. USCIS will assess the good moral character of the self-petitioner for a three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition. USCIS may consider the self-petitioner’s conduct beyond the three years preceding the petition filing, if the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a determination of the selfpetitioner’s present moral character, and the conduct of the self-petitioner during the three-year period does not reflect that there has been a reform of character from an earlier period. Self-petitioners who lived outside the United States during the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition must submit a law enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report issued by an appropriate authority from any jurisdiction in which the selfpetitioner resided for six or more months during the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition. All self-petitioners age 14 and over are required to submit evidence of good moral character as initial evidence with their application. For self-petitioners under the age of 14, USCIS may request evidence of good moral character at any time, in its discretion. * * * * * § 204.3 [Amended] 8. Section 204.3 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(3). ■ 9. Section 204.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (g)(2)(ii) to read as follows: ■ § 204.4 Amerasian child of a United States citizen. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) Preliminary processing. Upon initial submission of a petition with the preliminary processing documentary evidence required in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, USCIS will adjudicate the petition to determine whether there is reason to believe the beneficiary was fathered by a United States citizen, and if so request that the petitioner submit E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules the evidence required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section and any additional evidence required. The petitioner must submit all required documents within the deadline provided in the request or the petition will be considered to have been abandoned. To reactivate an abandoned petition, the petitioner must submit a new Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant without the previously submitted documentation to USCIS. * * * * * (g) * * * (2) * * * (ii) Failure to meet the sponsorship requirements, including the completed background check, if USCIS finds that the sponsor is not of good moral character. ■ 10. Section 204.5 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(4) to read as follows: § 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants. * * * * * (p) * * * (4) Application for employment authorization. To request employment authorization, an eligible applicant described in paragraph (p)(1), (2), or (3) of this section must properly file an application for employment authorization, with USCIS, with the appropriate fee, in accordance with 8 CFR 274a.13(a) and the form instructions. Employment authorization under this paragraph may be granted solely in 1-year increments. § 204.310 [Amended] 11. Section 204.310 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b). ■ PART 207—ADMISSION OF REFUGEES 12. The authority citation for part 207 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1157, 1159, 1182; 8 CFR part 2. 13. Section 207.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: ■ § 207.1 Eligibility. (a) Filing. Any alien who believes he or she is a refugee as defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, and is included in a refugee group identified in section 207(a) of the Act, may apply for admission to the United States by submitting an application and the required evidence, in accordance with the form instructions. The application will be considered filed when it is completed and signed before a USCIS officer. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 56417 14. Section 207.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)(2) to read as follows: is approved, USCIS will notify the refugee of such approval. * * * * * § 207.7 PART 208—PROCEDURES FOR ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL ■ Derivatives of refugees. * * * * * (d) Filing. A principal refugee admitted under section 207(c)(1) of the Act may request following-to-join benefits for his or her spouse and unmarried, minor child(ren) (whether the spouse and children are inside or outside the United States) by filing a separate Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative petition in accordance with the form instructions for each qualifying family member. The request may only be filed by the principal refugee. Family members who derived their refugee status are not eligible to request derivative benefits on behalf of their spouse and child(ren). A separate Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative petition must be filed for each qualifying family member within two years of the refugee’s admission to the United States unless USCIS determines that the filing period should be extended for humanitarian reasons. There is no time limit imposed on a family member’s travel to the United States once the Request for Refugee/ Asylee Relative petition has been approved, provided that the relationship of spouse or child continues to exist and approval of the Request for Refugee/ Asylee Relative petition has not been subsequently reopened and denied. There is no fee for this benefit request. (e) Evidence. (1) Evidence must be provided as required by form instructions for the Registration for Classification as Refugee and/or Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative, as applicable, which establishes that: (i) The principal refugee applicant has the claimed relationship to the derivative where the derivative is accompanying the principal, or (ii) The petitioner was previously admitted as a principal refugee and that the petitioner has the claimed relationship to the following to join derivative. (2) The derivative refugee applicant or beneficiary may be required to provide additional evidence to establish eligibility. (3) The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is an eligible petitioner and the following to join beneficiary is an eligible spouse or child. (f) * * * (2) Spouse or child outside the United States. When a spouse or child of a refugee is outside the United States and the Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 15. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; Title VII of Pub. L. 110–229; 8 CFR part 2. 16. Section 208.21 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and (f) to read as follows: ■ § 208.21 Admission of the asylee’s spouse and children. * * * * * (d) Spouse or child outside the United States. When a spouse or child of an alien granted asylum is outside the United States, the asylee may request accompanying or following-to-join benefits for his or her spouse or child(ren) by filing a separate Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative for each qualifying family member in accordance with the form instructions. A separate Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative for each qualifying family member must be filed within two years of the date in which the asylee was granted asylum, unless USCIS determines that the filing period should be extended for humanitarian reasons. When the Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative is approved, USCIS will notify the asylee of such approval. The approval of the Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative will remain valid for the duration of the relationship to the asylee and, in the case of a child, while the child is under 21 years of age and unmarried, provided also that the principal’s status has not been revoked. However, the approved Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative will cease to confer immigration benefits after it has been used by the beneficiary for admission to the United States as a derivative of an asylee. * * * * * (f) Burden of proof. (1) The burden of proof is on the principal alien or petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible to file for this benefit and that the individual on whose behalf he/she is making a request under this section is an eligible spouse or child. (2) Evidence must be provided as required by form instructions for the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal or Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative, as applicable, which establishes that: (i) The principal alien or petitioner has the claimed relationship to the E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56418 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules derivative where the derivative is accompanying the principal, or (ii) the petitioner was previously granted status as a principal asylee and that the petitioner has the claimed relationship to the following to join derivative. (3) The derivative asylum applicant or beneficiary may be required to provide additional evidence to establish eligibility. * * * * * PART 209—ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF REFUGEES AND ALIENS GRANTED ASYLUM 17. The authority citation for part 209 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1228, 1252, 1282; Title VII of Public Law 110–229; 8 CFR part 2. 18. Section 209.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ § 209.1 Adjustment of status of refugees. * * * * * (b) Application. Upon admission to the United States, every refugee entrant will be notified of the requirement to submit an adjustment of status application one year after entry. * * * * * ■ 19. Section 209.2 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 209.2 Adjustment of status of alien granted asylum. * * * * * (c) Application. An application for the benefits of section 209(b) of the Act may be filed on an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, with the correct fee, and in accordance with the form instructions. If an alien has been placed in removal proceedings, the application can be filed and considered only in proceedings under section 240 of the Act. * * * * * PART 210—SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS 20. The authority citation for part 210 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1160, 8 CFR part 2. § 210.1 [Amended] 21. Section 210.1 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b). ■ 22. Section 210.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (iv), (c)(3)(iv), and (c)(4)(iii) to read as follows: ■ § 210.5 status. * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 Adjustment to permanent resident * § 210.2 Application for temporary resident status. * (c) * * * (2) * * * (i) An Application for Temporary Resident Status as a Special Agricultural Worker must be filed with the required fee. * * * * * (iv) Each applicant, regardless of age, must appear at the appropriate USCIS office and submit biometrics, unless USCIS waives or exempts biometrics pursuant to 8 CFR 103.16. Each applicant will be interviewed by an immigration officer, except that the interview may be waived on a case-bycase basis at its discretion. (3) * * * (iv) An applicant at an overseas processing office whose application is recommended for approval will be provided with an entry document attached to the applicant’s file. Upon admission to the United States, the applicant must contact USCIS for biometric collection, examination of the applicant’s file, and issuance of employment authorization. (4) * * * (iii) Conditions of admission. Aliens who present a preliminary application will be admitted to the United States for a period of ninety (90) days with authorization to accept employment, if they are determined by an immigration officer to be admissible to the United States. Such aliens are required, within that ninety-day period, to submit evidence of eligibility which meets the provisions of § 210.3; appear for biometric collection; obtain a report of medical examination in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section; and submit to USCIS a complete application as defined in § 210.1(c). USCIS may, for good cause, extend the ninety-day period and grant further authorization to accept employment in the United States if an alien demonstrates he or she was unable to perfect an application within the initial period. If an alien described in this paragraph fails to submit a complete application to USCIS within ninety days or within such additional period as may have been authorized, his or her application may be denied for lack of prosecution, without prejudice. * * * * * ■ 23. Section 210.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: * * * * (b) Biometrics collection. To obtain proof of permanent resident status an alien described in paragraph (a) of this section must follow USCIS instructions for obtaining a Permanent Resident Card, including verifying identity and PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 submitting biometrics. The alien may appear before the date of adjustment if requested to do so by USCIS. The Permanent Resident Card will be issued after the date of adjustment. * * * * * PART 212—DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS; ADMISSION OF CERTAIN INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE 24. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 6 U.S.C. 111, 202, 236 and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1185, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108–458); 8 CFR part 2. 25. Section 212.7 is amended by removing paragraph (e)(6) and redesignating paragraphs (e)(7) through (e)(14) as paragraphs (e)(6) through (e)(13). ■ PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 26. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301–1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–708; Public Law 106–386, 114 Stat. 1477–1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2. 27. Section 214.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(23)(viii) and (k)(1) and removing and reserving paragraph (w)(15) to read as follows: ■ § 214.2 Special requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status. * * * * * (e) * * * (23) * * * (viii) Information for background checks. An applicant for E–2 CNMI Investor status or any applicant for derivative status as a spouse or child of an E–2 CNMI Investor, must submit biometrics as required under 8 CFR 103.16. * * * * * (k) * * * (1) Petition and supporting documents. To be classified as a fianc&eacute;´ or fianc&eacute;´e as defined in section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) of the Act, an alien must be the beneficiary of an approved visa petition filed on a Petition for Alien fianc&eacute;´(e). * * * * * E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules § 214.11 [Amended] 28. Section 214.11 is amended by removing the term ‘‘fingerprint’’ from the definition ‘‘Bona fide determination’’ and adding the term ‘‘biometrics’’ in its place. ■ 29. Section 214.15 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows: ■ § 214.15 Certain spouses and children of lawful permanent residents. * * * * * (f) * * * (1) Contents of application. To apply for V nonimmigrant status, an eligible alien must: (i) Submit an Application to Extend/ Change Nonimmigrant Status, in accordance with the form instructions and with the appropriate fee; (ii) Appear for biometric collection; (iii) Submit a Medical Examination of Aliens Seeking Adjustment of Status, without the vaccination supplement; and (iv) Submit Evidence of eligibility as described by Application to Extend/ Change Nonimmigrant Status Supplement A and in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. * * * * * PART 215—CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES; ELECTRONIC VISA UPDATE SYSTEM 30. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202(4), 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1104, 1184, 1185 (pursuant to Executive Order 13323 (Dec. 30, 2003)), 1365a note, 1379, 1731–32; and 8 CFR part 2. 31. Section 215.8 is amended by revising the section heading and removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as follows: § 215.8 Requirements for biometrics from aliens on departure from the United States. (a) * * * (2) * * * (i) [Reserved] * * * * * ■ 32. Section 215.9 is revised to read as follows: § 215.9 Temporary Worker Visa Exit Program. An alien admitted on certain temporary worker visas at a port of entry participating in the Temporary Worker Visa Exit Program must also depart at the end of his or her authorized period of stay through a port of entry participating in the program and must present designated biographic and/or VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 biometrics upon departure. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will publish a Notice in the Federal Register designating which temporary workers must participate in the Temporary Worker Visa Exit Program, which ports of entry are participating in the program, which biographic and/or biometrics would be required, and the format for submission of that information by the departing designated temporary workers. application. The applicant will also be informed at that time of any biometric fee for conducting the biometric collection and any identity verification and national security and criminal history background checks. * * * * * PART 216—CONDITIONAL BASIS OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS ■ PART 236—APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF INADMISSIBLE AND DEPORTABLE ALIENS; REMOVAL OF ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED 39. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1231, 1362; 18 U.S.C. 4002, 4013(c)(4); 8 CFR part 2. Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1184, 1186a, 1186b, and 8 CFR part 2. ■ 33. The authority for part 216 continues to read as follows: § 216.4 34. Section 216.4 is amended by removing paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1) and (2) and redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as (b). ■ § 216.6 [Amended] 35. Section 216.6 is amended by removing paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1) and (2) and redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as (b). ■ PART 235—INSPECTION OF PERSONS APPLYING FOR ADMISSION 36. The authority for part 235 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103, 1183, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 278) 1201, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1365b, 1379, 1731–32; Title VII of Public Law 110–229; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108–458); Pub. L. 112–54. 37. Section 235.1 is amended by: A. In paragraph (f)(1)(iv), removing the words ‘‘paragraph (d)(1)(ii)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (f)(1)(ii)’’ and ■ B. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(1)(iv)(A). ■ 38. Section 235.7 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a)(3) and revising paragraph (a)(4)(vi) to read as follows: § 235.7 Automated inspection services. (a) * * * (3) * * * Notwithstanding the provisions of 8 CFR part 264, biometric collection in the manner prescribed by DHS may be required to participate in the PORTPASS program. (4) * * * (vi) If biometrics are required to assist in a determination of eligibility at that POE, the applicant will be so advised by DHS, before submitting his or her PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 40. Section 236.5 is revised as follows: § 236.5 [Amended] ■ ■ ■ 56419 Sfmt 4702 Biometrics. Every alien against whom proceedings based on inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the INA or deportability under section 237 of the INA are initiated, including proceedings under sections 235, 238(b), and 240 of the INA, must submit biometrics at a time and place determined by DHS. DHS may also require submission of biometrics for any alien who is subject to INA section 241(a)(5) or 8 CFR 217.4(b) or (c). PART 240—VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE, SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION AND SPECIAL RULE CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL 41. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 1182, 1186a, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1251, 1252 note, 1252a, 1252b, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. L. 105–100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105–277 (112 Stat. 2681); 8 CFR part 2. 42. Section 240.21 is amended by revising (b)(2)(ii)(D) to read as follows: ■ § 240.21 Suspension of deportation and adjustment of status under section 244(a) of the Act (as in effect before April 1, 1997) and cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b) of the Act for certain nonpermanent residents. (b) * * * (2) * * * (ii) * * * (D) Two photograph(s) meeting the requirements in the instructions to the relevant form. ■ 43. Section 240.63 is amended by revising the third and fourth sentences of paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 240.63 Application process. (a) * * * Each application must be filed with the filing fee as provided in 8 CFR 103.7 and the form instructions, E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56420 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules or a request for a fee waiver must be filed. The fact that an applicant has also applied for asylum does not exempt the applicant from any fee for other benefit requests. * * * * * ■ 44. Section 240.67 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows: § 240.67 Procedure for interview before an asylum officer. (a) Interview and biometric collection. USCIS will notify each applicant to appear for an interview only after USCIS has scheduled the applicant for biometric collection in accordance with 8 CFR 103.16 and initiated national security and criminal history background checks. * * * * * ■ 45. Section 240.68 is revised to read as follows: § 240.68 Failure to appear at an interview before an asylum officer or failure to follow requirements for biometrics. Failure to appear for a scheduled interview or biometrics will be handled in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) and 103.16, respectively. ■ 46. Section 240.70 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: § 240.70 * * * * (d) * * * (4) The applicant failed to appear for a scheduled interview with an asylum officer or failed to comply with biometrics requirements and such failure was not excused by USCIS, unless the application is dismissed. * * * * * PART 244—TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR NATIONALS OF DESIGNATED FOREIGN STATES AND PERSONS WITHOUT NATIONALITY WHO LAST HABITUALLY RESIDED IN A TPS DESIGNATED STATE 47. The authority citation for part 244 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1254, 1254a note, 8 CFR part 2. 48. Section 244.6(a) is revised to read as follows: ■ Application. (a) An application for Temporary Protected Status must be submitted in accordance with the form instructions, the applicable country-specific Federal Register notice that announces the procedures for TPS registration or reregistration and, except as otherwise provided in this section, with the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 § 244.17 Periodic registration. (a) Aliens granted Temporary Protected Status must re-register periodically in accordance with USCIS instructions. Such registration applies to nationals of those foreign states designated for more than one year by DHS or where a designation has been extended for a year or more. Applicants for re-registration must apply during the period provided by USCIS. Applicants re-registering do not need to pay the fee that was required for initial registration except the biometric services fee and if requesting employment authorization, the application fee for employment authorization. By completing the application, applicants attest to their continuing eligibility. Such applicants do not need to submit additional supporting documents unless USCIS requests them to do so. * * * * * PART 245—ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE 50. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows: ■ Decision by the Service. * § 244.6 appropriate fees as described in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). * * * * * ■ 49. Section 244.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; Pub. L. 105–100, section 202, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; Pub. L. 105–277, section 902, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 110–229, tit. VII, 122 Stat. 754; 8 CFR part 2. 51. Section 245.15 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: ■ § 245.15 Adjustment of status of certain Haitian nationals under the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act of 1998 (HRIFA). * * * * * (h) Application and supporting documents. Each applicant for adjustment of status must file an application on the form prescribed by USCIS with the appropriate fee. Each application must be accompanied by: (1) A copy of the applicant’s birth certificate or other record of birth; (2) A report of medical examination, as specified in § 245.5; (3) Two photographs unless waived by USCIS; (4) A copy of the Arrival-Departure Record, issued at the time of the applicant’s arrival in the United States, if the alien was inspected and admitted or paroled; * * * * * ■ 52. Section 245.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 245.21 Adjustment of status of certain nationals of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (section 586 of Pub. L. 106–429). * * * * * (b) Application. An applicant must submit an application on the form designated by USCIS with the fee specified in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1) and in accordance with the form instructions. Applicants must also appear for biometrics collection as described in 8 CFR 103.16. * * * * * ■ 53. Section 245.23 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: § 245.23 Adjustment of aliens in T nonimmigrant classification. * * * * * (g) Good moral character. A T–1 nonimmigrant applicant for adjustment of status under this section must demonstrate that he or she has been a person of good moral character since first being lawfully admitted as a T–1 nonimmigrant and until USCIS completes the adjudication of their application for adjustment of status. Claims of good moral character will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account section 101(f) of the Act and the standards of the community. USCIS will assess the good moral character of the applicant for the requisite continuous period as described in section 245(l)(1)(A) of the Act. USCIS will determine an applicant’s good moral character as follows: (1) Reviewing any credible and relevant evidence, which includes, but is not limited to, criminal history information obtained through the applicant’s biometrics and evidence submitted by the applicant. (2) USCIS may consider the applicant’s conduct beyond the requisite period, if the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a determination of the applicant’s present moral character, and the conduct of the applicant during the requisite period does not reflect that there has been a reform of character from an earlier period. (3) Applicants who lived outside the United States during the requisite period must submit a law enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or similar report issued by an appropriate authority from any jurisdiction in which the applicant resided during the requisite period. (4) All T nonimmigrant applicants for adjustment of status age 14 and over are required to submit evidence of good moral character as initial evidence with their application. For T nonimmigrant applicants for adjustment of status under the age of 14, USCIS may request E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules PART 245a—ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSONS ADMITTED FOR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS UNDER SECTION 245A OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT (j) Interview. Each applicant will be interviewed by an immigration officer; USCIS may waive the interview on a case-by-case basis, at its discretion. * * * * * ■ 56. Section 245a.3 is amended by removing ‘‘(ADIT processing)’’ from the last sentence of paragraph (b)(1) and revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ 54. The authority citation for part 245a continues to read as follows: § 245a.3 Application for adjustment from temporary to permanent resident status. Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1255a and 1255a note. * evidence of good moral character at any time, in its discretion. 55. Section 245a.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(2)(ii), the last sentence of paragraph (e)(1) and paragraph (j) to read as follows: ■ § 245a.2 Application for temporary residence. * * * * * (d) Documentation. Evidence to support an alien’s eligibility for the Legalization Program must include documents establishing proof of identity, proof of residence, and proof of financial responsibility, as well as biometrics and a completed medical report of examination. All documentation submitted will be subject to verification. USCIS may deny applications submitted with unverifiable documentation. Failure by an applicant to authorize release to USCIS of information protected by the Privacy Act and/or related laws in order for USCIS to adjudicate a claim may result in denial of the benefit sought. Acceptable supporting documents for these three categories are discussed below. * * * * * (2) * * * (ii) Proof of common identity. The most persuasive evidence is a document issued in the assumed name which identifies the applicant by biometrics. Other evidence which will be considered are affidavit(s) by a person or persons other than the applicant, made under oath, which identify the affiant by name and address, state the affiant’s relationship to the applicant and the basis of the affiant’s knowledge of the applicant’s use of the assumed name. Affidavits accompanied by a photograph which has been identified by the affiant as the individual known to affiant under the assumed name in question will carry greater weight. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) * * * The applicant must appear for a personal interview and for biometric collection as scheduled. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 * * * * (e) Interview. Each applicant will be interviewed by an immigration officer, except that the adjudicative interview may be waived by DHS on a case-bycase basis at its discretion. An applicant failing to appear for a scheduled interview may, for good cause, be afforded another interview. Where an applicant fails to appear for more than one scheduled interview, his or her application will be held in abeyance until the end of 43 months from the date of the application for temporary residence was approved and adjudicated on the basis of the existing record. * * * * * ■ 57. Section 245a.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) introductory text, (b)(4)(ii)(D), (b)(5)(i), and (b)(10) to read as follows: § 245a.4 Adjustment to lawful resident status of certain nationals of countries for which extended voluntary departure has been made available. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) Documentation. Evidence to support an alien’s eligibility for temporary residence status must include documents establishing proof of identity, proof of nationality, proof of residence, and proof of financial responsibility, as well as biometrics, and a completed medical report of examination. USCIS may deny any applications submitted with unverifiable documentation. USCIS may deny the benefit sought where an applicant fails to authorize release to USCIS of information protected by the Privacy Act or related laws in order for USCIS to adjudicate a benefit request. Acceptable supporting documents for the four categories of documentation are discussed as follows: * * * * * (ii) * * * (D) Other credible documents, including those created by, or in the possession of USCIS, or any other documents (excluding affidavits) that, when taken singly, or together as a whole, establish the alien’s nationality. * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56421 (5) Filing of application. (i) An Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The applicant must appear for a personal interview and biometrics collection as scheduled. USCIS may, at its discretion: (A) Require the applicant to file the application in person; or (B) Require the applicant to file the application by mail; or (C) Permit the filing of applications whether by mail or in person. * * * * * (10) Interview. Each applicant, regardless of age, must appear at the appropriate USCIS office to be interviewed by an immigration officer, except that the interview may be waived on a case-by-case basis at USCIS’ discretion. * * * * * ■ 58. Section 245a.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows: § 245a.12 Filing and applications. * * * * * (b) Filing of applications in the United States. USCIS has jurisdiction over all applications for the benefits of LIFE legalization under this Subpart B. All applications filed with USCIS for the benefits of LIFE Legalization must be submitted in accordance with application form instructions. After proper filing of the application, USCIS will notify the applicant to appear for an interview and biometric collection. * * * * * (d) Application and supporting documentation. Each applicant for LIFE Legalization adjustment of status must properly file an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in accordance with the form instructions and with the appropriate fee(s). An applicant should complete Part 2 of the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status by checking box ‘‘h—other’’ and writing ‘‘LIFE Legalization’’ next to that block. Each application must be properly filed in accordance with the form instructions and with the appropriate fee, and accompanied by: (1) A report of medical examination, as specified in 8 CFR 245.5. (2) Two photographs, as described in the instructions to the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. (3) Proof of application for class membership in CSS, LULAC, or Zambrano class action lawsuits as described in § 245a.14. E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2 56422 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / Proposed Rules (4) Proof of continuous residence in an unlawful status since before January 1, 1982 through May 4, 1988, as described in § 245a.15. (5) Proof of continuous physical presence from November 6, 1986, through May 4, 1988, as described in § 245a.16. (6) Proof of citizenship skills as described in § 245a.17. This proof may be submitted either at the time of filing the application, subsequent to filing the application but before the interview, or at the time of the interview. * * * * * PART 264—REGISTRATION, BIOMETRIC COLLECTION, AND VETTING 59. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1201, 1303– 1305; 8 CFR part 2. 60. The heading for part 264 is revised as set forth above. ■ 61. Section 264.1 is amended by revising the section heading, and paragraphs (e) and (g) to read as follows: ■ § 264.1 Registration and biometric collection. * * * * * (e) Biometrics exemption. (1) For purposes of this chapter, DHS will not collect biometrics under this section from nonimmigrant aliens who are: (i) Admitted as foreign government officials, employees, and their immediate family members; international organization representatives, officers, employees, and their immediate family members; NATO representatives, officers, employees, and their immediate family members; and holders of diplomatic visas while they maintain such nonimmigrant status. (ii) Nationals of countries which do not require biometrics collection of United States citizens temporarily residing therein. (iii) Aliens exempted under this provision may be required to appear for DHS to collect a photograph that can be used to create a secure identity document. (2) Every nonimmigrant alien not included in paragraph (e)(1) of this section who departs from the United States within one year of his or her VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Sep 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 admission may be exempted from biometrics collection, provided he or she maintains his or her nonimmigrant status during that time; each such alien who has not previously provided biometrics will apply at once if he or she remains in the United States in excess of one year. (3) Every nonimmigrant alien that has not previously had biometrics collected will apply at once upon his or her failure to maintain his or her nonimmigrant status. * * * * * (g) Registration and biometrics of children. Within 30 days after reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United States not exempt from alien registration under the INA and this chapter must apply for registration and submit biometrics, unless biometrics collection is waived by USCIS. This requirement does not preclude DHS from requiring any alien under the age of 14 who is not exempt from alien registration to submit biometrics. (1) Permanent residents. If an alien who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States is temporarily absent from the United States when he or she reaches age 14, he or she must apply for registration and submit biometrics within 30 days of his or her return to the United States in accordance with applicable form instructions. Furthermore the alien must surrender any prior evidence of alien registration and USCIS will issue the alien new evidence of alien registration. (2) Others. In the case of an alien who is not a lawful permanent resident, the alien’s previously issued registration document will be noted to show that he or she has been re-registered and the date of re-registration. * * * * * § 264.2 [Amended] 62. Section 264.2 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d); ■ § 264.5 ■ [Amended] 63. Section 264.5(i) is removed. PART 287—FIELD OFFICERS; POWERS AND DUTIES 64. The authority citation for part 287 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1225, 1226, 1251, 1252, 1357; Homeland Security PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 Act of 2002,. Pub. L. 107–296 (6 U.S.C. 1, et. seq.); 8 CFR part 2. 65. Section 287.11(b)(3) is amended by revising the last sentence to read as follows: ■ § 287.11 Pre-enrolled Access Lane. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * DHS may require applicants to submit to biometrics collection, and DHS may provide that biometric data to Federal, State, and local government agencies for the purpose of determining eligibility to participate in the PAL program. * * * * * PART 333—PHOTOGRAPHS 66. The authority citation for part 333 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443. 67. Section 333.1 is revised to read as follows: ■ § 333.1 Required photographs. Every applicant under section 333 of the Act must provide photographs as prescribed by USCIS in the applicable form instructions. PART 335—EXAMINIATION ON APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION 68. The authority citation for part 335 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443, 1447. 69. Section 335.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: ■ § 335.2 Examination of applicant. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the biometrics or biometric data submitted for the criminal background check has been rejected. * * * * * Chad R. Mizelle, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. 2020–19145 Filed 9–4–20; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 9111–97–P E:\FR\FM\11SEP2.SGM 11SEP2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 177 (Friday, September 11, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56338-56422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19145]



[[Page 56337]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 177

September 11, 2020

Part III





Department of Homeland Security





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





8 CFR Parts 1, 103, 204, et al.





Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 56338]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Parts 1, 103, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 216, 
235, 236, 240, 244, 245, 245a, 264, 287, 316, 333, and 335

[CIS No. 2644-19 USCIS Docket No. USCIS-2019-0007]
RIN 1615-AC14


Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend DHS regulations concerning the use 
and collection of biometrics in the enforcement and administration of 
immigration laws by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE). First, DHS proposes that any applicant, 
petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated 
with an immigration benefit or request, including United States 
citizens, must appear for biometrics collection without regard to age 
unless DHS waives or exempts the biometrics requirement. Second, DHS 
proposes to authorize biometric collection, without regard to age, upon 
arrest of an alien for purposes of processing, care, custody, and 
initiation of removal proceedings. Third, DHS proposes to define the 
term biometrics. Fourth, this rule proposes to increase the biometric 
modalities that DHS collects, to include iris image, palm print, and 
voice print. Fifth, this rule proposes that DHS may require, request, 
or accept DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, to 
prove the existence of a claimed genetic relationship and that DHS may 
use and store DNA test results for the relevant adjudications or to 
perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing 
immigration and naturalization laws. Sixth, this rule would modify how 
VAWA and T nonimmigrant petitioners demonstrate good moral character, 
as well as remove the presumption of good moral character for those 
under the age of 14. Lastly, DHS proposes to further clarify the 
purposes for which biometrics are collected from individuals filing 
immigration applications or petitions, to include criminal history and 
national security background checks; identity enrollment, verification, 
and management; secure document production, and to administer and 
enforce immigration and naturalization laws.
    The changes proposed in this rule are intended to: Provide DHS with 
the flexibility to change its biometrics collection practices and 
policies to ensure that necessary adjustments can be made to meet 
emerging needs, enhance the use of biometrics beyond background checks 
and document production to include identity verification and management 
in the immigration lifecycle, enhance vetting to lessen the dependence 
on paper documents to prove identity and familial relationships, 
preclude imposters, and improve the consistency in biometrics 
terminology within DHS .

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on this rule on or before 
October 13, 2020. Comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act section of 
this rule (the information collection discussed therein) must be 
received on or before November 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the entirety of this proposed 
rule package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2019-0007, through the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
website instructions for submitting comments.
    Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, 
including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be 
considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response 
from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept any comments 
that are hand delivered or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot accept 
comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such 
as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. Due to COVID-19, USCIS is also not 
accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your 
comment by using https://www.regulations.gov, please contact Samantha 
Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy 
and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of 
Homeland Security, by telephone at 202-272-8377 for alternate 
instructions.
    Collection of Information: You must submit comments on the 
collection of information discussed in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking to either DHS' docket or the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). 
OIRA will have access to and view the comments submitted in the docket. 
OIRA submissions can also be sent using any of the following 
alternative methods:
     Email (alternative): [email protected] (include 
the docket number and ``Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services, DHS'' in the subject line of the email).
     Fax: 202-395-6566.
     Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; 
Attention: Desk Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
DHS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. McDermott, Security and 
Public Safety Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 
Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20529-2240, telephone (202) 272-
8377 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
II. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
III. Background and Purpose
IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Family Assessment
    I. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    J. Congressional Review Act
    K. Executive Order 13175
    L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    M. Executive Order 12630
    N. Executive Order 13045
    O. Executive Order 13211
    P. Signature

Table of Abbreviations

AAC Accompanied Alien Children
ASC Application Support Center
AWA Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
BFR Biometrics fee ratio
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CJIS FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
CPMS Customer Profile Management System
DHS Department of Homeland Security DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
DOS Department of State
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

[[Page 56339]]

IDENT Automated Biometric Identification System
IdHS Identity History Summary
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
IMBRA International Marriage Broker Regulation Act
INA Immigration and Nationality Act
NTA Notice to Appear (issued to initiate removal proceedings under 
INA section 240)
OBIM DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management
RAIO Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
TVPRA Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
UAC Unaccompanied Alien Children
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
USRAP United States Refugee Admissions Program
VAWA Violence Against Women Act

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by 
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this 
proposed rule. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also invites 
comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism 
effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that 
provide the most assistance to DHS will reference a specific portion of 
the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include data, information, or authority that support such recommended 
change.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and USCIS Docket No. USCIS-2019-0007 for this rulemaking. All comments 
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov.

II. Executive Summary

    As previously stated, this rule proposes to amend DHS regulations 
concerning the use and collection of biometrics in the administration 
and enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws as well as the 
adjudication of benefit requests. This Executive Summary summarizes the 
changes made by this rule so readers may obtain a brief overview of the 
changes DHS proposes herein without reading the entire rule. DHS has 
included full legal citations of authorities, explanations, and more 
details regarding the proposed changes in the section of the main 
preamble that discusses the background, need, and authority for the 
change.

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action

    DHS has general and specific statutory authority to collect or 
require submission of biometrics from applicants, petitioners, and 
beneficiaries for immigration benefits; and from aliens upon their 
arrest for purposes of processing, care, custody, and initiation of 
removal proceedings.\1\ \2\ As detailed in the Authority section of the 
preamble that follows this Executive Summary, the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) at section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), provides 
general authority for DHS to collect or require submission of 
biometrics and specific authority in several sections.\3\ DHS currently 
collects, stores, and uses biometrics for the following purposes: 
Conducting background checks to determine eligibility for a benefit or 
other request; document production associated with an application, 
petition, or other request for certain immigration and naturalization 
benefits or actions; and performing other functions related to 
administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws 
such as identity verification upon issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA) 
under section 240 of the INA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This rule proposes changes to the regulations governing 
collection of biometrics for benefit requests administered by U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It also impacts U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE), which have immigration enforcement 
responsibilities that may require collection, use, and storage of 
biometrics and use USCIS systems or service forms for which 
biometrics would be required by this rule. Those provisions are 
discussed further below. For example, ICE, Student and Exchange 
Visitor Program (SEVP) uses USCIS Form I-539, Application to Extend/
Change Nonimmigrant Status, and Form I-765, Application for 
Employment Authorization Document. This rule generally does not 
propose to authorize CBP or ICE to expand biometrics collections 
beyond either agency's current, independent authorities. However, 
this rule does propose to authorize CBP and ICE to expand their 
current biometrics collections for immigration benefit requests to 
individuals under the age of 14 and authorizes collection of 
additional biometrics modalities.
    \2\ For the purposes of this rule, DHS is including all requests 
processed by USCIS in the term ``benefit request'' or ``immigration 
benefit request'' although the form or request may not be to request 
a benefit. For example, deferred action is solely an exercise of 
prosecutorial discretion by DHS and not an immigration benefit, but 
would fit under the definition of ``benefit request'' at 8 CFR 1.2 
for purposes of this rule.
    \3\ The applicable statutory sections of each provision are 
explained in the body of the preamble which follows this Executive 
Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS is precluded in many cases from approving, granting, or 
providing immigration benefits to individuals with a record of certain 
criminal offenses or administrative violations. Criminal histories are 
relevant because they are used to determine eligibility for both 
discretionary and non-discretionary immigration benefits. Therefore, 
DHS must include national security considerations and criminal history 
background checks in its adjudications. Several statutes authorize DHS 
to conduct biometric collection in relation to national security and 
public safety purposes, as well as for document production. Other 
statutes authorize DHS to collect the biometrics of U.S. citizen and 
lawful permanent resident petitioners of family-based immigrant and 
nonimmigrant fiancé(e) petitions to determine if a petitioner 
has been convicted of certain crimes. In addition, certain laws and 
executive branch guidance requires DHS to have a robust system for 
biometrics collection, storage, and use related to providing 
adjudicating immigration benefits and performing other functions 
necessary for administering and enforcing of immigration and 
naturalization laws.
    Current regulations also provide both general authorities for the 
collection of biometrics in connection with administering immigration 
and naturalization benefits requests and administering and enforcing 
immigration laws. For example, any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, 
beneficiary, or individual filing a benefit request may be required to 
appear for biometrics collection. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). DHS currently 
has authority to require an individual to submit biometric information 
to conduct background and security checks and perform other functions 
related to administering and enforcing immigration laws. See 8 CFR 
103.16(a). DHS proposes to change the regulations in a number of ways.
    The immigration benefit request adjudications process requires DHS 
to verify the identity of an individual applying for or seeking to 
receive any benefit, and also requires national security and criminal 
history background checks to determine if such an individual is 
eligible for the benefit. The adjudication includes a review of the 
individual's current immigration status, current immigration filings, 
past immigration filings, and whether previous benefits were granted or 
denied. Immigration laws preclude DHS from granting many immigration 
and naturalization benefits to individuals with certain criminal or 
administrative violations, or with certain disqualifying 
characteristics, while also providing DHS discretion in granting an 
immigration benefit in many instances.

[[Page 56340]]

DHS conducts checks to determine if an individual has a history that 
could render him or her inadmissible or removable, a criminal record, 
an association with human rights violations, or involvement in 
terrorist activities or organizations. The current DHS biometric 
collection process for benefits adjudication begins with the collection 
of an individual's photograph, fingerprints, and signature at an 
authorized biometric collection site. Collections outside the United 
States may be conducted on behalf of DHS by other federal agencies. 
Under this rule, DHS may also require, request, or accept DNA 
(deoxyribonucleic acid) test results as evidence of genetic 
relationships.
    While DHS has the authority to collect biometrics from any 
applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, requestor, or individual 
filing or associated with a request, or to perform other functions 
related to administering and enforcing the immigration and 
naturalization laws, submission of biometrics is only mandatory for 
certain benefit requests and enforcement actions upon request of DHS. 
For all other benefit requests and enforcement actions, DHS must 
decide, in accordance with its statutory and regulatory authorities, if 
the request or enforcement action justifies collection of biometrics 
and notify the individual where they will be collected when a 
collection is warranted and for what purposes they will be used. DHS 
has decided that the more limited focus on background checks and 
document production is outdated because immigration benefit request 
adjudication and the enforcement and administration of immigration laws 
include verifying identity and determining whether or not the 
individual poses a risk to national security or public safety. DHS has 
decided that it is necessary to increase routine biometric collections 
to include individuals associated with immigration benefits and to 
perform other functions related to administering and enforcing the 
immigration and naturalization laws. Therefore, DHS proposes in this 
rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or 
individual filing or associated \4\ with a certain benefit or request, 
including U.S. citizens and without regard to age, must appear for 
biometrics collection unless DHS waives or exempts the requirement.\5\ 
In addition to removing the age restrictions in the context of 
adjudicating immigration benefit requests, DHS is also removing the age 
restrictions for biometrics collection in the context of Notice to 
Appear (NTA) issuance for the same purposes (i.e., identity 
verification, national security and criminal history background checks, 
etc.). See Proposed 8 CFR 236.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ By ``associated'' DHS means a person with substantial 
involvement in the immigration benefit request, such as a named 
derivative, beneficiary, petitioner's signatory, or co-applicant. 
DHS will not require biometrics to be submitted by agents, 
representatives, interpreters, preparers, or guardians.
    \5\ The terms ``file,'' ``submit,'' ``associated with'' or 
variations thereof, as used throughout this rule, do not encompass 
attorneys and accredited representatives, although attorneys and 
accredited representatives may physically ``file'' or ``submit'' a 
request on behalf of a client.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS emphasizes that it is not proposing an absolute biometrics 
collection requirement. Rather, the purpose of this rule is to provide 
notice that every individual requesting a benefit before or encountered 
by DHS is subject to the biometrics requirement unless DHS waives or 
exempts it. This notice will be added to relevant forms in the Privacy 
Notice. The increased use of biometrics by DHS will include identity 
management in the immigration lifecycle, which will enable it to 
transition to a person-centric model to organize and manage its 
records, manage unique identities, verify immigration records, and will 
reduce reliance on biographic data for identity management in the 
immigration lifecycle. Biographic data possess inherent inconsistencies 
that could result in immigration benefits being granted to ineligible 
applicants or imposters. Using biometrics for identity verification and 
management in the immigration lifecycle will help ensure that an 
individual's immigration records pertain only to that individual, and 
help DHS locate, maintain, and update the individual's immigration 
status, previously submitted identity documentation, as well as certain 
biographic data. DHS proposes to collect biometrics at any age to 
ensure the immigration records created for children can be related to 
their adult records later, help combat child trafficking, smuggling, 
and labor exploitation by facilitating identity verification, while 
confirming the absence of criminal history or associations with 
terrorist organizations or gang membership.
    DHS also plans to implement a program of continuous immigration 
vetting, and require that aliens be subjected to continued and 
subsequent evaluation to ensure they continue to present no risk of 
causing harm subsequent to their entry. This rule proposes that any 
individual alien who is present in the United States following an 
approved immigration benefit may be required to submit biometrics 
unless and until they are granted U.S. citizenship. The rule further 
proposes that a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen may be 
required to submit biometrics if he or she filed an application, 
petition, or request in the past and it was either reopened or the 
previous approval is relevant to an application, petition, or benefit 
request currently pending with DHS.
    The changes to the use and collection of biometrics and expanded 
scope of populations also are pertinent to U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR), a component of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), given that 
immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) are 
prohibited from granting relief or protection from removal to an alien 
14 years of age or older unless an ICE attorney reports that all 
required ``identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or 
examinations'' have been completed. See INA section 262, and 8 CFR 
1003.1(d)(6), 1003.47(g). ICE relies, in part, on USCIS biometric 
collection in this regard. Further, DHS has leeway in terms of the 
exact types of such background and security checks. See Background and 
Security Investigations in Proceedings Before Immigration Judges and 
the Board of Immigration Appeals, 70 FR 4743, 4744 (2005) (``There is 
no need for this rule to specify the exact types of background and 
security checks that DHS may conduct with respect to aliens in 
proceedings.'').
    DHS recognizes that removing the age restrictions associated with 
biometrics collection in DHS regulations, without removing the age 
restrictions in DOJ EOIR regulations, could create disparate processes 
for biometric collections in immigration adjudications. Specifically, a 
child under 14 may be required to submit biometrics for an application 
submitted to USCIS, but the same child would be exempt from biometrics 
for an application submitted with DOJ EOIR. These disparate authorities 
could also cause confusion given USCIS collects biometrics at its ASCs 
for many applications and petitions adjudicated by EOIR. However, DHS 
and DOJ will continue to be bound by their respective regulations. To 
the extent that any controversy may arise interpreting DHS and DOJ 
regulations regarding the removal of age restrictions for biometrics 
collection, until DOJ removes its age restrictions DHS intends to 
follow DOJ regulations with respect to age restrictions when collecting

[[Page 56341]]

biometrics for an application or petition that will be adjudicated by 
EOIR.
    DHS anticipates that by removing age restrictions on the collection 
of biometrics this rule will enhance the ability of ICE and CBP to 
identify fraudulent biological relationships claimed at the border and 
upon apprehension.\6\ Under the current interpretation of the Flores 
Settlement Agreement, DHS typically releases alien minors apprehended 
at the border from its detention facilities within 20 days--often in 
conjunction with the adults with whom these minors were encountered. 
This may encourage the proliferation of fraudulent family unit schemes 
wherein unrelated adults and children claim biological relationships in 
order to secure prompt release into the United States. Alien smuggling 
organizations are aware of this loophole and are taking full advantage 
of it, placing children into the hands of adult strangers, so they can 
pose as families and be released from immigration custody after 
crossing the border, creating another safety issue for these children. 
DHS's ability to collect biometrics, including DNA, regardless of a 
minor's age, will allow DHS to accurately verify or refute claimed 
genetic relationships among apprehended aliens and ensure that 
unaccompanied alien children (UACs) are properly identified and cared 
for.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ To clarify, DHS is not proposing DNA collection at ports of 
entry.
    \7\ For example, between July 2019 and November 2019, DHS, 
identified 432 incidents of fraudulent family claims by conducting a 
Rapid DNA testing under a pilot program named Operation Double 
Helix. This is over 20% of the total family units tested (1,747).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the use of DNA evidence, where evidence of a relationship 
is required, this rule proposes to grant DHS express authority to 
require, request, or accept DNA test results from relevant parties as 
evidence of a claimed genetic relationship.\8\ DHS recognizes that 
there are qualifying family members, such as adopted children, who do 
not have a genetic relationship to the individual who makes an 
immigration benefit request on their behalf. To the extent the rule 
discusses using DNA evidence to establish qualifying relationships in 
support of certain immigration benefit requests, it is referring only 
to genetic relationships that can be demonstrated through DNA testing. 
Current regulations generally require documentary evidence such as 
marriage and birth certificates, and secondary evidence such as medical 
records, school records, religious documents, and affidavits to support 
claims based on familial relationships. DHS currently does not have in 
place express regulatory provisions to require, request, or accept DNA 
testing results to prove genetic relationships, but because documentary 
evidence may be unreliable or unavailable, in some situations, 
individuals are allowed to voluntarily submit DNA test results. Under 
this rule, DHS may expressly require, request, or accept DNA evidence 
to demonstrate the existence of the claimed genetic relationship. DHS 
proposes to treat raw DNA (the physical sample taken from the 
applicable individual) that is taken as a distinctive biometric 
modality from the other biometric modalities it is authorized to 
collect, and not handle or share any raw DNA for any reason beyond the 
original purpose of submission (e.g., to establish or verify a claimed 
genetic relationship), unless DHS is required to share by law. DNA test 
results, which include a partial DNA profile, like other evidence of a 
familial relationship, becomes part of the record, and DHS will store 
and share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, for 
adjudication purposes, or to perform any other functions necessary for 
administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws, to the 
extent permitted by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This rule is not concerned with, and creates no authority to 
limit, DNA sample collection required by 34 U.S.C. 40702(a)(1)(A) 
and 28 CFR 28.12 from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, 
or convicted and from non-United States persons who are detained 
under the authority of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent years, government agencies have grouped together 
identifying features and actions, such as fingerprints, photographs, 
and signatures under the broad term, biometrics. The terms, biometric 
``information,'' ``identifiers,'' or ``data,'' are used to refer to all 
of these features, including additional features such as iris image, 
palm print, DNA, and voice print.As a result, DHS has adopted the 
practice of referring to fingerprints and photographs collectively as 
``biometrics,'' ``biometric information,'' or ``biometric services.'' 
Most laws on the subject do not specify individual biometric modalities 
such as iris image, palm print, voice print, DNA, and/or any other 
biometric modalities that may be collected from an individual in the 
future. DHS is proposing to update the terminology in the applicable 
regulations to uniformly use the term ``biometrics.'' DHS seeks to 
utilize a single, inclusive term comprehensively throughout regulations 
and form instructions. DHS proposes to define the term, ``biometrics,'' 
to clarify and fully explain its authority to collect more than just 
``fingerprints'' in connection with administering and enforcing the 
immigration and naturalization benefits or other services, and to 
expressly define ``biometrics'' to include a wider range of modalities 
than just fingerprints and photographs. DHS proposes to define the term 
``biometrics'' to mean ``the measurable biological (anatomical and 
physiological) or behavioral characteristics used for identification of 
an individual,'' including a list of modalities of biometric 
collection. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2. Further, DHS proposes the following 
biometrics as authorized biometric modalities that DHS may request, 
require, or accept from individuals in connection with services 
provided by DHS and to perform other functions related to administering 
and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws:
     Fingerprint;
     palm print;
     photograph (facial images specifically for facial 
recognition, as well as photographs of physical or anatomical features 
such as scars, skin marks, and tattoos);
     signature;
     voice print;
     iris image; and
     DNA (DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile 
attesting to genetic relationship).
    The proposed definition of biometrics would authorize the 
collection of specific biometric modalities and the use of biometrics 
for: Identity enrollment, verification, and management in the 
immigration lifecycle; national security and criminal history 
background checks to support determinations of eligibility for 
immigration and naturalization benefits; the production of secure 
identity documents; and to perform other functions related to 
administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws. 
DHS has internal procedural safeguards to ensure technology used to 
collect, assess, and store the differing modalities is accurate, 
reliable, and valid. Further, as with any other USCIS petition or 
application, if a decision will be adverse to an applicant or 
petitioner and is based on derogatory information the agency 
considered, he/she shall be advised of that fact and offered an 
opportunity to rebut the information. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). DNA, while 
a biometric, would only be collected in limited circumstances to verify 
the existence of a claimed genetic relationship. To conform to the 
proposed changes that would expand biometric collection, DHS proposes 
to

[[Page 56342]]

remove individual references to ``fingerprints,'' ``photographs,'' and/
or ``signatures'' and replace them with the term ``biometrics.''
    DHS originally codified restrictions on the ages of individuals 
from whom biometrics could be collected based on the policies, 
practice, or technological limitations. For biometrics use to expand to 
identity management and verification in the immigration lifecycle, this 
rule would allow for biometric collection from any individual, without 
age limitation; thus, DHS proposes to remove all age limitations or 
restrictions on biometrics collection from the regulations in the 
context of both immigration benefit requests, entering or exiting the 
United States, NTA issuance, and to perform other functions related to 
administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws.
    DHS also proposes to consolidate sections of 8 CFR providing what 
USCIS can or will do with an immigration benefit request when required 
biometrics are not submitted and how biometrics appointments can be 
rescheduled. In addition, DHS is proposing to remove and/or replace 
language that applies to paper filings with language that encourages 
electronic filing. References to position titles, form numbers, mailing 
addresses, copies, and office jurisdiction are proposed to be removed. 
In addition, internal USCIS processes are proposed to be removed from 
the regulatory text. DHS is also proposing to clarify submission of 
passport-style paper photographs with certain applications or 
petitions, and eliminating outdated requirements for submitting 
photographs with immigration benefit requests. Photograph submission 
and use requirements of the INA would be met in the future by 
electronic photograph collection.
    DHS is also proposing to require biometrics from U.S. citizens or 
lawful permanent residents when they submit a family-based visa 
petition. DHS has determined that U.S. citizen and lawful permanent 
resident petitioners must submit biometrics in order for DHS to comply 
with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (AWA),\9\ 
which prohibits DHS from approving family-based immigrant visa 
petitions and nonimmigrant fiancé(e) visa petitions if the 
petitioner has been convicted of certain offenses. In addition, the 
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) \10\ provides that 
petitioners for an alien fiancé(e) or alien spouse must submit 
criminal conviction information for certain crimes. To comply with AWA 
and IMBRA, DHS proposes to require biometrics from all family-based 
petitioners, which would allow DHS to review a Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) report of the petitioner's criminal history. The 
proposed requirement would extend to family-based petitions for a 
spouse, fiancé(e), parent, unmarried child under 21 years of 
age, unmarried son or daughter 21 years of age or over, married son or 
daughter of any age, sibling, and any derivative beneficiary immigrant 
or nonimmigrant visa based on a familial relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Public Law 109-248, section 402; 120 Stat. 587, 622 (July 
27, 2006); INA 204(a)(1)(A)(viii) & (B)((i)(I).
    \10\ Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005), Public Law 109-162, 119 
Stat. 2960 (2006); and (VAWA 2013), Public Law 113-4, sections 807-
8, 127 Stat. 54, 112-17; 8 U.S.C. 1375a); INA sections 214(d)(1), 
(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS proposes to require Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-
petitioners appear for biometric collection, and to remove the 
requirement that self-petitioners who have resided in the United States 
submit police clearance letters as evidence of good moral character 
because DHS will be able to obtain the self-petitioner's criminal 
history using the biometrics. VAWA self-petitioners are currently 
required to provide (1) a personal statement from the self-petitioner, 
(2) police clearance letters from the self-petitioner's places of 
residence for the three years before filing, and (3) other credible 
evidence, including affidavits from third parties attesting to the 
self-petitioner's good moral character. DHS proposes to require 
biometrics from VAWA self-petitioners to obtain the self-petitioner's 
criminal history and support identity enrollment, verification, and 
management in the immigration lifecycle and conduct national security 
and criminal history background checks. The proposed change will reduce 
the evidence required to establish good moral character for many self-
petitioners, however law enforcement clearances are still required for 
self-petitioners who recently resided outside the United States. In 
addition, DHS proposes that good moral character for a VAWA self-
petitioner may extend beyond the three years immediately before filing. 
See generally 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2). DHS further proposes to remove the 
automatic presumption of good moral character for VAWA self-petitioners 
under 14 years of age. Self-petitioners under 14 would submit 
biometrics like any other VAWA self-petitioner. Similarly, DHS proposes 
to eliminate the requirement that T nonimmigrant adjustment of status 
applicants submit self-reported police clearance letters, unless they 
lived outside the United States during the requisite period. 
Adjudicators would assess good moral character based on the applicant's 
criminal history, national security background check, and any other 
credible and relevant evidence submitted. DHS also proposes to amend 8 
CFR 245.23(g) to refer to the relevant ``continuous period'' rather 
than ``continued presence,'' and to provide that USCIS would be able to 
consider the applicant's conduct beyond the requisite period, where 
earlier conduct is relevant to the applicant's moral character and 
conduct during the requisite period does not reflect a reform of 
character.
    DHS also proposes to remove the presumption of good moral character 
for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants under 14 years of 
age. The rule provides that such applicants will submit biometrics that 
USCIS will use in the determination of good moral character and 
provides USCIS with the authority to require additional evidence of 
good moral character. Proposed 8 CFR 245.23(g). The proposed changes 
would remove the superfluous need for police clearance letters from T 
nonimmigrant adjustment applicants.
    DHS proposes to collect biometrics and perform background checks on 
U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident principals of a regional 
center. See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102-395, 106 
Stat. 1828, 8 U.S.C. 1153 note (``Such pilot program shall involve a 
regional center in the United States for the promotion of economic 
growth[.]''). USCIS would review the results of national security and 
criminal history background checks in order to decide whether the 
principals of the intending or existing regional center, and the 
regional center itself, are bona fide and capable of credibly promoting 
such economic growth. This proposal would provide USCIS relevant 
information regarding whether the regional center will, or is 
continuing to, promote economic growth in accordance with regional 
center program requirements.
    DHS also proposes to remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) and (2), and 
216.6(b)(1) and (2) to clarify interview procedures for conditional 
permanent residents, to reduce potential redundancies, and ensure 
greater uniformity within DHS operations.

[[Page 56343]]

    DHS does not plan to immediately expand all of its programs to 
provide that all new biometrics modalities would be required of all 
potentially amenable individuals as of the effective date of a 
potential final rule. Only those revised forms that propose to add a 
particular biometric collection or DNA submission requirement in 
conjunction with this rule (as described in the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA) section of this preamble) will be immediately subject to new 
biometrics, modalities, or DNA requirements. DHS proposes that DHS 
component agencies may expand or contract their biometrics submission 
requirements within the parameters of this rule in the future by notice 
in the Federal Register or updated form instructions.
    USCIS is authorized to collect an $85 biometric services fee, but 
has proposed to incorporate the biometric services costs into the 
underlying immigration benefit request fees for which biometric 
services are applicable in a recent final rule. See U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other 
Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020) 
(Fee Rule). The $85 biometric services fee required by 8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(i)(C) that DHS estimates will be collected as a result of 
this proposed rule will not be collected if the Fee Rule takes effect 
before this rule does.

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    DHS proposes to expand the collection of biometrics to require any 
individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request 
to appear for biometrics collection, and, if applicable, pay the $85 
biometric services fee unless exempted or waived from appearing and/or 
paying for such biometrics collection. This proposed rule would also 
change current regulations by defining the term ``biometrics'' to 
clarify and fully explain DHS's regulatory authority to collect 
biometrics information. The proposal to expand the collection of 
biometrics would impact certain populations without regard to age or 
U.S. citizenship status. Additionally, DHS proposes to further clarify 
the purposes for which biometrics are collected, stored, and utilized. 
Last, this rule proposes that DHS may require, request, or accept the 
submission of DNA or DNA test results to verify a claimed genetic 
relationship.
    DHS estimates that under the proposed rule, from those seeking an 
immigration benefit, about 2.17 million new biometrics submissions will 
be collected annually, and the resulting biometrics submitting 
population will increase from 3.90 million currently to 6.07 million, 
and, from a generalized collection rate across all forms of 46 percent 
currently to 71.2 percent (projected). The increase in biometrics 
submissions would accrue to three population segments: (i) A small 
subset of forms in which biometrics collection is collected routinely 
in which the age-eligible population will expand; (ii) the broadening 
of routine collection to a dozen or so forms in which collection is not 
currently routine; and (iii) the expansion of the age-eligible 
biometrics population to a collection of forms characterized by very 
low filing volumes, unspecified forms, and forms in which DHS does not 
intend to broadly extend collection on a routine basis at this time. 
USCIS is also removing the age restrictions for biometrics collection 
in the context of an NTA issuance. However, the issuance of an NTA is 
not an ``application, petition, or other request for certain 
immigration and naturalization benefits.'' See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C). 
For this stated reason, USCIS will not (and does not currently) collect 
the $85 biometrics services fee from those whose DNA was collected in 
the course of being issued NTAs or for other immigration law 
enforcement purposes. Based on FY 2018 statistics, the proposed rule, 
could result in DHS collecting biometrics from as many as 63,000 
additional individuals under the age of 14 years annually associated 
with NTAs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To be clear, DHS is not estimating that this rule would 
result in the issuance of 63,000 additional NTAs by its components; 
rather, 63,000 NTAs were issued in FY 2018 to minors under the age 
of 14 who would be subject to biometric collection (for the purpose 
of verifying identify) under the parameters of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would expand the collection of the $85 biometric 
services fee to include any individual appearing for biometrics 
collection in connection with a benefit request unless the individual 
is statutorily exempt from paying the biometric services fee or if he 
or she has received a fee waiver. DHS estimates that there will be 1.63 
million new biometrics fee payments annually. The annual quantified 
costs associated with submitting new biometrics submissions could be 
$158.9 million, and the costs associated with the new fees could be 
$138.4 million, for a combined total of $297.3 million in quantified 
costs. There could be some unquantified impacts related to privacy 
concerns for risks associated with the collection and retention of 
biometric information, as discussed in DHS's Privacy Act compliance 
documentation. However, this rule would not create new impacts in this 
regard but would expand the population that could have privacy 
concerns. When costs of $705,555 are incorporated to include fees the 
FBI would collect for providing fingerprint-based and name-based 
Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks for NTAs, the annual 
costs are about $298 million.
    In addition, DHS proposes to expand its regulatory authority so 
that it may require, request, or accept DNA or DNA test results, which 
include a partial DNA profile, to prove the existence of a genetic 
relationship for any benefit request where such a relationship must be 
established, such as certain family-based benefit requests, including 
but not limited to the following:
     Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130);
     Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition (Form I-730);
     Application for T Nonimmigrant Status, Supplement A (Form 
I-914A);
     Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, Supplement A (Form I-
918A);
     Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 
Nonimmigrant (Form I-929);
     Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600);
     Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate 
Under Section 322 (Form N-600K);
     And any other form where the existence of a genetic 
relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, dependent, derivative, 
rider, or other qualifying family member.
    DHS is not proposing with this rule to require in all cases proof 
of a genetic relationship submission in connection with these forms via 
raw DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile. 
However, the rule will allow immediately for DHS, in its discretion, to 
request, require, or accept DNA or DNA test results, which include a 
partial DNA profile, for individual benefit requests requiring proof of 
a genetic relationship. Since the actual volume cannot be predicted at 
this time with accuracy, DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis using a 
range of 10 to 100 percent to estimate the potential costs for eligible 
populations associated with these family-based benefit requests. The 
costs to principal filers and beneficiaries/qualifying family members 
who may submit DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA 
profile, to establish a genetic relationship in support of these 
benefit requests would range from $22.4 million to $224.1 million 
annually, in undiscounted terms.
    Combining the cost of the biometrics collection (in both the 
benefits and law

[[Page 56344]]

enforcement contexts) with the DNA costs, DHS estimated the total 
monetized costs of the proposed rule at three points of the DNA 
submission range, to represent a lower bound (10 percent), a midrange 
(50 percent), and a high range (90 percent). In undiscounted terms, the 
ten-year (2021-2030) costs could range from $3,204.1 to $4,996.9 
million, with a midrange of $4,100.5 million. At a 3 percent rate of 
discount, the ten-year present values could range from $2,773.2 
million, to $4,262.4 million, with a midrange of $3,497.8 million. At a 
7 percent rate of discount, the ten-year present values could range 
from $2,250.4 million to $3,509.6 million, with a midrange of $2,880.0 
million. The average annualized equivalence costs could range from 
$320.4 million to $499.7 million, with a midrange of $410 million.
    The proposed rule would provide benefits that are not possible to 
quantify. Qualitatively, the proposed rule would provide individuals 
requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits with a more 
reliable system for verifying their identity when submitting a benefit 
request. This would limit the potential for identity theft while also 
reducing the likelihood that DHS would be unable to verify an 
individual's identity and consequently deny the benefit. In addition, 
the proposal to allow individuals to use DNA testing as evidence to 
demonstrate the existence of a claimed genetic relationship would 
provide them the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship 
using a quicker and more effective technology than the blood testing 
method currently provided for in the regulations. See 8 CFR 
204.2(d)(2)(vi).
    The proposed rule would benefit the U.S. Government by enabling DHS 
with more fidelity and efficiency in identity verification, identity 
management in the immigration lifecycle, and vetting of individuals 
seeking certain immigration and naturalization benefits, as well as in 
DHS functions related to law enforcement purposes. The expanded use of 
biometrics stands to provide DHS with the improved ability to identify 
and limit fraud because biometrics technology measures unique physical 
characteristics that are more difficult to falsify than documentary 
evidence of biographic information, when collected under controlled 
circumstances and retained and used for a limited period of time. 
Biometrics would also help reduce the administrative burden involved in 
identity verification and the performance of criminal history checks, 
by reducing the need for manual document review and name-based security 
checks. The proposed rule also would enhance the U.S. Government's 
capability to identify criminal activity and protect vulnerable groups 
by supporting identity enrollment and verification in the immigration 
lifecycle by extending the collection of biometrics to populations 
under certain benefit requests.
    Table 1 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed provisions 
and their impacts.

               Table 1--Summary of Provisions and Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Expected cost of the   Expected benefit of
       Proposed change              provision           the provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS proposes to expand        Individuals           Individuals
 collection of biometrics to   Submitting            Submitting
 require any individual        Biometrics--.         Biometrics--
 filing or associated with    Quantitative:.......  Qualitative:
 an immigration benefit or     Total         The
 request to appear for         annual direct costs   proposed rule
 biometrics collection         of the proposed       provides
 without regard to age.        rule:.                individuals
                              [cir] $158,940,196     requesting certain
                               for about 2.17        immigration and
                               million.              naturalization
                              individuals to         benefits with a
                               submit.               more reliable
                              biometrics..........   system for
                              [cir] $138,356,283     verifying their
                               for about 1.63        identity when
                               million new $85       submitting a
                               biometric services    benefit request.
                               fees.                 This would limit
                                                     the potential for
                                                     identity theft. It
                                                     would also reduce
                                                     the likelihood that
                                                     DHS would not be
                                                     able to verify an
                                                     individual's
                                                     identify and
                                                     therefore possibly
                                                     deny a benefit
                                                     request.
                                                    Government--
                                                    Qualitative:
                                                     DHS would
                                                     be able to
                                                     routinely collect
                                                     biometrics
                                                     information from
                                                     children under the
                                                     age of 14, and
                                                     therefore, increase
                                                     the U.S.
                                                     Government's
                                                     capabilities of
                                                     determining the
                                                     identity of a child
                                                     who may be
                                                     vulnerable to gang
                                                     affiliation, human
                                                     trafficking child
                                                     sex trafficking,
                                                     forced labor
                                                     exploitation, and
                                                     alien smuggling.
                                                     The
                                                     proposed rule would
                                                     provide a benefit
                                                     to the U.S.
                                                     Government by
                                                     enabling DHS to
                                                     know with greater
                                                     certainty the
                                                     identity of
                                                     individuals
                                                     requesting certain
                                                     immigration and
                                                     naturalization
                                                     benefits. The
                                                     expanded use of
                                                     biometric
                                                     information would
                                                     provide DHS with
                                                     the ability to
                                                     limit identity
                                                     fraud because
                                                     biometrics
                                                     technologies
                                                     measure unique
                                                     physical
                                                     characteristics and
                                                     more difficult to
                                                     falsify than
                                                     biographic
                                                     documents.

[[Page 56345]]

 
DHS proposes to increase the  Government--........  Government--
 biometric modalities that    Qualitative:........  Qualitative:
 it uses to collect            DHS does      Use of the
 biometrics information for    not know what the     new biometric
 benefits adjudication and     costs of expanding    technologies would
 law enforcement purposes to   biometrics            allow DHS to keep
 include the following: Palm   collection to the     up with
 prints, facial and iris       government in terms   technological
 image, and voice prints.      of assets and         developments in
                               equipment; it is      this area and
                               possible that costs   adjust collection
                               could be incurred     practices for both
                               for the new           convenience for
                               equipment and         applicants and
                               information           petitioners and to
                               technologies and      ensure the improved
                               typologies needed     service for all
                               to collect,           stakeholders.
                               process, store, and
                               utilize biometrics,
                               including software
                               updates; cameras
                               that are able to
                               collect iris and
                               facial images;
                               devices used to
                               record a voice
                               print; and other
                               equipment.
DHS may require, request, or  Individuals           Individuals
 accept the submission of      Submitting DNA        Submitting DNA test
 DNA or DNA test results,      Evidence--.           result Evidence--
 which include a partial DNA  Quantitative:.......  Quantitative:
 profile, to verify the        Potential     DNA testing
 existence of a claimed        annual costs for      would provide a
 genetic relationship for      principal filers      means to
 benefits adjudication and     and beneficiaries/    demonstrate a
 law enforcement purposes.     qualifying family     claimed genetic
                               members to submit     relationship using
                               DNA evidence range    a quicker and more
                               from $22.4 million    effective
                               to $224.1 million.    technology than the
                               These figures are     current reliance on
                               based on current      primary and
                               costs and depend on   secondary records
                               how many              and document-based
                               individuals submit    evidence that may
                               DNA evidence in       be unreliable or
                               support of a family-  unavailable.
                               based benefit
                               request.
                               There will
                               be no cost to the
                               individuals from
                               whom DHS will
                               require DNA sample
                               for law enforcement
                               purposes.
                              Government--
                              Qualitative:........
                               USCIS
                               facilitates
                               collection of DNA
                               from individuals
                               outside the United
                               States for
                               transmission to
                               accredited
                               laboratories in the
                               United States to
                               ensure proper chain
                               of custody. USCIS
                               currently
                               reimburses the
                               Department of State
                               for the collection
                               of DNA in countries
                               where it does not
                               have a presence.
                               DHS does not
                               currently know how
                               many individuals
                               would submit DNA
                               under the proposed
                               rule but there is
                               the potential for
                               additional costs if
                               the Department of
                               State facilitates
                               additional DNA
                               testing.
DHS is proposing to remove    Individuals           Individuals
 the age restrictions for      Submitting            Submitting
 biometrics collection in      Biometrics--.         Biometrics
 the context of Notice to     Quantitative:.......  Government--
 Appear (NTA) issuance for    None; there would be  Qualitative:
 the same reasons (i.e.,       no opportunity or    The collection of
 identity verification,        travel related        biometrics on
 criminal history background   costs associated      children under the
 checks, etc.).                with biometrics       age of 14
                               collection from       associated with
                               individuals for       NTAs would
                               NTAs.                 significantly
                                                     assist DHS in its
                                                     mission to combat
                                                     human trafficking,
                                                     child sex
                                                     trafficking, forced
                                                     labor exploitation,
                                                     and alien
                                                     smuggling.
                              Government--
                              Quantitative:.......
                              There could be costs
                               of $705,555
                               annually accruing
                               to fees the FBI
                               would collect for
                               providing
                               fingerprint-based
                               and name-based
                               Criminal History
                               Record Information
                               (CHRI) checks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the impacts summarized above and as required by 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Table 2 presents 
the prepared accounting statement showing the costs associated with 
this proposed regulation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ OMB Circular A-4 is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. The DHS notes that the primary estimate reported here 
reflects the average of the highest 50 percent DNA submission rate 
(100 percent) and the lowest (0 percent). It also corresponds to the 
50 percent midrange along the spectrum 10-90 percent that we utilize 
on grounds that realistically, there will be some collection (a 
positive rate) but not complete (100 percent) collection.

[[Page 56346]]



                                      Table 2--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement
                                               [$ millions, 2019]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Source citation
            Category               Primary estimate     Minimum estimate    Maximum estimate    (RIA, preamble,
                                                                                                     etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Benefits.............  Not estimated......  Not estimated......  Not estimated.....  Preamble.
Annualized quantified, but un-   0..................  0..................  0.................  Preamble.
 monetized, benefits.
                                --------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified Benefits..........  The proposed rule would limit identity fraud and improve      Preamble and RIA.
                                  USCIS identity management systems. Additionally, the
                                  proposed rule would enhance the U.S. Government's
                                  capability to identify criminal activities and protect
                                  vulnerable populations. The removal of age restrictions and
                                  the proposal to collect on all NTAs under the age of 14
                                  would assist DHS in its mission to combat human
                                  trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor
                                  exploitation, and alien smuggling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs for   (3%) $410..........  $320.4.............  $499.7............  RIA.
 10 year period starting in      (7%) $410..........  $320.4.............  $499.7............  RIA.
 2021 to 2030 (discount rate in
 parenthesis).
                                --------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but un-   There could be costs germane to the procurement of            Preamble and RIA.
 monetized, costs.                equipment, information technology and typology, and systems
                                  possibly needed to support the increased biometrics
                                  modalities. There could also be a cost for transferring
                                  information regarding biometrics for the NTAs issued to
                                  individuals under age 14.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified)       N/A.
 costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers:  N/A................  N/A................  N/A...............  Preamble.
 ``on budget''.
From whom to whom?.............  N/A................  N/A................  N/A...............  Preamble.
Annualized monetized transfers:  N/A................  N/A................  N/A...............  Preamble.
 ``off-budget''.
From whom to whom?.............  N/A................  N/A................  N/A...............  Preamble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                                                Source citation
 Miscellaneous analyses/category                            Effects                             (RIA, preamble,
                                                                                                     etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on state, local, and/or   None......................................................  Preamble.
 tribal governments.
Effects on small businesses.....  There could be small entity impacts to EB-5 regional        Preamble.
                                   centers incurred by biometrics collection germane to the
                                   regional center principals. DHS believes these would be
                                   indirect but does not know how they could impact the
                                   regional center. There are currently 884 approved
                                   regional centers and DHS analysis based on limited
                                   available suggests that most regional centers could be
                                   small entities in terms of their RFA.
Effects on wages................  None......................................................  Preamble
Effects on growth...............  None......................................................  Preamble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS emphasizes that the costs could vary from the figures reported 
herein. As is detailed in the analysis, in order to estimate the 
population of future biometrics submissions, it was necessary to 
extrapolate certain metrics and conditions to the non-existent (in 
context) future populations. Although DHS believes the methodology 
employed is appropriate, because the future actual generalized and 
form-specific collection rate of biometrics are unknown, the actual 
populations and costs could vary. In addition, the costs rely on a 
lower-end average wage to account for opportunity costs associated with 
biometrics submissions. If, on average, the wage is higher than that 
relied upon, the costs could vary as well. This regulatory impact 
analysis is the best available estimate of the future benefits and 
costs. Actual results will depend on a number of factors including 
programmatic, operational,

[[Page 56347]]

and practical considerations in the implementation of the collection of 
biometrics under this rule.
    In summary, the proposed rule would enable DHS to conduct the 
administration and adjudication of immigration benefit requests with 
increased fidelity, and is conducive to the evolution to a person-
centric model for organizing and managing its records, enhanced and 
continuous vetting, and reduced dependence on paper documents, as is 
described more fully in the preamble.

III. Background and Purpose

A. Legal Authority and Guidance for DHS Collection and Use of 
Biometrics

    DHS has general and specific statutory authority to collect or 
require submission of biometrics from applicants, co-applicants, 
petitioners, requestors, derivatives, beneficiaries and others directly 
associated with a request for immigration benefits; and for purposes 
incident to apprehending, arresting, processing, and care and custody 
of aliens. First, the INA at section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), provides 
general authority to DHS to administer and enforce immigration laws, 
including issuing forms, regulations, instructions, other papers, and 
such other acts the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) 
deems necessary to carry out the INA. The INA also provides specific 
authority for DHS to collect or require submission of biometrics in 
several sections.
     INA section 235(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(3), provides that 
the Secretary and any immigration officer will:

. . . have power . . . to take and consider evidence of or from any 
person touching the privilege of any alien or person he believes or 
suspects to be an alien to enter, reenter, transit through, or 
reside in the United States or concerning any matter which is 
material and relevant to the enforcement of this chapter and the 
administration of the Service.

     INA 287(b), 8 U.S.C. 1357(b), provides DHS authority to, 
``. . . take and consider evidence concerning the privilege of any 
person to enter, reenter, pass through, or reside in the United States, 
or concerning any matter which is material or relevant to the 
enforcement of this chapter and the administration of the Service.''
     INA sections 333 and 335, 8 U.S.C. 1444 and 1446, require 
the submission of photographs and a personal investigation before an 
application for naturalization, citizenship or other similar requests 
may be approved.
     INA section 262(a), 8 U.S.C. 1302(a), provides direct 
statutory authority for the collection of fingerprints for the purpose 
of registering aliens.
     INA section 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304(a), provides that the 
Secretary is authorized to prepare forms for the registration and 
fingerprinting of aliens, aged 14 and older, in the United States, as 
required by INA section 262.
    DHS interprets the broad statutory authority described above as 
authority for the collection of biometrics when such information is 
material or relevant to the furtherance of DHS' delegated authority to 
administer and enforce the INA. DHS' delegated authority includes the 
adjudication of requests for immigration benefits, as well as authority 
to ``register and fingerprint aliens in the United States.'' \13\ 
Establishing and verifying an individual's identity through the use of 
biometrics falls within DHS' authority in the adjudication of 
immigration benefits and administration and enforcement of immigration 
laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 6 U.S.C. 271(b); see also Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation Number: 0150.1, Delegation To the Bureau of Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (June 5, 2003), available at https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=234775 (viewed Nov. 12, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several other statutes authorize the collection of biometrics by 
DHS. In 1997, when funding the agency for 1998, Congress directed the 
former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which preceded the 
creation of DHS, not to accept any fingerprint cards collected by 
entities outside the INS for immigration benefits, except in certain 
instances when collected by law enforcement agencies and in certain 
overseas situations. See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998, Title 
I, Public Law 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2447-2448 (1997). Previously, 
certain ``designated fingerprint services'' entities could collect 
fingerprints. After passage of this law, which necessitated a change in 
INS' practices, INS established the Application Support Centers (ASCs) 
which exist nationwide today and are operated by DHS for the collection 
of biometrics for immigration benefits. See 63 FR 12979 (Mar. 17, 
1998). The 1998 appropriations law also provided for the former INS to 
charge a fee for fingerprinting. A fingerprinting fee was first charged 
in March 1998, and has evolved into the biometric services fee in 8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(i)(C).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Another section of the INA specifically authorizes USCIS to 
collect fees for fingerprinting, biometric, and other necessary 
services under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. 8 
U.S.C. 1254b; DHS Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-83, 
sec. 549, 123 Stat. 2142, 2177 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Background Checks
    DHS is precluded in many cases from approving, granting, or 
providing immigration benefits to individuals with a record of certain 
criminal offenses or administrative violations.\15\ Whether granting a 
benefit is discretionary or not, criminal histories are relevant 
because they are used to determine eligibility for both discretionary 
and non-discretionary benefits. Additionally, DHS is mandated to 
protect the American public from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals 
admitted to the United States, by ``identify[ing] individuals who seek 
to enter the United States . . . who support terrorism, violent 
extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within 
the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to 
their entry.'' See Executive Order (E.O.) No. 13780, Protecting the 
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, at section 
5(a), 82 FR 13209, 13215 (Mar. 9, 2017) (E.O. 13780). Therefore, DHS 
adjudications must include national security considerations and 
criminal history background checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ DHS would like to note that limitations on biometric 
collection or use in this proposed rule would not impact existing 
law enforcement authorities or other national security or 
intelligence gathering activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, one statute precludes the filing of a family-based 
immigrant petition by someone who has been convicted of a ``specified 
offense against a minor.'' See INA section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii), 8 U.S.C. 
1154(a)(1)(A)(viii). The criminal and security-related grounds of 
inadmissibility found in INA section 212(a)(2)-(3), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(2)-(3), apply to many benefits, such as adjustment to lawful 
permanent resident status, refugee status, and Temporary Protected 
Status (TPS). The INA provides that refugee applicants must be 
admissible as immigrants and the criminal, security, and terrorism-
related grounds of inadmissibility apply to refugee applicants. See INA 
section 207(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(1); INA section 212, 8 U.S.C. 1182. 
The INA provides that asylum may be granted on a discretionary basis. 
See INA section 208(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(1)(A). It provides that 
asylum applicants are subject to mandatory criminal and security bars. 
See INA section 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A). Sections of the 
INA apply the criminal, security, and terrorism-related bars to TPS 
applicants, including the mandatory asylum bars above. See INA sections 
244(c)(2)(A)(iii)-(B), 8 U.S.C.

[[Page 56348]]

1254a (c)(2)(A)(iii)-(B). Various INA sections require that adjustment 
of status applicants be admissible in order to qualify. See, e.g., 
sections 245(a)(2) and 209(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. 
1159(b)(5). The INA also provides a good moral character requirement 
for any applicant to be naturalized. See INA section 316(a)(3), 8 
U.S.C. 1427(a)(3).
    Other statutes authorize DHS to conduct biometric services in 
relation to national security and public safety purposes. For example, 
Congress directed in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 
2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 354 (2001), 
reauthorized by Public Law 114-23, 129 Stat. 268 (2015) (codified at 
note to 8 U.S.C. 1365a), that ``biometric technology'' should be 
utilized in the development of the integrated entry-exit system 
originally mandated by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 
(1996) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1365a). The Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 
(2004) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1365b), required the completion 
of a biometric data system to facilitate efficient immigration benefits 
processing and to protect the United States by preventing the entry of 
terrorists. For USCIS, any limitations on the collection or use of 
biometrics in this draft rule does not impact DHS law enforcement 
authorities or other national security or intelligence gathering 
activities.
    Background checks are also required by EOIR regulation for aliens 
who apply for relief and protection in removal proceedings. 
Specifically, immigration judges and the BIA are prohibited from 
granting relief and protection to an alien unless an ICE attorney 
reports that all required ``identity, law enforcement, or security 
investigations or examinations'' have been completed. See 8 CFR 
1003.1(d)(6), 1003.47(g). Indeed, as pertaining to asylum applications, 
there is a statutory basis for such background checks as well. See 8 
U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(i); see also 8 CFR 1208.10. Once again, to the 
extent that any controversy may arise interpreting DHS and DOJ 
regulations regarding the removal of age restrictions for biometrics 
collection, until DOJ removes its age restrictions, DHS intends to 
follow DOJ regulations with respect to age restrictions when collecting 
biometrics for an application or petition that will be adjudicated by 
EOIR.
2. Secure Document Production
    Still other statutes authorize or require the collection of 
biometrics for secure document production. For example, photographs are 
required by statute to create certificates of naturalization. INA 
section 333(a), 8 U.S.C. 1444(a). Additionally, an alien granted asylum 
will be granted an employment authorization document (EAD) that shall 
at a minimum contain the fingerprint and photograph of such alien. 8 
U.S.C. 1738. Relatedly, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act of 2002 (Border Security Act), Public Law 107-173, 116 Stat. 
543 (2002), requires that DHS issue aliens machine-readable, tamper-
resistant visas and other travel and entry documents using biometric 
identifiers. 8 U.S.C. 1732(b)(1).
3. Biometric Collection From U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent 
Residents
    DHS is also authorized to collect the biometrics of U.S. citizen 
and lawful permanent resident petitioners of family-based immigrant 
petitions, and U.S. citizen petitioners of nonimmigrant 
fiancé(e) petitions, to determine if a petitioner has been 
convicted of certain crimes pursuant to the AWA, Public Law 109-248, 
120 Stat. 587 (2006) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 
and 42 U.S.C.) (see sections 402(a) and (b) for the applicable 
immigration provisions), and IMBRA, Public Law 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960 
(2006) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1375a). The AWA:
     Prohibits U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who 
have been convicted of any ``specified offense against a minor'' from 
filing a family-based immigrant visa petition on behalf of any 
beneficiary, unless the Secretary determines in his or her sole and 
unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses ``no risk'' to the 
beneficiary. INA section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I), (B)(i)(II); 8 U.S.C. 
1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I), (B)(i)(II).
     Renders ineligible to file ``K'' nonimmigrant 
fiancé(e) petitions those U.S. citizens convicted of such 
offenses, unless the Secretary determines in his or her sole and 
unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses ``no risk'' to the 
fiancé(e) beneficiary. INA section 101(a)(15)(K), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(K).
    Independent of the AWA, USCIS is also required to disclose 
information regarding certain violent arrests and convictions for some 
U.S.C. petitioners who file K-visas for fiancés or spouses in 
accordance with IMBRA, 8 U.S.C. 1375a.
4. Administrative Guidance
    This proposed rule is also consistent with non-statutory guidance 
on effective mechanisms for foreign national vetting, screening, and 
identification. DHS was directed by executive branch guidance to take 
actions that require a robust system for biometrics collection, 
storage, and use related to providing adjudication and naturalization 
services of immigration benefits. For example, with respect to secure 
documents, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 11, 
``Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures,'' (August 27, 
2004) directs DHS to ``incorporate security features . . . that resist 
circumvention to the greatest extent possible.'' DHS is directed to 
consider the ``. . . information individuals must present, including, 
as appropriate, the type of biometric identifier[s] or other form of 
identification or identifying information to be presented, at 
particular screening opportunities.'' DHS was also directed to expand 
the use of biometrics, consistent with applicable law, to identify and 
screen for individuals who may pose a threat to national security by 
HSPD 24, ``Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance 
National Security,'' (June 5, 2008). In addition, E.O. 13780 requires 
DHS to implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, 
to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a 
fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of 
violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, 
or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. 82 FR 
13209, 13215 (Mar. 9, 2017). The E.O. provides that the program must 
include screening and vetting standards and procedures, a mechanism to 
ensure that applicants are who they claim to be, assess whether 
applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, 
or terrorist acts after entering the United States, and evaluation of 
all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other 
immigration benefits. Id. Further, National Security Presidential 
Memorandum--7 established the DHS-led National Vetting Center to 
improve vetting ``to identify potential threats to national security, 
border security, homeland security, and public safety'', and included 
expanding biometric integration, sharing, and use to that end.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ National Security Presidential Memorandum--7, SUBJECT: 
Integration, Sharing, and Use of National Security Threat Actor 
Information to Protect Americans (Oct. 5, 2017), available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/national-security-presidential-memorandum-7/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 56349]]

B. The Use of Biometrics by DHS

    Current regulations provide both general authorities for the 
collection of biometrics in connection with administering and enforcing 
the immigration and naturalization benefits as well as requirements 
specific to certain benefit types.\17\ In a related provision, an 
applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing a 
benefit request may be required to appear for biometrics. See 8 CFR 
103.2(b)(9). In addition, DHS has the authority to require biometrics 
and the associated biometric services fee from any applicant, 
petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing or 
seeking a benefit request on a case-by-case basis, through form 
instructions, or through a Federal Register notice. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 103.16(a), 204.2(a)(2) (requiring evidence 
of the claimed relationship), 204.3(c)(3) (requiring 
fingerprinting), 204.2(d)(2)(vi) (authorizing blood testing), 
245a.2(d) (requiring photographs and a completed fingerprint card), 
316.4(a) (referring to form instructions which may require 
photographs and fingerprinting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The former INS first used fingerprints for immigration processing 
solely for the purpose of performing criminal history background checks 
related to applications for which eligibility required good moral 
character or non-existence of a record of certain criminal offenses. 
See, e.g., 63 FR 12979 (Mar. 17, 1998) (prohibiting the former INS from 
accepting fingerprints for the purpose of conducting criminal 
background checks unless collected by certain U.S. Government 
entities). The beneficiary or applicant would submit fingerprints which 
were then checked against FBI databases to determine if they matched 
any criminal activity on file. The fingerprints were not retained by 
the INS and delays in processing would often result in individuals 
needing to submit fingerprints multiple times for the same application. 
Photographs were not historically collected by INS as a biometric 
identifier. For those immigration benefit requests that required a 
photograph to produce a resulting identity document, the regulations 
required submission of a passport-style photograph. See, e.g., 8 CFR 
264.1, 264.5 (requiring identical photographs).
    Today, DHS handles biometrics differently. Biometrics are still 
used in criminal history background checks for immigration benefits 
where good moral character or absence of certain criminal offenses are 
required, as well as for overall national security vetting. In 
addition, biometrics may be stored by DHS and used to verify an 
individual's identity in subsequent encounters with DHS. These 
encounters could vary from travel to and from the United States, where 
an individual may encounter CBP officers, to arrest and detention, by 
law enforcement components such as ICE, to initiation of removal 
proceedings.
    DHS also uses collected biometric information for document 
production related to immigration benefits and status, including but 
not limited to: Travel Documents (Form I-512L), Permanent Resident 
Cards (Form I-551), Employment Authorization Documents (Form I-766), 
Certificates of Citizenship (Form N-560), Certificates of 
Naturalization (Form N-550), Replacement Certificates of Citizenship 
(Form N-561), and Replacement Certificates of Naturalization (Form N-
570).\18\ Most of these secure documents are created using the 
photograph (and signature) that is taken by DHS at an ASC, and not the 
paper photograph mailed with the benefit request.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See also 8 U.S.C. 1732(b) (requiring machine-readable 
travel and entry documents containing biometric identifiers); 8 CFR 
264.1(b); Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status (Form I-485); Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card 
(Form I-90); Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765); 
Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600); Application 
for Naturalization (Form N-400); Application for Replacement 
Naturalization/Citizenship Document (N-565).
    \19\ The paper photograph is retained and may be used to verify 
the identity of an applicant who is required to be interviewed by 
comparing it to the digitally captured photograph or the applicant's 
motor vehicle operator's license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the benefit adjudications process, DHS must first verify 
the identity of an individual applying for or seeking any benefit. 
Identity verification protects against fraud and imposters. Second, DHS 
must determine if the individual is eligible to receive the requested 
benefit. That determination may focus on the criminal, national 
security, and immigration history of the individual, depending on the 
eligibility requirements for the particular benefit type, and is 
accomplished through national security and criminal history background 
checks.
    The immigration history review includes a review of the 
individual's current immigration status, current immigration filings, 
past immigration filings, and whether previous benefits were granted or 
denied. DHS conducts national security and criminal history background 
checks on individuals applying for an immigration benefit because U.S. 
immigration laws preclude DHS from granting many immigration and 
naturalization benefits to individuals with certain criminal or 
administrative violations, or with certain disqualifying 
characteristics (e.g., certain communicable diseases or association 
with terrorist organizations), while also providing DHS discretion in 
granting an immigration benefit in many instances.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., INA section 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A) 
(mandatory bars to asylum); INA section 245(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
1255(a)(2) (admissibility requirements for adjustment of status 
applicants); INA section 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3) (good moral 
character requirement for naturalization).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS conducts multiple types of national security and criminal 
history background checks including but not limited to: (1) Name-based 
checks, (2) FBI fingerprint-based checks, and (3) biometrics checks 
against the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), the FBI 
Next Generation Identification system, and the Department of Defense 
(DoD) Automated Biometric Identification System 
(ABIS).).21 22 23 DHS also uses biometrics to determine if 
an individual has activities in their background such as an association 
with human rights violations, involvement in terrorist activities, or 
affiliation with terrorist organizations rendering them inadmissible. 
To that end, DHS may vet an individual's biometrics against data sets 
of foreign partners in accordance with international arrangements.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ IDENT will be replaced by a system called the Homeland 
Advanced Recognition Technology (HART). DHS will use the term 
``IDENT'' in this rule to refer to both the current and successor 
systems.
    \22\ The FBI NGI system is operated by the FBI/CJIS Division, 
and provides the criminal justice community with multi-modal 
biometric and criminal history information. See Privacy Impact 
Assessment Update for Biometric Interoperability Between the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice 
(Oct. 13, 2011). FBI's NGI database, in turn, also provides access 
to DoD's ABIS database.
    \23\ DoD's ABIS system is operated by the DoD, and contains 
biometric records of individuals encountered overseas by the DoD 
that include KSTs. The biographic and biometric data from ABIS is 
also transferred to the DoD's Special Operations Force Exhibition 
(SOFEX) Portal for additional biometric matching. Once complete, the 
NGI system forwards responses back from both the NGI and the ABIS 
systems to the IDENT system. When data is initially submitted and 
processed through IDENT, NGI, and ABIS, an ICE Analyst conducts 
biometric and biographic checks against other law enforcement and 
classified Intelligence Community databases before processing, 
exploiting, summarizing, and disseminating findings to the relevant 
ICE Attach[eacute] and Biometric Identification Transnational 
Migration Alert Program (BITMAP) PMT.
    \24\ See, e.g., Five Country Conference High Value Data Sharing 
Protocol, Nov. 2009; Statement of Mutual Understanding on 
Information Sharing among the Department of Citizenship Immigration 
Canada (CIC) and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS), Feb. 2003; Agreement 
between the U.S. and Canada for the sharing of Visa and Immigration 
Information, Dec. 13, 2012, T.I.A.S. No. 13-1121; and Agreement 
between the U.S. and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland for the Sharing of Visa, Immigration, 
and Nationality Information, April 18, 2013, T.I.A.S. No. 13-1108.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 56350]]

    The DHS biometrics process for benefits adjudication purposes 
begins with the collection of an individual's biometrics at an 
authorized biometrics collection site, including DHS offices, ASCs, 
military installations, U.S. consular offices abroad, and, in some 
cases, federal, state, and local law enforcement installations. 
Domestically, DHS established a robust program to allow individuals to 
provide biometrics at ASC facilities, and generally individuals are 
scheduled to appear at a location close to their address of record. DHS 
also established mobile biometrics collection capabilities domestically 
for those who are homebound, or for certain remote locations, as well 
as outside the United States to support biometrics collection in the 
United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). For other collections 
outside the United States, biometrics may be handled differently. When 
biometrics are required on a DHS-adjudicated form and DHS does not have 
a presence in that country, the Department of State (DOS) will continue 
to collect biometrics on behalf of DHS. In cases where DOS will issue a 
boarding foil, immigrant visa, or non-immigrant visa associated with a 
DHS form, DOS will continue to collect biometrics under its existing 
authority.
    Currently, DHS biometrics consist of a photograph, fingerprints, 
and signature to conduct identity, eligibility, national security, 
criminal history background checks, and in certain situations, 
voluntary DNA testing to verify a claimed genetic relationship. For 
certain family-based benefit requests, where other evidence proves 
inconclusive, DHS accepts DNA test results obtained from approved 
laboratories (along with other necessary identifiers, such as a name 
and date of birth), as evidence to assist in establishing the existence 
of genetic relationships. See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi). In these limited 
cases, DHS requires that DNA test results establish a sufficient 
probability of the existence of the alleged relationship to be accepted 
as probative evidence of that relationship.
    DHS is bound by the confidentiality provisions of Section 1367 of 
title 8 of the U.S. Code, ``Penalties for disclosure of information'' 
(originally enacted as Section 384 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)). All DHS officers and 
employees are generally prohibited from permitting use by or disclosure 
to anyone other than a sworn officer or employee of DHS, DOS, or DOJ of 
any information relating to a beneficiary of a pending or approved 
request for certain victim-based immigration benefits, such as an 
abused spouse waiver of the joint filing requirement, a VAWA self-
petition by a spouse or child of an abused U.S. citizen or lawful 
permanent resident, VAWA cancellation of removal or suspension of 
deportation, or application for T or U nonimmigrant status, including 
the fact that they have applied for such a benefit. Importantly, the 
protection against disclosure extends to all records or other 
information, including those that do not specifically identify the 
individual as an applicant or beneficiary of the T Visa, U Visa, or 
VAWA protections. Therefore, the biometric collection contemplated here 
would also be protected from disclosure in accordance with the 
requirements and exceptions found in 8 U.S.C. 1367. Thus, DHS has not 
separately codified the Section 1367 protections in this proposed rule.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes

A. Use Biometrics for Identity Management and Enhanced Vetting

    DHS requires the submission of biometrics for several immigration 
benefit requests and for law enforcement purposes, including functions 
incident to apprehending, arresting, processing, and care and custody 
of aliens.\25\ In addition, DHS has the authority to require biometrics 
and the associated biometric services fee from any applicant, 
petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing a 
request on a case-by-case basis, through form instructions or as 
provided in a Federal Register notice. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 
103.7(b)(1)(i)(C), 103.17. Under that construct, although DHS has the 
authority to collect biometrics from any applicant, petitioner, 
sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or individual filing a request, 
biometrics are only mandatory for certain benefit requests. For all 
others, DHS must decide if the benefit requested, or circumstances of 
the request, justifies collection of biometrics and, if so, notify an 
individual that their biometrics are required along with when and where 
they should be collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 204.310(a)(3)(ii), 210.2(c)(2)(i), 
210.5(b)(2), 212.7(e)(3)(i), 214.11(d)(5)-(7), 214.11(m)(2), 
214.2(w)(15), 244.6, 244.17, 245.15(g)(1), 245.21(b), 245a.2(d), 
245a4(b)(4), 248.3, 1(a)-(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS's use of biometrics for criminal history background checks and 
document production is outdated and not fully in conformity with 
current biometrics use policies by government agencies.\26\ In 
addition, as outlined above, DHS has the legal authority to administer 
and enforce immigration laws and collect biometrics when such 
information is necessary to that authority. For individuals, any 
adjudication necessarily includes verifying identity and determining 
whether or not the individual poses a risk to national security or 
public safety in those instances where these factors may impact 
eligibility for an immigration benefit and upon arrest of an alien for 
purposes of processing, care, custody, and initiation of removal 
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., Individuals with Multiple Identities in 
Historical Fingerprint Enrollment Records Who Have Received 
Immigration Benefits, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 
Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG-
17-111 (Sept. 2017); Potentially Ineligible Individuals Have Been 
Granted U.S. Citizenship Because of Incomplete Fingerprint Records, 
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office 
of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG-16-130 (Sept. 2016); Review 
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Alien Security Checks, 
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Office 
of Inspections and Special Reviews, OIG-06-06 (Nov. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biometrics collection upon apprehension or arrest by DHS will 
accurately identify the individuals encountered, and verify any claimed 
genetic relationship. This in turn will allow DHS to make better 
informed decisions as to the processing, transporting, and managing 
custody of aliens subject to DHS's law enforcement authorities. Having 
more reliable data about detainees' identities will increase safety of 
DHS detention facilities for both DHS law enforcement officers and the 
detainees. It would also eliminate an incentive that currently exists 
for unscrupulous individuals to jeopardize the health and safety of 
minors to whom they are unrelated, transporting the minors on a 
dangerous journey across the United States border, and claiming to be 
the parents of unrelated minors in order to claim to be a ``family 
unit'' and thus obtain a relatively quick release from DHS custody.
    Thus, DHS decided that it is necessary to increase the use of 
collected biometric information beyond only eligibility and 
admissibility determinations to include identity management in the 
immigration lifecycle and continuous immigration vetting. To accomplish 
this goal, DHS proposes in this rule to flip the current construct from 
one where biometrics may be collected based on past practices, 
regulations, or the form instructions for a particular benefit, to a 
system under which biometrics are required for any immigration benefit

[[Page 56351]]

request unless DHS determines that biometrics are unnecessary. 
Therefore, DHS proposes that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, 
beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit or other 
request, including U.S. citizens and without regard to age, must appear 
for biometrics collection, unless DHS or its designee affirmatively 
decides to not issue a biometrics appointment notice to the individual, 
or unless DHS waives or exempts the requirement in the form 
instructions, a Federal Register notice, or as otherwise provided by 
law or regulation. DHS may waive or exempt the biometrics requirement 
at its discretion or based on a request for reasonable accommodation. 
See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a)(1). The Department will make reasonable 
efforts that are also consistent with the Government's need for 
biometrics in certain contexts, and will follow all required procedures 
that are applicable under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 
Federal Rehabilitation Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As explained more fully later in this preamble, DHS is not 
proposing that the requirement that any applicant, petitioner, 
sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a 
benefit or other request, including U.S. citizens and without regard 
to age, must appear for biometrics collection will apply to DNA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, DHS does not propose to impose an absolute biometrics 
collection requirement in all instances for all forms filed with the 
agency.\28\ There may be limited circumstances where biometric 
collection would be unnecessary or duplicative. A particular 
application or petition (e.g., an inadmissibility waiver request) may 
not require its own biometric collection because a different 
application or petition filed in conjunction with the first application 
or petition already carries a biometrics collection requirement. Under 
limited circumstances, DHS proposes to retain discretion to exempt 
certain forms from the biometric collection requirement because it 
would result in waste or redundancy to both the agency and the public. 
For example, when an applicant files an Application to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) biometrics are 
collected from all applicants. However, if the same applicant also 
files an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (Form I-
601) due to an inadmissibility concern, that form is associated with 
the Form I-485. There is no need to independently require biometrics 
collection in conjunction with Form I-601 because DHS is already 
collecting biometrics in association with Form I-485. Form I-601 would 
never be filed without an associated form carrying a biometrics 
collection requirement (i.e., an immigrant visa application, adjustment 
of status application, certain non-immigrant visa applications, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Only certain family-based benefit requests would be 
impacted by the proposed provision to allow, request, or require DNA 
evidence to establish a claimed genetic relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this type of situation, DHS recognizes that there is no value in 
imposing a biometric collection for forms that are only filed in 
conjunction with other forms that already require biometrics 
collection. Consequently, the DHS forms that are being revised and 
posted in accordance with the PRA for public comments do not include an 
absolute requirement for biometrics collection. Instead, the revised 
form instructions put the applicant on notice that every individual who 
is an applicant, petitioner, derivative, beneficiary, or sponsor of an 
immigration benefit request or other request submitted to DHS is 
required to provide biometrics unless DHS waives or exempts the 
requirement and that the applicant will be notified of the time and 
place for the appointment. For those forms for which DHS proposes to 
mandate biometrics in all cases as proposed under this rule, DHS 
included the requirement for payment of the biometric services fee with 
the underlying application or petition filing (unless there is an 
approved fee waiver). See the PRA section of this rule for information 
on how to comment on the proposed form instructions for implementing 
the changes proposed in this rule.
1. Identity Management
    DHS is proposing to use biometrics for identity management in the 
immigration lifecycle for several reasons. Most importantly, DHS is 
transitioning to a person-centric model for organizing and managing its 
records. DHS plans to begin using biometrics to establish and manage 
unique identities as it organizes and verifies immigration records in a 
highly-reliable, on-going, and continuous manner. Currently, DHS relies 
on declared biographic data for identity management in the immigration 
lifecycle. Once an identity has been enrolled in IDENT and established 
within DHS, future activities and encounters may be added to the 
original enrollment and will be confirmed through identity verification 
at various points in the immigration lifecycle. Identity verification 
may be done outside of the United States (by DHS or DOS) or within the 
United States (at ASCs, USCIS offices, or other DHS facilities). 
Identity verification also allows the reuse of enrolled identity data 
(both biometric and biographic) that has already been vetted. Such 
reuse reduces the amount of erroneous or conflicting data that can be 
entered into systems, and reduces the cost and complexity of repetitive 
collection and validation. Reusable fingerprints allow for more 
immediate and recurrent background checks, and reusable photographs 
allow for quick production of documents with high consistency and 
integrity.
    DHS recognizes that biometric reuse is acceptable, when there is 
identity verification, but in the case of children biometric reuse 
could be impacted by the rapidly changing physical attributes of 
children. DHS has a duty to the public to ensure that immigration 
benefits are granted only to those who are eligible for them, to ensure 
that no benefit is provided to the wrong individual, and to verify that 
individuals entering the country are who they say they are. See 
generally INA section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103 (charging DHS with the 
administration and enforcement of the INA). A biometrically-based, 
person-centric records model would ensure that an individual's records 
are complete and pertain only to that individual. Under this model, DHS 
would be able to easily locate, maintain, and update the correct 
individual's information such as: Current address (physical and 
mailing), immigration status, or to associate previously submitted 
identity documentation, such as birth certificates and marriage 
licenses, in future adjudications thereby reducing duplicative 
biographic or evidentiary collections.
    Biometrics are unique to each individual and provide USCIS with 
tools for identity management while improving the services provided to 
those who submit immigration benefit requests. With regard to age, DHS 
proposes to reserve the authority to collect biometrics at any age to 
ensure the immigration records created for children can more assuredly 
be related to their subsequent adult records despite changes to their 
biographic information. USCIS notes that with respect to these 
biometrics, as with any other agency decision on a petition or 
application, if a decision will be adverse to an applicant or 
petitioner and is based on derogatory information the agency 
considered, he/she will be advised of that fact and offered an 
opportunity to rebut the information. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i).
    Another key driver for eliminating the age restrictions for 
biometric collection is the number of Unaccompanied Alien Children 
(UAC) and Accompanied

[[Page 56352]]

Alien Children (AAC) being intercepted at the border. The DHS proposal 
to remove age restrictions will help combat human trafficking, 
specifically human trafficking of children, including the trafficking 
and exploitation of children forced to accompany adults traveling to 
the United States with the goal of avoiding detention and exploit 
immigration laws.
    Beginning in July 2019 DHS has been conducting a small-scale pilot 
program where, with consent from individuals presenting themselves as 
family units, officers use Rapid DNA testing technologies as a precise 
and focused investigative tool to identify suspected fraudulent 
families and vulnerable children who may be potentially exploited. 
Between July 1, 2019 and November 7, 2019, DHS encountered 1747 self-
identified family units with indicators of fraud who were referred for 
additional screening. Of this number, DHS identified 432 incidents of 
fraudulent family claims (over 2020 percent).
    Collecting biometrics on children that DHS encounters would permit 
definitive identification of them and may show that they have been 
reported missing. Generally, DHS plans to use the biometric information 
collected from children for identity management in the immigration 
lifecycle only, but will retain the authority for other uses in its 
discretion, such as background checks and for law enforcement purposes. 
DHS does not intend to routinely submit all UAC or AAC biometrics to 
the FBI for criminal history background checks; rather, the biometrics 
collected from the majority of these children would be stored in IDENT 
\29\ to help DHS with future encounters. USCIS is authorized to share 
relevant information with law enforcement or other DHS components, 
including ``biometrics'' for identity verification and, consequently, 
it may share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, 
with other agencies as it does other record information pursuant to 
existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ IDENT is the DHS enterprise repository for biometrics and 
provides biometric identification management services to DHS 
Components with technology for matching, storing, and sharing 
biometric data. DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) 
is the lead designated provider of biometric identity services for 
DHS, and maintains the largest biometric repository in the U.S. 
government. See www.dhs.gov/obim (last visited June 15, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS will have the express authority to send UAC or AAC biometrics 
to the FBI for criminal history background checks, but depending on the 
DHS component encountering the individual, may only send biometrics to 
the FBI if DHS had some articulable derogatory information on the 
subject and needed to confirm criminal history or an association with 
other illegal or terrorist organizations in the interests of public 
safety and national security. Biometrics collected for the 
identification of genetic relationships at the border would be 
maintained in law enforcement systems for future identify verification, 
subject to the restrictions found in proposed 8 CFR 103.16.
2. Enhanced and Continuous Vetting
    Individuals with certain types of criminal convictions, or those 
who present a threat to national security or public safety are not 
eligible for certain benefits. Benefit eligibility determinations in 
these cases often focus on the criminal, national security, and 
immigration history of the individual. The immigration history review 
considers the individual's current immigration status, past immigration 
filings, and whether previous benefits were granted or denied. DHS 
conducts national security and criminal history background checks on 
individuals applying for or seeking an immigration benefit because U.S. 
immigration laws preclude DHS from granting many immigration and 
naturalization benefits to individuals with certain criminal or 
administrative violations, or with certain disqualifying 
characteristics (e.g., certain communicable diseases or association 
with terrorist organizations), while also providing DHS discretion in 
granting an immigration benefit in many instances. See, e.g., INA 
section 208(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A) (mandatory bars to 
asylum); INA section 245(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(2) (admissibility 
requirements for adjustment of status applicants and agency 
discretion); and INA section 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3) (good moral 
character requirement for naturalization).
    Biometrics are collected and or referenced throughout the 
immigration law administration and enforcement lifecycle, from first 
application, encounter, or apprehension to naturalization or removal. 
In the enforcement context, biometric collection when an individual is 
first encountered can help officers detect fraudulent identities and 
relationships between adults and children. This helps identify child 
smuggling, trafficking, and exploitation. It can also help identify 
when an adult who has been previously encountered is posing as child. 
Collection of biometrics during removal proceedings is primarily to 
identify that the individual is the correct individual being removed.
    As part of the adjudication process, DHS needs a strong system for 
the collection and use of biometrics from foreign nationals who enter 
or wish to enter the United States in order to, as directed by the 
President, ``identify individuals who seek to enter the United States 
on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts 
of violence toward any group or class of people within the United 
States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their 
entry.'' See E.O. 13780 section 5, 82 FR 13209, 13215 (Mar. 9, 2017). 
The changes proposed in this rule would assist DHS in developing 
appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information 
necessary for a rigorous evaluation of any grounds of inadmissibility 
or grounds for the denial of an immigration benefit. Id.
    In addition, as part of the effort to implement Uniform Screening 
and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs, DHS plans to 
implement a program of continuous immigration vetting. Under continuous 
vetting, DHS may require aliens to be subjected to continued and 
subsequent evaluation of eligibility for their immigration benefits to 
ensure they continue to present no risk of causing harm subsequent to 
their entry. This rule proposes that any individual alien who is 
present in the United States following an approved immigration benefit 
may be required to submit biometrics unless and until they are granted 
U.S. citizenship.\30\ The rule further proposes that a lawful permanent 
resident or U.S. citizen may be required to submit biometrics if he or 
she filed an application, petition, or request in the past, and it was 
either reopened or the previous approval is relevant to an application, 
petition, or benefit request currently pending with USCIS. Proposed 8 
CFR 103.16(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See DHS Privacy Impact Assessment for Continuous 
Immigration Vetting (Feb. 14, 2019), available at https://www.dhs.gov/privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS welcomes public comment on the increased use of biometrics 
beyond criminal history background checks, to include identity 
management in the immigration lifecycle and enhanced vetting or other 
purposes, as well as any relevant data, information, or proposals.

B. Verify Identity, Familial Relationships, and Preclude Imposters

1. Use of DNA Evidence \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ T The DNA Fingerprint Act authorizes the Attorney General 
to collect DNA from individuals arrested, facing charges, convicted, 
or from non-U.S. persons who are detained under the authority of the 
United States. 34 U.S.C. 40702. The implementing DOJ regulations 
require any agency of the United States that arrests or detains 
individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to collect DNA 
samples from individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or 
convicted, and from non-United States persons who are detained under 
the authority of the United States. 28 CFR 28.12(b). DHS notes that 
the DNA collection requirements of 34 U.S.C. 40702 and 28 CFR part 
28, subpart B are for law enforcement identification purposes, 
whereas this rule proposes to establish the authority for the use of 
DNA to verify claimed genetic relationships in the adjudication of 
immigration benefit requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents petitioning for a 
biological

[[Page 56353]]

family member, or individuals seeking to include a biological family 
member as a dependent or derivative (accompanying or follow-to-join) in 
an application for an immigration benefit, must demonstrate the 
existence of the claimed genetic relationship, and current regulations 
generally require documentary evidence such as marriage and birth 
certificates as primary evidence of such a claimed relationship.\32\ In 
the absence of primary evidence, acceptable secondary evidence includes 
medical records, school records, religious documents, and affidavits. 
See, e.g., 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2). However, documentary evidence may be 
unreliable or unavailable, and individuals need additional means to 
establish claimed genetic relationships to avoid denial of a petition, 
application, or other benefit request. USCIS currently accepts DNA test 
results from laboratories accredited by the AABB (formerly the American 
Association of Blood Banks) as proof of the existence of a claimed 
genetic relationship where other evidence is unavailable.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 103.2(b)(2)(i); 204.2(c)(2)(ii), 
(d)(2)(i)-(iii), (d)(5)(ii), (f)(2)(i)-(iii), (g)(2)(i)-(iii); 
207.7(e); 208.21(f), 245.11(b), 245.15(l)(2), 254.24(h)(1)(iii).
    \33\ Although most of the collection of DNA samples is performed 
by the AABB-accredited laboratory conducting the testing, for 
individuals residing overseas, DHS or the Department of State 
facilitate collection and transmission of the DNA sample to the 
laboratory to ensure regularity in the collection and proper chain 
of custody of the DNA sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS proposes to revise its regulations to provide that DNA genetic 
testing can be required, requested, or accepted as probative evidence, 
either primary or secondary, to establish a claimed genetic 
relationship where required.\34\ See proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e). DNA is 
the only biometric that can verify a claimed genetic relationship. 
Current regulations allow USCIS to require Blood Group Antigen or Human 
Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) tests to prove parentage only after other forms 
of evidence were inconclusive. See 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vi). But those 
tests are no longer widely available and are not as conclusive as a DNA 
test because, while blood-typing can be used as proof that an 
individual is not a child's biological parent, it cannot be used to 
confirm the individual is the child's parent.\35\ According to the 
AABB, DNA testing provides the most reliable scientific test available 
to resolve a genetic relationship and replaced older serological 
testing such as blood typing and serological HLA typing.\36\ Blood 
tests are also more invasive than DNA tests, DNA collection generally 
does not require blood to be drawn from any individuals tested, and the 
most common method is a noninvasive buccal (mouth) swab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ This includes requiring, requesting, or accepting DNA 
testing to establish a genetic relationship with a birth parent in 
the context of a petition to classify a beneficiary as an orphan 
under INA 101(b)(1)(F) or as a Convention adoptee under INA 
101(b)(1)(G).
    \35\ Gunther Geserick & Ingo Wirth, Genetic Kinship 
Investigation from Blood Groups to DNA Markers, 39 Transfus Med 
Hemother 163-75 (2012), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3375130/.
    \36\ AABB, Standards for Relationship Testing Laboratories, 
Appendix 10--Immigration Testing (14th ed. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS proposes to define the term ``DNA'' in regulation as 
``deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the genetic instructions used in 
the growth, development, functioning, and reproduction of all known 
living organisms.'' Proposed 8 CFR 1.2. When DHS uses the term ``DNA'' 
in this rule it is a reference to the raw genetic material, typically 
saliva, collected via buccal swab from an individual in order to 
facilitate DNA testing to establish genetic relationships. DHS will 
only require, request, or accept DNA testing to verify a claimed 
genetic relationship. DHS will not store or share any raw DNA or 
biological samples, other than to the extent necessary to facilitate 
the DNA testing (by using an on-site automated machine or transmitting 
to the AABB-accredited laboratory conducting the testing), unless DHS 
is required to share by law. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e).
    For DHS, there are two different means of actually testing the raw 
DNA to verify a claimed genetic relationship. After DNA samples are 
collected, an individual's raw DNA material would then be either tested 
locally by an automated machine (i.e., Rapid DNA) \37\ or mailed to a 
traditional AABB-accredited laboratory for testing. This testing allows 
for the comparison of partial DNA profiles to determine the statistical 
probability that the individuals tested have the claimed genetic 
relationship. In either case, a partial DNA profile would be produced 
as a result of the test. When DHS uses the term ``partial DNA profile'' 
it is a reference to a visual or printed partial representation of a 
small portion of an individual's particular DNA characteristics. An 
individual's partial DNA profile is a biometric identifier as unique as 
their fingerprints. Significantly, when an individual's DNA is tested 
in order to verify a claimed genetic relationship, the test does not 
reveal medical or hereditary conditions. The particular genetic markers 
profiled for relationship testing are markers used to verify the 
claimed genetic relationship. More specifically, the partial DNA 
profile created for relationship testing is actually a very small 
portion of an individual's full DNA characteristics. At present, DHS 
relationship tests profile between 16 and 24 genetic markers out of the 
nearly two million genetic markers typically contained in human DNA. In 
contrast with raw DNA or biological samples, which will not be shared 
or stored under any circumstances unless required to share by law, DHS 
may store or share DNA test results, which include a partial DNA 
profile, with other law enforcement agencies to the extent permitted by 
and necessary to enforce and administer the immigration and 
naturalization laws. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and 
Technology Directorate (S&T) has been working in conjunction with 
DoD and DOJ to fund the development of cost-effective Rapid DNA 
equipment to allow non-technical users with appropriate training to 
analyze the DNA of individuals in a field setting and receive 
reliable results in about one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The testing entity conducts the DNA test, either automatically by 
machine or in a traditional laboratory environment, and generates a DNA 
test result. DHS uses the term ``DNA test result'' as a reference to 
the ultimate scientific conclusion made by the AABB-accredited testing 
entity as to the claimed genetic relationship. The DNA test result is 
represented by a probability or percentage of the likelihood of the 
existence of the claimed genetic relationship as a result of comparing 
at least two partial DNA profiles. DHS has established by policy what 
minimum threshold probability for the relationship that it would accept 
in verifying a claimed genetic relationship, depending on the 
particular relationship claimed (i.e., parent, full-sibling, half-
sibling, etc.).\38\ DNA test results which

[[Page 56354]]

include a partial DNA profile, where they indicate a sufficient 
probability of the existence of the relationship tested, are now 
accepted as a probative evidence to establish parent and sibling 
genetic relationships. See Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See DNA Evidence of Sibling Relationships, PM 602.0106.1, 
issued April 17, 2018 (establishing the threshold probabilities for 
full and half sibling relationships); Genetic Relationship Testing; 
Suggesting DNA Tests Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual 
(AFM) Chapter 21 (AFM Update AD07-25), signed by Michael Aytes, 
Associate Director, Domestic Operations, issued March 19, 2008 
(establishing voluntary or suggested nature of DNA testing to verify 
claimed relationships and citing AABB testing standards); DOS, 
Foreign Affairs Manual 9 FAM 601.11-1(A)(a)(2) (CT: VISA-936 Sept. 
10, 2019) (stating that DNA ``test results reporting a 99.5 percent 
or greater degree of certainty'' may be accepted by consular 
officers as ``sufficient to support a biological relationship 
between a parent and child in visa cases''); see also Matter of 
Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2016) (holding direct sibling-to-sibling 
DNA test results reflecting a 99.5 percent degree of certainty or 
higher that a full sibling biological relationship exists should be 
accepted and considered to be probative evidence of the 
relationship).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with current practice, the DNA test results obtained by 
DHS, which contain the ultimate probability of relationship and a 
partial DNA profile, would be retained in the individual's Alien file 
(A-file) and made part of the record. USCIS may use and store DNA test 
results with other law enforcement agencies to the extent permitted by 
and necessary to administer and enforce the immigration and 
naturalization laws. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e).
    Currently, DHS allows individuals in certain situations to 
voluntarily submit DNA test results from AABB-accredited laboratories 
\39\ where other documentary evidence is inconclusive or 
unavailable.\40\ This rule proposes to clarify that DHS may require, 
request, or accept DNA testing from relevant parties to a benefit 
request, where probative, as evidence of a claimed genetic 
relationship. It also proposes to clarify that DHS may consider DNA 
test results in adjudicating certain immigration benefits as a means of 
verifying a claimed genetic relationship. And the rule proposes to 
clarify DHS's authority to collect raw DNA from relevant parties and 
either perform a DNA relationship test with an AABB-accredited machine 
in-house or send the raw DNA to a traditional AABB-accredited lab for 
DNA testing. DHS requests comments on all aspects of this proposal, 
including the collection, use, and retention of DNA evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See AABB home page at https://www.aabb.org/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Apr. 7, 2020).
    \40\ See Genetic Relationship Testing; Suggesting DNA Tests 
Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 21 (AFM 
Update AD07-25), signed by Michael Aytes, Associate Director, 
Domestic Operations, issued March 19, 2008 (establishing voluntary 
or suggested nature of DNA testing to verify claimed relationships 
and citing AABB testing standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Special Treatment of DNA Evidence
    While DNA is fundamentally a biometric identifier, DHS recognizes 
the increased sensitivity surrounding the use of genetic information. 
DHS believes the other biometric modalities that will be collected are 
sufficient for most of the goals of this rule. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2 
(definition of biometrics); proposed 8 CFR 103.16(a) (biometric 
collection). Therefore, DHS proposes to treat raw DNA as a distinctive 
biometric modality from the other biometric modalities it is authorized 
to collect. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2 (definition of DNA); proposed 8 CFR 
103.16(e). For purposes of DNA collected under this rule, DHS proposes 
that it will not handle or share any raw DNA for any reason beyond the 
original purpose of submission (i.e., to establish or verify the 
claimed genetic relationship), unless DHS is required to share by law. 
DHS would only store, use, and share DNA test results, which include a 
partial DNA profile derived from the raw DNA, as provided by the 
testing entity or as produced by DHS, for adjudication purposes and 
would retain the results to perform any other functions necessary for 
administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws, to the 
extent permitted by law. DHS would also only use the raw DNA and DNA 
test results, which include a partial DNA profile, for the original 
purpose of submission (i.e., to establish or verify the claimed genetic 
relationship) or as authorized by the immigration and naturalization 
laws. DHS components are authorized to share relevant information with 
law enforcement or other DHS components and, consequently, it may share 
DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, with other 
agencies when there are national security, public safety, fraud, or 
other investigative needs, but always pursuant to existing law. 
Proposed 8 CFR 103.16(e). DHS especially welcomes comments on these 
proposed provisions.
3. Identity Management
    DHS must ensure that immigration benefits are not fraudulently 
obtained and are granted to the rightful person, and that individuals 
entering the country are who they say they are. As part of the benefit 
adjudications process, USCIS must verify the identity of an individual 
applying for or seeking any benefit to protect against fraud and 
imposters. In all circumstances, DHS must identify persons using 
aliases after prior immigration encounters and assist in efforts to 
prevent human smuggling and trafficking. Currently DHS relies mainly on 
documentary, paper evidence of identity in administering its programs. 
Unfortunately, there is no guaranteed way to prevent the manufacturing, 
counterfeiting, alteration, sale, and/or use of identity documents or 
other fraudulent documents to circumvent immigration laws or for 
identity theft. On the other hand, biometric identifiers are not 
transferrable and may provide confirmation of an individual's identity. 
Therefore, DHS believes that the best approach to address the 
vulnerabilities in the immigration process, preclude imposters, and 
deter fraud would be to rely more on biometrics for identity management 
in the immigration lifecycle.

C. Flexibility in Biometrics Requirements

1. Definition of Biometrics
    In recent years, government agencies have grouped together 
identifying features and actions, such as fingerprints, photographs, 
and signatures under the broad term, biometrics.\41\ The terms, 
biometric ``information,'' ``identifiers,'' or ``data'' are used to 
refer to all of these features, including additional features such as 
iris image, palm print, DNA, and voice print.\42\ For example, 
authorities such as 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7)(B) and 17 CFR 162.30(b)(8) 
refer to identifying information including ``unique biometric data, 
such as fingerprint, voice print or iris image, or other unique 
physical representation.'' The term ``biometrics'' is also used in 
other laws and regulations. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7)(B), 17 CFR 
162.30(b)(8), 21 CFR 11.3(b)(3), and 27 CFR 73.3. As a result, DHS has 
adopted the practice of referring to fingerprints and photographs 
collectively as ``biometrics,'' ``biometric information,'' or 
``biometric services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice 
Information Services Division (CJIS), Fingerprints and Other 
Biometrics, Next Generation Identification (NGI), https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/ngi 
(last visited Apr. 7, 2020).
    \42\ See FBI, CJIS, Fingerprints and Other Biometrics, https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics (last 
visited Apr. 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the instructions for Application to Replace Permanent 
Resident Card (Form I-90) refer to a ``biometric services 
appointment,'' while the, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of 
Removal (Form I-589), refers to ``biometrics, including fingerprints 
and photographs.'' Many forms also include a signature as a type of 
biometric identifier. See instructions

[[Page 56355]]

for Form I-485 which references providing ``fingerprints, photograph, 
and/or signature.'' Most laws on the subject do not specify individual 
biometric modalities such as iris image, palm print, voice print, DNA, 
and/or any other biometric modalities that may be collected from an 
individual in the future. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1732(b)(1) (requiring the 
issuance of travel documents that use biometric identifiers recognized 
by international standards organizations). By proposing to update the 
terminology in the regulations to uniformly use the term ``biometrics'' 
DHS seeks to utilize a single, inclusive term comprehensively 
throughout regulations and form instructions.
    DHS proposes to define the term, ``biometrics,'' to clarify and 
expand its authority to collect more than just fingerprints in 
connection while administering and enforcing the immigration and 
naturalization benefits or other services. To do this, DHS proposes to 
expressly define ``biometrics'' to include a wider range of modalities 
than just fingerprints and photographs. DHS proposes to define the term 
``biometrics'' to mean ``the measurable biological (anatomical and 
physiological) or behavioral characteristics used for identification of 
an individual.'' Proposed 8 CFR 1.2. Further, DHS proposes the 
following biometrics as authorized biometric modalities that may be 
requested or required from individuals in connection the administration 
and enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws:
     Fingerprint;
     palm print;
     photograph (including facial images specifically for 
facial recognition, as well as photographs of physical or anatomical 
features such as scars, skin marks, and tattoos);
     signature;
     voice print;
     iris image; and
     DNA (DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile 
attesting to genetic relationship).
    The term ``biometric modality'' is used to describe a type or class 
of biometric system. The collection of a biometric implies its use in a 
system used to identify an individual; hence the use of the term 
``modality.'' ``Modality'' is often interchanged, or used in 
conjunction, with the term ``biometric'' because the collection of a 
biometric implies automation. For example, an individual's face is a 
biometric, but DHS intends to collect a photograph or image of an 
individual's face, making a facial photograph the modality. Similarly, 
an individual's iris is a biometric, but DHS intends to collect a 
photograph or image of an individual's iris, making an iris image the 
``modality.'' An individual's voice is a ``biometric,'' but DHS intends 
to collect an audible recording of an individual's voice, making a 
voice print the ``modality.'' Finally, an individual's raw DNA is a 
``biometric,'' but upon testing, the partial DNA profile becomes the 
``modality'' and the DNA test result is the memorialization or evidence 
of the existence of the claimed genetic relationship. DHS will collect 
a photograph, fingerprint, audible recording, DNA, etc., for use in 
facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, iris image recognition, 
voice recognition, DNA testing, etc.
    The proposed definition of biometrics would authorize the 
collection of specific biometric modalities and the use of biometrics 
for: Identity enrollment, verification, and management in the 
immigration lifecycle; national security and criminal history 
background checks; determinations of eligibility for immigration and 
naturalization benefits; and the production of secure identity 
documents. See proposed 8 CFR 1.2. DNA, while a biometric, would only 
be collected by USCIS in limited circumstances to verify the existence 
of a claimed genetic relationship where relevant to the administration 
and enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws. See proposed 8 
CFR 1.2 and 8 CFR 103.16(e).
2. Additional Modalities
    In addition to the current use of fingerprints \43\ as a biometric 
modality, DHS proposes to begin requesting biometric collection (now 
and through emerging technologies) with the following additional 
biometric modalities: Iris, palm, face, voice, and DNA.\44\ The 
technology for collecting and using biometrics has undergone constant 
and rapid change.\45\ DHS needs to keep up with technological 
developments that will be used by the FBI and agencies with which we 
will be sharing and comparing biometrics in this area and adjust 
collection and retention practices for both convenience and security, 
and to ensure the maximum level of service for all stakeholders. USCIS 
also has internal procedural safeguards to ensure technology used to 
collect, assess, and store the differing modalities is accurate, 
reliable, and valid. Additionally, as with any other USCIS petition or 
application, if a decision will be adverse to an applicant or 
petitioner and is based on derogatory information the agency 
considered, he/she shall be advised of that fact and offered an 
opportunity to rebut the information. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). Therefore, 
DHS proposes that, as of the effective date of this rule, it would 
begin collecting new biometrics modalities as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Currently USCIS does not routinely use photographs or 
signatures for identity verification purposes other than for 
document production and visual verification of the photo.
    \44\ DNA, while included in the list of additional modalities, 
is a distinct modality and is discussed at length separately above.
    \45\ FBI, Science and Technology Branch, https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/science-and-technology-branch (last 
visited Apr. 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Iris Image
    DHS proposes to collect and use iris images as a biometric 
modality. Iris as a biometric modality is a valuable identifier 
especially for individuals whose fingerprints are unclassifiable or 
unattainable through loss of fingers, hand amputation, normal wear in 
the ridges and patterns over time (i.e., due to age, types of 
employment, etc.), or deliberate eradication/distortion of fingerprint 
ridges to avoid identification and detection. Iris scanning biometric 
technology measures the unique patterns in the colored circle of the 
eye to verify and authenticate identity. Biometric iris recognition is 
fast, accurate, and offers a form of identification verification that 
requires no physical contact to collect an iris image. DHS intends to 
collect iris images as part of the ASC and mobile biometric enrollment 
process to enroll and verify identity against IDENT, as well as to 
assist in the adjudication process by verifying against previous 
immigration encounters.
b. Palm Print
    DHS proposes to add palm prints as a biometrics modality in this 
rule. This proposal is consistent with what the FBI has announced as 
part of its Next Generation Identification (NGI) initiative for the 
development of the requirements for and deployment of an integrated 
National Palm Print Service.\46\ Law enforcement agencies indicate that 
at least 30 percent of the prints lifted from crime scenes--from knife 
hilts, gun grips, steering wheels,

[[Page 56356]]

and window panes--are of palms, not fingers. For this reason, capturing 
and scanning latent palm prints is becoming an area of increasing 
interest among the law enforcement community. The National Palm Print 
Service is being developed to improve law enforcement's ability to 
exchange a more complete set of biometric information, make additional 
identifications, and improve the overall accuracy of identification 
through criminal history records. Collecting palm prints would permit 
DHS to align our background checks capability with the total available 
records at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), keep 
current with the changing records of law enforcement, and make sure 
immigration benefit background checks are as accurate and complete as 
possible. Therefore, DHS proposes to reserve the authority to 
incorporate palm prints into its biometrics collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Executive Office of the President, National Science and 
Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Committee on Homeland 
and National Security, Subcommittee on Biometrics, Palm Print 
Recognition, https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/about-us-cjis-fingerprints_biometrics-biometric-center-of-excellences-palm-print-recognition.pdf/view. For a basic explanation of NGI, see also 
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/ngi.https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/about-us-cjis-
fingerprints_biometrics-biometric-center-of-excellences-palm-print-
recognition.pdf/view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Facial Image
    DHS proposes to use facial photographs to reduce the burden of 
visiting an ASC for individuals previously biometrically enrolled by 
USCIS. For example, 1:1 face biometric verification can be used in 
determining whether an applicant is who he/she is claiming to be and 
allowing EAD re-issuance for certain immigration benefits. Facial 
recognition can also be used to verify an identity if fingerprints are 
unobtainable subsequent to the initial biometric enrollment at an ASC. 
Currently, CBP is undergoing a separate rulemaking and concurrently 
piloting the use of facial recognition at several airports and early 
results are very favorable, with suggested potential benefits of the 
program in identifying fraud. CBP has identified three imposters in 
less than 40 days using facial recognition.\47\ DHS would also use 
facial images and facial recognition technology for fraud, public 
safety or criminal history background checks, and national security 
screening and vetting. Facial photographs, as a biometric modality, are 
already collected by DHS primarily for the purpose of secure document 
production. DHS has collected facial photographs for some time, such as 
for identity verification at ports of entry; however, DHS is proposing 
to increase the authorized use of a previously collected biometric 
modality, facial photographs, to include a facial recognition system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Customs and Border Protection, Dulles CBP's New 
Biometric Verification Technology Catches Third Impostor in 40 Days 
(Oct. 2, 2018), https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/dulles-cbp-s-new-biometric-verification-technology-catches-third. 
More generally, for the use of facial biometrics for international 
travelers, see Biometrics at https://www.cbp.gov/travel/biometrics 
(last visited Apr. 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Voice Print
    DHS proposes to collect and use voice prints as a biometric 
modality. DHS can use voice as a biometric in several ways to improve 
identity verification in several business processes. First, when 
immigration benefits are submitted electronically, an individual's 
voice print can be used to indicate that the individual who submitted 
the application is the same person who subsequently returns to access 
or change information.
    Second, an individual's voice print can be used for integration 
into the call center process to accomplish faster, automated 
identification. Collecting and using an individual's voice print may 
reduce concerns about the caller's identity. With simpler 
identification and less effort, individuals will more effectively be 
able to call for assistance or inquire about the status of a pending 
immigration benefit request. The current identity verification process 
is typically more time-consuming than voice; on an average day USCIS 
receives 50,000 phone calls \48\ on the toll-free national call center 
line and the use of a voice biometric holds the promise of 
significantly reducing the time to verify a person's identity. Voice 
biometrics can be passive, where the user can say anything and a match 
is made from the voice to a voiceprint, or it can be active, where the 
caller is asked to recite a previously captured passphrase. Either way, 
the process is a natural, effortless way to identify the caller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See DHS, USCIS, A Day in the Life of USCIS, https://www.uscis.gov/about-us-0 (last visited Apr. 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, voice verification could be used for identity verification 
in remote locations where an interview is required to adjudicate a 
benefit being sought, reducing the need for an applicant to travel to a 
USCIS Office. Finally, USCIS may also use voice prints, where 
applicable, to identify indicia of fraud, screen for public safety or 
criminal history, and vet potential national security issues.
    DHS welcomes public comment on the various proposed modalities, 
reliability of technology, suggestions for alternative modalities, as 
well as its proposal for future modalities.
3. Improve Regulations To Facilitate Electronic Filing
a. Clarify Terms
    To conform with the proposed changes to expand biometric collection 
as previously discussed, DHS proposes to remove restrictive language 
elsewhere in regulations. Therefore, DHS proposes to remove individual 
references to ``fingerprints,'' ``photographs,'' and/or ``signatures'' 
where appropriate, and replace them with the more appropriate term 
``biometrics.'' DHS proposes the following changes to replace 
references to ``fingerprint'' with ``biometrics'' or to remove 
``biometrics'' references on account of proposed 8 CFR 103.16:
     Deleting 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3), which requires biometric 
submissions from prospective adoptive parent(s), or adult members of 
the adoptive parents' household, and outlining potential waivers;
     Removing the fingerprint requirement at 8 CFR 204.4(d)(1), 
and references to fingerprint and completed background checks as 
elements specifically mentioned in 8 CFR 204.4(g)(2)(ii) regarding the 
determination that a sponsor is of good moral character;
     Deleting biometric submission and fee requirements in 8 
CFR 204.5(p)(4);
     Deleting and reserving 8 CFR 204.310(b), which outlines 
the biometrics, waiver, and alternative evidentiary requirements for 
the Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from 
a Convention Country (Form I-800A);
     Deleting the reference to biometric information and 8 CFR 
1.2 in 8 CFR 207.1(a);
     Replacing ``fingerprint processing'' in the second 
sentence of 8 CFR 208.7(a)(2) with ``an interview or biometric 
collection'';
     Removing the biometrics submission requirement from 8 CFR 
209.1(b);
     Revising 8 CFR 208.10, on account of proposed 8 CFR 103.2 
and 103.16;
     Removing and reserving 8 CFR 210.1(b); and
     Replacing ``must be fingerprinted for the purpose of 
issuance of Form I-688A'' with ``submit biometrics'', and replacing 
``shall'' with ``will'' in proposed 8 CFR 210.2(c)(2)(iv), and 
``presentation or completion of Form FD-258 (Fingerprint Card)'' with 
``biometric collection'' in proposed 8 CFR 210.2(c)(3)(iv).
b. Remove Age Restrictions
    DHS originally codified several of its regulatory biometric 
submission requirements with restrictions on the

[[Page 56357]]

ages of individuals from whom biometrics could be collected. The 
codified ages were based on the policies and practices at the time such 
as not running criminal history background checks on children \49\ or 
technological limitations on collecting fingerprints from elderly 
persons.\50\ As stated earlier, DHS proposes that biometrics uses 
expand beyond criminal history background checks to include identity 
management and verification in the immigration lifecycle. Identity 
verification and management in the immigration lifecycle via biometrics 
is even more important in the case of children because their physical 
appearances can change relatively rapidly and children often lack 
identity documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ ``Children'' and ``minor'' are used interchangeably here 
and without regard to any single or specific INA definition.
    \50\ See Fingerprint Waiver Policy for All Applicants for 
Benefits under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and Procedures 
for Applicants Whose Fingerprint Responses Expire after the Age 
Range during Which Fingerprints are Required by Michael Pearson, 
Executive Associate Commissioner, Office of Field Operations United 
States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, dated July 20, 2001 (waiving general fingerprinting 
requirements for certain ages and classifications of individuals 
otherwise required under regulation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with this determination, DHS is removing the age 
restrictions for biometric collection writ large, including those for 
NTA issuance. See 8 CFR 236.5. DHS has authority, under the immigration 
laws,\51\ to issue Notice to Appear (Form I-862) and Notice of Referral 
to Immigration Judge (Form I-863), which are thereafter filed with the 
Immigration Court to commence removal proceedings under the INA. In 
removing the age restrictions for biometric collection relating to NTA 
issuance, DHS is ensuring that every individual's identity is 
established or verified--regardless of age--when they are placed in 
removal proceedings under the INA. Just as with the granting of 
immigration benefits, biographical identifiers are of limited use when 
verifying identity because individuals share common names and an 
individual may misrepresent his or her identity when facing immigration 
enforcement action. Furthermore, with respect to children under the age 
of 14 issued who are issued NTAs, the collection of biometric 
information to determine identity will significantly assist DHS in its 
mission to combat human trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced 
labor exploitation, and alien smuggling, while simultaneously promoting 
national security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See, e.g., INA sections 103(a), 239; 8 CFR 2.1, 239.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS is authorized to share relevant information internally and with 
other law enforcement agencies, including ``biometrics'' and, 
consequently, is proposing that it may share DNA test results, which 
include a partial DNA profile, with other agencies where there are 
national security, public safety, fraud, or other investigative needs, 
but always consistent with any legal limitations on such information 
sharing. For those reasons, the removal of age restrictions may lead to 
more frequent biometric collections compared to adults. Therefore, 
because the proposed requirements in this rule, requiring appearance 
for biometric collection or interview would apply to any individual, 
without age limitation, DHS proposes to remove all age limitations or 
restrictions on biometrics collection. However, DHS also proposes that 
the biometric collection may be waived at DHS's discretion. See 
proposed 8 CFR 103.16.
    Under the authority granted by the proposed rule, individual DHS 
components will be able to establish an age threshold for biometric 
collection specific to that component's operational needs. Immigration 
officers may collect biometrics, pursuant to the authority granted in 8 
U.S.C. 1357(b) from individuals under the age of 14 categorically or on 
a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances. DHS interprets 8 
U.S.C. 1357(f)(1) as requiring fingerprinting and photographing of 
aliens 14 years or older in removal proceedings, but DHS interprets 
that authority as not prohibiting the collection of biometrics from 
aliens younger than 14 as authorized by other laws. Removing the age 
restrictions associated with biometric collections from the regulations 
will permit DHS components maximum flexibility in their day-to-day 
operations.
    DHS reviewed statutes containing requirements for individuals to 
submit biometrics to DHS at a certain age and determined those statutes 
do not restrict or limit the collection of biometrics to these ages. 
First, INA section 262(b), 8 U.S.C. 1302, states, ``Whenever any alien 
attains his fourteenth birthday in the United States he shall, within 
thirty days thereafter, apply in person for registration and to be 
fingerprinted.'' Second, INA section 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304, provides 
that the Secretary is authorized ``to prepare forms for the 
registration and fingerprinting of aliens'' aged 14 and older in the 
United States, as required by INA section 262. DHS interprets section 
264(a) as requiring that biometrics be submitted by lawful permanent 
residents aged 14 and older, but not as imposing a lower age limit 
prohibiting DHS from requiring anyone, including lawful permanent 
residents or individuals seeking immigration benefits who are under the 
age of 14, from submitting biometrics as authorized by other laws.
c. Remove Redundant Provisions
    DHS proposes in this rule to have one regulatory provision that 
governs the requirement to submit biometrics for all immigration 
benefit requests. Proposed 8 CFR 103.16. This new provision will also 
include the requirements for rescheduling and the acceptable reasons 
for failure to submit biometrics unless waived. Id. In addition, DHS 
proposes to consolidate the multiple sections of 8 CFR providing what 
USCIS can or will do with an immigration benefit request when required 
biometrics are not submitted. For example, 8 CFR 240.68(b) currently 
provides that failure to comply with fingerprint processing 
requirements without reasonable excuse may result in dismissal of the 
asylum application or waiver of the right to adjudication by an asylum 
officer. Because proposed 8 CFR 103.16 will apply to all immigration 
benefits adjudicated by USCIS, there is no need for a separate 
provision for what happens in the context of an asylum application 
submitted pursuant to 8 CFR 240.68. Therefore, DHS is proposing to 
either revise separate provisions regarding failure to submit 
biometrics to cross-reference 8 CFR 103.16 or remove them entirely. See 
proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 103.16(b), 208.10, 240.68, 240.70(d)(4), 
and 245.7.
d. Remove Unnecessary Procedures and Requirements
    DHS is proposing changes in this rule consistent with continued 
efforts to provide flexibility for applicants, petitioners, requestors 
and associated individuals to submit biometrics, file benefit requests, 
and provide supporting documentation, as well as for USCIS to receive 
and process those requests in an electronic environment. In sections of 
the regulations governing biometrics submission requirements, DHS is 
also proposing to remove and/or replace language that applies solely to 
paper filings and benefit requests with language that is applicable in 
both a paper and electronic environment. For example, references to 
position titles, form numbers, mailing, copies, and office jurisdiction 
are proposed to be removed, replacing ``the director,'' ``service 
office having jurisdiction over the prior petition,'' ``service 
legalization

[[Page 56358]]

office,'' ``legalization office,'' ``service office designated for this 
purpose,'' and ``The INS,'' with ``USCIS'' in 8 CFR 204.4(d)(1), 
210.2(c)(2)(iv), 210.2(c)(4)(iii) and 210.5(b). In proposed 8 CFR 
204.4(d)(1), the internal USCIS process is removed from the regulatory 
text, by replacing the requirement that petitioners submit documents 
within one year of the date requested, with a deadline provided in the 
request. Similarly, in proposed 8 CFR 208.21(d), the specific procedure 
regarding transmissions to the U.S. Embassy or consulate is deleted 
from the regulatory text. In other sections, requirements to provide a 
paper fingerprint card or FD-258 are revised to simply require 
``biometrics.'' See 8 CFR 210.2(c)(2)(i), 210.2(c)(4), 240.68, 240.70, 
245a.2(e)(1)(iii) and 245a.4(b)(5)(i)(C).
    To promote electronic filing and lessen dependence on paper, DHS is 
also proposing to clarify the regulatory requirements for submitting 
passport-style paper photographs with certain applications or 
petitions. DHS proposes to eliminate references to the ``ADIT-style'' 
photograph requirement as outdated and revising any requirement for 
submitting photographs with immigration benefit requests to reference 
photographs ``as required by form instruction.'' See proposed 8 CFR 
103.16 and 333.1. USCIS may continue requiring paper photographs to be 
submitted with a benefit request, where required by form instruction, 
to use in its adjudications for either identity verification or 
document production. However, as proposed, under no circumstances would 
submission of passport-style photographs relieve an individual from 
their obligation to appear for biometric collection.
    DHS believes that the photograph submission and use requirements in 
the INA may be met in the future by electronic photographs collected by 
USCIS as a biometric identifier. INA section 333, 8 U.S.C. 1444, 
states:

    (a) Three identical photographs of the applicant shall be signed 
by and furnished by each applicant for naturalization or 
citizenship. One of such photographs shall be affixed by the 
Attorney General to the original certificate of naturalization 
issued to the naturalized citizen and one to the duplicate 
certificate of naturalization required to be forwarded to the 
Service.
    (b) Three identical photographs of the applicant shall be 
furnished by each applicant for--
    (1) a record of lawful admission for permanent residence to be 
made under section 249;
    (2) a certificate of derivative citizenship;
    (3) a certificate of naturalization or of citizenship;
    (4) a special certificate of naturalization;
    (5) a certificate of naturalization or of citizenship, in lieu 
of one lost, mutilated, or destroyed;
    (6) a new certificate of citizenship in the new name of any 
naturalized citizen who, subsequent to naturalization, has had his 
name changed by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or by 
marriage; and
    (7) a declaration of intention.
    One such photograph shall be affixed to each such certificate 
issued by the Attorney General and one shall be affixed to the copy 
of such certificate retained by the Service.

    As DHS interprets INA section 333, its requirements may be met when 
an individual's photographs are obtained by USCIS, signed, and 
furnished by the individual when USCIS or its designee collects the 
individual's biometrics. Therefore, DHS proposes to revise 8 CFR 333.1 
to provide that every applicant under section 333 of the Act must 
provide photographs as prescribed by USCIS in the applicable form 
instructions.

D. Biometrics Requirement for United States Citizens and Lawful 
Permanent Residents

    While the focus of attention in the immigration context is usually 
on foreign nationals, aliens, and immigrants, DHS is also proposing to 
require biometrics from U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents 
when they submit a family-based visa petition. See proposed 8 CFR 
103.16. Current regulations only require biometrics from applicants, 
petitioners, their spouses, and all adult members of the household in 
the intercountry adoption context involving orphan and Hague Adoption 
Convention cases. See 8 CFR 204.3(c)(3); 8 CFR 204.310(b). For family-
based petitioners filing Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) or 
Petition for Alien fiancé(e) (Form I-129F), the regulations are 
silent with respect to the routine submission of a petitioner's 
biometrics in support of a petition. See generally 8 CFR 204.1 and 
214.2(k). As discussed below, DHS has determined that U.S. citizen and 
lawful permanent resident petitioners must submit biometrics in order 
for DHS to comply with existing laws.
1. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
    The INA bars USCIS from approving any family-based immigrant visa 
petitions and nonimmigrant fiancé(e) visa petitions filed by a 
U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident petitioner if he or she has 
been convicted of any ``specified offense against a minor'' unless the 
Secretary first determines in his or her sole and unreviewable 
discretion that the petitioner poses ``no risk'' to the beneficiary 
and/or derivative beneficiaries. See INA sections 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) 
& (B)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) & (B)(i)(II), and 
101(a)(15)(K), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), as amended.
    The AWA \52\ defines ``specified offense against a minor'' as an 
offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 section 
111(7), Public Law 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 592 (2006) (codified at 
34 U.S.C. 20911(7) after editorial reclassification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) 
involving kidnapping.
     An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) 
involving false imprisonment.
     Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
     Use in a sexual performance.
     Solicitation to practice prostitution.
     Video voyeurism as described in 18 U.S.C. 1801.
     Possession, production, or distribution of child 
pornography.
     Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of 
the internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.
     Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a 
minor.
2. The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act
    IMBRA \53\ provides that petitioners for a K nonimmigrant visa for 
an alien fiancé(e) (K-1) or alien spouse (K-3) must submit with 
his or her Form I-129F criminal conviction information for the 
petitioner on any of the following ``specified crimes'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (T 2005), Public Law 109-162, 119 Stat. 
2960 (2006); and (VAWA 2013), Public Law 113-4, sections 807-8, 127 
Stat. 54, 112-17; 8 U.S.C. 1375a); INA sections 214(d)(1), (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and 
neglect, dating violence, elder abuse, and stalking;
     Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual 
contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture, trafficking, peonage, 
holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, 
abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, or an 
attempt to commit any of these crimes; and
     Crimes relating to a controlled substance or alcohol where 
the petitioner has been convicted on at least three occasions and where 
such crimes did not arise from a single act.
    If a petitioner indicates that he or she has been convicted by a 
court or by a military tribunal for one of these specified crimes, or 
if USCIS ascertains through relevant background checks that the 
petitioner was convicted, the

[[Page 56359]]

petitioner is required to submit certified copies of all court and 
police records showing the charges and dispositions for every such 
conviction. See USCIS Form I-129F and Form I-129F Instructions, Part 3. 
If the petition is approved, the petitioner's Form I-129F (including 
all criminal background information submitted by the petitioner and any 
related criminal conviction information that USCIS discovers during the 
course of conducting its routine background check) must be provided to 
DOS. Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. 1375a(a)(5)(A)(iii). DOS will then disclose 
this information to the beneficiary during the consular interview. See 
Form I-129F Instructions, Part 3.
3. All Family-Based Petitioners
    USCIS is committed to complying with and furthering the purposes of 
AWA and IMBRA so that intended beneficiaries of family-based visa 
petitions are not placed at risk of harm from the persons who seek to 
facilitate their immigration to the United States. Without complete 
biometrics for all family-based petitioners, USCIS is required to rely 
only on name-based criminal checks to assess AWA and IMBRA. These name-
based checks do not identify all offenders with visa petitions who have 
been convicted of qualifying crimes under AWA and/or IMBRA. Name-based 
checks only yield petitioners who are currently required to register as 
a sex offender or who have a current order of protection in place. 
However, AWA and IMBRA apply to all family-based petitioners with 
qualifying convictions regardless of when the criminality occurred, and 
whether they are currently registered sex offenders or subject to an 
order of protection. The current reliance on name-based checks means 
that certain family-based visa petitioners are not currently identified 
and vetted under AWA and IMBRA because USCIS does not routinely request 
biometrics from these populations. Requiring biometrics collection for 
all family-based petitioners will result in production of an official 
FBI criminal history result (currently referred to as an Identity 
History Summary ``IdHS'' and formerly referred to as a Record of Arrest 
and Prosecution ``RAP sheet'') which provides greater accuracy and 
detail relating to the petitioner's criminal history.
    USCIS already requires biometrics from all applicants, petitioners, 
their spouses, and all adult members of the household in the 
intercountry adoption context involving orphan and Hague Adoption 
Convention cases as part of its evaluation of the prospective adoptive 
parents' suitability to adopt a foreign-born child.\54\ 8 CFR 
204.3(c)(3), 8 CFR 204.310(b). USCIS likewise needs to review the 
criminal histories of other petitioners before approving a family-based 
immigration benefit. USCIS needs to utilize biometrics to conduct 
criminal history background checks to identify individuals convicted of 
any ``specified offense against a minor'' or ``specified crime'' and 
prevent the approval of a petition in violation of the AWA or without 
the proper disclosure required by IMBRA.\55\ Therefore, DHS proposes to 
amend the regulations governing the requirements for USCIS Form I-130 
and Form I-129F to require those petitioners to routinely submit 
biometrics as required by proposed 8 CFR 103.16. See proposed 8 CFR 
204.1(h) and 8 CFR 214.2(k)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In intercountry adoption cases, DHS must be satisfied that 
proper care will be provided to the child if admitted to the United 
States. INA section 101(b)(1)(F), (G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(F), (G).
    \55\ INA section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) & (B)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 
1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) & (B)(i)(II), and INA section 101(a)(15)(K), 
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), as amended by the Adam Walsh Act, tit. IV, 
sec. 402, 120 Stat. at 622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected family-based petitions include those petitioning for the 
following individuals:
     Spouse;
     fiancé(e);
     Parent;
     Unmarried child under 21 years of age;
     Unmarried son or daughter over 21 years of age or over;
     Married son or daughter of any age;
     Sibling; or
     Any derivative beneficiary permitted to receive an 
immigrant or nonimmigrant visa based on his or her familial 
relationship to the beneficiary of such petition.

See INA sections 101(a)(15)(K), 201(b)(2)(A)(i) and 203(a) and (d), 8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) and 1153(a) and (d) (governing 
nonimmigrant fiancé(e)s, immediate relatives, and family-based 
preference and derivative categories/classifications).
4. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Self-Petitioners
    Separate from the AWA and IMBRA provisions discussed above, VAWA 
self-petitioners are currently not generally required to submit 
biometrics for adjudication. For many immigrant victims of domestic 
violence, battery, or extreme cruelty, the U.S. citizen or lawful 
permanent resident family members who sponsor their applications 
threaten to withhold legal immigration sponsorship as a tool of abuse. 
VAWA allows abused immigrants to petition for legal status in the 
United States without relying on abusive U.S. citizen or lawful 
permanent resident spouses, parents, or children to petition for and 
sponsor their immigrant petition and Form I-485. The purpose of the 
VAWA program is to allow victims the opportunity to ``self-petition'' 
or independently seek legal immigration status. DHS proposes in this 
rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or 
individual filing or associated with a benefit or other request must 
appear for biometrics collection unless biometrics are waived. 
Accordingly, DHS proposes to remove the regulations that provide that 
VAWA self-petitioners are not required to appear for biometric 
collection. In addition, as noted in the PRA section of this preamble, 
DHS proposes to revise the applicable forms to require VAWA self-
petitioners to comply with the biometrics submission requirement 
proposed in this rule.
    VAWA self-petitioners are currently not subject to biometric 
collection and they establish good moral character required under 8 CFR 
204.2(c)(2)(v) and 204.2(e)(2)(v) by: (1) Personal statement from the 
self-petitioner; (2) police clearance letters from the self-
petitioner's places of residence for the three years before filing; and 
(3) other credible evidence, including affidavits from third parties 
attesting to the self-petitioner's good moral character. USCIS does not 
currently use biometrics to verify the identity of the self-petitioner 
or verify the accuracy or completeness of the disclosed criminal 
history information.
    The proposed requirement for biometrics collection for VAWA self-
petitioners would result in production of the self-petitioner's IdHS 
which provides greater accuracy and detail relating to the self-
petitioner's criminal history. This would accomplish several goals. 
First, it would support the identity enrollment, verification, and 
management in the immigration lifecycle purpose for USCIS biometrics 
collection. Second, it supports the national security and criminal 
history background checks purpose for USCIS biometrics collection 
because relying on self-petitioners to obtain and present appropriate 
local police clearance letters is not the most reliable means of 
obtaining, or verifying, an accurate and complete criminal history for 
a self-petitioner. Third, it will simplify the petition for the self-
petitioner as well as the adjudication for USCIS by reducing the 
evidence required to establish good moral character. The self-
petitioner will

[[Page 56360]]

not need to contact the police department in every city in which he or 
she has lived and USCIS will not need to analyze multiple police 
letters for their findings. Due to certain limitations with biometric 
information sharing among foreign countries, self-petitioners who 
resided outside the United States in the three years before filing will 
still have to provide a law enforcement clearance, criminal background 
check, or similar report issued by an appropriate authority from any 
jurisdiction in which the self-petitioner resided for six or more 
months during the three year period immediately preceding the filing of 
the self-petition.
    The proposed revision to 8 CFR 204.2(c)(2)(v) and 204.2(e)(2)(v) to 
require biometrics from VAWA self-petitioners will eliminate the need 
for self-petitioners who resided in the United States three years 
before filing to obtain multiple police or law enforcement clearance 
letters. The majority of self-petitioners would only need to travel to 
one USCIS ASC for biometrics collection. Further, USCIS adjudicators 
would no longer need to verify past addresses against police clearance 
letters, as the information discovered by collecting biometrics for a 
criminal history and national security background checks will be 
credible and relevant evidence when considering the good moral 
character requirement.
    Consistent with other adjudicative determinations of good moral 
character, DHS proposes that, when assessing good moral character for a 
VAWA self-petitioner, USCIS may consider the self-petitioner's conduct 
beyond the three years immediately before filing, where: (1) The 
earlier conduct or acts appear relevant to a determination of the self-
petitioner's present moral character; and (2) the conduct of the self-
petitioner during the three years immediately before filing does not 
reflect that there has been a reform of character from an earlier 
period. See generally 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2). USCIS currently allows 
officers to look outside the 3-year period if there is reason to 
believe that the self-petitioner may not have been a person of good 
moral character during that time. This has been a long-standing 
practice at USCIS and memorialized in both a 2005 policy and the 
preamble to the 1996 VAWA regulation. See, Policy Memorandum, William 
R. Yates, Associate Director of Operations, USCIS Memorandum 
Determinations of Good Moral Character in VAWA-Based Self-Petitions--
HQOPRD 70/8.1/8.2 (January 19, 2005); 61 FR 13065, 13066 (Mar. 26, 
1996); USCIS is simply clarifying this point in the regulatory text.
    DHS further proposes to revise 8 CFR 204.2(e)(2)(v) to remove the 
automatic presumption of good moral character for VAWA self-petitioners 
under 14 years of age. Rather, DHS proposes that VAWA self-petitioners 
under 14 years of age will submit biometrics like any other VAWA self-
petitioner, which USCIS will use in the determination of good moral 
character and which preserves USCIS's discretionary authority to 
require that VAWA self-petitioners provide additional evidence of good 
moral character. See proposed 8 CFR 204.2(e)(2)(v). DHS does not 
believe this change is a significant departure from the existing 
regulatory scheme or that it will burden self-petitioners under 14 
generally, because they will still not be required to submit evidence 
of good moral character apart from biometrics as initial evidence with 
their self-petitions. Furthermore, the existing presumption is 
rebuttable. USCIS may currently request evidence of good moral 
character for self-petitioning children under 14 years of age if USCIS 
has reason to believe the self-petitioning child lacks good moral 
character. The proposed structure is intended to align the VAWA 
provisions with the agency's goals regarding biometrics collection from 
all applicants, petitioners, sponsors, derivatives, dependents, 
beneficiaries and individuals, without regard to age, unless USCIS 
waives or exempts the biometrics requirement, while still preserving 
USCIS' authority to define evidentiary requirements for demonstrating 
good moral character for child VAWA self-petitioners in its discretion. 
Additionally, as with any other USCIS petition or application, if a 
decision will be adverse to an applicant or petitioner and is based on 
derogatory information the agency considered, he/she shall be advised 
of that fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information. See 8 
CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i).
5. T Nonimmigrant Adjustment of Status Applicants
    Similar to the VAWA self-petitioners discussed above, applicants 
applying to adjust status based on underlying T nonimmigrant status 
also have a good moral character requirement. The INA permits the 
Secretary to grant T nonimmigrant status to individuals who are or were 
victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons who have complied 
with any reasonable request by a law enforcement agency for assistance 
in the investigation or prosecution of a crime involving acts of 
trafficking in persons (unless they are under 18 years of age or are 
unable to cooperate due to physical or psychological trauma). See INA 
section 101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I), (III), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I), 
(III). After the grant of T nonimmigrant status, an individual can 
apply for lawful permanent residence under INA section 245(l) and 8 CFR 
245.23 by filing a Form I-485. Among several other eligibility 
requirements, an applicant seeking to adjust under INA 245(l) must 
demonstrate good moral character from the date of lawful admission as a 
T nonimmigrant until the time USCIS adjudicates his or her adjustment 
of status application. 8 CFR 245.23(g).
    Good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants is 
presently assessed by the applicant's affidavits, the results of 
biometric-based security checks, the submission of a ``local police 
clearance or a state-issued criminal background check,'' and other 
credible evidence. 8 CFR 245.23(g). There are several concerns with the 
use of affidavits and police clearance letters to establish good moral 
character where the applicant has resided domestically for the 
requisite period. First, local police clearance letters for domestic 
residences will become unnecessary with the publication of this rule, 
which will authorize biometrics for all applicants and petitioners, 
including T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants. DHS proposes 
in this rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, derivative, 
dependent, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a 
benefit or other request must appear for biometrics collection unless 
biometrics are exempted or waived. Second, official criminal history 
results from biometric-based security checks provide a more reliable 
means for obtaining, or verifying, an accurate and complete criminal 
history for an applicant than official criminal history results from 
that rely on applicants to obtain and present appropriate local police 
clearances or state-issued criminal background checks. Third, the 
submission of local police clearance letters is already redundant, 
because T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants are currently 
subject to a biometrics requirement, and it logically follows that the 
regulation should reflect that adjudicators assess good moral character 
with the most reliable and comprehensive evidence available for good 
moral character (i.e., official criminal history results from the 
biometric-based security checks). Cf. Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N 
Dec. 664, 666-67 (A.G. 2019) (discussing meaning of ``good moral 
character'' and explaining that ``an alien's criminal record is highly 
probative of whether he possesses good moral character'').

[[Page 56361]]

Presently, USCIS requires biometrics for T adjustment of status 
applicants, however, the regulations also require applicants to submit 
police clearance letters, if available, which adjudicators consider in 
addition to other credible evidence when determining good moral 
character. For these reasons, DHS proposes to eliminate the requirement 
that applicants applying to adjust status based on underlying T 
nonimmigrant status submit self-obtained police clearance letters, 
unless they lived outside the United States during the requisite 
period.
    There are several benefits to eliminating this police clearance 
requirement. First, requiring adjudicators to assess good moral 
character based in part on an official FBI criminal history result or 
IdHS provides greater accuracy and detail relating to the T 
nonimmigrant adjustment applicant's criminal history. Second, it 
supports the national security and criminal history background checks 
purpose for USCIS biometrics collection. Third, it will simplify the 
application and adjudication for the T nonimmigrant adjustment of 
status applications. The applicant will not need to contact the police 
department in every city in which he or she has lived and USCIS will 
not need to analyze multiple police letters for their findings. Due to 
certain limitations with biometric information sharing among foreign 
countries, applicants who resided outside the United States in the 
requisite period will still have to provide a law enforcement 
clearance, criminal background check, or similar report issued by an 
appropriate authority from any jurisdiction in which the applicant 
resided during the requisite period.
    DHS notes that USCIS currently assesses good moral character based 
on biometric-based security check results and other relevant evidence 
in the file and it does not require T nonimmigrant adjustment 
applicants to obtain multiple police or law enforcement clearance 
letters unless they lived outside the United States. Thus the proposed 
revision of 8 CFR 245.23(g) would simply codify the current USCIS 
policy and practice. Applicants would only need to travel to a USCIS 
ASC for biometrics collection. Further, USCIS adjudicators would no 
longer be required to verify past addresses against police clearance 
letters, because the information discovered by reviewing the 
applicant's criminal history and national security background check 
result will be the most relevant, probative, and reliable evidence when 
assessing the good moral character requirement.
    DHS also proposes to clarify language referring to the requisite 
period of good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status 
applicants. The current regulation references evaluating good moral 
character during a requisite period of ``continued presence.'' 8 CFR 
245.23(g)(1). ``Continued presence'' is an established term in the 
immigration and trafficking in persons context, but is not the correct 
term to refer to the period relevant to USCIS' evaluation of good moral 
character. Rather, USCIS believes the current language was intended to 
refer to the requirement that the applicant be physically present ``for 
a continuous period of at least 3 years since the date of admission as 
a nonimmigrant'' or ``continuous period during the investigation or 
prosecution of acts of trafficking.'' See INA 245(l)(1)(A). Therefore, 
DHS proposes to amend 8 CFR 245.23(g) to refer to the relevant 
``continuous period'' rather than ``continued presence.'' Consistent 
with other adjudicative determinations of good moral character, when 
assessing good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment 
applicants, USCIS would be able to consider the applicant's conduct 
beyond the requisite period, where: (1) The earlier conduct or acts 
appear relevant to a determination of the applicant's present moral 
character; and (2) the conduct of the applicant during the requisite 
period does not reflect that there has been a reform of character from 
an earlier period. See generally 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2).
    DHS further proposes to revise 8 CFR 245.23(g) to remove the 
presumption of good moral character for T nonimmigrant adjustment of 
status applicants under 14 years of age. Rather, the rule provides that 
such applicants will submit biometrics like any other applicant, and it 
preserves USCIS' discretionary authority to require that applicants 
provide additional evidence of good moral character. Proposed 8 CFR 
245.23(g). DHS does not believe this change is a significant departure 
from the existing regulatory scheme or that it will burden applicants 
under 14 generally, because they will still not be required to submit 
evidence of good moral character apart from biometrics as initial 
evidence with their applications. Furthermore, the existing presumption 
is rebuttable. USCIS may currently request evidence of good moral 
character for applicants under 14 years of age if USCIS has reason to 
believe the applicant lacks good moral character. The proposed changes 
would remove the superfluous need for police clearance letters from T 
nonimmigrant adjustment applicants and remove the good moral character 
presumption for T nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants under 
age 14. As noted in the PRA section of this preamble, DHS will revise 
the applicable forms to eliminate the police clearance letter 
requirement for T nonimmigrant adjustment applicants concomitant with 
this rule.
    DHS proposes this change to align the T nonimmigrant adjustment of 
status provisions with the agency's goals regarding biometrics 
collection from all applicants, petitioners, sponsors, derivatives, 
dependents, beneficiaries and individuals, including identity 
management in the immigration lifecycle, without regard to age, unless 
USCIS waives or exempts the biometrics requirement, while still 
preserving USCIS' authority to define the evidentiary requirements for 
child applicants to demonstrate good moral character requirements in 
its discretion.
6. Regional Center Principals Under the EB-5 Program
    DHS proposes to require biometrics collection and perform 
biometric-based criminal history and national security background 
checks, as well as for purposes of identity verification, on all 
regional center principals, including U.S. citizens and lawful 
permanent residents, of an intending or existing regional center as 
part of its determination of whether the regional center will, or is 
continuing to, promote economic growth in accordance with regional 
center program requirements. DHS proposes that the biometric collection 
for background checks also extend, if the regional center principal is 
a legal entity or organization, to those persons having ownership, 
control, or beneficial interest in such principal legal entity or 
organization. Further, DHS proposes that the biometrics requirement may 
also include additional collections or checks for purposes of 
continuous vetting. INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), 
authorizes the EB-5 program, and the regional center program was 
authorized in 1992 in an appropriations act.\56\ The regulations at 8 
CFR 204.6 contain the requirements for employment creation aliens under 
INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), including those investing 
under the regional center program (also known as the Immigrant Investor 
Program), and criteria for the designation of regional centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Public Law 102-395, sec. 
610, 106 Stat 1828, 1874 (1992).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 56362]]

    With respect to the requirements for regional centers, DHS 
regulations at 8 CFR 204.6 require the submission of a proposal 
describing how the regional center, an economic unit, will promote 
economic growth. DHS regulation at 8 CFR 204.6 also requires updated 
information to demonstrate continued promotion of economic growth in 
compliance with program requirements once an economic unit is 
designated as a regional center. As part of these determinations, USCIS 
considers whether the principals of the intending or designated 
regional center, and the regional center itself, are bona fide and 
capable of credibly promoting such economic growth. Background checks 
using the biometrics of the principals would provide information 
relevant to this determination such as instances of fraud, financial 
crimes, or other activities that would demonstrate a lack of ability to 
promote economic growth. For example, USCIS could consider whether an 
applicant for regional center principal had convictions for fraud or 
financial misconduct, as directly bearing on their ability to promote 
economic growth, as required by 8 CFR 204.6. Using biometrics, USCIS 
would screen and vet the applicant for regional center principal in an 
effort to protect the investors in the regional center.
    In the EB-5 regional center program, the applicant is the entity 
seeking regional center designation. ``Principals'' of a regional 
center are collectively any persons or entities that own, are in a 
position of executive managerial authority over, or are otherwise in a 
position to control, influence, or direct the management or policies 
of, the regional center entity. In the event that the principal of the 
regional center entity is a legal entity or organization, USCIS will 
require biometrics from all persons having ownership, control, or 
beneficial interest in that legal entity or organization. To identify 
potential national security concerns relating to regional centers and 
the individuals who operate them, biometric-based background checks on 
principals would provide USCIS with relevant information on the people 
who control the regional centers and interact with immigrant investors 
and the credibility of the projects they sponsor. USCIS already 
conducts background checks on regional center principals based on 
Social Security numbers.
    Biometric-based background checks would also help USCIS verify 
identities of principals, because there are identified trends of 
regional centers engaging in fraud.\57\ USCIS tracks when regional 
centers are terminated; a list is publicly available from USCIS.\58\ 
With respect to regional center termination, mandating biometrics and 
conducting biometric-based background checks would strengthen USCIS' 
ability to determine whether a regional center, including through its 
principals, continues to serve the purpose of promoting economic growth 
in compliance with program requirements. See 8 CFR 204.6(m)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO-15-
696, Immigrant Investor Program: Additional Actions Needed to Better 
Assess Fraud Risks and Report Economic Benefits (2015), available at 
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-696; GAO, GAO-16-431T, Immigrant 
Investor Program: Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fraud 
Risks and Report Economic Benefits (2016), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-431T; and GAO, GAO-16-828, Immigrant 
Investor Program: Progress Made to Detect and Prevent Fraud, but 
Additional Actions Could Further Agency Efforts (2016), available at 
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-828.
    \58\ See Regional Center Terminations, https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-fifth-preference-eb-5/eb-5-immigrant-investor-process/regional-center-terminations (last visited Apr. 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS welcomes public comment on all aspects of this proposal, 
including expanding biometric collection to U.S. citizen or lawful 
permanent resident family-based petitioners in order to comply with AWA 
and IMBRA, expanding biometric collection to VAWA self-petitioners, 
eliminating police clearance letters for VAWA self-petitioners and T 
nonimmigrant adjustment applicants, modifying the VAWA self-petitioner 
and T nonimmigrant adjustment applicant's good moral character 
requirements for those under 14 years of age, and expanding biometric 
collection to U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident principals of 
an intending or existing regional center under the EB-5 program, as 
well as additional collections or checks for purposes of continuous 
vetting.

E. Interviews

    DHS also proposes to amend its regulations to remove 8 CFR 
216.4(b)(1) and (2), and 216.6(b)(1) and (2) because the four sections 
are purely operational and superfluous given the statutory requirements 
and regulatory revisions at proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). See INA 
sections 216 and 216A; 8 U.S.C. 1186a and 1186b. The proposed changes 
would not alter regulatory eligibility requirements, but rather would 
clarify certain interview procedures for conditional permanent 
residents to reduce potential redundancies and ensure greater 
uniformity within USCIS operations.
1. Alien Spouses
    Seeking the removal of the conditional basis for status--under INA 
section 216, 8 U.S.C. 1186a, and INA section 216(c)(2), 8 U.S.C 
1186a(c)(2)--requires that the alien spouse and the petitioning spouse 
appear for a personal interview, although DHS may waive the interview 
requirement in its discretion. See INA section 216(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 
1186a(d)(3). Under this rule, DHS is proposing to remove current 8 CFR 
216.4(b)(1) because it simply repeats the authority in INA section 
216(d)(3), which allows DHS to waive the interview requirement in its 
discretion in such cases as may be appropriate. Furthermore, proposed 8 
CFR 103.2(b)(9)(ii) provides equivalent discretionary authority to 
waive such interviews. Because the decision to waive the mandatory 
interview is purely discretionary, and 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) simply 
reiterates this discretion, it serves no purpose, especially since 
determining whether the eligibility requirements for removal of 
conditions in 8 CFR 216.4(c) were established is central to the 
adjudication of the petition itself.
    DHS also proposes to remove 8 CFR 216.4(b)(1) because it contains 
unnecessary procedural requirements and outdated terms. For example, 
the mention of ``regional service center director'' is unnecessary 
because 8 CFR 1.2 already describes the interchangeability of certain 
terms such as ``director.'' Such references are purely internal and 
operational.
2. Alien Investors
    When seeking the removal of the conditional basis for status under 
INA section 216A, 8 U.S.C. 1186b, INA section 216A(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 
1186b(c)(1)(B), generally requires petitioners who file a USCIS 
Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident 
Status (Form I-829) to be interviewed before final adjudication of the 
petition, although DHS may waive the interview requirement in its 
discretion. INA section 216A(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(d)(3). USCIS 
recently updated 8 CFR 216.6 to make certain technical changes in the 
EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization, Final Rule. See 84 FR 
35750. Under current regulations, USCIS reviews the petition to remove 
conditions and the supporting documents to determine whether to waive 
the interview. 8 CFR 216.6(b)(1). If the eligibility requirements for 
removal of conditions in 8 CFR

[[Page 56363]]

216.6(c)(1) have been satisfied, USCIS may waive the interview and 
approve the petition. 8 CFR 216.6(b)(1). If the eligibility 
requirements for removal of conditions in 8 CFR 216.6(c)(1) have not 
been satisfied, USCIS may require that an interview of the investor be 
conducted. 8 CFR 216.6(b)(1). In addition, under current 8 CFR 
216.6(b)(2), unless waived, an interview is conducted by a USCIS 
immigration officer at the office that has jurisdiction over the 
location of the investor's commercial enterprise in the United States, 
the investor's residence in the United States, or the location of the 
adjudication of the petition, at the agency's discretion.
    DHS proposes to modify 8 CFR 216.6 in this rule, because DHS is 
seeking to reduce redundancy and make its interview and waiver 
procedures more uniform and consistent across adjudications, as 
permitted by law. DHS proposes to remove current 8 CFR 216.6(b)(1) 
because it is redundant with INA section 216A(d)(3), which allows DHS 
to waive the interview requirement in its discretion in such cases as 
may be appropriate, and it is not necessary to codify the reason such a 
waiver may be appropriate in regulations. In addition, proposed 8 CFR 
103.2(b)(9)(ii) provides that an interview may be waived by DHS (for an 
entire population or on a case-by-case basis) solely at its discretion. 
As the decision whether to waive the mandatory interview is purely 
discretionary, and the regulation simply reiterates this discretion, 
the regulation serves no purpose, especially since determining whether 
the eligibility requirements for removal of conditions in 8 CFR 
216.6(c)(1) were established is central to the adjudication of the 
petition itself.
    Additionally, for both alien spouses and investors, DHS is 
proposing to remove current 8 CFR 216.4(b)(2) and 216.6(b)(2) regarding 
interview location because the statute already sets parameters for the 
location of the interview, requiring the interview to be conducted at a 
location convenient to the parties involved. See INA section 216(d)(3), 
8 U.S.C. 1186a(d)(3); INA section 216A(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(d)(3). 
Furthermore, proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) will address interview 
requirements generally, making 216.4(b)(2) unnecessary. DHS is also 
proposing to remove current 8 CFR 216.6(b)(2) so that interviews may be 
conducted at the locations listed above or at other locations 
convenient to the parties, taking into account workload, operational 
needs and capabilities as they evolve.
    Lastly, 8 CFR 216.4(b)(3) and 216.6(b)(3) will be redesignated as 
proposed 8 CFR 216.4(b) and 216.6(b) respectively. Proposed 8 CFR 
103.2(b)(9)(iv) provides that failure to appear for a scheduled 
interview without prior authorization may result in a variety of 
consequences, including termination of conditional permanent resident 
status. Under proposed 8 CFR 216.4(b) and 216.6(b), failure to appear 
for an interview in connection with an alien spouse or investor 
petition, when requested by USCIS, will result in automatic termination 
of the alien's permanent resident status. DHS proposes that the 
petitioners may, before the interview, request, for good cause, (such 
as, for lack of proper notice of the interview) that the interview be 
rescheduled or withdraw the petition. Proposed 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9)(v). 
However, the provisions at proposed 8 CFR 216.4(b) and 216.6(b) would 
still permit petitioners to request rescheduling or waiver of the 
interview, for good cause, if the petitioners failed to appear. With 
respect to a showing of exceptional circumstances for good cause in the 
asylum context, USCIS proposes to maintain the status quo. The 
exceptional circumstances standard is vital to the asylum context as it 
is a part of the existing regulations, an important tool to referring 
missed interview cases to an immigration judge without adjudication, 
and is also applied when an applicant misses a hearing before the 
immigration judge and is ordered removed in absentia--an order which 
can only be re-opened by showing exceptional circumstances.

F. Proposed Implementation

1. Phased-In Additional Biometrics Collection
    DHS does not plan to immediately expand all biometric programs to 
provide that all populations or all new modalities would be required as 
of the date the new regulations proposed in this rule take effect. Only 
those revised forms that propose to add a particular biometric 
submission requirement in conjunction with this rule (as described in 
the PRA section of this preamble) will be immediately subject to new 
biometric requirements, though this rule permits DHS to request, 
require, or accept DNA and associated DNA test results for individual 
benefit requests at its discretion. As provided in proposed 8 CFR 
103.16, DHS may expand or contract its biometrics submission 
requirements in the future by notice in the Federal Register or updated 
form instructions. DHS will comply with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., requirements for imposing new information collections when it 
decides to collect biometrics from a new category of filers or to 
collect new biometric modalities.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Form revisions requiring a new biometric submission will 
also be subjected to public notice in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, and its implementing regulations 
at 5 CFR 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Collection of the Biometric Services Fee
    USCIS is authorized to collect an $85 biometric services fee from 
any individual who is required to submit biometric information to pay 
for background checks and have their biometric information collected, 
stored, and used for certain immigration and naturalization benefits 
(other than asylum or refugee status). 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C). 
Effective October 2, 2020, DHS is incorporating the fee for biometric 
services into the underlying immigration benefit request fees for which 
biometric services are applicable to simplify the fee structure, reduce 
rejections of benefit requests for failure to include the biometric 
services fee, and better reflect how USCIS uses biometric information. 
85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020). The additional fees that DHS estimates will 
be collected as a result of this proposed rule will not materialize if 
that rule takes effect before this rule does.

G. Evidence of Age and Birth Parentage for an Adopted Child

    DHS proposes to require a copy of a prospective adopted child 
beneficiary's birth certificate to establish the child's identity and 
age, and the identities of the child's birth parents. Proposed 8 CFR 
204.2(d)(2)(vii). INA section 101(b)(1)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E), can 
be the basis of the approval of an immigrant visa petition filed by a 
U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on 
behalf of an adopted child whose adoption meets the requirements of INA 
101(b)(1)(E). Under INA 101(b)(1)(E), an adopted child is the adoptive 
parent's child for immigration purposes, if the adoptive parent adopted 
the child before the child reached the age of 16 (or 18 if the sibling 
exception at INA 101(b)(1)(E)(ii) applies), and the child has jointly 
resided with the adoptive parent in a bona fide parent child 
relationship for at least two years, and has been under the legal 
custody of the adoptive parent for at least two years. To show that the 
adopted child was under the requisite age, the petitioner must prove 
the beneficiary's date of birth. To show a bona fide parent child 
relationship, the petitioner must,

[[Page 56364]]

among other things, identify the beneficiary's birth parents and show 
that they no longer reside with the child in a parent-child 
relationship and no longer exert primary parental control over the 
child. The best evidence to show age and birth parentage is a birth 
certificate issued by civil authorities. Therefore, DHS proposes to 
require that the petitioner submit a copy of the beneficiary's birth 
certificate, if available, to establish the beneficiary's identity, 
age, and the identities of the beneficiary's birth parents. Proposed 8 
CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vii).
    DHS additionally proposes to update the regulation to align with 
INA section 101(b)(1)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E)(ii), which 
provides that a beneficiary adopted while under age 18 (rather than age 
16) may qualify as an adopted child under that provision if he or she 
is the birth sibling of a child described in INA section 
101(b)(1)(E)(i) or (F)(i), was adopted by the same adoptive parent(s), 
and otherwise meet the requirements of INA section 101(b)(1)(E). While 
the INA uses the term ``natural sibling,'' DHS generally uses the term 
``birth siblings'' synonymously, which includes half-siblings but does 
not include adoptive siblings. Proposed 8 CFR 204.2(d)(2)(vii).
    DHS is soliciting public comment on all aspects of implementation, 
including alternative implementation plans (phased-in or otherwise).

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive 
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. This proposed rule is an economically significant 
regulatory action because it exceeds the $100 million threshold, under 
section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the OMB has reviewed this 
proposed regulation.
1. Summary
    DHS proposes to expand the collection of biometrics to require any 
individual filing or associated with an immigration benefit or request 
to appear for biometrics collection, and, if applicable, pay the $85 
biometric services fee unless exempted or waived from appearing and/or 
paying for such biometrics collection. This proposed rule would also 
change current regulations by defining the term ``biometrics'' to 
clarify and expand DHS' regulatory authority to collect biometrics 
information. The proposal to expand the collection of biometrics would 
impact certain populations without regard to age or U.S. citizenship 
status. Additionally, DHS proposes to further clarify the purposes for 
which biometrics are collected, stored, and utilized. Last, this rule 
proposes that DHS may require, request, or accept the submission of DNA 
or DNA test results to verify a claimed genetic relationship.
    DHS estimates that under the proposed rule, about 2.17 million new 
biometrics submissions will be collected annually, and the resulting 
biometrics submitting population will increase from 3.90 million 
currently to 6.07 million, and, from a generalized collection rate 
across all forms of 46 percent currently to 71.2 percent (projected). 
The increase in biometrics submissions would accrue to three population 
segments: (i) A small subset of forms in which biometrics collection is 
collected routinely in which the age-eligible population will expand; 
(ii) the broadening of routine collection to a dozen or so forms in 
which collection is not currently routine; and (iii) the expansion of 
the age-eligible biometrics population to a collection of forms 
characterized by very low filing volumes, unspecified forms, and forms 
in which DHS does not intend to broadly extend collection on a routine 
basis at this time. DHS is also removing the age restrictions for 
biometrics collection in the context of an NTA issuance. However, the 
issuance of an NTA is not an ``application, petition, or other request 
for certain immigration and naturalization benefits.'' See 8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(i)(C). For this stated reason, USCIS will not (and does not 
currently) collect the $85 biometrics services fee from individuals 
whose DNA was collected in the course of being issued NTAs or for other 
immigration law enforcement purposes. Based on FY 2018 statistics, 
under the proposed rule DHS could collect biometrics from as many as 
63,000 individuals under the age of 14 years old annually associated 
with NTAs.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ As noted earlier, DHS is not estimating that this rule 
would result in the issuance of 63,000 additional NTAs by its 
components; rather, 63,000 NTAs were issued in FY 2018 to minors 
under the age of 14 who would be subject to biometric collection 
(for the purpose of verifying identify) under the parameters of this 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would expand the collection of the $85 biometric 
services fee to include any individual appearing for biometrics 
collection in connection with a benefit request unless the individual 
is statutorily exempt from paying the biometric services fee or if he 
or she has received a fee waiver. DHS estimates that there will be 1.63 
million new biometrics fee payments annually. The annual quantified 
costs associated with submitting new biometrics submissions could be 
$158.9 million, and the costs associated with the new fees could be 
$138.4 million, for a combined total of $297.3 million in quantified 
costs. There could be some unquantified impacts related to privacy 
concerns for risks associated with the collection and retention of 
biometric information, as discussed in DHS's Privacy Act compliance 
documentation. However, this rule would not create new impacts in this 
regard but would expand the population that could have privacy 
concerns. When costs of $705,555 are incorporated to include fees the 
FBI would collect for providing fingerprint-based and name-based 
Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks for NTAs, the annual 
costs are about $298 million.
    The proposed rule would expand the collection of the $85 biometric 
services fee to include any individual appearing for biometrics 
collection unless the individual is statutorily exempt from paying the 
biometric services fee or if they have received a fee waiver. DHS 
estimates that there will be 1.63 million new biometrics fee payments 
annually. The annual costs associated with submitting new biometrics 
submissions could be $158.9 million, and the costs associated with the 
new fees could be $138.4 million, for a combined total of $297.3 
million. When costs of $705,555 are incorporated to include fees the 
FBI would collect for providing fingerprint-based and name-based 
Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) checks for NTAs, the annual 
costs are $280 million.
    In addition, DHS proposes to expand its regulatory authority so 
that it may require, request, or accept DNA evidence to demonstrate the 
existence of a genetic relationship for any benefit request where such 
a relationship must be established, such as certain family-

[[Page 56365]]

based benefit requests, including but not limited to the following:
     Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130);
     Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition (Form I-730);
     Application for T Nonimmigrant Status Supplement A (Form 
I-914A);
     Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status Supplement A (Form I-
918A);
     Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 
Nonimmigrant (Form I-929);
     Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600);
     Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate 
Under Section 322 (Form N-600K);
     And any other form where the existence of a genetic 
relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, dependent, derivative, 
rider, or other qualifying family member.
    DHS is not proposing with this rule to require DNA submission for 
such forms generally. However, the rule will immediately allow DHS to 
require, request, or accept DNA or DNA test results, in its discretion, 
for individual benefit requests to verify a claimed genetic 
relationship, where establishing a claimed genetic relationship is 
required. Since the actual volume cannot be predicted at this time with 
accuracy, DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis using a range of 10 to 
100 percent to estimate the potential costs for eligible populations 
associated with these family-based benefit requests. The costs to 
principal filers and beneficiaries/qualifying family members who may 
submit biometrics to establish a genetic relationship in support of 
these benefit requests would range from $22.4 million to $224.1 million 
annually, in undiscounted terms. Depending on the actual future DNA 
submission rate, the total annual costs of the rule could range from 
$319.6 to $521.3 million annually.
    Combining the cost of the biometrics (which includes the service 
fees and NTA fees) with the DNA costs, DHS estimated the total 
monetized costs of the proposed rule at three parts of the DNA 
submission range to represent a lower bound (10 percent), a midrange 
(50 percent), and a high range (90 percent). In undiscounted terms, the 
ten-year (2021-2030) costs could range from $3,204.1 to $4,996.9 
million, with a midrange of $4,100.5 million. At a 3 percent rate of 
discount, the ten-year present values could range from $2,773.2 
million, to $4,262.4 million, with a midrange of $3,497.8 million. At a 
7 percent rate of discount, the ten- year present values could range 
from $2,250.4 million, to $3,509.6 million, with a midrange of $2,880.0 
million. The average annualized costs could range from $320.4 million 
to $499.7 million, with a midrange of $410 million.
    The proposed rule would provide benefits that DHS has not been able 
to quantify. Qualitatively, the proposed rule would provide individuals 
requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits with a more 
reliable system for verifying their identity when submitting a benefit 
request. This would limit the potential for identity theft while also 
reducing the likelihood that DHS would be unable to verify an 
individual's identity and consequently deny the benefit. In addition, 
the proposal to allow individuals to use DNA testing as evidence to 
demonstrate the existence of a claimed genetic relationship would 
provide them the opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship 
using a quicker, less intrusive, and more effective technology than the 
blood tests currently provided for in the regulations. See 8 CFR 
204.2(d)(2)(vi).
    The proposed rule would benefit the U.S. Government by enabling DHS 
with more fidelity and efficiency in identity management in the 
immigration lifecycle and vetting of individuals seeking certain 
immigration and naturalization benefits. The expanded use of biometrics 
stands to provide DHS with the ability to identify and limit fraud 
because biometrics comprise unique physical characteristics that are 
difficult to falsify and that do not change over time. Biometrics would 
also help reduce the administrative burden involved in identity 
verification and the performance of criminal history checks, by 
reducing the need for manual document review and name-based security 
checks. The proposed rule would also enhance the U.S. Government's 
capability to identify criminal activity and protect vulnerable groups 
by extending the collection of biometrics to populations under certain 
benefit requests.
    Table 1 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed provisions 
and their impacts.

               Table 1--Summary of Provisions and Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Expected cost of the   Expected benefit of
       Proposed change              provision          the  provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS proposes to expand        Individuals           Individuals
 collection of biometrics to   Submitting            Submitting
 require any individual        Biometrics--.         Biometrics--
 filing or associated with    Quantitative:.......  Qualitative:
 an immigration benefit or     Total         The
 request to appear for         annual direct costs   proposed rule
 biometrics collection         of the proposed       provides
 without regard to age.        rule:.                individuals
                              [cir] $158,940,196     requesting certain
                               for about 2.17        immigration and
                               million individuals   naturalization
                               to submit             benefits with a
                               biometrics.           more reliable
                              [cir] $138,356,283     system for
                               for about 1.63        verifying their
                               million new $85       identity when
                               biometric services    submitting a
                               fees.                 benefit request.
                                                     This would limit
                                                     the potential for
                                                     identity theft. It
                                                     would also reduce
                                                     the likelihood that
                                                     DHS would not be
                                                     able to verify an
                                                     individual's
                                                     identify and
                                                     therefore possibly
                                                     deny a benefit
                                                     request.
                                                    Government--
                                                    Qualitative:
                                                     DHS would
                                                     be able to
                                                     routinely collect
                                                     biometrics
                                                     information from
                                                     children under the
                                                     age of 14, and
                                                     therefore, increase
                                                     the U.S.
                                                     Government's
                                                     capabilities of
                                                     determining the
                                                     identity of a child
                                                     who may be
                                                     vulnerable to gang
                                                     affiliation, human
                                                     trafficking child
                                                     sex trafficking,
                                                     forced labor
                                                     exploitation, and
                                                     alien smuggling.

[[Page 56366]]

 
                                                     The
                                                     proposed rule would
                                                     provide a benefit
                                                     to the U.S.
                                                     Government by
                                                     enabling DHS to
                                                     verify with greater
                                                     certainty the
                                                     identity of
                                                     individuals
                                                     requesting certain
                                                     immigration and
                                                     naturalization
                                                     benefits. The
                                                     expanded use of
                                                     biometric
                                                     information would
                                                     provide DHS with
                                                     the ability to
                                                     limit identity
                                                     fraud because
                                                     biometrics are
                                                     unique physical
                                                     characteristics and
                                                     more difficult to
                                                     falsify.
DHS proposes to increase the  Government--          Government--
 biometric modalities that    Qualitative:........  Qualitative:
 it uses to collect            DHS does      Use of the
 biometrics information to     not know what the     new biometric
 include the following: Palm   costs of expanding    technologies would
 prints, facial and iris       biometrics            allow DHS to keep
 image, and voice prints.      collection to the     up with
                               government in terms   technological
                               of assets and         developments in
                               equipment; it is      this area and
                               possible that costs   adjust collection
                               could be incurred     practices for both
                               for the new           convenience and to
                               equipment and         ensure the maximum
                               information           level of service
                               technologies and      for all
                               typologies needed     stakeholders.
                               to collect,
                               process, store, and
                               utilize biometrics,
                               including software
                               updates; cameras
                               that are able to
                               collect iris and
                               facial images;
                               devices used to
                               record a voice
                               print; and other
                               equipment.
                               DHS does
                               not know what the
                               costs of expanding
                               biometrics
                               collection to the
                               DHS in terms of
                               assets and
                               equipment; it is
                               possible that costs
                               could be incurred
                               for the new
                               equipment and
                               information
                               technologies and
                               typologies needed
                               to collect,
                               process, store, and
                               utilize biometrics,
                               including software
                               updates; cameras
                               that are able to
                               collect iris and
                               facial images;
                               devices used to
                               record a voice
                               print; and other
                               equipment.
DHS may require, request, or  Individuals           Individuals
 accept the submission of      Submitting DNA        Submitting DNA
 DNA or DNA test results to    Evidence--.           Evidence--
 verify the existence of a    Quantitative:.......  Quantitative:
 claimed genetic               Potential     DNA testing
 relationship.                 annual costs for      would give
                               principal filers      individuals the
                               and beneficiaries/    opportunity to
                               qualifying family     demonstrate a
                               members to submit     genetic
                               DNA evidence range    relationship using
                               from $22.4 million    a quicker, less
                               to $224.1 million     intrusive, and more
                               depending on how      effective
                               many individuals      technology.
                               submit DNA evidence
                               in support of a
                               family-based
                               benefit request.
                              Government--
                              Qualitative:........
                               USCIS
                               currently
                               reimburses the
                               Department of State
                               for the collection
                               of DNA in countries
                               where it does not
                               have a presence.
                               DHS does not
                               currently know how
                               many individuals
                               would submit DNA
                               under the proposed
                               rule but there is
                               the potential for
                               additional costs if
                               the Department of
                               State facilitates
                               additional DNA
                               testing.
DHS is proposing to remove    Individuals           Individuals
 the age restrictions for      Submitting            Submitting
 biometrics collection in      Biometrics--.         Biometrics
 the context of Notice to     Quantitative:.......  Government--
 Appear (NTA) issuance for    None; there would be  Qualitative:
 the same reasons (i.e.,       no opportunity or    The collection of
 identity verification,        travel related        biometrics on
 criminal history background   costs associated      children under the
 checks, etc.).                with NTA collection   age of 14
                               to individuals.       associated with
                                                     NTAs would
                                                     significantly
                                                     assist DHS in its
                                                     mission to combat
                                                     human trafficking,
                                                     child sex
                                                     trafficking, forced
                                                     labor exploitation,
                                                     and alien
                                                     smuggling.
                              Government--
                              Quantitative:.......
                              There could costs of
                               $705,555 annually
                               accruing to fees
                               the FBI would
                               collect for
                               providing
                               fingerprint-based
                               and name-based
                               Criminal History
                               Record Information
                               (CHRI) checks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56367]]

    In addition to the impacts summarized above and as required by 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Table 2 presents 
the prepared accounting statement showing the costs associated with 
this proposed regulation.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ OMB Circular A-4 is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. The primary estimate reported here reflects the average of 
the highest DNA submission rate (100 percent) and the lowest (0 
percent). It also corresponds to the 50 percent midrange along the 
spectrum 10-90 percent that we utilize on grounds that 
realistically, there will be some collection (a positive rate) but 
not complete (100 percent) collection.

                                      Table 2--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement
                                               [$ millions, 2019]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Source citation
            Category              Primary  estimate    Minimum  estimate    Maximum  estimate   (RIA, preamble,
                                                                                                     etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Benefits.............  Not estimated......  Not estimated......  Not estimated.....  Preamble.
Annualized quantified, but un-   0..................  0..................  0.................  Preamble.
 monetized, benefits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified Benefits..........  The proposed rule would limit identity fraud and improve      Preamble and RIA.
                                  USCIS identity management systems. Additionally, the
                                  proposed rule would enhance the U.S. Government's
                                  capability to identify criminal activities and protect
                                  vulnerable populations. The removal of age restrictions and
                                  the proposal to collect on all NTAs under the age of 14
                                  would assist DHS in its mission to combat human
                                  trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor
                                  exploitation, and alien smuggling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs for   (3%) $410..........  $320.4.............  $499.7............  RIA.
 10 year period starting in      (7%) $410..........  $320.4.............  $499.7............  RIA.
 2021 to 2030 (discount rate in
 parenthesis).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but un-   There could be costs germane to the procurement of            Preamble and RIA.
 monetized, costs.                equipment, information technology and typology, and systems
                                  possibly needed to support the increased biometrics
                                  modalities. There could also be a cost to transferring
                                  information regarding biometrics for the NTAs issued to
                                  individuals under age 14.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified)       N/A.
 costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    TRANSFERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers:  N/A................  N/A................  N/A...............  Preamble.
 ``on budget''.
From whom to whom?.............  N/A................  N/A................  N/A...............  Preamble.
Annualized monetized transfers:  N/A................  N/A................  N/A...............  Preamble.
 ``Off-budget''.
From whom to whom?.............  N/A................  N/A................  N/A...............  Preamble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                                                Source citation
 Miscellaneous analyses/category                            Effects                             (RIA, preamble,
                                                                                                     etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on state, local, and/or   None......................................................  Preamble.
 tribal governments.
Effects on small businesses.....  There could be small entity impacts to EB-5 regional        Preamble.
                                   centers incurred by biometrics collection germane to the
                                   regional center principals. DHS believes these would be
                                   indirect but does not know how they could impact the
                                   regional center. There are currently 884 approved
                                   regional centers and DHS analysis based on limited
                                   available suggests that most regional centers could be
                                   small entities in terms of the RFA.
Effects on wages................  None......................................................  Preamble.
Effects on growth...............  None......................................................  Preamble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56368]]

    DHS emphasizes that the costs could vary from the figures reported 
herein. As detailed in the analysis, in order to estimate the 
population of future biometrics submissions, it was necessary to 
extrapolate certain metrics and conditions to the non-existent (in 
context) future populations. Although DHS believes the methodology 
employed is appropriate, because the future actual generalized and 
form-specific collection rate of biometrics are unknown, the actual 
populations and costs could vary. In addition, the costs rely on a 
lower-end average wage to account for opportunity costs associated with 
biometrics submissions. If, on average, the wage is higher than that 
relied upon, the costs could vary as well. This regulatory impact 
analysis is the best available estimate of the future benefits and 
costs. Actual results will depend on a number of factors, including 
policy, programmatic, operational and practical considerations in the 
implementation of the collection of biometrics requirements under this 
rule.
    In summary, the proposed rule would enable USCIS to conduct the 
administration and adjudication of immigration benefit requests with 
increased fidelity, and is conducive to the evolution to a person-
centric model for organizing and managing its records, enhanced and 
continuous vetting, and reduced dependence on paper documents, as is 
described more fully in the preamble.
2. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule
    Current statutes and regulations provide USCIS the authority to 
collect biometrics information with immigration and naturalization 
benefit requests.\62\ USCIS has the authority to collect biometrics and 
the associated biometric services fee from an applicant, petitioner, 
sponsor, beneficiary, requestor, or individual filing an immigration 
request on a case-by-case basis, through form instructions, or through 
a Federal Register notice.\63\ Based on the relevant statutory and 
regulatory authorities, USCIS collects, stores, and utilizes biometrics 
to conduct background checks to determine eligibility for an 
immigration benefit or other request; and, for document production 
associated with certain immigration and naturalization benefits or 
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See generally INA section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103, INA 
section 235(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(3), and INA section 287(b), 8 
U.S.C. 1357(b). For a list of specific authorities, refer to the 
preamble, Section III. Background. A. Legal Authority and Guidance 
for USCIS Collection and Use of Biometrics.
    \63\ See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USCIS biometrics process begins with the collection of an 
individual's biometric information at an authorized location, including 
USCIS offices, ASCs, military installations, and U.S. consular offices 
abroad. Currently, the types of biometrics information that USCIS 
collects generally consist of a photograph, fingerprints, and 
signature. For certain refugee or asylum family-based petitions, USCIS 
also suggests the submission of DNA test results obtained from approved 
laboratories, as either primary or secondary evidence to assist in 
establishing the existence of claimed genetic relationships.
    Although DHS has broad authority to collect biometrics from 
populations associated with immigration benefit requests, collection is 
only mandatory and routine for certain age groups and forms.\64\ As a 
result, there are substantial populations associated with immigration 
benefit requests that do not routinely submit biometrics. In Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2017, for example, about 3.93 million people submitted 
biometrics across 8.53 million immigration applications, petitions, and 
requests, yielding a generalized biometrics collection rate of 46 
percent for that year.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ USCIS routinely collects biometric information and the $85 
biometric services fee from individuals between the ages of 14 and 
79.
    \65\ Multiple people may be associated with one filing or one 
person may submit multiple, simultaneous or sequential requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For individuals who currently do not provide biometric information 
in support of an immigration benefit request, USCIS mainly relies on 
biographical information for identity management in the immigration 
lifecycle. Such biographical information is provided as part of the 
benefit request package.\66\ However, biographical information provided 
by individuals is generally not constant, consistent, or inherently 
unique. For example, biographical information can include an 
individual's height, weight, or other physical characteristics that are 
very likely to change over time and can be similar to the physical 
characteristics of others. Additionally, biographical information 
utilized for identity management in the immigration lifecycle imposes 
an administrative burden for USCIS adjudicators, as the document 
management and review associated with maintaining immigration files and 
verifying identities involve intensive manual processes. Finally, some 
biographical information is not inherently unique by definition, as 
there are numerous individuals around the world share names and dates 
of birth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Biographic information provided by individuals can include 
birth certificates and marriage licenses, among other physical types 
of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some individuals who are not currently required to submit 
biometrics information may pose a risk to vulnerable populations. For 
example, U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident petitioners are not 
currently required to routinely submit biometrics information in 
support of family-based immigrant and nonimmigrant fiancé(e) 
petitions, except for orphan and Hague Adoption Convention-related 
applications and petitions. Accordingly, DHS has limited capabilities 
to determine if a petitioner has been convicted of criminal conduct 
associated with the AWA and the IMBRA.\67\ Moreover, DHS does not 
routinely collect biometric information from children under the age of 
14, and therefore, has limited capabilities to determine the identity 
of a child who may be vulnerable to human trafficking, child sex 
trafficking, forced labor exploitation, alien smuggling, or other 
exploitative transgressions. For example, a vulnerable child with 
similar characteristics to a child who has lawful immigration status 
may be moved across U.S. state and international borders under the 
assumed identity of that other child. Collecting biometrics from 
individuals who do not currently submit such information would provide 
DHS with further data, information, and tools to more effectively 
protect such vulnerable populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ USCIS currently uses name-based checks to determine if a 
petitioner has been convicted of a criminal activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would change current regulations and the overall 
DHS biometrics protocol in several ways. First, DHS proposes to define 
the term ``biometrics'' to clarify and expand its regulatory authority 
to collect biometrics information. Second, DHS proposes to expand the 
collection of biometrics information to require any individual filing 
or associated with immigration benefits or requests to appear for 
biometrics collection without regard to age or U.S. citizenship status. 
The expansion of biometrics would concurrently expand the collection of 
the $85 biometric services fee.\68\ Third, DHS proposes to further 
clarify the purposes for which biometrics are

[[Page 56369]]

collected, stored, and utilized. Fourth, DHS proposes to increase the 
biometric modalities that it is authorized to collect to include the 
following: Palm prints, facial and iris image, voice prints, and DNA. 
Fifth, this rule proposes that DHS may require, request or accept the 
submission of DNA or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA 
profile, to verify the existence of a claimed genetic relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ This proposal would not include any individual that 
receives a fee waiver or any individual who is statutorily exempt 
from paying the $85 biometric services fee. The proposal would also 
remove any existing age requirements for submitting the $85 
biometric services fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would provide the U.S. Government with tools to 
verify with greater certainty the identity of individuals requesting 
immigration and naturalization benefits. The expanded use of biometrics 
technologies and information provides DHS with the ability to 
strengthen national security and limit identity fraud because 
biometrics are unique characteristics and more difficult to falsify 
than biographic information alone. In addition, the use of biometrics 
information for identity verification would be more efficient and 
reduce the administrative burdens associated with verifying identities 
and performing criminal history checks. The proposed rule would also 
enhance the U.S. Government's capability to identify criminal 
activities and protect vulnerable populations. Further, it is conducive 
and relevant to the evolution to a person-centric model for organizing 
and managing of immigration records, enhanced and continuous vetting, 
and reduced dependence on paper documents.
3. Population
    The ensuing analysis presents an extensive array of data points, 
calculations, and technical details. Estimating the populations that 
would be impacted requires multiple interlinked steps across 
overlapping population segments. To assist readability, some key points 
applicable to the biometrics-specific (i.e., non-DNA) proposal are 
presented upfront. DHS identified the baseline population as the annual 
average volume of biometrics submissions, which has been heavily 
concentrated within in a small subset of specific USCIS forms. It is 
necessary to identify this baseline because technically it will be 
impacted by the rule, even though DHS does not expect it to incur 
additional monetized costs. The new populations that the rule will 
impact accrue to the ``expansion'' of the baseline in terms of the 
heavy-concentration forms due to the removal of age restrictions, as 
well as a broadening of biometrics collection to forms in which 
biometrics have not been routinely collected. The expansion of the 
population subject to biometrics would also increase the fee-paying 
population. Because the new populations do not exist yet in context--
including those involving the expanded baseline--DHS must develop 
logically and mathematically sound procedures in order to carry out the 
calculations needed to estimate these populations who are newly subject 
to biometric collection and fees. Such estimation requires 
extrapolations, and while the methodology employed is sound, it is 
possible that the past will not mimic the future, as it relates to a 
specific form, grouping of forms, or biometrics collection in general.
    For the five-year span from FY 2013 to FY 2017, an average of 3.61 
million individuals who filed for an immigration benefit or request 
were required to submit biometrics. In this analysis, DHS assumes that 
this population would continue to submit biometrics, although the 
modalities would expand, as has been noted above and explained in more 
detail in the preamble. First, DHS would collect biometrics from 
certain populations from which DHS already has the authority to collect 
biometrics without a change in the regulations, but does not currently 
do so routinely. The biometrics-submitting population would be 
broadened across form types as a result. Second, the elimination of the 
current age restrictions for submitting biometrics so that individuals 
of any age might be requested to submit biometrics information under 
the proposed rule would expand the biometrics submissions within the 
form types already embedded in the existing population (and will apply 
to the new populations appropriate to the expanded form types). 
Finally, DHS would require, request, or accept DNA evidence from 
certain populations to establish or verify a claimed genetic 
relationship.
    DHS estimates the different populations that would be impacted by 
this proposed rule through five analytical phases. The first phase 
(Phase I) involves identifying the number of individuals who would 
continue to submit biometrics in the absence of this proposed rule. 
This group is referred to throughout this analysis as ``baseline'' 
(interchangeable with ``past,'' ``current,'' or ``existing'') 
population and is derived by using historical biometric submissions 
data. This group would likely face a very minor additional time burden 
to submit biometrics information, including palm prints, facial and 
iris image, or voice prints as a result of this proposed rule due to 
the increased modalities, but DHS did not estimate any additional 
monetized costs for this because the time increase for this group is 
expected to be small.
    In the second phase (Phase II), DHS presents the underlying logic 
and formulas that are used to estimate the additional populations, not 
yet existent in context, that could be impacted by the proposed rule. 
These resultant formulas will be applied to the populations that would 
be impacted by the proposed elimination of the age restrictions, the 
broadening of collection across forms, the biometrics service fee, 
proposal to require, request, or accept DNA evidence to verify a 
claimed genetic relationship. In the third phase (Phase III), DHS 
develops the additional populations that could be impacted as a result 
of the proposed elimination of the age restrictions for collecting 
biometrics and the broadening of biometrics collection. Four such 
formulas are requisite.
    The fourth phase (Phase IV) focuses on the biometric fee payments. 
The final phase estimates the populations that would be impacted by the 
proposed provision to require, request, or accept DNA evidence to 
verify a claimed genetic relationship.
a. Phase I Baseline Data--Populations Who Currently Submit Biometrics 
and DNA Evidence
    In Phase I of this analysis, DHS develops the baseline, as the set 
of biometrics submitted in the past. It is the population who would 
continue to submit biometrics in the absence of the proposed rule, 
including all eligible applicants, petitioners, sponsors, 
beneficiaries, requestors, or individuals who currently submit 
biometrics information at an ASC in support of an immigration or 
naturalization benefit request. Because specific USCIS forms are used 
to request immigration benefits, and biometrics are submitted under 
certain USCIS form types, DHS uses the form type to group data and then 
formulate its baseline population estimates.
    To derive the baseline population, DHS has delineated Phase I into 
five steps. The first step provides a description of the data sources 
and technical approach for deriving the baseline population. Second, 
DHS presents the number of biometric submissions by form. The third 
step quantifies the filing volume for Application to Extend/Change 
Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539) including the total number of 
applicants, co-applicants, and derivative family members, pursuant to 
the following. As of March 22, 2019, DHS started to routinely collect 
biometrics information from all Form I-539

[[Page 56370]]

applicants, co-applicants, and derivative family members.\69\ 
Therefore, DHS includes the Form I-539 population in the baseline. 
Fourth, DHS quantifies the baseline biometrics fee-paying volume. 
Fifth, DHS identifies the number of current DNA tests that are used to 
demonstrate a claimed genetic relationship in support of a family-based 
benefit request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See USCIS, Update: USCIS to Publish Revised Form I-539 and 
New Form I-539A on March 8, https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/update-uscis-publish-revised-form-i-539-and-new-form-i-539a-march-8 
(last reviewed/updated March 5, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Step 1: Data Description and Technical Approach
    Based on current practice, when an individual appears at a USCIS 
facility for a biometrics appointment, their photograph, signature, and 
right index fingerprint is digitally collected and stored in the 
Customer Profile Management System (CPMS) database, which is the USCIS 
data repository for biometrics information. For eligible populations 
between the ages of 14 and 79, ten fingerprints are also collected and 
stored in CPMS. For this baseline analysis, the biometrics collection 
volume data originates from the CPMS database.
    The baseline population consists of individuals who submit 
biometric information under one immigration benefit request. For 
certain forms, as well as for certain biometric appointments, an 
individual may submit biometrics in support of each individual 
immigration benefit request. Under these circumstances, there is a one-
to-one match between the biometrics information submitted and the 
benefit request. However, there are instances where it is possible for 
an individual to have a single biometrics appointment in support of 
multiple forms, meaning the individual would only submit biometric 
information once, and not separately, for each individual immigration 
benefit request. Although this scenario represents a one-to-multiple 
match between the biometric information submitted and the immigration 
benefits requested, the physical act of submitting biometric 
information can be tracked under a primary form type in the CPMS 
database. A form may be logged as the primary form based upon the type 
of biometric data being submitted, the type of benefit being requested, 
or the order with which an individual's paperwork is received. 
Conversely, there are also instances where it is possible for multiple 
individuals to have biometrics appointments in support of a single 
form, meaning one immigration benefit request would yield multiple 
biometrics appointments and collections (i.e., Form I-539 requiring 
biometrics for primary applicant and any derivatives/family members, 
Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition (Form I-600A) 
requiring biometrics for all adult household members, etc.). In the 
baseline population, a single physical biometric transaction is 
accounted for under one primary form type to avoid double-counting.
(ii) Step 2: Baseline Biometric Submissions by Form
    Data captured in CPMS reveals that for the five-year span of FY 
2013 to FY 2017, an average of 3.61 million individuals submitted 
biometrics information annually to USCIS in support of immigration and 
naturalization benefit requests (Table 5).\70\ In FY 2017, a total of 
3.93 million individuals submitted biometrics information compared to 
3.19 million in FY 2013. The largest volume over the period occurred in 
FY 2015, when over 4.20 million individuals submitted biometrics 
information to USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Biometric data can be processed and stored on other USCIS 
systems, but CPMS is the database that represents the aggregated 
collection of biometrics by primary form type. We note that not all 
biometric modalities were covered in every data point we count as a 
biometric submission. The figures in the baseline represent at least 
one type of biometric collected with an associated benefit request. 
In this sense, we treat ``biometric'' as essentially a binary 
action--either it was collected or it was not without passing out 
individual modalities.

                                                     Table 5--Biometric Submissions by Form Grouping
                                                                    [FY 2013-FY 2017]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              5-year
                  Form                        FY 2013         FY 2014         FY 2015         FY 2016         FY 2017         5-year        percent of
                                                                                                                              average          total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Prev-9'':
    N-400...............................         778,172         779,221         772,648         961,092       1,013,252         860,877           23.78
    I-90................................         554,918         790,069         780,050         743,589         770,552         727,836           20.11
    I-765...............................         421,011         391,650         800,711         489,553         588,008         538,187           14.87
    I-485...............................         459,298         506,991         494,664         500,369         547,755         501,815           13.86
    I-589...............................          95,938         116,668         173,248         230,900         304,308         184,212            5.09
    I-821D..............................         350,339         102,192         242,101         125,489         224,899         209,004            5.77
    I-131...............................          89,146          87,012          87,755          88,977          86,299          87,838            2.43
    I-751...............................         185,587         172,478          93,359          71,823          83,417         121,333            3.35
    I-601A..............................          16,381          37,293          48,978          52,654          67,494          44,560            1.23
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prev-9..................................       2,950,790       2,983,574       3,493,514       3,264,446       3,685,984       3,275,662           90.49
Phase III...............................           1,310             944             949           1,307             874           1,077            0.03
Other...................................         240,295         197,593         708,628         327,032         241,730         343,055            9.48
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................       3,192,395       3,182,111       4,203,091       3,592,785       3,928,588       3,619,794             100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over this 5-year period, 90.49 percent \71\ of biometric 
submissions were associated with the following nine forms:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Calculation: 3,275,662 average biometric submissions by 9 
form-types/3,619,794 total biometric submissions = 90.49 percent 
(rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Application for Naturalization (Form N-400);
    b. Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (Form I-90);
    c. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765);
    d. Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status 
(Form I-485);
    e. Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I-
589);
    f. Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Form I-
821D);
    g. Application for Travel Document (Form I-131);

[[Page 56371]]

    h. Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence (Form I-751); and
    i. Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (Form I-
601A).
    Because this set of forms is central to the ensuing analysis, we 
designate their prevalence under the term ``Prev-9.''
    The remaining forms not broken out by specific type in Table 5 have 
been separated into two groups. The first group is referred to in this 
analysis as Phase III Forms and represents the set under which DHS does 
not routinely collect biometrics information, but instead collect 
biometric information on a case-by-case basis.\72\ Under the proposed 
rule, DHS would broaden routine collection of biometrics to these 
existing forms (the new populations apropos to this group are developed 
in Phase III of this analysis, which is why we label them as such, 
although they are not the only set discussed in that phase). From FY 
2013 to FY 2017, the Phase III Forms accounted for a very small 0.03 
percent of total biometric submissions.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ DHS may request biometrics on a case-by-case basis when the 
adjudicating officer would like to establish an identity prior to 
adjudicating a benefit. This could occur when there are any 
potential identify or fraud issues. DHS may also request biometrics 
information in compliance with the AWA or IMBRA.
    \73\ Calculation: 1,077 average biometric submissions by Phase V 
forms/3,619,794 average biometric submissions = 0.03 percent 
(rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second group is referred to as ``Other'' and includes three 
sub-categories of forms. The first sub-category includes forms where 
DHS does not routinely collect biometrics information but does so on a 
case-by-case basis. However, in contradistinction to the Phase III 
Forms, DHS does not plan currently to broadly increase biometrics 
collection for eligible populations under these forms.\74\ The second 
category includes forms where DHS does routinely collect biometrics; 
the overall volume of biometric data makes up less than 10 percent of 
biometric submissions. For these forms, DHS will rely on 
characteristics from Prev-9 to estimate the additional populations who 
would submit biometrics specifically as a result of the proposed 
removal of the age restrictions for submitting biometrics. The third 
category includes forms for which there is no specific form designation 
within the CPMS database.\75\ From FY 2013 to FY 2017, the Other group 
represented just under a tenth, 9.48 percent, of biometric 
submissions.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ For some of the forms in the Other category, biometrics 
submissions were actually zero. However, many of these had very 
small filing volumes as well. For some forms in the Other category, 
DHS is removing the requirement to submit biometrics information in 
support of a benefit request. DHS is removing the biometrics 
requirement because these individuals need to concurrently file with 
other forms where biometrics information is currently required.
    \75\ This may happen when biometrics information has not been 
assigned to a primary form in the CPMS database.
    \76\ Calculation: 343,055 average biometric submissions by Other 
forms/3,619,794 average biometric submissions = 9.48 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Step 3: Filing Volume for Form I-539
    DHS calculates the filing volumes for Form I-539 to account for 
populations who began to routinely submit biometrics information in the 
second quarter of 2019. USCIS made revisions to Form I-539, informing 
the public of DHS's intention to collect biometrics information from 
all eligible nonimmigrant principal applicants, co-applicants, and 
derivative family members. Because DHS started to collect biometrics 
information from the Form I-539 population before the publication of 
this proposed rule, DHS includes this population in its baseline.
    From FY 2013 to FY 2017, USCIS received an average of 280,767 Form 
I-539 applications annually consisting of 199,696 primary applicants 
and 81,017 co-applicants and derivative family members (Table 6). 
Because all Form I-539 applicants, co-applicants, and their derivative 
family members are now required to submit biometric data, DHS relies on 
the historic filing volumes for the baseline number of individuals who 
submit biometric information in support of a Form I-539 benefit 
request.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ DHS expects less than 100 percent of Form I-539 applicants, 
co-applicants, and derivative family members to submit biometrics 
due to the existence of exemptions and waivers. However, DHS is not 
able to identify Form I-539 filers that file concurrently with other 
forms from current existing data sources. Therefore, DHS assumes 
that 100 percent of Form I-539 applicants, co-applicants, and 
derivative family members will submit biometrics for the purposes of 
this analysis.

                                        Table 6--Form I-539 Volumes by Applicants, Co-Applicants and Derivatives
                                                                    [FY 2013-FY 2017]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Sub-population                           FY 2013         FY 2014         FY 2015         FY 2016         FY 2017       5-year avg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Applicant.......................................         149,581         158,513         181,080         216,302         293,004         199,696
Applicants, Co-applicants and Derivative Family Members.          56,643          63,552          73,976          88,236         122,947          81,071
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         206,224         222,065         255,056         304,538         415,951         280,767
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the number of individuals who currently submit 
biometric data, DHS uses the five-year average population of biometric 
submissions for each form type, which includes the Prev-9, Phase III 
Forms, the Other categories from Table 5 and the Form I-539 population 
(Table 6). In total, DHS uses a baseline population of 3,900,561 
average biometric submissions per year, which is comprised of the 
3,275,662 biometric submissions under Prev-9; 1,077 under the Phase V 
form types; 343,055 under the Other form types; and, 280,767 under the 
Form I-539 population. The relevant figures are condensed in Table 7, 
and DHS utilizes these baseline in support of remaining sections of the 
analysis.

          Table 7--Current Biometric Submissions by Categories
                       [Baseline, 5-year average]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              5-year
                      Form category                           average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prev-9 Forms............................................       3,275,662
Phase V Form Types......................................           1,077
Other Forms.............................................         343,055
                                                         ---------------
    Subtotal............................................       3,619,794
+ Form I-539............................................         280,767
                                                         ---------------

[[Page 56372]]

 
    Baseline (Total)....................................       3,900,561
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) Step 4: Baseline Biometrics Fee-Paying Volume
    The proposed expansion of biometrics collection would increase the 
volume of service fees. DHS currently collects the $85 biometric 
services fee payments from all individuals submitting biometrics 
associated with a benefit request unless there are specific age 
restrictions for submitting the $85 biometric services fee associated 
with each benefit request or there is an approved fee waiver.\78\ 
However, several factors warrant consideration before assessing the 
populations that currently submit the $85 biometric services collection 
fee. Foremost, anyone who submitted a biometrics fee by definition also 
submitted biometrics--but the converse does not hold. As such, the 
volume of biometric submissions by primary form does not reflect the 
volume of $85 biometrics service fee payments. This discrepancy is 
primarily due to the existence of fee exemptions and fee waivers for 
immigration benefit requests. DHS grants fee exemptions that are 
required by statute.\79\ Under this proposed rule, the appropriate 
portions of the biometrics fee-paying population will continue to 
receive fee exemptions for biometric services. The current (and future) 
biometrics fee population is by definition smaller than the biometrics 
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Certain benefit requests, such as Form I-765 and Form I-
131, have specific age requirements for paying the $85 biometric 
services fee. DHS proposes to remove these age requirements.
    \79\ See INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7). DHS is 
required by law to permit certain applicants to request a fee 
waivers including Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-
petitioners, INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7), T Visas--
Victims of Severe Form of Trafficking, INA section 101(a)(15)(T), 8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T), U Visas--Victims of Criminal Activity, INA 
section 101(a)(15)(U), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U), Battered spouses of 
A, G, E-3, or H nonimmigrants, INA section 106, 8 U.S.C. 1105a, 
Battered spouses or children of a lawful permanent resident or U.S. 
citizen, INA section 240A(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2), and Temporary 
Protected Status--as in effect on March 31, 1997, INA section 
244(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, individuals may apply for and be granted a fee waiver 
for certain immigration benefits and services.\80\ In general, fee-
waiver requests are reviewed by considering whether the applicant is 
receiving a means-tested benefit, whether the applicant's household 
income level renders him or her unable to pay, or whether recent 
financial hardship renders an inability to pay. With regard to the 
biometric services fee, USCIS waives the $85 fee based on the inability 
to pay if the underlying benefit application is granted a fee waiver. 
For instance, if an applicant receives a fee waiver for a particular 
form filing fee, he or she will generally also receive a waiver for the 
biometrics fee. Under this proposed rule, DHS assumes that the same 
portions of the biometrics fee-paying population would continue to 
receive fee waivers for biometric services fees. In other words, the 
rule does not alter or impact the fee waiver protocol currently in 
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See 8 CFR 103.7(c) and https://www.uscis.gov/i-912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the three-year span of FY 2015 to FY 2017, an average of 
2,771,279 biometric services fee payments were received by USCIS (Table 
8).\81\ DHS uses the average baseline value of 2,771,279 individual 
payments and the baseline volume of biometric submissions to derive 
population estimates for the number of individuals who would pay the 
$85 biometric services fee as a result of the proposed provision to 
eliminate the age restrictions for submitting biometrics and paying the 
biometric services fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ As a result of possible inaccuracies regarding the volume 
of biometric service fee payments in FY 2013 and FY 2014, the fee-
paying volume for biometrics services is only reported from FY 2015 
to FY 2017. The source of the data is USCIS, Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer (OCFO).

                Table 8--Biometric Fee Volumes, All Forms
                            [FY 2015-FY 2017]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fee-paying
                       Fiscal year                            volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015.................................................       2,765,927
FY 2016.................................................       2,746,261
FY 2017.................................................       2,801,648
                                                         ---------------
    Average.............................................       2,771,279
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(v) Step 5: DNA Testing Volume
    The proposed rule would provide USCIS with the authority to 
require, request, or accept DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic 
relationship. The proposed rule would allow relevant filers to use DNA 
evidence to establish a claimed genetic relationship where relevant for 
certain immigration benefit requests, including but not limited to the 
following: \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ As was mentioned earlier in the preamble, DHS recognizes 
that there are qualifying family members, such as adopted children, 
who do not have a genetic relationship to the individual who files 
an immigration benefit request on their behalf. To the extent the 
rule discusses using DNA evidence to establish qualifying 
relationships in support of certain immigration benefit requests, it 
is referring only to genetic relationships that can be demonstrated 
through DNA testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130);
     Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition (Form I-730);
     Application of T Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-914A);
     Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-918A);
     Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 
Nonimmigrant (Form I-929);
     Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600);
     Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate 
Under Section 322 (Form N-600K); and
     Any other form where the existence of a claimed genetic 
relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, derivative, rider, or 
qualifying family member.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ This includes requiring, requesting, or accepting DNA 
testing to establish a genetic relationship with a birth parent in 
the context of a petition to classify a beneficiary as an orphan 
under INA section 101(b)(1)(F) or as a Convention adoptee under INA 
section 101(b)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(F) or (G), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These family-based applications and petitions have been included in 
the proposed rule because DNA testing is a technology that can be used 
to verify a claimed genetic relationship where one is required for 
these benefit requests. Additionally, DNA testing, by verifying or not 
verifying genetic relationships, would help DHS to identify criminal 
activity (i.e., immigration fraud, visa fraud, etc.) and protect 
vulnerable populations associated with human trafficking, child sex 
trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling.
    Certain immigration benefit requestors are currently able to 
establish the existence of a genetic relationship with family who wish 
to immigrate to the United States. The petitioner may submit, on a 
voluntary basis, DNA test results as evidence to establish authenticity 
of the claimed genetic relationship.
    DNA test results are only accepted by USCIS from laboratories 
accredited by the AABB. However, testing occurs between the petitioner 
and his or her claimed biological relative, the latter of whom may be 
located domestically or abroad. In general, the petitioner submits his 
or her DNA evidence at a U.S.-accredited AABB lab, while the 
beneficiary/qualifying family member submits his or her DNA evidence at 
an

[[Page 56373]]

overseas facility.\84\ For DNA evidence submitted at an international 
U.S. Government facility, DHS historically facilitated the collection 
through USCIS Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations (RAIO) 
Directorate's international offices, and it has a memorandum of 
understanding with DOS to facilitate the collection in countries where 
USCIS does not have a presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ DNA tests can be submitted in the United States at an 
accredited AABB lab if the principal and biological family members 
are all in the country. Alternatively, DNA tests can be submitted at 
an official overseas government facility. DHS is only able to 
quantify the exact number of DNA tests where at least one of the 
individuals is submitting his or her DNA evidence overseas. Although 
DHS does not track the location of the petitioner or biological 
family members giving his or her DNA evidence, based on the 
experience of USCIS' Refugee, Asylum and International Operations 
(RAIO), DHS expects that most DNA submissions at overseas facilities 
are from eligible biological family members and most principal 
applicants or petitioners submitting DNA would submit their DNA 
evidence within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data used to make the following calculations come from the RAIO 
Directorate. Table 9 summarizes the total number of DNA tests that were 
submitted to USCIS and DOS in support of immigration benefit requests 
for Forms I-130, I-730, and the Haitian Family Reunification Parole 
Program.\85\ From FY 2015 to FY 2017, a total of 34,150 DNA tests were 
submitted to USCIS including 18,345 DNA tests that were collected by 
USCIS and 15,805 DNA tests that were collected by DOS.\86\ During this 
period, an annual average of 11,383 DNA tests were submitted to USCIS, 
including an average of 6,115 DNA tests collected by USCIS and 5,268 
DNA tests collected by DOS. DHS uses these annual average volumes to 
account for the current collection of DNA evidence in support of an 
immigration benefit request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Only certain family-based benefit requests would be 
impacted by the proposed provision to allow, request, or require DNA 
evidence to establish a biological relationship. The DNA tests 
associated with Form I-130 and Form I-730 are the only family-based 
benefit requests that would be impacted by the proposed rule that 
currently use DNA evidence to establish a biological relationship. 
Additionally, DHS is unable to identify separately the specific 
number of DNA tests associated with each form, the Haitian Family 
Reunification Parole (HFRP) Program, the Cuban Family Reunification 
Parole (CFRP) Program, and the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole 
(FWVP) Program. Therefore, DHS is using the aggregate number of DNA 
submissions to estimate the baseline population.
    \86\ The relevant data and information in Table 10 was provided 
by USCIS RAIO was only available for 3 fiscal years, from FY 2015 to 
FY 2017.

    Table 9--DNA Test Submissions at International Facilities for Form I-130, Form I-730, the Haitian Family
   Reunification Parole Program, the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, and the Filipino WWII Veterans
                                                 Parole Program
                                                [FY 2015-FY 2017]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of DNA
                      Fiscal year                           collections       Number of DNA          Total
                                                              (USCIS)       collections (DOS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015...................................................              7,769              5,748             13,517
2016...................................................              6,735              5,961             12,696
2017...................................................              3,841              4,096              7,937
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................             18,345             15,805             34,150
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Average............................................              6,115              5,268             11,383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Phase II--Formulas for Estimating Additional Biometrics Populations
    New populations would be created by the rule, in context, via the 
general proposals to broaden collection across an expanded set of forms 
and remove age restrictions, and the proposal to allow more DNA 
submissions. Since the populations are not yet existent in context, DHS 
must develop appropriate tools to extrapolate certain conditions 
forward. Here, formulas to estimate the additional populations (and 
sub-populations relevant to specific cost factors) that would be 
impacted by the proposed rule are developed. Specifically, four 
formulas are required, and the purpose of this current Phase II is to 
motivate their underlying logic and setup.
     Biometrics Collection Rate (BCR): A measurement of the 
proportion of biometric submissions out of the total age-eligible 
population within a form type.
     Biometrics Fee Ratio (BFR): A measurement of the 
proportion of biometric services fee payments out of the total age-
eligible biometrics fee-paying population.
     Biometrics Age Multiplier (BAM): A measurement of the 
extra number of biometric submissions for the Other form type category 
due to the proposed elimination of the age restrictions for submitting 
biometrics.
     Dependents Multiplier (DM): A measurement of the number of 
principal applicants or petitioners relative to the number of claimed 
genetic relationships.
(i) Biometrics Collection Rate
    DHS develops a BCR, a formula estimating the proportion of 
biometric submissions out of the total current age-eligible population 
within a form type. In this analysis, the BCR will be applied to 
certain populations to estimate the additional population that would 
submit biometrics. The BCR formula is provided below (Formula 1):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE20.000


[[Page 56374]]


    Where BCR represents the Biometrics Collection Rate for a 
specific form type, BI represents intensity, as the average number 
of individuals who currently submit biometrics information by form 
type in a fiscal year and P represents the volume of age-eligible 
benefit requests associated with a form type by fiscal year.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The BCR for different form types may vary due to the 
eligibility categories and age characteristics of the filers and 
dependents.

    Calibration will be undertaken in the next phase, when the actual 
population estimates are conducted, but we introduce point of 
discussion here. An important consideration relevant to biometrics 
collection for eligible populations under each of the Prev-9 forms 
involves the number of biometric submissions that are collected as a 
proportion of the total filing volume for specific forms. There may be 
a low volume of biometric submissions relative to the filing volume (a 
low BCR). The heavy concentration of biometric submissions within this 
grouping does not map directly to a relatively intense rate of 
biometric collection within each form in this group. The reason is that 
biometrics may be submitted under a separate primary form when someone 
concurrently files multiple immigration benefit requests. As will be 
shown in Phase III, two prevalent forms, Forms I-765 and I-131, invoke 
``artificially'' low BCRs, as biometrics information is only collected 
on certain requests, or, biometrics information may be collected under 
another form if an individual concurrently files multiple forms.
(ii) Biometrics Fee Ratio
    DHS uses the current volumes of biometric services fee payments 
(Table 8) and current volume of biometric submissions (Table 5) to 
estimate the additional populations that would pay the $85 biometric 
services fee (due to the removal of age restrictions and the broadening 
of collection). Although USCIS accounts for the financial inflow of 
resources originating from the $85 biometric services fee, the CPMS 
database accounts for the number of biometric submissions by primary 
form type, which may not match the form type for which the $85 
biometric services fee is collected. For example, an individual 
concurrently files Form I-821D and Form I-765 but would only have to 
submit the $85 biometric services fee with the Form I-765 application. 
However, the individual's biometric information may be logged under 
Form I-821D in the CPMS database. This is true for all form types with 
the exception of Form I-589, as these applicants may not submit 
biometrics information under another form type and they are exempt from 
the $85 biometric services fee. As a result, DHS uses the total volume 
of biometric services fee payments and the overall volume of biometric 
submissions (with the exception of Form I-589) to derive a BFR, a 
formula identifying the portion of individuals who pay the biometric 
services fee out of the total population of those submitting biometrics 
who may be required to pay the $85 biometrics fee.
    The formula for the BFR calculation is provided below (Formula 2):
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE20.001
    
    Where BFR represents the Biometrics Fee Ratio, F is the 
estimated number of individuals who pay the biometric services fee 
in a fiscal year and BI represents the number of biometric 
submissions in a given fiscal year, which was introduced above in 
the BCR setup. The BFR is calculated by comparing the biometric fee-
paying volumes to total biometric submissions (with the exception 
for Form I-589) for each fiscal year, for reasons explained above. 
In FY 2017, for example, a BFR of 0.77 obtains by dividing a volume 
of 2.80 million biometric service fee payments by a total of by 3.62 
million biometric submissions (Table 10). For every known non-exempt 
benefit request with a biometric submission, DHS estimates that in 
2017, 77 percent of individuals pay the biometric services fee 
payment while the remaining 23 percent of individuals receive a fee 
exemption, a biometric services fee waiver, or they fall outside of 
the current age restrictions for submitting the $85 biometric 
services fee. Since the calculation of the BFR is relatively 
straightforward, it is compiled here and referred to downstream as 
needed. Table 10 provides the BFR calculations for each fiscal year, 
including a 3-year average BFR of 0.75 that will be used for 
subsequent calculations.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ DHS notes that the general BFR of .75 is essentially 
weighted by year since it is calculated by dividing the total three-
year fee payments by the three-year volume of biometrics. The 
unweighted (raw) average would be very similar, at .76.

                                    Table 10--Biometric Fee Ratio, All Forms
                                                [FY 2015-FY 2017]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Biometric
                                                                               submissions       Biometrics fee
                      Fiscal year                        Fee-paying volume  (excludes Form I-      rate (BFR)
                                                                                   589)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015................................................          2,765,927          4,029,843               0.69
FY 2016................................................          2,746,261          3,361,885               0.82
FY 2017................................................          2,801,648          3,624,280               0.77
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Average............................................          2,771,279          3,672,003               0.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is noted that the BFR calculation of .75 relies on the total 
volumes across the three years, and is thus implicitly weighted (it 
takes into account the relative magnitude of yearly submissions). 
However, the unweighted average would be very similar, at 0.76.
(iii) Biometrics Age Multiplier
    From FY 2013 to FY 2017, an average of 343,055 biometric 
submissions (just under 10 percent of the total) annually were 
classified as Other. DHS does not explicitly plan to broadly increase 
collection here, but nonetheless, there are populations within this 
classification that could be impacted by the proposed elimination of 
the age restrictions for collecting biometrics. Since this group 
contains non-specific form types, DHS cannot determine the appropriate 
filing volumes, and therefore an additional step (in addition to the 
employment of the BCR, as will be shown) will be needed to estimate the 
new biometrics population under this Other category. DHS constructs an 
age multiplier to estimate the maximum population within the Other 
classification who would submit biometrics information as a result of 
the proposed provision to eliminate the age restrictions for submitting 
biometrics.

[[Page 56375]]

    The relevant metric is an age multiplier based on the proportion of 
filers or benefit requests for individuals between the ages of 14 and 
79 relative to the total volume of filers or benefit requests for each 
of the Prev-9 form types where biometrics are routinely collected. The 
formula for the age multiplier is (Formula 3):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE20.002

    Where BAM is the 5-year average age multiplier for a form type; 
T is the 5-year total number of filers or benefit requests; and, ESP 
(Eligible Sub-population) is the 5-year total number of filers or 
benefit requests between the ages of 14 and 79. To annotate one 
specific example, between FY 2013 and FY 2017, a Form I-485 BAM of 
1.095 is calculated by dividing a total of 670,560 benefit requests 
by 612,148 benefit requests for individuals between the ages of 14 
and 79.\89\ For every Form I-485 benefit request for individuals 
between the ages of 14 and 79, there are approximately 1.095 Form I-
485 benefit requests for individuals of all ages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Calculation: 670,560 average Form I-485 benefit requests/
612,148 average Form I-485 benefit requests between the ages of 14 
and 79 = 1.095 (rounded). When you multiply an age multiplier of 
1.095 by 612,148, the number of Form I-485 beneficiaries between the 
ages of 14 and 79, the resulting figure is 670,032. This figure is 
less than the overall number of Form I-485 beneficiaries (670,560) 
because the age multiplier has been rounded.

    Table 11 provides a summary of the age multiplier for each of the 
Prev-9 form types, including the total number of filers and benefit 
requestors by age segment between FY 2013 and FY 2017. Using these 
figures, the 5-year average age multiplier across all 9 form types 
would be 1.047.

                                   Table 11--Age Multiplier, Prev-9 Form Types
                                                [FY 2013-FY 2017]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Age segments (5-year average)
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
                    Form type                                                     Ages under 14;  Age multiplier
                                                     All ages       Ages 14-79          +79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-400...........................................         850,695         839,601          11,094           1.013
I-90............................................         738,704         703,707          34,997           1.050
I-765...........................................       1,960,672       1,892,366          68,307           1.036
I-485...........................................         670,560         612,148          58,412           1.095
I-821D..........................................         371,068         370,838             230           1.001
I-589...........................................         127,499         111,597          15,902           1.142
I-751...........................................         165,738         164,441           1,297           1.008
I-131...........................................         441,226         409,699          31,527           1.077
I-601A..........................................          45,640          45,633               7           1.000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Average Age Multiplier......................  ..............  ..............  ..............           1.047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contradistinction to the BFR, the BAM is a raw average; that is, 
it is unweighted across form types volumes, such that each form's 
particular value receives an equal weight.
(iv) Dependents Multiplier
    The proposed rule would allow or require certain filers to use DNA 
evidence to verify a claimed genetic relationship in support of certain 
immigration benefit requests, including, but not limited to: Form I-
130; Form I-360, Form I-730; Form I-914A; Form I-918A; Form I-929; and 
any other form where the existence of a claimed genetic relationship is 
at issue for a beneficiary, derivative, rider, or qualifying family 
member. Based on current processes, each individual DNA test would 
incur a separate cost. For instance, a principal seeking a benefit 
request for 3 eligible beneficiaries or qualifying family members would 
incur 3 separate costs for the DNA testing.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The principal would need to pay 3 separate fees. The first 
fee would cover the cost of the DNA test with the first dependent, 
while the second and third fee would cover the additional costs for 
the remaining family members. However, the principal petitioner and 
the dependents would each incur separate travel and time burden 
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, DHS is using a dependents multiplier (DM) to estimate 
the average number of dependents who may be required to submit DNA 
tests with the principal immigration benefit requestor. Specifically, 
DHS calculates a DM based on the proportion of applicants or 
petitioners relative to the number of applications or beneficiaries/
qualifying family members for each of the forms where DNA evidence 
would likely be used to verify a claimed genetic relationship.\91\ In 
certain circumstances, DHS uses the 5-year \92\ average DM to estimate 
the number of applicants or petitioners and beneficiaries/qualifying 
family members who could be eligible to submit DNA evidence under the 
proposed rule. The formula for the DM is (Formula 4):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ In instances where it is possible to identify the claimed 
biological relationship between the principal applicant and 
petitioner, DHS is using only these figures to derive the DM. In 
instances where it is not possible to identify the claimed 
biological relationship, DHS derives a DM based upon the total 
volume of principal applicants and their dependents.
    \92\ DHS uses data from FY 2013 to FY 2017 to make these 
calculations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 56376]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE20.003

    Where DM is the dependents multiplier for a form type in a given 
fiscal year; T is the total number of benefit requests; and P is the 
number of petitioners or principal benefit requests by form type. 
For example, the FY 2017 Form I-130 DM of 1.38 is obtained by 
dividing a total of 455,275 benefit requests for beneficiaries with 
a claimed genetic relationship by a total of 328,737 unique 
petitioners who are directly affiliated with these Form I-130 
petitions.\93\ Based on this approach, DHS is estimating the average 
DM for forms where it is possible to verify the principal filers' 
claimed genetic relationship with beneficiaries or qualifying family 
members, including DMs for Forms I-130, I-730, and I-929. DHS is 
using the average DM for these forms to estimate the number of 
petitioners and beneficiaries or qualifying family members who could 
submit DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic relationship in 
instances where it is not possible to identify the petitioner's 
relationship with the beneficiary or qualifying family member, 
including calculations for Form I-914A and Form I-918A.\94\ The 
calibration for a generalized DM will be provided in the relevant 
following section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Calculation: FY 2017 DM for Form I-130 = 328,737 Form I-130 
eligible benefit requests/455,275 Unique Petitioners = 1.38 DM 
(rounded).
    \94\ For these forms, DHS is only able to identify the number of 
dependents who have an eligibility category based upon a claimed 
biological relationship. All information pertaining to the 
petitioner has been removed to protect the identities of applicants 
and petitioners under Form I-914A and Form I-918A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Phase III--Estimating New Populations That Would Submit Biometrics
    Having first identified the baseline volume of biometric 
submissions and, second, having developed requisite metrics, DHS can 
proceed to estimate the new populations that would submit biometrics 
under the proposed rule. Foremost, Table 12 provides the BCRs for Prev-
9.

                         Table 12--Biometrics Collection Rate (BCR) for the Prev-9 Forms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Baseline
                              Form                                  Biometrics      population          BCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-400...........................................................         860,877         850,695           1.012
I-90............................................................         727,836         738,704           0.985
I-765...........................................................         538,187       1,892,366           0.284
I-485...........................................................         501,815         612,148           0.820
I-589...........................................................         184,212          88,072           2.092
I-821D..........................................................         209,004         370,838           0.564
I-131...........................................................          87,838         409,699           0.214
I-751...........................................................         121,333         164,441           0.738
I-601A..........................................................          44,560          45,633           0.976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 12 reproduces the average five-year biometrics submissions 
(Table 5) and introduces the baseline population--the current age-
eligible population from which the biometrics was obtained (in other 
words, the basis of BCR). An explanation of the results in Table 12 is 
needed before proceeding to estimation. Forms N-400 and I-90 currently 
have complete collection, essentially, which is evidenced by the 
respective BCRs near unity. Forms N-400 and I-90 currently do not have 
age restrictions for biometrics collection. The BCR of 2.092 for Form 
I-765, is driven by derivative family members submitting biometrics 
along with the principal asylum applicants. For the Forms I-765 and I-
131, significant portions of these populations currently do not submit 
biometrics information under these primary forms, and the BCRs are 
artificially low. The primary issue for Form I-765 is the large amount 
of concurrent filings. Form I-131 has concurrent filings as well, but 
the low collection rate is because of the limited number of eligibility 
categories that currently are required to submit biometrics.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Only two eligibility categories under Form I-131 are 
required to submit biometrics. Specifically, all applicants for a 
Refugee Travel Document or a Reentry Permit must complete biometrics 
at a USCIS ASC or, if applying for a Refugee Travel Document while 
outside of the United States, at an overseas USCIS facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the new populations, DHS proceeded as follows. First, 
DHS analyzed Forms I-765 and I-131 separately so removed them from this 
analysis. Second, Forms N-400, I-90, and I-589 essentially have no 
additional eligible population to draw from and have been excluded. DHS 
obtained the average five-year filing volumes for the requisite sub-
group of four forms and subtracted the current baseline. The resulting 
figures shown in Table 13 represent the population for each form that 
currently is not age-eligible but would be under the rule. The BCR for 
each form was multiplied by the new age-eligible population to obtain 
the new biometrics population for each form. The results are presented 
in the last column of Table 13, and total to 48,992.

        Table 13--New Biometrics Population Within the Prev-9 Set Due to the Removal of Age Restrictions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     New  age-                          New
                              Form                                   eligible           BCR         population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-485...........................................................          58,412           0.820          47,898
I-821D..........................................................             230           0.564             130

[[Page 56377]]

 
I-751...........................................................           1,297           0.738             957
I-601A..........................................................               7           0.976               7
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  ..............  ..............          48,992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first component of the new biometrics population is 48,992 
(Table 13 above), obtained above for a sub-group of four forms within 
Prev-9, for which there are three more. Three other sub-groups will be 
examined. As has been stated earlier, the goal is to broadly collect 
biometrics while taking into consideration that there will be 
exemptions and waivers. Consequently, a proxy for BCR for estimation 
should be less than unity, but be positive and relatively high. Table 
14 shows the five BCRs selected from Prev-9, noting that Form I-90 is 
retained here even though collection is almost complete for this form. 
The representative group is assessed to be reasonable and have a good 
deal of range, from .584 to .985. Since it is desirable to have as many 
relevant forms as possible in the proxy collection, we examined the 
BCRs for the remaining forms in the Other category (for cases in which 
the form type was not ambiguous or unspecified) and proceeded to add 
two, which are the only forms peripheral to Prev-9 that have high BCRs: 
Form I-914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; and Form I-918, 
Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status. The respective BCRs for these two 
additional forms, in order, are .952 and .819, as is shown in Table 14.

           Table 14--Average BCR for Set of Appropriate Forms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Selected Prev-9 Forms                         BCR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-90....................................................           0.985
I-485...................................................           0.820
I-821D..................................................           0.564
I-751...................................................           0.738
I-601A..................................................           0.976
Added Forms:
    I-918...............................................            .819
    I-914...............................................            .952
Raw BCR for regrouped set...............................           .8363
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The unweighted (raw) average is utilized because we do not have a 
priori information on which forms (or sub-group of them) would have a 
BCR closest to the not yet existing, in context, rule population. 
Similarly, there is no ``target'' or desired BCR that we seek to impugn 
to the generalized population under the proposed rule. Hence, we use 
the raw average as opposed to a weighted one, because the former 
weights each BCR in the group equally. For the subgroup of forms, we 
obtain the unweighted average BCR of .8363 (or 86.63 percent).
    Equipped with a workable BCR metric to extrapolate, the second new 
population component can be estimated. First, DHS obtained filing 
information for the Form I-765 and was able to parse out filings that 
were non-concurrent with other forms. Excluding the I-765 biometrics 
population submitted in the baseline, there was an average of 1,124,648 
annual filings for which biometrics could be collected in the future. 
Multiplying this population by the BCR of .8363 yields 940,543 
potential new biometrics submissions. We do not have enough information 
to parse out concurrent filings for the I-131, but obtained the 
difference in average filings and biometrics submissions, of 353,388. 
Applying the general BCR yields 295,539 possible new biometrics 
submissions. The total of the two forms is 1,236,082, which is the 
second component of the new biometrics population.
    The third new population component accrues to the set of forms 
described as Phase III forms, in which biometrics is not broadly 
collected on currently, but that DHS plans to routinely collect on in 
the future. DHS obtained the total average filing volume for this set 
of forms, and annotates the discussion with one particular form, 
Application for Regional Center Designation Under the Immigrant 
Investor Program, (Form I-924). As explained in the preamble, DHS will 
collect biometrics for the principals of regional centers. Regional 
center principals are typically key leaders in the center, but 
information concerning them are not captured in formal DHS databases, 
but rather in individual adjudication reports involving the business 
plans. DHS was able to sample 130 Annual Certification of Regional 
Center (Form I-924A) filings from 2017 and found that the average 
number of principals per regional center is 2.6, which we round up to 
three. The average filing figure is 428, which is the annual filings 
for the Forms I-924 and I-924A, which results in a population of 
1,284.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ This population that combines I-924 initial and I-924 
Amendments essentially captures new regional center applications 
plus filings from the 884 regional centers (as of June 13, 2019) 
that are approved by USCIS via earlier initial filings but submit 
revised or updated projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total filing volume for the relevant group of forms, including 
the above estimate for regional center principals, is 1,043,606. 
Subtracting from this total the average of just 1,077 current 
biometrics collections yields 1,042,529, which, when multiplied by the 
BCR of .8363, yields 871,867. This is the third component of the new 
biometrics population, and it is the portion that applies to the dozen 
or so forms for which DHS would routinely collect biometrics under the 
rubric of the proposed rule.
    Denoting the current biometrics collection for the Other category 
as OB,

[[Page 56378]]

which is 343,055 (Table 5), the new population is obtained via the 
equation: OB x BCR x (BAM-1), which yields 13,484. This is the fourth 
and final component of the new biometrics population.
    The four new sub-populations representing future biometrics are 
summarized in Table 15.

                                 Table 15--Summary of New Biometrics Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Group                                  Baseline           New            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regrouped prevalent set.........................................       2,649,637          48,992       2,698,629
Forms I-765/I-131...............................................         626,025       1,236,082       1,862,107
Phase III forms expansion.......................................           1,077         871,867         872,944
Other...........................................................         343,055          13,484         356,539
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Sums........................................................       3,619,794       2,170,425       5,790,219
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Table 15 connotes in the final row, the biometrics submitting 
population will grow by about 2.17 million annually. The baseline 
excludes the biometrics recently collected for the Form I-539. When the 
average biometrics for this form (280,767) are added back, the total 
biometrics submitting population would jump from 3.90 million (the 
current baseline derived earlier in the analysis) to 6.07 million. As a 
result, the generalized biometrics collection rate would rise from 46 
to 71.2 percent (based on 2017 figures).
d. Phase IV--Population Estimates for the Biometric Services Fee
    In Phase III DHS estimated that the biometrics submitting 
population would grow by over 2.17 million due to removing age 
restrictions and expanding collection across more forms. Having made 
this estimate, it is straightforward to take the next step and estimate 
the new biometrics fee paying population. The I-589 population is 
statutorily exempt from the fee, and N-400 applicants over 75 years of 
age do not pay the fee. However, neither of these two forms incurred 
new biometrics population segments, and are thus immaterial to this 
portion of the analysis. There is not a biometric services fee for the 
Form I-821D, to which we subtract the very small number of its 130 
estimated new biometrics submissions (Table 14) from the new 
population. Applying the BFR of .75 to the adjusted new population, the 
new biometrics fee population is 1,627,721 and a total of 4,399,000 fee 
submissions would be collected annually in the future. The fee paying 
population would increase from 32.5 percent to 51.6 percent.
e. Phase V--Expanded DNA Collection
    The proposed rule would allow, request, or require certain 
populations to use DNA evidence to verify a claimed genetic 
relationship in support of certain benefit requests. This current Phase 
V focuses on population estimates for certain benefit requests where an 
individual would be eligible to submit DNA evidence in support of a 
claimed genetic relationship. DNA test results can be used to establish 
or verify a claimed genetic relationship.\97\ Therefore, where 
possible, DHS estimates the number of individuals who would submit DNA 
tests due to the proposed rule by first identifying the total number of 
applicants or petitioners and beneficiaries/qualifying family members 
who may be eligible to submit DNA tests from the total annual volume of 
receipts for the form types including Forms I-130, I-730, I-914, Form 
I-918, and I-929.\98\ DHS then uses statistical characteristics from 
these population estimates to calibrate a DM, which is used to estimate 
eligible populations when there is missing information regarding the 
number of principal applicants or petitioners filing on behalf of their 
beneficiaries/qualifying family members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ DNA test results from an AABB-accredited lab can be used to 
validate a biological relationship. Although there is no expiration 
date for DNA test results examining a specific biological 
relationship, some AABB labs only keep the DNA test results for 
around 30 days. This means the test result documentation would 
either need to be maintained in the applicant, petitioner or 
beneficiary's USCIS file or the documentation would need to be 
maintained by the applicant or petitioner paying for the DNA test. 
For the purposes of this analysis, DHS assumes that any applicant, 
petitioner or beneficiary associated with a benefit request would 
only submit his or her DNA evidence once annually regardless of the 
number of benefit requests with which they may be associated. These 
estimates are made by using a unique ID for each eligible applicant, 
petitioner or beneficiary to include the full name, birth date and 
fiscal year of the form receipt for each individual.
    \98\ DHS proposes to require, request, or accept DNA evidence in 
support of these family-based benefit requests because DNA testing 
is an established technology that can help determine if there is a 
biological relationship between two individuals. Additionally, DNA 
testing for these family-based benefit requests would help DHS 
identify criminals and protect vulnerable populations under AWA and 
IMBRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, Table 16 provides a list of relative categories that a 
Form I-130 petitioner can file on behalf of. Of these different 
relative types, 7 relative types represent a potential for a claimed 
genetic relationship between the petitioner and beneficiary (see 
highlighted Form I-130 relative types). For instance, a Form I-130 
petitioner filing on behalf of a 17-year old child under the 
eligibility category, ``unmarried child under 21 of permanent resident, 
203(a)(2)(A) INA,'' represents one claimed genetic relationship that 
could be verified through DNA testing. To estimate the number of Form 
I-130 petitioners and beneficiaries who could submit DNA evidence, DHS 
quantifies the number of unique petitioners and beneficiaries who 
submit a Form I-130 based on one of the 7 relative types that would 
allow for DNA testing.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ The petitioner may file on behalf of multiple family 
members, and though this includes individuals to whom the petitioner 
is not biologically related, such as stepchildren and adopted 
children, most of these claimed relationships are relationships that 
could be verified through DNA testing. The petitioner would only 
need to submit DNA evidence on one occasion, as would each of his or 
her genetic relatives. . . . In addition, the DNA test results are 
valid indefinitely, meaning the test results could be used in 
subsequent benefit requests if the results are retained in USCIS 
files or the petitioner has an official copy of the test results. 
Therefore, DHS has used the fiscal year time stamp, full name and 
date of birth of the applicant, petitioner, and beneficiary to count 
the number of unique identities within a given fiscal year. This is 
done to avoid instances where one filer may be filing on behalf of 
multiple relatives or the same individuals could be filing multiple 
benefit requests in a given year for which previous DNA test results 
would be valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FY 2017, for example, DHS estimates 466,148 Form I-130 
beneficiaries were classified under one of the 7 relative types that 
involved a claimed genetic relationship.\100\ At the same time, DHS 
estimates that 344,032 Form I-130 petitioners filed on behalf of these 
beneficiaries. Therefore, the FY 2017 DM for Form I-130 is 1.35.\101\ 
In the context of this, there were 11.35

[[Page 56379]]

beneficiaries with a claimed genetic relationship per unique 
petitioner.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Data provided by the USCIS Office of Performance and 
Quality.
    \101\ Calculation: 344,032 Form I-130 beneficiaries/466,148 Form 
I-130 petitioners = 1.35. (rounded)
    \102\ A Form I-130 petitioner must file a benefit request for 
each eligible family member. As a result, these figures represent 
the total number of petitioners and beneficiaries in a given fiscal 
year.

   Table 16--Relative Types Considered for DNA Testing for Form I-130
                              Beneficiaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Husband or wife of U.S. Citizen, 201(b) INA.
Unmarried child (under age 21) of U.S. Citizen, 201(b) INA.
Unmarried son or daughter (21 or older) of U.S.C., 203(a)(1) INA.
Married son or daughter of U.S. Citizen, 203(a)(3) INA.
Parent of U.S. Citizen, 201(b) INA.
Brother or sister of U.S. Citizen, 203(a)(4) INA.
fiancé(e) of U.S. Citizen, 214(k) INA.
Husband or wife of permanent resident, 203(a)(2)(A) INA.
Unmarried child under 21 of permanent resident, 203(a)(2)(A) INA.
Unmarried son or daughter (21 or older) of permanent resident,
 203(a)(2)(B) INA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS Analysis.
* Note: Relatives with claimed genetic relationships are highlighted in
  gray.

    Although DHS is able to estimate the number of eligible genetic 
relationships within the total annual volume of receipts for certain 
form types, such as populations under Forms I-130, I-730, and I-929, 
for other form types the definitive nature of the genetic relationship 
is missing or there is not enough data to provide statistically valid 
inferences.\103\ Therefore, DHS uses the average DM of Forms I-130, I-
730, and I-929, and the average number of eligible qualifying family 
members for Forms I-914A, and I-918A, with a claimed genetic 
relationship to estimate the number of eligible Form I-914 applicants 
and Form I-918 petitioners who could submit DNA evidence under the 
proposed rule.\104\ This grouping of forms are non-exhaustive, as USCIS 
may require, request, or accept DNA evidence to verify the existence of 
a claimed genetic relationship for other forms where the existence of a 
genetic relationship is at issue for a beneficiary, derivative, rider, 
or qualifying family member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Those filing under Form I-914 and Form I-918 are able to 
file a benefit request on behalf of themselves or an eligible family 
member. Those applying for their own benefit request are required to 
file Form I-914 and Form I-918, while those filing for an eligible 
family member are required to file Form I-914A and Form I-918A.
    \104\ DHS uses this approach because it assumes the number of 
applicants or petitioners relative to the number of dependents to be 
similar for these family-based benefit requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From FY 2013 to FY 2017, DHS estimates an average of 328,737 Form 
I-130 petitioners filing on behalf of 455,275 Form I-130 beneficiaries 
with a claimed genetic relationship. Over this same period of time, an 
average of 6,252 Form I-730 petitioners filed on behalf of 11,098 Form 
I-730 beneficiaries with a claimed genetic relationship. Also, from FY 
2013 to FY 2017, an average of 131 Form I-929 petitioners filed on 
behalf of 174 Form I-929 qualifying family members with a claimed 
genetic relationship. The unweighted average DM for these three forms 
is 1.50,\105\ comprising a Form I-130 DM of 1.38,\106\ a Form I-730 DM 
of 1.78,\107\ and a Form I-929 of 1.34.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Calculation: (Form I-130 DM of 1.38 + Form I-730 DM of 
1.78 + Form I-929 DM of 1.33)/3 = 1.50 (rounded).
    \106\ Calculation: 455,275 Form I-130 dependents/328,737 Form I-
130 petitioners = 1.38 (rounded).
    \107\ Calculation: 11,098 Form I-730 dependents/6,252 Form I-730 
petitioners = 1.78 (rounded).
    \108\ Calculation: 174 Form I-929 dependents/131 Form I-929 
petitioners = 1.33 (rounded).

         Table 17--Populations With Claimed Genetic Relationships, Form I-130, Form I-730 and Form I-929
                                                [FY 2013-FY 2017]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Beneficiary/qualifying
                 Form                    Petitioner/applicant   family member  (genetic   Dependents multiplier
                                                                     relationship)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-130................................                  328,737                  455,275                     1.38
I-730................................                    6,252                   11,098                     1.78
I-929................................                      131                      174                     1.33
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average..........................  .......................  .......................                     1.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From FY 2013 to FY 2017, an average of 528 Form I-914A qualifying 
family members and 13,151 Form I-918A qualifying family members 
requested an immigration benefit based upon a claimed genetic 
relationship (Table 17). Applying the average for Forms I-130, I-730, 
and I-929 DM of 1.50 to these populations, DHS estimates an average of 
352 \109\ Form I-914A applicants and 8,767 Form I-918A petitioners 
filing on behalf of qualifying family members with a claimed genetic 
relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Calculation: 528 Form I-929 DNA tests for dependents/1.50 
DM = 352 principal filers (rounded).

[[Page 56380]]



               Table 18--Populations With Claimed Genetic Relationships, Form I-914A, Form I-918A
                                                [FY 2013-FY 2017]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Average dependents
                                          Derived principal       Eligible qualifying      multiplier  (Form I-
                 Form                    petitioner/applicant        family members        130,  Form I-730 and
                                        (genetic relationship)   (genetic relationship)        Form I-929)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-914A...............................                      352                      528                     1.50
I-918A...............................                    8,767                   13,151                     1.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS Analysis using data from USCIS Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ).

    In total, DHS estimates 824,465 individuals who are associated with 
a benefit request based upon a claimed genetic relationship (Table 18). 
Of this total, 344,239 were principal applicants and petitioners who 
claimed genetic relationships with 480,226 beneficiaries/qualifying 
family members. Under the proposed rule, DHS would require, request, or 
accept DNA evidence to establish or verify a claimed genetic 
relationship. However, DHS currently accepts DNA test results for 
11,383 beneficiaries (on average, Table 8). Using the average DM of 
1.50, DHS estimates there are currently 7,589 principal filers who 
submit DNA evidence in support of a claimed genetic relationship.\110\ 
After accounting for the number of individuals who are currently 
submitting DNA evidence, DHS estimates there are 805,493 individuals 
who could be impacted by the proposed rule. Of this total, there are 
336,650 principal applicants and petitioners with claimed genetic 
relationships with 468,843 beneficiaries/qualifying family members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Calculation: 13,151 Form I-918A DNA tests for dependents/
1.50 DM = 8,767 principal filers (rounded).

  Table 19--Populations With Claimed Genetic Relationships, Form I-130, Form I-730, Form I-929, Form I-914A and
                                                   Form I-918A
                                                [FY 2013-FY 2017]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Principal petitioner/      Eligible dependent
                 Form                         applicant          (genetic relationship)           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-130................................                  328,737                  455,275                  784,012
I-730................................                    6,252                   11,098                   17,350
I-914A...............................                      352                      528                      880
I-918A...............................                    8,767                   13,151                   21,918
I-929................................                      131                      174                      305
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................                  344,239                  480,226                  824,465
Baseline.............................                    7,589                   11,383                   18,972
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Incremental............                  336,650                  468,843                  805,493
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Population--NTAs
    Figures were provided by DHS components for FY 2018 for the NTAs 
under age 14, and the relevant population \111\ is 62,716.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ The collection of biometrics will not result in 62,716 
additional NTAs being issued by DHS components, rather this 
population of 62,716 received NTAs in FY2018. Under the proposed 
authority in this rule, DHS estimates that it would issue NTAs to 
the same population but collect biometrics from the under-14-year-
old population that receives an NTA to establish or verify their 
identity.
    \112\ The population figure is broken out as follows: Under ICE 
Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO), Administrative actions, 1,712, 
Criminal cases, 0, and other NTAs, 2,083. Under Homeland Security 
Investigations, 123. Under CBP, Office of Field Operations, 19,340, 
Border Patrol (apprehensions), 39,458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    The benefit-cost analysis is separated into two sections. The first 
section focuses on the total costs of submitting biometrics, including 
the proposed use of new modalities to collect biometric information. 
The increased biometrics services fees are also covered here. The 
second section is concerned with the costs associated with the proposed 
provision to require, request, or accept DNA evidence to establish a 
claimed genetic relationship.
a. Costs to the Biometric-Submitting New Population
    The proposed rule would increase the types of biometric modalities 
required to establish and verify an identity, including the potential 
use of iris and facial image, palm print, and voice print. Although DHS 
would implement the use of these proposed technologies, it does not 
expect a considerable increase in the time burden for an individual to 
submit biometric information to USCIS. Currently, an individual submits 
a photograph as part of their biometrics appointment. Under the 
proposed rule, DHS would be able to collect an individual's iris and 
facial image by using the same process to take a photograph.\113\ 
Similarly, during a biometrics appointment an individual currently 
submits an index finger press print, an 8 fingerprints, or a full `10-
roll' fingerprint. Under the proposed rule, DHS would also collect an 
individual's palm print by using the same procedure and equipment, 
which may take a few additional seconds. The proposed rule would also 
include an individual's voice print, which would take a few seconds to 
record. For these reasons, DHS does not expect the time burden to 
increase substantially beyond the current estimate of 1 hour and 10 
minutes. However, DHS has not

[[Page 56381]]

conducted any pilot programs or field tests to test this expectation. 
Therefore, the population that we have described throughout this 
analysis as the baseline that currently submits biometrics would not 
incur a quantified impact from this proposed rule in terms of costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ The photograph would be taken with a camera that has the 
capacity to collect iris image or facial recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New populations that would submit biometrics would incur the 
opportunity costs of time to submit biometric information at an ASC. 
Because of this, the wage that individuals earn becomes central to the 
cost estimates. DHS will rely on the minimum wage. In some DHS rule-
makings, the estimates of distributional impacts and time related 
opportunity costs were linked to the federal minimum wage. The federal 
minimum wage is $7.25, which, when burdened for benefits by a multiple 
of 1.46, is $10.59 per hour.\114\ This reliance is grounded in the 
notion that most would be new entrants to the labor force and would not 
be expected to earn relatively high wages. In this proposed rule-
making, we rely on a slightly more robust ``prevailing'' minimum wage 
of $8.25. As is reported by the Economic Policy Institute, many states 
have their own minimum wage, and, even within states, there are 
multiple tiers.\115\ Although the minimum wage could be considered a 
lower-end bound on true earnings, the prevailing minimum wage is fully 
burdened, at $12.05, which is 13.8 percent higher than the federal 
minimum wage.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as (Total Employee Compensation per 
hour)/(Wages and Salaries per hour) = $36.32/$24.91 = 1.458 (1.46 
rounded). See https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03192019.pdf. Calculation for annual federal minimum salary: 
Hourly wage of $10.59 x 2,080 annual work hours = $15,080.
    \115\ The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) report (2016) is 
available at: https://www.epi.org/publication/when-it-comes-to-the-minimum-wage-we-cannot-just-leave-it-to-the-states-effective-state-minimum-wages-today-and-projected-for-2020//. There are multiple 
tiers of minimum wages across many states that apply to size of 
business (revenue and employment), occupations, working hours, and 
other criteria. Some of these variations per state are described at: 
https://www.minimum-wage.org (last visited Apr 7, 2020).
    \116\ Calculations (1) for prevailing minimum wage: $8.25 hourly 
wage x benefits burden of 1.46 = $12.05; (2) (($12.05 wage-$10.59 
wage)/$10.59)) wage = .1378, which rounded and multiplied by 100 = 
13.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS is aware that some forms, such as the Immigrant Petition by 
Alien Entrepreneur (Form I-526) and Form I-924 are linked to 
investment-authorization and that the minimum wage may not be realistic 
for these forms. However, the populations associated with these forms 
are relatively very small, and therefore it would not make much 
difference to overall costs to assign them a higher wage. While DHS 
does not rule out the possibility that some portion of the population 
might earn wages at the average level for all occupations, without 
solid a priori information, relying on the prevailing and benefits 
burdened minimum wage is justifiable. DHS welcomes public comment on 
this issue.
    Individuals would need to travel to an ASC for their 
appointment.\117\ DHS estimates that the average round-trip distance to 
an ASC is 50 miles, and that the average travel time for the trip is 
2.5 hours.\118\ The cost of travel also includes a mileage charge based 
on the estimated 50-mile round trip at the 2019 General Services 
Administration rate of $0.58 per mile.\119\ DHS estimates the total 
cost of traveling to an ASC to submit biometrics is $59.13, which is 
the sum of $29 in direct travel costs and $30.13 in time-related 
opportunity costs.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ DHS expects the majority of biometrics appointments to 
occur in the United States at an ASC facility. However, in certain 
instances individuals may submit biometrics at an overseas USCIS or 
Department of State facility. However, because DHS does not 
currently have data tracking the specific number of biometric 
appointments that occur overseas, it uses the cost and travel time 
estimates for submitting biometrics at an ASC as an approximate 
estimate for all populations submitting biometrics in support of a 
benefit request.
    \118\ See DHS Final Rule, Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers 
of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives, 78 FR 535 (Jan. 
3, 2013).
    \119\ The General Services Administration mileage rate of $0.58, 
effective January 1, 2019, available at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-mileage-rates/pov-mileage-rates-archived (last visited Apr. 7, 
2020).
    \120\ We note here that in a particular aspect, the costs that 
would accrue to travel to an ASC may be overstated. It is logical 
that since children cannot drive, families could travel together, 
reducing the number of individuals separately incurring travel 
costs. We do not have salient information for which we could 
quantify this possibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because an individual would spend one hour and 10 minutes (1.17 
hours) at an ASC to submit biometric information, the total opportunity 
cost of time is $14.10 per appointment (separate from the fee and 
travel-related costs).
    DHS estimates the total cost for an individual to submit biometrics 
by summing the opportunity cost of time to submit biometrics and the 
total traveling costs for biometric services. The total cost for an 
individual to submit biometrics is $73.23 without the service fee and 
$158.23 with the $85 fee.
    To determine the annual cost of submitting biometrics, DHS applies 
the previously discussed individual costs to the populations estimated 
in Phase III of the analysis. DHS estimated that 2,170,425 additional 
individuals would submit biometrics under the proposed rule. At a per-
filer cost of $73.23, total biometrics submission costs would be 
$158,940,196. An estimated 1,627,721 new biometrics fee payments would 
generate $138,356,283 in new fee-related costs. The two cost segments 
tally to $297,296,479.
    In terms of biometric collection from individuals encountered by 
DHS for law enforcement purposes, e.g., upon apprehension for removal 
from the United States, under the INA, any scenario there is not likely 
to be a cost to these individuals whose biometrics are collected for 
purposes of NTA issuance. With respect to other DHS components (i.e., 
ICE ERO, CBP OFO, and Border Patrol) individuals who fall into the 
category would generally be in custody when biometrics are collected, 
and, as such, there would be no opportunity costs or travel-related 
costs to the individual . . . USCIS does not take individuals into 
custody, so the biometric collections for USCIS will not be in a 
custodial setting, but will nevertheless result in no cost to 
individuals. USCIS NTA issuance is currently, as well as historically, 
predicated on the denial of an immigration benefit request. USCIS 
resubmits the previously collected biometrics associated with the 
underlying, denied benefit request to the FBI for updated criminal 
history information prior to NTA issuance. We expect that there will be 
some costs that can be monetized that would accrue to USCIS as part of 
the fees it pays to the FBI for Criminal History Record Information 
(CHRI) checks submitted by authorized users (it is noted that law 
enforcement agencies within DHS do not pay the fee, but USCIS is not a 
law enforcement agency). There could be relatively minor costs to USCIS 
associated with transferring background check data. The fee that the 
FBI charges to USCIS was revised most recently to $11.25 at 83 FR 
48335.\121\ Based on the population of 62,716, the costs annually would 
be $705,555 (62,716 NTAs multiplied by $11.25). Adding this to the 
biometrics costs above yields a total cost of $298,002,034 annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ The notice, with an effective date of January 1, 2019, is 
found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/24/2018-20644/fbi-criminal-justice-information-services-division-user-fee-schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over a 10-year time period, in non-discounted terms, the costs 
would be $2,980 million. At three and seven percent rates of discount, 
the 10-year present values of the combined costs are, in order, $2,542 
million and $2,093 million. Since the annual inputs to the discounting 
system is the same each year, the average annualized

[[Page 56382]]

equivalence cost, at either rate of discount, is the same as the non-
discounted annual cost, which is $298 million.
b. Costs Involving DNA Submissions
    The second section of this analysis evaluates the total cost of 
submitting DNA evidence in support of a benefit request. DHS performs 
this analysis by first considering the fees associated with submitting 
evidence for DNA testing. Next, DHS considers the time burden for 
submitting DNA evidence. Finally, DHS addresses the travel and time 
burden costs of traveling to an accredited AABB lab and an overseas 
USCIS or DOS facility. The compilation of these costs segments will 
comprise the total costs involving new DNA submissions.
    The process for submitting DNA evidence begins when the principal 
applicant or petitioner submits DNA evidence at an accredited AABB 
laboratory, including a fee of approximately $440 to test the first 
genetic relationship, and $220 for each additional test.\122\ The 
principal applicant or petitioner would pay the fee directly to the 
accredited AABB laboratory. For beneficiaries/qualifying family members 
outside of the United States, a DNA testing kit is sent from the AABB 
lab to a USCIS or DOS facility located overseas.\123\ For all DNA tests 
conducted outside of the United States, the beneficiaries/qualifying 
family members would be responsible for paying a trained professional 
who swabs his or her cheek to collect the DNA sample. DHS estimates 
this DNA swab test would cost the beneficiary an average of $100 per 
DNA collection.\124\ Therefore, for a DNA test conducted overseas, the 
total cost would be $540 to test the first genetic relationship and 
$320 for each additional test.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ United States Department of State, P-3 Frequently Asked 
Questions: DNA, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, 
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.
    \123\ DHS expects most DNA tests for dependents to occur at an 
overseas facility. However, it is possible for a dependent to submit 
their DNA evidence at an AABB lab.
    \124\ USCIS International Operations Division (IO) in the 
Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate (RAIO) 
estimates $100 for such costs.
    \125\ Calculation (total DNA Cost when 1st Beneficiary is 
Residing Overseas) = $440 DNA Test + $100 Swab Fee = $540. 
Calculation (total DNA Cost for Each Additional Beneficiary Residing 
Overseas) = $220 DNA Test + $100 Swab Fee = $320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS does not currently track the time burden estimates for 
submitting DNA evidence at an AABB accredited lab or to a trained 
professional at a U.S. Government/DOS international facility. 
Therefore, DHS does not attempt to quantify these specific costs in the 
proposed rule. Similarly, DHS does not currently track the travel cost 
or time burden for traveling to an AABB lab. However, most AABB labs 
have affiliates throughout the country where applicants and petitioners 
can submit DNA evidence. There would be added travel/other costs 
involved, and DHS welcomes public comment on such costs.
    Some petitioners and beneficiaries/qualifying family members who 
submit DNA evidence to establish a genetic relationship in support of a 
benefit request would have to travel to an international USCIS or DOS 
U.S. Government office. Once again, DHS does not have specific 
information regarding the distance needed to travel to an approved 
international facility. Furthermore, DHS expects the travel distance to 
visit an overseas U.S. Government office to be higher due to a limited 
presence in most foreign countries.
    In the first year this rule becomes effective, DHS estimates there 
would be a maximum of 336,650 principal applicants or petitioners 
filing on behalf of 468,843 beneficiaries/qualifying family members 
based upon a claimed genetic relationship. Because the DNA testing 
costs decline once the first genetic relationship has been tested, DHS 
estimates there are 336,650 DNA tests affiliated with the first DNA 
test and 132,193 DNA tests affiliated with additional family 
members.\126\ Based on these possibilities the total DNA testing fees 
would be $224,092,760, which comprise $181,791,000 to test a first 
genetic relationship and $42,301,760 to test additional family members 
with a claimed genetic relationship (Table 20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Calculation: 468,843 beneficiaries/qualifying family 
members with a claimed biological relationship--336,650 principal 
applicants or petitioners = 132,193 DNA tests for additional family 
members.

                                    Table 20--DNA Tests and Associated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Eligible beneficiaries/
                                        Principal petitioner/      qualifying family
            Population/fee               applicant  (genetic       members  (genetic              Total
                                            relationship)            relationship)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA Fees:
    Population.......................                  336,650                  132,193                  468,843
    Test Fees........................                  $540.00                  $320.00
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost...................             $181,791,000              $42,301,760             $224,092,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS Analysis using data from USCIS Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ) and Refugee, Asylum and
  International Operations.

    Because DHS does not know with certainty how many individuals would 
be requested or required (or would elect to submit) DNA evidence to be 
used to verify a claimed genetic relationship, we present the following 
sensitivity analysis in order to cover potential range of costs. Table 
21 shows the range of values for the percentage of principal applicants 
or petitioners and the percentage of beneficiaries/qualifying family 
members who would be eligible to submit DNA evidence in support of a 
benefit request under this proposed rule.

                           Table 21--Total Range of Costs for Submitting DNA Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
   Percent of principal petitioners/applicants and dependents        principal       Number of      Total cost
                     submitting DNA evidence                        petitioners     dependents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10%.............................................................          33,665          46,884     $22,409,276
20%.............................................................          67,330          93,769      44,818,552

[[Page 56383]]

 
30%.............................................................         100,995         140,653      67,227,828
40%.............................................................         134,660         187,537      89,637,104
50%.............................................................         168,325         234,422     112,046,380
60%.............................................................         201,990         281,306     134,455,656
70%.............................................................         235,655         328,190     156,864,932
80%.............................................................         269,320         375,074     179,274,208
90%.............................................................         302,985         421,959     201,683,484
100%............................................................         336,650         468,843     224,092,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS will not attempt to discount all of the range, above, and 
instead provides low, midrange, and high-end estimates. Since it is 
reasonable to assume that some collection will occur, but, that it will 
not be complete (100 percent), we set the range values at 10, 50, and 
90 percent. In that order, the undiscounted ten-year costs in millions 
are $224.1, $1,120.5, and $2.016.8. In order again, the ten-year 
discounted present values at a 3 percent rate of discount, are, in 
millions, $191.2, $955.8, and $1,720.4. In order again, the ten-year 
discounted present values at a 7 percent rate of discount, are, in 
millions, $157.4, $787.0, and $1,416.5. The biometrics consist of a 
photograph, fingerprints, and signature to conduct identity, 
eligibility, national security, criminal history background checks, and 
in certain situations, biological average annualized equivalence costs 
are the same at either rate of discount and correspond to the 
undiscounted figures in Table 21. Having parsed out the biometrics 
(which includes the service fees and NTA fees) costs and the DNA-
related costs, the two bins can next be collated to estimate the total 
costs of the proposed rule. For this we present Table 22, which 
provides the undiscounted and discounted costs based on the three DNA 
data-range points suggested above.

                         Table 22--Total Monetized Costs of the Proposed Biometrics Rule
                                                   [Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   DNA-midrange      DNA-high
                                                                  DNA-low  (10%)       (50%)           (90%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 year costs:
     Undiscounted.......................................        $3,204.1        $4,100.5        $4,996.9
     3% discount........................................         2,733.2         3,497.8         4,262.4
     7% discount........................................         2,250.4         2,880.0         3,509.6
Average Annual:
     Undiscounted.......................................           320.4           410.0           499.7
     3% discount........................................           320.4           410.0           499.7
     7% discount........................................           320.4           410.0           499.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Costs to the Federal Government
    Under the proposed rule, three cost modules could impact the 
Federal Government. The first cost module is attendant with the 
capacity of DHS to process biometrics for additional populations. As 
previously stated, the population that would submit biometrics at an 
ASC would increase due to elimination of the age restrictions and the 
expansion of collection across a broadened set of form types. In annual 
terms, the population that would submit biometrics would increase from 
a baseline volume of 3,900,561 to an estimated volume of 6,070,986. 
This increase would represent an increase of 2.17 million annual 
biometric submissions and pull up the general collection rate across 
all USCIS forms above 70 percent.
    The DHS ASC contract was designed to be flexible in order to 
process varying benefit request volumes. The pricing mechanism within 
this contract embodies such flexibility. Specifically, the ASC contract 
is aggregated by USCIS District and each District has five volume bands 
with its pricing mechanism. As a general principle, the pricing 
strategy takes advantage of economies of scale in that larger biometric 
processing volumes have smaller corresponding biometric processing 
prices.\127\ For example, Table 23 provides an illustrative example of 
the pricing mechanism for a USCIS District. This particular district 
has a monthly fixed cost of $25,477.79, which would cover all biometric 
submissions under a volume of 8,564. However, the price per biometric 
submission decreases from an average cost of $6.66 for volumes between 
a range of 8,565 and 20,524 to an average of $5.19 once the total 
monthly volume exceeds 63,503. In other words, average cost is a 
decreasing function of the biometrics submissions volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ Economies of scale is a technical term that is used to 
describe the process whereby the greater the quantity of output 
produced (in this case more biometric service appointments) the 
lower the per-unit fixed cost or per-unit variable costs.

[[Page 56384]]



            Table 23--Illustrative Pricing Mechanism for a District Processing Biometric Appointments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                District X                      Volume band         Min volume      Max volume         Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: Fixed price per month..........  AA...................               0           8,564      $25,477.79
Fixed price per person processed.........  AB...................           8,565          20,524            6.66
Fixed price per person processed.........  AC...................          20,525          31,752            5.94
Fixed price per person processed.........  AD...................          31,753          63,504            5.53
Fixed price per person processed.........  AE...................          63,505          95,256            5.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS, Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate (IRIS).

    In addition, the maximum monthly volume of biometric submissions 
allowed by the current ASC contract is 1,633,968 and the maximum annual 
volume is 19,607,616. It is important to note that these are 
theoretical volumes, as DHS has never processed this many applicants in 
a month or in a year. However, based on the current ASC contract, DHS 
expects that an additional 2.17 million biometric submissions per year 
would not impact DHS' ability to process these additional populations. 
In addition, DHS does not expect the Federal Government to incur 
additional costs as a result of the additional volumes that may submit 
biometrics under the proposed rule due to the diminishing cost 
structure presented in Table 23. Stated differently, even though 
volumes could vary from those estimated in this analyses, the upper 
bound on the maximum volume stipulated by the ASC contract is many 
times greater than the realistic volume increase due to the proposed 
rule (and is in fact greater than the total volume of USCIS filings). 
It is noted here that our claim against rising costs to ASCs is based 
on the total volume of the ASC contract and the total volume of 
expected biometric submissions; and, the example we provided showing 
decreasing unit costs (on average) was for a specific USCIS processing 
district. It is possible that for any individual district, the volume 
of new biometrics submissions might pull the totals to a level that 
would surpass the budget allocation for that district. If this occurs, 
costs could conceivably rise or budgets may need to be increased. While 
the above discussion centers on USCIS budgetary costs, it is possible 
that real resource costs to the economy could accrue to higher volumes.
    The second cost module accrues to the ability to use and implement 
the proposed modalities, such as iris and facial images, palm print, 
and voice print, to collect biometrics in support of a benefit request. 
Although DHS is not currently able to quantify the aggregate cost for 
implementing the proposed modalities, it does calculate a unit cost 
estimate to provide an demonstrative example of the costs that may be 
incurred by the Federal Government.
    The camera that is currently used to collect an applicant, 
petitioner, beneficiary or sponsor's photograph has a unit cost of 
$471.\128\ Under the proposed rule, a camera that has the capacity to 
collect iris image or facial recognition would cost an average of $650, 
representing an additional cost of $179 per camera.\129\ DHS does not 
know yet whether existing cameras could be upgraded to collect iris 
images and facial recognition, so it is possible that the rule would 
result in costs equal to the full costs of replacing cameras ($650 plus 
any costs of removing old cameras and installing new ones). However, 
DHS believes that because the current cameras were purchased in 2016, 
USCIS likely would have refreshed these cameras before the 
implementation date of this rule, even in the absence of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Source: USCIS, IRIS.
    \129\ Calculation: $650-$471 = $179 additional cost to purchase 
a camera that can collect iris print or facial images.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule, palm print may also be used for identity 
management in the immigration lifecycle. While DHS currently has the 
equipment that could collect the palm print of an individual, there may 
be some computing software updates that would need to be modified to 
accommodate the appropriate collection of this biometric evidence. 
Although DHS does not have cost estimates for such software or any 
associated information technology typology at this time, it has no 
reason to expect that such software updates would impose significant 
costs. Another modality that may be used to collect biometrics is 
related to an individual's voice print. It is possible to collect a 
voice print using standard electronic equipment such as microphones 
installed in cell phones, desk phones, computers, and laptops. However, 
USCIS, in collaboration with DHS Science and Technology, is searching 
for a cost-effective and ergonomic device that will ensure, among other 
things, the quality of the recording; provide consistency across 
different communication networks (e.g., network carriers such as AT&T 
and Verizon); and, ensure enough flexibility to accommodate individuals 
with various physical characteristics, but does not know yet how many 
such devices it may need to procure.\130\ At this time, DHS is not 
planning to procure expensive or specialized equipment to collect an 
individual's voice print. DHS cannot predict the costs of such 
equipment at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ The device would have similar features to a webcam and it 
would be able to adjust for a person's height.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third cost module involves the costs of facilitating DNA 
collection to establish or verify a claimed genetic relationship. As 
previously stated, individuals submitting DNA evidence in the United 
States would be responsible for paying the associated DNA testing fees. 
However, when the applicant, petitioner, or beneficiary/qualifying 
family member submits DNA evidence outside of the United States, DHS 
facilitates DNA collection at USCIS Government offices or, if USCIS 
does not have an office in that country, DOS has agreed to facilitate 
collection of DNA.
    DHS does not currently charge a fee for facilitating the collection 
of DNA. At this time, DHS plans to incur all future costs for 
facilitating the collection of DNA evidence. As previously stated, DOS 
facilitates the collection of DNA and USCIS reimburses DOS on a per 
case basis. Table 24 provides a summary of costs associated with DNA 
collection facilitated by DOS. From FY 2015 to FY 2017, USCIS paid DOS 
an average of $263.95 per DNA collection facilitated by DOS.\131\ Of 
the average 11,383 DNA tests that were used to establish a genetic 
relationship annually between FY 2015 and FY 2017, DHS facilitated 53.7 
percent \132\ and DOS facilitated 46.3 percent.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Calculation: $1,390,595 Average Cost/5,268 average number 
of DNA tests = $263.95 (rounded).
    \132\ Calculation: 6,115 USCIS-facilitated DNA tests/11,383 
total DNA tests = 53.72 percent (rounded).
    \133\ Calculation: 5,268 DOS-facilitated DNA tests/11,383 total 
DNA tests = 46.28 percent (rounded).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 56385]]

    DHS is unable to project how many new DNA tests facilitated by DOS 
will take place annually. DHS will not be conducting a DNA test for all 
the applications or petitions where a genetic relationship is relevant 
or claimed. Instead, DHS will only require or request DNA when a 
claimed genetic relationship cannot be verified through other/
documentary means. In addition, applicants can volunteer on their own 
to submit DNA, but DHS has no method to project the number of people 
who will submit it. Additionally, a percentage of people will receive a 
request from USCIS to appear for DNA collection, but will fail to 
appear (resulting in no collection). For the reasons, projecting a 
number is difficult.

                                          Table 24--USCIS Costs per Overseas DNA Collection Facilitated by DOS
                                                                    [FY 2015-FY 2017]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Avg. cost per
                                                                        # of DNA           # of DNA                         Total cost       DNA test
                           Fiscal year                                collections        collections     Total DNA tests      for DOS       facilitated
                                                                        (USCIS)             (DOS)                          facilitation       by DOS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015.............................................................              7,769              5,748          13,517       $1,862,697         $324.06
2016.............................................................              6,735              5,961          12,696        1,368,646          229.60
2017.............................................................              3,841              4,096           7,937          940,442          229.60
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................             18,345             15,805          34,150        4,171,785
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average......................................................              6,115              5,268          11,383        1,390,595          263.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USCIS analysis using data from Refugee, Asylum and International Operations.

d. Benefits to the Federal Government, Applicants, Petitioners, 
Sponsors, Beneficiaries, Requestors, or Individuals Filing an 
Immigration Request
    The proposed rule provides individuals requesting certain 
immigration and naturalization benefits with a more reliable system for 
verifying their identity when submitting a benefit request. This would 
limit the potential for identity theft and reduce the likelihood that 
DHS would not be able to verify an individual's identity and 
consequently deny an otherwise approvable benefit. In addition, the 
proposed rule would allow individuals to use DNA testing as primary or 
secondary evidence to establish or verify a claimed genetic 
relationship.\134\ According to AABB, DNA testing provides the most 
reliable scientific test currently available to establish a genetic 
relationship.\135\ Therefore, DNA testing would give individuals the 
opportunity to demonstrate a genetic relationship using a more 
expedient, less intrusive, and more effective technology than the blood 
tests currently provided for in the regulations. See 8 CFR 
204.2(d)(2)(vi)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Currently, DNA evidence is only used as secondary 
evidence, after primary evidence (e.g., medical records; school 
records) have proved inconclusive.
    \135\ AABB, Standards for Relationship Testing Laboratories, 
App. 9--Immigration Testing. (13th ed. Jan. 1, 2018), available at 
https://www.aabb.org/sa/Pages/Standards-Portal.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would provide a benefit to the U.S. Government by 
enabling DHS to know with greater certainty the identity of individuals 
requesting certain immigration and naturalization benefits. The 
expanded use of biometrics would provide DHS with the ability to limit 
identity fraud because biometrics are unique physical characteristics 
and more difficult to falsify. In addition, using biometrics for 
identity verification would reduce the administrative burden of manual 
paper review involved in verifying identities and performing criminal 
history checks.
    The proposed rule would also enhance the U.S. Government's 
capability to identify criminal activity and protect vulnerable 
populations. For example, the proposed provision to collect biometrics 
of U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident petitioners of family-
based immigrant and nonimmigrant fiancé(e) petitions would 
enable DHS to determine if a petitioner has been convicted of certain 
crimes under the AWA and IMBRA. The proposed rule would also improve 
the capability of the U.S. Government to combat human trafficking, 
child sex trafficking, forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. 
Currently, individuals under the age of 14 do not routinely submit 
biometrics in support of a benefit request. As a result, DHS' system 
for verifying the identity of vulnerable children is not as robust as 
it could be. For example, a vulnerable child with similar biographical 
characteristics to a child who has lawful immigration status in the 
United States may be moved across the border under the assumed identity 
of that other child, although DHS does not have specific data to 
identify the entire scope of this problem.\136\ Under the proposed 
rule, DHS would be able to use biometrics to verify a child's identity, 
which would be particularly useful in instances where biometrics are 
used to verify the identities of UAC and AAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See generally, Department of Homeland Security Strategy to 
Combat Human Trafficking, the Importation of Goods Produced with 
Forced Labor, and Child Sexual Exploitation (January 2020). https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0115_plcy_human-trafficking-forced-labor-child-exploit-strategy.pdf. See also, ``ICE 
HSI El Paso, USBP identify more than 200 'fraudulent families' in 
last 6 months,'' ICE News Release, dated October 17, 2019. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-hsi-el-paso-usbp-identify-more-200-fraudulent-families-last-6-months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There could be some unquantified impacts related to privacy 
concerns for risks associated with the collection and retention of 
biometric information, as discussed in DHS's Privacy Act compliance 
documentation. However, this rule would not create new impacts in this 
regard but would expand the population that could have privacy 
concerns.
    Finally, the provisions proposed in this biometrics rule provide 
DHS with the flexibility needed to implement, and are conducive to and 
compatible with, the USCIS evolution toward a person-centric model for 
organizing and managing its records, enhanced and continuous vetting, 
and a reduced dependence on paper documents.
5. Other Impacts
    DHS does not expect that the proposed rule would create impacts to 
the national labor force or that of individual states. In addition, DHS 
does not expect tax impacts or any distributional impacts from the 
proposed rule.
    In the below supplemental section, information and data is provided 
concerning additional DHS component activity linked to this proposed 
rule.

[[Page 56386]]

Summary
    Under this proposed rule DHS will authorize biometric collection 
from aliens regardless of age during enforcement actions requiring 
identity verification. In addition, DHS will be authorized collect 
biometrics, such as DNA, to verify claimed genetic relationships in 
cases where we suspect fraud. The authority to collect biometrics 
without any age restrictions will aid in criminal investigations or to 
identify victims in human trafficking cases and child smuggling.
    As a result of this proposed rule, DHS will be able to collect the 
biometrics of all minors during their initial immigration enforcement 
processing, which will require some operational changes for agents in 
the field. No new resources or system changes would be required as a 
result of this proposed rule. The current equipment, including the 
mobile biometrics units and the databases used to record the case files 
of aliens in custody, have the capabilities and capacity to include 
biometrics for the new population cohorts of under 14 years old and 
over 79 years old. The most significant impact will be informing and 
retraining staff of the change.
Background
    Currently, the use of DNA is almost exclusively used to support the 
investigation of criminal cases when ICE is prosecuting aliens. The 
removal of age limits for the collection of biometrics and 
simultaneously authorizing DNA testing in order to verify a claimed 
genetic relationship under the proposed rule will assist ICE in 
performing functions necessary for effectively administering and 
enforcing immigration and naturalization laws.
    Currently, when ICE arrests an alien, fingerprints are collected as 
part of the process of building an A-file on the alien. A handheld 
mobile biometrics application called ``EDDIE'' is used to facilitate 
the collection and recordkeeping of aliens in ICE custody. This 
handheld application effectively and efficiently collects fingerprints 
and photographs in about 30 seconds, which are then transferred to 
IDENT. Collecting biometrics is essential to determining what action to 
take in an individual's immigration case. ICE does this by sending a 
query to IDENT and multiple databases managed by the FBI. The results 
from this query will reveal the individual's immigration history, 
including past removal orders, criminal charges, or historical 
custodial information from CBP or ICE.
    As part of current procedures, ICE collects fingerprints from 
aliens (between the ages of 14 years and 79 years) when they are first 
encountered and when they are being removed. In FY 2018, ICE made 
158,581 administrative arrests, which includes the taking of 
fingerprints and, if it is the individual's first encounter with DHS, 
creating a file. As part of the removal process, ICE will take a 
person's fingerprints again to verify identity prior to departure; in 
FY 2018, 256,085 individuals were removed, including 2,711 family units 
(at least one adult and one child) and 5,571 UAC. Table S1 provides 
data on ICE arrests and removals, noting that ICE ``Arrests'' represent 
only arrests by ICE law enforcement personnel, are generally within the 
boards of the continental United States, and do not include the cases 
that CBP initially apprehends and referrers to ICE for detention.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2016         FY 2017         FY 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Table S1(A)--ICE Arrests \137\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Arrests..........................................         110,104         143,470         158,581
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Table S1(B)--ICE Removals \138\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult...........................................................         240,255         226,119         256,085
Family Units....................................................           1,728           2,326           2,711
UAC.............................................................           2,545           3,598           5,571
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, ICE collects DNA in two limited situations, first, on a 
case-by-case basis to identify instances of fraudulent claims of 
biological relationships at the border and, second, to support the 
investigation of criminal prosecutions. This NPRM relates to the first 
ICE purpose of DNA collection, specifically, to identify instances of 
fraudulent claims of biological relationships at the border. This fraud 
scheme generally involves adult non-U.S. persons and unrelated children 
posing as family units to DHS authorities. Family unit fraud can lead 
to, or stem from, other crimes, including immigration violations, 
identity and benefit fraud, alien smuggling, human trafficking, foreign 
government corruption, and child exploitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations 
Report, available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/eroFY2018Report.pdf.
    \138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS initiated a pilot program in FY 2019 to combat fraudulent 
family claims using Rapid DNA testing kits provided through a contract 
with a vendor for $5.28 million. The contract included an estimated 
50,000 DNA testing kits, and equipment to enable the collection of DNA 
from an individual using a cheek swab, and running an analysis using a 
desktop unit. Results from this process takes approximately 90 minutes. 
The collection of Rapid DNA profiles for identification and comparison 
can only be applied for determining if a family unit exists. As such, 
any Rapid DNA profile match that is less than a parent-child match 
(i.e., less than a 99.5 percent DNA profile match) will be considered a 
negative match under ICE's Rapid DNA testing.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Privacy Impact Assessment for the Rapid DNA Operational 
Use https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-rapiddna-june2019_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Population
    As part of its enforcement actions, ICE encounters two types of 
minors, those accompanied by an adult purported family member and those 
not accompanied by an adult family member. All minors will go through 
ICE's current initial book-in process, which includes collecting 
fingerprints and, when needed, a photograph. However, under the 
proposed rule minors, regardless of age, will also have their 
biometrics collected and enrolled in IDENT. Table S2 breaks out ICE 
UACs Taken into custody be certain age groups.

[[Page 56387]]



                                      Table S2--UACs Taken Into ICE Custody
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    FY 2018 YTD
                   Age groups                         FY 2015         FY 2016         FY 2017       (4/21/2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-4 years.......................................             674           1,176             853             549
5 years-14 years................................           9,466          17,096          11,300           5,310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The removal of age restrictions associated with biometrics 
collection, specifically those found at 8 CFR 215.8 and 8 CFR 235.1, 
will also impact CBP operations. CBP currently has the authority to 
collect biometrics for individuals applying for admission to the United 
States at points of entry (POEs) only if they are age 14 and above and 
under the age of 79. See 8 CFR 235.1. CBP has the same authority, and 
restrictions, for those departing the United States at POEs. See 8 CFR 
215.8. CBP data on applicants for admission are included below at Table 
S3.

                  Table S3--CBP General Admissions Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Passenger volume (arrivals)            FY 2018         FY 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alien/Non-Immigrant.....................     185,593,344     187,851,637
<14.....................................      13,756,960      13,460,997
>79.....................................       1,788,112       1,825,199
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new populations for purpose of this rule are the ``under 14'' 
and ``over 79'' only. Additionally, it should be noted that CBP 
biometric collection at the POEs is fundamentally different than USCIS 
biometric collection at the ASCs. Unlike collection at the ASCs, there 
is no appointment made, no time to travel to a collection site, no 
biometrics services fee, and CBP is not charged a fee by the FBI for 
criminal history information (where necessary). Furthermore, CBP does 
not currently track all departures from the United States POEs. For 
purposes of this economic analysis, DHS assumes that every individual 
who enters subsequently departs, so CBP would have the authority to 
collect biometrics for the departing populations under 14 and over 79 
as well.
Costs and Benefits
    The costs of the proposed rule to DHS will stem from new guidance 
that will inform the staff of the change in operational procedures for 
booking in minors. DHS' equipment used for collecting biometrics and 
the systems that house the information will not be impacted. DHS has 
enough mobile biometric devices to meet the needs of ICE as a result of 
this rule.
    ERO guidance on biometric collection will announce via a broadcast 
message, and in the training academy where agents are instructed in the 
proper procedures for biometric collection. Lastly, the annual 
refresher training required of all ERO staff will also need to be 
updated to reflect the elimination of age restrictions for biometrics. 
After the first year there will only be the reoccurring cost of the 
annual refresher training and the instructions given at the training 
academy.
    The new guidance and training required as a result of removing the 
age restrictions for biometrics collection will take on average one 
hour of each employee's time. All ERO staff at headquarters, in the 
field, and at the academy will be required to take the training which 
will cost approximately $288,373 in the first year. In September 2019, 
there were 6,814 ERO staff nationally across 24 field offices, the 
average Federal Government General Schedule (GS) pay scale for staff in 
the field was a GS 10. In September 2019, there were 1,001 ERO staff, 
the average GS at headquarters was a GS 12. During FY 2018, there were 
326 new agents at the academy who would spend an estimated one hour on 
the correct procedures for biometrics collection. The cost of informing 
all of ERO would occur within the first year, and no new additional 
training would be required after the first year. The current refresher 
training on biometrics collection would be updated to no longer include 
the age restrictions for biometrics, but would not require retraining 
of current procedures.

                                        Table S3--Expected Training Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Headquarters        Field offices           Academy               Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of ERO Staff............  1,001..............  6,814..............  326................  8,141
Average GS level.............  GS-12 step 07......  GS-10 step 07......  GS-8 step 01.......
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total cost for per hour    $47,998............  $233,099...........  $7,276.............  $288,373
     of training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes will result in numerous operational benefits, 
such as improving the identification of all minors throughout the 
duration of their immigration cases, and will help DHS better protect 
vulnerable populations from human trafficking, child sex trafficking, 
forced labor exploitation, and alien smuggling. By removing the age 
restrictions to allow the biometrics collection for minors, DHS can 
identify situations where a minor was trafficked multiple times or 
smuggled by transnational organized crime groups to the U.S. border. 
Using DNA to verify claimed genetic relationships is the most effective 
tool to deter fraud and trafficking. Further, by allowing DHS 
components to identify previously encountered aliens quickly and 
accurately, the rule efforts helps to preserve DHS resources and 
improve records management.
    This rule generally does not propose to authorize CBP or ICE to 
expand biometrics collections beyond either agency's current, 
independent

[[Page 56388]]

authorities. However, this rule does propose to authorize CBP and ICE 
to expand their current biometrics collections for immigration benefit 
requests to individuals under the age of 14 and authorizes collection 
of additional biometrics modalities. DHS proposes to collect 
biometrics, without regard to age, upon apprehension, arrest, or 
repatriation for purposes of processing, care, and custody of aliens. 
DHS anticipates that this rule will assist ICE and CBP in identifying 
fraudulent familial relation claims at the border and upon 
apprehension. Collecting DNA to verify a claimed genetic relationship 
with an accompanying adult would aid DHS with the identification and 
care of UACs. In FY 2017 ICE had 12,153 minors under the age of 14 in 
custody, and in FY 2018 (year to date 4/21/2018) there were a total of 
5,859 minors under the age of 14 in ICE custody.
    DHS recognizes that some individuals who submit biometrics/DNA 
could possibly be apprehensive about doing so and may be have concerns 
germane to privacy, intrusiveness, and security Data security can be 
considered a cost. For example, companies insure against data breaches, 
as the insurance payment can be a valuation proxy for security. In 
terms of this proposed rule, data security is an intangible cost, and 
we do not rule out the possibility that there are costs that cannot be 
monetized that accrue to aspects of privacy and data security. Finally, 
DHS notes that based on the discussion above, a salient estimate of 
future ICE and CBP biometrics collections cannot be determined. 
Furthermore, the logistics associated with such collections are not 
expected to impose costs to CBP or ICE. However, DHS cannot rule out 
the possibility that there could be costs that cannot be presently 
identified. DHS welcomes public comment on this and related topics.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-121 (March 29, 1996), requires federal agencies to 
consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during 
the development of their rules. The term ``small entities'' comprises 
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are not dominant in 
their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less 
than 50,000.
    DHS has reviewed this regulation in accordance with the RFA and 
believes that the vast majority of the population impacted will not 
involve small entities. DHS estimates that about 2.17 million 
individuals and entities could be impacted by this proposed rule 
annually in terms of incurring monetized costs. Almost all of this 
total involves individuals who would submit biometrics in support of 
individual benefit requests which are not covered by the RFA. However, 
the population accruing to regional centers, which are the regional 
center principals, could be considered entities in terms of the RFA. 
Therefore, DHS has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
(IRFA). In addition, DHS will discuss one hypothetical scenario that 
could involve small entities.
1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    Under the Regional Center Program, foreign nationals base their EB-
5 petitions on investments in new commercial enterprises (NCEs) located 
within ``regional centers.'' DHS regulations define a regional center 
as an economic unit, public or private, that promotes economic growth, 
including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job 
creation, and increased domestic capital investment. The small entity 
status of regional centers is difficult to assess because there is a 
lack of official data on employment, income, and industry 
classification for these entities, primarily because these centers 
generally are not actual businesses. Such a determination is also 
difficult because regional centers can be structured in a variety of 
different ways, and can involve multiple business and financial 
activities, some of which may play a direct or indirect role in linking 
investor funds to new commercial enterprises and job-creating projects 
or entities. DHS was not able to identify most of the entities in any 
of the public or private databases. For purposes of the small entity 
analysis, DHS did not focus on the bundled capital investment amounts 
(either $1 million or $500,000 minimum per investor) that currently are 
invested into an NCE. Such investments amounts are not indicative of 
whether the regional center is appropriately characterized as a small 
entity for purposes of the RFA. Due to the lack of regional center 
revenue data, DHS assumes regional centers collect revenue primarily 
through the administrative fees charged to investors. DHS was able, 
despite data constraints, to obtain some information under some 
specific assumptions to develop a methodology to analyze the small 
entity status of regional centers, as will be explained in detail under 
section D. In summary, DHS was able to determine that a significant 
number of regional centers may be small entities. However, DHS cannot 
conclusively determine the impact of this proposed rule on those small 
entities.
a. Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is Being 
Considered
    While DHS has the authority to collect biometrics from any 
applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or requestor, or 
individual filing a benefit request, biometrics are only mandatory for 
certain benefit requests. For all others, USCIS must decide if the 
request justifies collection of biometrics and, if so, notify the 
individual of where they will be collected. DHS has decided that this 
focus on background checks and document production is outdated because 
immigration benefit request adjudication includes verifying identity 
and determining whether or not the individual poses a risk to national 
security or public safety, in those instances where these factors may 
impact eligibility for an immigration benefit. DHS has decided that it 
is necessary to increase the use of biometrics from determining when 
biometrics may or should be collected in a case, to requiring routine 
biometric collections from individuals associated with certain 
immigration benefits. Therefore, DHS proposes in this rule that any 
applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing or 
associated with a benefit or other request, including U.S. citizens and 
without regard to age, must appear for biometrics collection, unless 
USCIS waives or exempts the requirement.
b. Succinct Statement of the Objectives and Legal Basis the Proposed 
Rule
    The changes proposed in this rule would provide DHS with the 
flexibility to change its biometrics collection practices and policies 
to ensure that DHS can make adjustments necessary to meet emerging 
needs, such as national security, public safety, or fraud concerns; 
enhance the use of biometrics beyond national security and criminal 
history background checks and document production, to include identity 
management in the immigration lifecycle and enhanced vetting, to lessen 
the dependence on paper documents to prove identity and familial 
relationships and preclude imposters; and improve the consistency in 
biometrics terminology within DHS.
    USCIS has broad general and specific authority to collect or 
require submission of biometrics from applicants, petitioners, and 
beneficiaries for immigration benefits. Section 103(a)

[[Page 56389]]

of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), provides general authority to DHS to 
administer and enforce immigration laws, including issuing forms, 
regulations, instructions, other papers, and such other acts the 
Secretary deems necessary to carry out the INA. The INA also provides 
specific authority for DHS to collect or require submission of 
biometrics in several sections, as is described more fully in the 
preamble.
c. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rule Will Apply
    To perform the small entity analysis, DHS reviewed data from Form 
I-924 submissions. Specifically, DHS reviewed certain data for 574 
regional centers with approved Forms I-924 in FY 2017, that actually 
had Form I-526 investment petitions submitted under their purview that 
year, such as the administrative fee that the regional center may 
charge to investors as well as plans and projections concerning 
investors. DHS assumes that these administrative fees contribute to the 
revenues of regional centers.\140\ Thus, to approximate regional center 
revenue, DHS multiplied the administrative fees by the number of 
associated EB-5 investors who filed a Form I-526 per regional center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ The administrative fees charged to the investor may cover 
various charges related to the economic impact analysis, legal fees, 
business plan development, and immigration services fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS obtained the number of investors per regional center and 
proceeded to refine the regional center cohort by removing regional 
centers that did not have relevant data, that have been terminated, and 
that had no affiliated Form I-526 petitions associated with them (as 
those would present no information that could be used in the analysis). 
For the purposes of this analysis, DHS assumes that each Form I-526 
associated with a regional center represents an instance in which the 
regional center will receive an administrative fee that will contribute 
to the regional center's revenue. Although DHS cannot assume that 
administrative fees are paid when the forms are filed, this analysis 
assumes the fees will be paid eventually.
    For the approved regional centers that had data available for 
analysis, we obtained a cohort of 95 regional centers that were 
associated with 6,308 individual investors. Analysis reveals that the 
number of investors per regional center varies substantially, with a 
range of 2,272. The distribution is highly right-skewed, with a mean of 
85, a median of 39, and a skewness value of 8. These results indicate 
that the median is a proper measure for central location. Next, DHS 
analyzed the administrative fees in the cohort. The distribution is 
tight (or clustered closely together) with both the mean and median at 
$50,000. Next DHS estimated revenues for each regional center in the 
analytical cohort by multiplying the total number of investors who 
filed a Form I-526 per regional center by its administrative fee, which 
yielded a median revenue amount of $1,250,000 over the period 
considered. To determine the appropriate size standard for the regional 
centers, DHS extensively reviewed various NAICS codes. DHS determined 
that NAICS code 522310, Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers defined 
as an ``industry [that] comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
arranging loans by bringing borrowers and lenders together on a 
commission or fee basis,'' may be an appropriate NAICS industry in 
which regional centers might be found given the typical activities 
undertaken by regional center-associated NCEs (loaning EB-5 capital to 
the job-creating entities) and the role typically undertaken by 
regional centers in facilitating those activities. The SBA size 
standard for the NAICS category chosen is based on a revenue of $7.5 
million. DHS compared the revenues of the 95 regional centers against 
this size standard and concludes that approximately 89 percent of 
regional centers may be small entities for the purposes of this IRFA.
    While DHS believes the methodology described in this section can 
lead to reasonable assumptions on the number of small entities that may 
be regional centers, DHS still cannot determine the exact impact of 
this rule on those small entities from the proposal. For example, if 
the costs related to biometrics and the service fee are incurred to 
regional centers via the principal, it is possible that the costs could 
be passed on to investors. Furthermore, we have identified the 
population related to Form I-924 and Form I-924A based on investor 
submissions in 2018. The entire cohort of 884 currently approved 
regional centers could also be considered small entities since they 
could, in any future year, also have submissions under their purview.
    In addition to the discussion of regional centers, DHS also 
highlights a possible scenario that could involve small entities. In 
some cases, a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident sole proprietor 
could petition for family members using an employment based form. 
However, in such a case the biometrics would apply to identity 
management in the immigration lifecycle and vetting of both the 
petitioner and the beneficiary, but for the petitioner it would be on a 
case-by-case basis, not a routine biometrics collection. For such an 
instance, USCIS may need to verify identity or screen for fraud, but 
the likelihood of such a scenario is remote. Hence DHS expects minimal 
to no impact to small entities under this possible scenario. DHS 
welcomes public comment on the small entity status and any potential 
impacts to such small entities involving EB-5 regional centers or other 
entities.
c. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of 
the Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement 
and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the 
Report or Record
    This rule would not directly impose any reporting, recordkeeping, 
or other compliance requirements on small entities. Additionally, this 
rule would not require any additional professional skills.
d. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
    DHS is unaware of any relevant federal rule that may duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
e. Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 
Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which 
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small 
Entities
    DHS is not aware of any alternatives to the proposed rule that 
accomplish the stated objectives and that would minimize the economic 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities as this rule imposes no 
direct costs on small entities. If there are costs incurred to small 
entities, the costs would be indirect since they accrue to the regional 
center principal rather than directly to the regional center. 
Biometrics are a unique system for identity vetting and management and 
DHS does not believe there are alternatives in the context of the needs 
outlined for the proposed rule. DHS requests comments and seeks 
alternatives from the public that will accomplish the same objectives.

[[Page 56390]]

f. Description of Combating Family Unit Fraud at the Southern Border 
and the Impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Use of Rapid DNA 
on Small Entities
    To combat family unit fraud in the immigration system, following a 
competitive solicitation process, ICE contracted with a vendor to 
provide personnel and equipment to conduct Rapid DNA analysis at the 
southern border. Rapid DNA, or Rapid DNA analysis, is a term used to 
describe the streamlined process of developing a DNA profile from a 
reference sample buccal (cheek) swab and permitting a trained human 
technician to analyze any inconclusive DNA results. The entire Rapid 
DNA testing process takes approximately 90 minutes. ICE's Rapid DNA 
testing contract cost $5.28 million and covered a 5-month period 
between June and November of 2019. This fixed-cost contract included up 
to 50,000 testing kits and 14 DNA processing instruments.
    The entity that received this contract with ICE is not a small 
business according to the Small Business Administration size standard 
for testing laboratories which is set at a maximum revenue of $16.5 
million. Rather, it is part of the testing laboratories industry and in 
2018 it had a total revenue of $18.16 million, with a total of 126 
employees.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This proposed rule is a major rule as defined by section 804 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This proposed rule 
would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more. As small businesses may be impacted under this proposed 
regulation, DHS has prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 
analysis.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among 
other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 
by the private sector. Title II of UMRA requires each federal agency to 
prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any federal 
mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 
million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 
year by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector. The value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 
adjusted for inflation to 2018 levels by the Consumer Price Index for 
All Urban Consumer (CPI-U) is $165 million.
    Although this proposed rule does exceed the $100 million 
expenditure threshold in an annual year when adjusted for inflation 
($165 million in 2018 dollars), this rulemaking does not contain such a 
mandate. Requiring individuals to provide biometrics information would 
not result in any expenditures by the State, local, and tribal 
governments, or by the private sector. The requirements of Title II of 
UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement 
under UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of E.O. 
13132 (Federalism), it is determined that this rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule. Table 24 identifies the PRA 
action being taken on the listed information collections as a result of 
this rulemaking.

                    Table 24--Impacts to USCIS Forms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Form No.                Form title              PRA action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-102..................  Application for          No material/non-
                          Replacement/Initial      substantive change to
                          Nonimmigrant Arrival-    a currently approved
                          Departure Document.      collection.
I-129..................  Petition for             No material/non-
                          Nonimmigrant Worker.     substantive change to
                                                   a currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-129CW................  Petition for CNMI-Only   Revision of a
                          Nonimmigrant             currently approved
                          Transition Worker.       collection.
I-129F.................  Petition for Alien       Revision of a
                          fiancée.          currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-129S.................  Nonimmigrant Petition    No material/non-
                          Based on Blanket L       substantive change to
                          Petition.                a currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-130 (I-130A).........  Petition for Alien       Revision of a
                          Relative.                currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-131..................  Application for Travel   Revision of a
                          Document--Reentry        currently approved
                          Permit, Refugee Travel   collection.
                          Document, Advance
                          Parole Document.
I-131A.................  Application for Travel   Revision of a
                          Document (Carrier        currently approved
                          Documentation).          collection.
I-134..................  Affidavit of Support...  Revision of a
                                                   currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-140..................  Immigrant Petition for   Revision of a
                          Alien Workers.           currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-191..................  Application for Relief   Revision of a
                          Under Former Section     currently approved
                          212(c) of the INA.       collection.
I-192..................  Application for Advance  Revision of a
                          Permission to Enter as   currently approved
                          Nonimmigrant Pursuant    collection.
                          to Section
                          212(d)(3)(A)(ii) of
                          the INA, Section
                          212(d)(13) of the INA,
                          or Section 212(d)(14)
                          of the INA.
I-212..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Permission to Reapply    currently approved
                          for Admission into the   collection.
                          United States after
                          Deportation or Removal.
I-290B.................  Notice of Appeal or      No material/non-
                          Motion.                  substantive change to
                                                   a currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-360..................  Petition for Amerasian,  Revision of a
                          Widow(er), or Special    currently approved
                          Immigrant.               collection.

[[Page 56391]]

 
I-485..................  Application to Register  Revision of a
                          Permanent Residence or   currently approved
                          Adjust Status.           collection.
I-485 Sup A............  Supplement A to Form I-  Revision of a
                          485, Adjustment of       currently approved
                          Status Under Section     collection.
                          245(i).
I-485J.................  Confirmation of Bona     Revision of a
                          Fide Job Offer or        currently approved
                          Request for Job          collection.
                          Portability Under INA
                          Section 204(j).
I-526..................  Immigrant Petition by    Revision of a
                          Alien Entrepreneur.      currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-539..................  Application to Extend/   Revision of a
                          Change Nonimmigrant      currently approved
                          Status.                  collection.
I-539A.................  Supplemental             Revision of a
                          Information for          currently approved
                          Application to Extend/   collection.
                          Change Nonimmigrant
                          Status.
I-566..................  Inter-Agency Record of   Revision of a
                          Request--A, G or NATO    currently approved
                          Dependent Employment     collection.
                          Authorization or
                          Change/Adjustment To/
                          From A, G, NATO Status.
I-589..................  Application for Asylum   Revision of a
                          and for Withholding of   currently approved
                          Removal.                 collection.
I-590..................  Registration for         Revision of a
                          Classification as a      currently approved
                          Refugee.                 collection.
I-600..................  Petition to Classify     Revision of a
                          Orphan as an Immediate   currently approved
                          Relative and             collection.
                          Application for
                          Advance Processing of
                          Orphan Petition.
I-600A.................  Application for Advance  Revision of a
                          Processing of an         currently approved
                          Orphan Petition.         collection.
I-601..................  Application for Waiver   Revision of a
                          of Ground of             currently approved
                          Inadmissibility.         collection.
I-601A.................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Provisional Unlawful     currently approved
                          Presence Waiver.         collection.
I-602..................  Application by Refugee   No material/non-
                          for Waiver of Grounds    substantive change to
                          of Excludability.        a currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-612..................  Application for Waiver   No material/non-
                          of the Foreign           substantive change to
                          Residence Requirement    a currently approved
                          of Section 212(e) of     collection.
                          the Immigration and
                          Nationality Act.
I-690..................  Application for Waiver   No material/non-
                          of Grounds of            substantive change to
                          Inadmissibility.         a currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-698..................  Application to Adjust    Revision of a
                          Status from Temporary    currently approved
                          to Permanent Resident.   collection.
I-730..................  Refugee/Asylee Relative  Revision of a
                          Petition.                currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-751..................  Petition to Remove the   Revision of a
                          Conditions on            currently approved
                          Residence.               collection.
I-765..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Employment               currently approved
                          Authorization.           collection.
I-765V.................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Employment               currently approved
                          Authorization for        collection.
                          Abused Nonimmigrant
                          Spouse.
I-817..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Benefits Under the       currently approved
                          Family Unity Program.    collection.
I-821..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Temporary Protected      currently approved
                          Status.                  collection.
I-821D.................  Request for Deferred     No material/non-
                          Action for Childhood     substantive change to
                          Arrival.                 a currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-824..................  Application for Action   No material/non-
                          on an Approved           substantive change to
                          Application.             a currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-829..................  Petition by              Revision of a
                          Entrepreneur to Remove   currently approved
                          Conditions.              collection.
I-864..................  Affidavit of Support     Revision of a
                          Under Section 213A of    currently approved
                          the Act.                 collection.
I-864A.................  Contract Between         Revision of a
                          Sponsor and Household    currently approved
                          Member.                  collection.
I-864EZ................  Affidavit of Support     Revision.
                          Under Section 213A of
                          the Act.
I-864W.................  Request for Exemption    Revision.
                          for Intending
                          Immigrant's Affidavit
                          of Support.
I-881..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Suspension of            currently approved
                          Deportation or Special   collection.
                          Rule Cancellation of
                          Removal (Pursuant to
                          Sec. 203 of Pub. L.
                          105-100).
I-90...................  Application to Replace   No material/non-
                          Permanent Resident       substantive change to
                          Card.                    a currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-907..................  Request for Premium      Revision of a
                          Processing Service.      currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-914..................  Application for T        Revision of a
                          Nonimmigrant Status;     currently approved
                          Application for          collection.
                          Immediate Family
                          Member of T-1
                          Recipient; &
                          Declaration of Law
                          Enforcement Officer
                          for Victim of
                          Trafficking in Persons.
I-914A.................  Supplement A to Form I-  Revision of a
                          914, Application for     currently approved
                          Family Member of T-1     collection.
                          Recipient.
I-914B.................  Supplement B to Form I-  Revision of a
                          914, Declaration of      currently approved
                          Law Enforcement Office   collection.
                          for Victim of
                          Trafficking in Persons.
I-918..................  Petition for U           Revision of a
                          Nonimmigrant Status.     currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-918A.................  Form I-918, Supplement   Revision of a
                          A, Petition for          currently approved
                          Qualifying Family        collection.
                          Member of U-1
                          Recipient.
I-918B.................  Form I-918, Supplement   Revision of a
                          B, U Nonimmigrant        currently approved
                          Status Certification.    collection.
I-924..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Regional Center Under    currently approved
                          the Immigrant Investor   collection.
                          Pilot Program.
I-924A.................  Annual Certification of  Revision of a
                          Regional Center.         currently approved
                                                   collection.
I-929..................  Petition for Qualifying  Revision of a
                          Family Member of a U-1   currently approved
                          Nonimmigrant.            collection.
N-300..................  Application to File      Revision of a
                          Declaration of           currently approved
                          Intention.               collection.
N-336..................  Request for Hearing on   Revision of a
                          a Decision in            currently approved
                          Naturalization           collection.
                          Proceedings Under
                          Section 336.

[[Page 56392]]

 
N-400..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Naturalization.          currently approved
                                                   collection.
N-470..................  Application to Preserve  Revision of a
                          Residence for            currently approved
                          Naturalization.          collection.
N-565..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Replacement              currently approved
                          Naturalization/          collection.
                          Citizenship Document.
N-600..................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Certificate of           currently approved
                          Citizenship.             collection.
N-600K.................  Application for          Revision of a
                          Citizenship and          currently approved
                          Issuance of              collection.
                          Certificate Under
                          Section 322.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Various USCIS Forms

    Under the PRA, all agencies are required to submit to OMB, for 
review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. 
This rule will require non-substantive edits to the forms identified in 
the table above as ``No material/non-substantive change to a currently 
approved collection.'' These edits include: Updates to the Biometric 
Services Appointment language; removal of a biometric services fee 
paragraph; and removal of references to specific biometrics modalities, 
such as fingerprints. In accordance with the PRA, USCIS has submitted a 
PRA Change Worksheet, Form OMB 83-C, and amended information collection 
instruments for each of these forms to OMB for review and approval.

USCIS Form I-129CW

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0111 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for CNMI-Only 
Nonimmigrant Transition Worker.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129CW; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. An 
employer uses this form to petition USCIS for an alien to temporarily 
enter as a nonimmigrant into the CNMI to perform services or labor as a 
CNMI-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1). An employer also uses this form 
to request an extension of stay or change of status on behalf of the 
alien worker.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129CW 
is 3,749 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 7,498 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 38,765 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $459,253.

USCIS Form I-129F

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0001 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Alien 
fiancé(e).

[[Page 56393]]

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129F; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. To date, 
through the filing of this form a U.S. citizen may facilitate the entry 
of his/her spouse or fiancé(e) into the United States so that a 
marriage may be concluded within 90 days of entry between the U.S. 
citizen and the beneficiary of the petition. This form must be used to 
cover the provisions of section 1103 of the Legal Immigration Family 
Equity Act of 2000 which allows the spouse or child of a U.S. citizen 
to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant. The Form I-129F is the 
only existing form which collects the requisite information so that an 
adjudicator can make the appropriate decisions.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129F 
is 52,135 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.25 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 52,135 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 360,774 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $8,941,153.

USCIS Form I-130 (I-130A)

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0012 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Alien Relative.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-130; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The 
information collected on this form is used to establish the existence 
of a relationship between the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident 
petitioner and certain alien relative beneficiaries who wish to 
immigrate to the United States.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-130 
is 978,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
Form I-130A is 45,614 and the estimated hour burden per response is 
0.8333 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection biometrics is 1,024,114 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 5,753,495 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $391,400,000.

USCIS Form I-131

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0013 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-131; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Certain 
aliens, principally permanent or conditional residents, refugees or 
asylees, applicants for adjustment of status, aliens in TPS, and aliens 
abroad seeking humanitarian parole must apply for a travel document to 
lawfully enter or reenter the United

[[Page 56394]]

States. Eligible recipients of deferred action under childhood arrivals 
(DACA) may now request an advance parole documents based on 
humanitarian, educational and employment reasons. Lawful permanent 
residents may now file requests for travel permits (transportation 
letter or boarding foil).
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-131 
is 483,920 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.9 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 84,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form I-131 passport-style photos is 380,000 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 1,417,728 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $146,072,480.

USCIS Form I-131A

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0135 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document 
(Carrier Documentation).
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-131A; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
uses the information provided on Form I-131A to verify the status of 
permanent or conditional residents, and determine whether the applicant 
is eligible for the requested travel document.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-131A 
is 4,110 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.92 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 4,110 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 15,084 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $704,620.

USCIS Form I-134

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0014 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-134; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS and 
DOS consular officers use this form to determine whether an applicant 
for a visa, adjustment of status, or entry to the United States may 
possibly be excludable on the ground that he or she is likely to become 
a public charge.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-134 
is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.75 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the

[[Page 56395]]

collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this 
collection of information is 13,550 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $10,625.

USCIS Form I-140

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0015 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Workers.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-140; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit U.S. 
employers may file this petition for certain alien beneficiaries to 
receive an employment-based immigrant visa.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-140 
is 225,637 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.08 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the collection biometrics 
is 225,637 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 1,071,776 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $93,977,810.

USCIS Form I-191

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0016 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Relief under 
Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-191; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS and 
EOIR use the information on the form to properly assess and determine 
whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver under former section 
212(c) of INA.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-191 
is 240 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.50 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 240 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 1,241 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $30,300.

USCIS Form I-192

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0017 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this

[[Page 56396]]

information collection should address one or more of the following four 
points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Advance 
Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-192; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data 
collected will be used by CBP and USCIS to determine whether the 
applicant is eligible to enter the United States temporarily under the 
provisions of section 212(d)(3), 212(d)(13), and 212(d)(14) of the INA. 
The respondents for this information collection are certain 
inadmissible nonimmigrant aliens who wish to apply for permission to 
enter the United States and applicants for T or petitioners for U 
nonimmigrant status.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-192 
is 68,050 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 102,075 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $16,672,250.00.

USCIS Form I-212

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0018 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Permission to 
Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or 
Removal.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-212; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Sections 
212(a)(9)(A) and 212(a)(9)(C) of the INA render an alien inadmissible 
to the United States unless he or she obtains the consent to reapply 
(also known as permission to reapply) for admission to the United 
States. An alien who is inadmissible under these provisions has either 
been removed (deported, or excluded) from the United States, or 
illegally reentered after having been removed (deported, or excluded), 
or illegally reentered after having accrued more than one year of 
unlawful presence in the United States. The information collection 
required on Form I-212, is necessary for USCIS to determine whether the 
applicant is eligible to file the waiver. If the application is 
approved, the alien will be permitted to apply for admission to the 
United States, after being granted a visa with DOS as either an 
immigrant or a nonimmigrant.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-212 
is 4,183 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-
212, CBP e-SAFE Filing is 700 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection biometrics is 4,183 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 25,118 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $613,854.

USCIS Form I-360

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0020 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:

[[Page 56397]]

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Amerasian, 
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-360; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
360 may be used by an Amerasian; a widow or widower of a U.S. citizen; 
a battered or abused spouse or child of a U.S. citizen or lawful 
permanent resident; a battered or abused parent of a U.S. citizen son 
or daughter; or a special immigrant (religious worker, Panama Canal 
company employee, Canal Zone government employee, U.S. Government 
employee in the Canal Zone; physician, international organization 
employee or family member, juvenile court dependent; armed forces 
member; Afghanistan or Iraq national who supported the U.S. Armed 
Forces as a translator; Iraq national who worked for the or on behalf 
of the U.S. Government in Iraq; or Afghan national who worked for or on 
behalf of the U.S. Government or the International Security Assistance 
Force in Afghanistan) who intend to establish their eligibility to 
immigrate to the United States. The data collected on this form is 
reviewed by USCIS to determine if the petitioner may be qualified to 
obtain the benefit. The data collected on this form will also be used 
to issue an EAD upon approval of the petition for battered or abused 
spouses, children, and parents, if requested.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-360 
(Iraqi & Afghan Petitioners) is 2,874 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 3.1 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for 
the information collection Form I-360 (Religious Worker) is 2,393 and 
the estimated hour burden per response is 2.35 hours; the estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-360 
(All Others) is 14,362 and the estimated hour burden per response is 
2.1 hours; and the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection biometrics for VAWA and Special Immigrant 
Juvenile self-petitioners is 32,240 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 154,105 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $2,404,430.

USCIS Form I-485

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0023 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-485; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The 
information on Form I-485 will be used to request and determine 
eligibility for adjustment of permanent residence status. Supplement A 
is used to adjust status under section 245(i) of the INA.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-485 
is 382,264 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6.42 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form I-485A is 36,000 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 1.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for 
the information collection Form I-485 Supplement J is 28,039 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 
382,264 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 3,930,353 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $131,116,552.

USCIS Form I-526

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to

[[Page 56398]]

comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0026 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition by Alien 
Entrepreneur.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-526; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form 
is used to petition for classification as an alien entrepreneur as 
provided by sections 121(b) and 162(b) of the Immigration Act of 1990. 
The data collected on this form will be used by USCIS to determine 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-526 
is 15,799 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.83 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection of 
biometrics is 15,799 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 86,895 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $17,378,900.

USCIS Form I-539

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0003 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Extend/Change 
Nonimmigrant Status.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-539; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form 
will be used for nonimmigrants to apply for an extension of stay, for a 
change to another nonimmigrant classification, or for obtaining V 
nonimmigrant classification.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-539 
(paper) is 174,289 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form I-539 (e-file) is 74,696 and the estimated hour burden 
per response is 1.083 hours; the estimated total number of respondents 
for the information collection Supplement A is 54,375 and the estimated 
hour burden per response is .50 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for biometrics processing is 373,477 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 1,827,323 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $42,700,928.

USCIS Form I-566

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0027 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this

[[Page 56399]]

information collection should address one or more of the following four 
points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Interagency Record of Request A, 
G, or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/
From A, G, or NATO Status.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-566; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data 
on this form is used by DOS to certify to USCIS the eligibility of 
dependents of A or G principals requesting employment authorization, as 
well as for NATO/Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation 
(NATO/HQ SACT) to certify to USCIS similar eligibility for dependents 
of NATO principals. DOS also uses this form to certify to USCIS that 
certain A, G or NATO nonimmigrants may change their status to another 
nonimmigrant status. USCIS uses data collected on this form in the 
adjudication of change or adjustment of status applications from aliens 
in A, G, or NATO classifications. USCIS also uses Form I-566 to notify 
DOS of the results of these adjudications.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-566 
is 5,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.42 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 8,236 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $746,750.00.

USCIS Form I-589

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0067 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without 
Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Asylum and for 
Withholding of Removal.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-589; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
589 is necessary to determine whether an alien applying for asylum and/
or withholding of removal in the United States is classified as 
refugee, and is eligible to remain in the United States.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-589 
is approximately 114,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 
12 hours per response; and the estimated number of respondents 
providing biometrics is 110,000 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 1,771,700 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $46,968,000.

USCIS Form I-590

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0068 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the

[[Page 56400]]

use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other 
technological collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Registration for Classification 
as a Refugee.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-590; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The Form 
I-590 is the primary document in all refugee case files and becomes 
part of the applicant's A-file. It is the application form by which a 
person seeks refugee classification and resettlement in the United 
States. It documents an applicant's legal testimony (under oath) as to 
his or her identity and claim to refugee status, as well as other 
pertinent information including marital status, number of children, 
military service, organizational memberships, and violations of law. In 
addition to being the application form submitted by a person seeking 
refugee classification, Form I-590 is used to document that an 
applicant was interviewed by USCIS and record the decision by the USCIS 
officer to approve or deny the applicant for classification as a 
refugee. Regardless of age, each person included in the case must have 
his or her own Form I-590. Refugees applying to CBP for admission must 
have a stamped I-590 in their travel packet in order to gain admission 
as a refugee. They do not have refugee status until they are admitted 
by CBP.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-590 
is 50,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.25 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-
590 Request for Review is 1,500 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection Form I-590 DNA evidence is 100 and the estimated 
hour burden per response is 2 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 51,600 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 0.33 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 181,228 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $12,000.

USCIS Form I-600, I-600A

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0028 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition to Classify Orphan as an 
Immediate Relative and Application for Advance Processing of Orphan 
Petition.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-600; I-600A; Supplement 1; Supplement 
2; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households; A U.S. 
adoptive parent may file a petition to classify an orphan as an 
immediate relative through Form I-600 under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the 
INA. A U.S. prospective adoptive parent may file Form I-600A in advance 
of the Form I-600 filing and USCIS will make a determination regarding 
the prospective adoptive parent's eligibility to file Form I-600A and 
their suitability and eligibility to properly parent an orphan. A U.S. 
adoptive parent may file a petition to classify an orphan as an 
immediate relative through Form I-600 under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the 
INA. If a U.S. prospective/adoptive parent has an adult member of his 
or her household, as defined at 8 CFR 204.301, the prospective/adoptive 
parent must include the Supplement 1 when filing both Form I-600A and 
Form I-600. Form I-600/I-600A Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose 
Information, is an optional form that may be filed to authorize USCIS 
to disclose case-related information that would otherwise be protected 
under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a to adoption service providers or 
other individuals. Authorized disclosures will assist USCIS in the 
adjudication of Forms I-600A and I-600.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-600 
is 1,200 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
Form I-600A is 2,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 
hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form I-600A Supplement 1 is 301 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection Form I-600A Supplement 2 is 
1,260 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the home study information 
collection is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 25 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the biometrics 
information collection is 2,520 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 3.67 hours; and the estimated total number of respondents 
for the biometrics-DNA information collection

[[Page 56401]]

is 2 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 75,576 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $7,679,232.

USCIS Form I-601

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0029 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Waiver of Grounds 
of Inadmissibility.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-601; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
601 is necessary for USCIS to determine whether the applicant is 
eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212 of the INA. 
Furthermore, this information collection is used by individuals who are 
seeking TPS.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-601 
is 20,194 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.75 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 35,340 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $7,497,023.

USCIS Form I-601A

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0123 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Provisional 
Unlawful Presence Waiver of Inadmissibility.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-601A; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households: 
Individuals who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and who are 
applying from within the United States for a waiver of inadmissibility 
under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) prior to obtaining an immigrant visa 
abroad.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-601A 
is 63,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents to the information collection 
biometrics is 63,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 325,710 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $3,413,812.

USCIS Form I-698

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0035 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions,

[[Page 56402]]

please use only one of the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public 
Participation section of this rule to submit comments. Comments on this 
information collection should address one or more of the following four 
points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Adjust Status from 
Temporary to Permanent Resident.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-698; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals and households. The data 
collected on Form I-698 is used by USCIS to determine the eligibility 
to adjust an applicant's residence status. The form serves the purpose 
of standardizing requests for the benefit, and ensuring that basic 
information required to assess eligibility is provided by applicants. A 
person who has been granted temporary residence under Section 245A of 
the INA is eligible to apply to USCIS to adjust to permanent resident 
status no later than 43 months after their approval for temporary 
residence.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-698 
is 100 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.25 hours; and 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection biometrics is 100 and the estimated hour burden per response 
is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 492 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $49,000.

USCIS Form I-730

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0037 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-730; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
730 is used by a refugee or asylee to file on behalf of his or her 
spouse and/or children for follow-to-join benefits provided that the 
relationship to the refugee/asylee existed prior to their admission to 
the United States.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-730 
is 6,039 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.677 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 6,039 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 26,191 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $1,592,500.

USCIS Form I-751

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0038 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who

[[Page 56403]]

are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection; Extension.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition to Remove the Conditions 
on Residence.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-751; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The 
information collected on Form I-751 is used by USCIS to verify the 
alien's status and determine whether he or she is eligible to have the 
conditions on his or her status removed. Form I-751 serves the purpose 
of standardizing requests for benefits and ensuring that basic 
information required to assess eligibility is provided by petitioners. 
USCIS also collects biometric information from the alien to verify 
their identity and check or update their background information.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-751 
is 159,119 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.75 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection biometrics is 160,076 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 1,771,654 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $19,492,078.

USCIS Form I-765

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0040 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Employment 
Authorization.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-765; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
uses Form I-765 to collect the information that is necessary to 
determine if an alien is eligible for an initial EAD, a new replacement 
EAD, or a subsequent EAD upon the expiration of a previous EAD under 
the same eligibility category. Aliens in many immigration statuses are 
required to possess an EAD as evidence of work authorization. To be 
authorized for employment, an alien must be lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence or authorized to be so employed by the INA or under 
regulations issued by DHS. Pursuant to statutory or regulatory 
authorization, certain classes of aliens are authorized to be employed 
in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of 
employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to 
one of the indicated classes. USCIS may determine the validity period 
assigned to any document issued evidencing an alien's authorization to 
work in the United States. These classes are listed in 8 CFR 274a.12.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-765 
is 2,096,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.5 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection biometrics is 2,096,000 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 3.67 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for 
the information collection Form I-765WS is 266,148 and the estimated 
hour burden per response is .50 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 17,145,276 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $346,615,520.

USCIS Form I-765V

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0137 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;

[[Page 56404]]

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Employment 
Authorization for Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-765V; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
will use Form I-765V to collect the information that is necessary to 
determine if the applicant is eligible for an initial EAD or renewal 
EAD as a qualifying abused nonimmigrant spouse. Aliens are required to 
possess an EAD as evidence of work authorization. To be authorized for 
employment, an alien must be lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
or authorized to be so employed by the INA or under regulations issued 
by DHS. Pursuant to statutory or regulatory authorization, certain 
classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States 
without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a 
condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the 
indicated classes. USCIS may determine the validity period assigned to 
any document issued evidencing an alien's authorization to work in the 
United States.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection I-765V is 
1,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 1,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 6,670 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $265,000.

USCIS Form I-817

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0005 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Family Unity 
Benefits.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-817; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households: This 
information collected will be used to determine whether the applicant 
meets the eligibility requirements for benefits under 8 CFR 236.14 and 
245a.33. Per 8 CFR 236.15(d), an alien under Family Unity Program is 
authorized to be employed in the United States and will receive an EAD 
after USCIS granted the benefits. Therefore, USCIS will issue an EAD 
and approval notice to the applicant. The respondents for this 
information collection are foreign nationals who apply for Family Unity 
Benefits in the United States.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-817 
is 1,358 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 1,358 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 7,700 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $166,355.

USCIS Form I-821

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0043 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and

[[Page 56405]]

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Temporary 
Protected Status.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-821; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The 
information provided will be used by the USCIS to determine whether an 
applicant for TPS meets eligibility requirements.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-821 
is 4,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.41 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 4,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 24,320 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $490,000.

USCIS Form I-821D

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0124 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Consideration of Deferred Action 
for Childhood Arrivals.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-821D; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. As part 
of the administration of its programs, USCIS exercises its 
prosecutorial discretion on a case by case basis to defer action on 
instituting removal proceedings against individuals.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-821D 
initial requests is 40,819 and the estimated hour burden per response 
is 3 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection Form I-821D renewal requests is 418,775 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 
459,594 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 3,065,492 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $50,555,340.

USCIS Form I-824

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0044 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Action on an 
Approved Application or Petition.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-824; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This 
information collection is used to request a duplicate approval

[[Page 56406]]

notice, as well as to notify and to verify the U.S. consulate that a 
petition has been approved or that a person has been adjusted to 
permanent resident status.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-824 
is 11,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.42 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 11,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 47,035 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $1,480,625.

USCIS Form I-829

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0045 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition by Entrepreneur to 
Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-829; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form 
is used by a conditional resident alien entrepreneur who obtained such 
status through a qualifying investment, to apply to remove conditions 
on his or her conditional residence.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-829 
is 3,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 3,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 26,845 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $428,750.

USCIS Form I-864, I-864A, I-864EZ

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0075 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support under 
Section 213A of the INA and Notification of Reimbursement of Means-
Tested Benefits.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-864; I-864EZ; I-864A; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
uses the data collected on Form I-864 to determine whether the sponsor 
has the ability to support the sponsored alien under section 213A of 
the INA. This form standardizes evaluation of a sponsor's ability to 
support the sponsored alien and ensures that basic information required 
to assess eligibility is provided by petitioners. Form I-864A is a 
contract between the sponsor and the sponsor's household members. It is 
only required if the sponsor used the income of his or her household 
members to reach the required 125 percent of the federal poverty 
guidelines. The contract holds these household members jointly and 
severally liable for the support of the sponsored immigrant. The 
information collection required on Form I-864A is necessary for public 
benefit agencies to enforce the Affidavit of Support in the event the 
sponsor used income of his or her household members to reach the 
required income level and the public benefit agencies are

[[Page 56407]]

requesting reimbursement from the sponsor.
    USCIS uses Form I-864EZ in exactly the same way as Form I-864; 
however, less information is collected from the sponsors as less 
information is needed from those who qualify in order to make a 
thorough adjudication.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for Form I-864 is 453,345 and the estimated 
hour burden per response is 6 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for Form I-864A is 215,800 and the estimated hour burden 
per response is 1.75 hours; the estimated total number of respondents 
for Form I-864EZ is 100,000 and the estimated hour burden per response 
is 2.5 hours; the information collection biometrics is 2,822,762 and 
the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this information collection of information is 6,170,482 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this information collection is $135,569,525.

USCIS Form I-881

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0072 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Suspension of 
Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-881; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
881 is used by USCIS asylum officers, EOIR immigration judges, and BIA 
board members to determine eligibility for suspension of deportation or 
special rule cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the 
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA).
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-881 
is 520 and the estimated hour burden per response is 12 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 858 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 9,389 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $258,505.

USCIS Form I-907

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0048 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Premium 
Processing Service.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-907; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
uses the information provided on Form I-907 to provide petitioners the 
opportunity to request faster processing of certain employment-based 
petitions and applications.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection form I-907 
is 319,301 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.58 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this

[[Page 56408]]

collection of information is 185,195 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $78,228,500.

USCIS Form I-914, I-914A

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0099 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for T Nonimmigrant 
Status.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-914; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The 
information on all three parts of the form will be used to determine 
whether applicants meet the eligibility requirements for benefits. This 
application incorporates information pertinent to eligibility under the 
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA), Public Law 
106-386, and a request for employment.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-914 
is 980 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.25 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
Form I-914A is 1,024 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form I-914B law enforcement officer completion activity is 
245 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.5 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
Form I-914B contact by respondent to law enforcement is 245 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 
1,759 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 11,502 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $1,986,400.

USCIS Form I-918, I-918A

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0104 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition For U Nonimmigrant 
Status.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-918 Supplements A and B; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households; Federal, 
State, and local governments. This petition permits victims of certain 
qualifying criminal activity and their immediate family members to 
apply for temporary nonimmigrant classification. This nonimmigrant 
classification provides temporary immigration benefits, potentially 
leading to permanent resident status, to certain victims of criminal 
activity who: Suffered substantial mental or physical abuse as a result 
of having been a victim of criminal activity; have information 
regarding the criminal activity; and assist government officials in 
investigating and prosecuting such criminal activity.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-918 
is 36,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 5 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
Form I-918A is 25,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form I-918B is 36,000 and the estimated hour burden per 
response

[[Page 56409]]

is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection biometrics is 61,000 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 477,370 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $259,250.

USCIS Form I-924, I-924A

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0061 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Regional Center 
Under the Immigrant Investor Program.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-924; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data 
collected on Form I-924 and Form I-924A is used by USCIS to determine 
eligibility for an entity to be designated as a regional center, under 
the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program created by section 610 of Public 
Law 102-395 (October 6, 1992). A regional center is defined as any 
economic unit, public or private, engaged in the promotion of economic 
growth, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased 
domestic capital investment. Alien entrepreneurs (EB-5 alien investors) 
admitted to the United States under section 203(b)(5) of the INA may 
meet the job creation requirements under INA section 203(b)(5)(A)(ii) 
through the creation of indirect jobs through capital investments made 
in commercial enterprises that are affiliated with regional centers 
that are designated for participation in the pilot program. The 
requirements for obtaining and terminating the regional center 
designation for participation in the pilot program are in 8 CFR 
204.6(m)(3).
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection of Form I-
924 is 400 and the estimated hour burden per response is 51 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection of 
Form I-924A Instructions is 882 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 14 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection of Form I-924A Compliant Review is 40 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 24 hours; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the information collection of Form I-924A 
Site Visit is 40 and the estimated hour burden per response is 16 
hours; biometrics is 400 and the estimated hour burden per response is 
3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 34,216 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $1,410,200.

USCIS Form I-929

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0106 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Qualifying Family 
Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-929; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Section 
245(m) of the INA allows certain qualifying family members who have 
never held U nonimmigrant status to seek lawful permanent residence or 
apply for immigrant visas. Before such family members may apply for 
adjustment of

[[Page 56410]]

status or seek immigrant visas, the U-1 nonimmigrant who has been 
granted adjustment of status must file an immigrant petition on behalf 
of the qualifying family member using Form I-929. Form I-929 is 
necessary for USCIS to make a determination that the eligibility 
requirements and conditions are met regarding the qualifying family 
member.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-929 
is 1,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics is 1,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 7,005 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $183,750.

USCIS Form N-336

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0050 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Hearing on a Decision 
in Naturalization Proceedings under Section 336.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-336; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form 
provides a method for applicants, whose applications for naturalization 
are denied, to request a new hearing by an Immigration Officer of the 
same or higher rank as the denying officer, within 30 days of the 
original decision.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form N-336 
(paper) is 4,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.75 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form N-336 (e-filing) is 500 and the estimated hour burden 
per response is 2.5 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 13,625 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $2,317,500.

USCIS Form N-400

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0052 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Naturalization.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-400; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N-
400 allows USCIS to fulfill its mission of fairly adjudicating 
naturalization applications and only naturalizing statutorily eligible 
individuals. Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is 
granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the 
requirements established by Congress in the INA. USCIS uses Form N-400 
to verify that the applicant has met the requirements for 
naturalization.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form N-400 
(paper) is 567,314 and the estimated hour burden per response is 9.17 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form N-400 (e-filing) is 214,186 and the

[[Page 56411]]

estimated hour burden per response is 3.5 hours; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 
778,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 8,807,180 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $346,768,928.

USCIS Form N-470

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0056 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Preserve Residence 
for Naturalization.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-470; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The 
information collected on Form N-470 will be used to determine whether 
an alien who intends to be absent from the United States for a period 
of one year or more is eligible to preserve residence for 
naturalization purposes.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form N-470 
is 330 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.6 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
biometrics processing is 330 and the estimated hour burden per response 
is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 561 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $40,425.

USCIS Form N-565

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-009 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Replacement 
Naturalization/Citizenship Document.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-565; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The form 
is provided by USCIS to determine the applicant's eligibility for a 
replacement document. An applicant may file for a replacement if he or 
she was issued one of the documents described above and it was lost, 
mutilated, or destroyed, or if the applicant's name was changed by a 
marriage or by court order after the document was issued and now seeks 
a document in the new name. If the applicant is a naturalized citizen 
who desires to obtain recognition as a citizen of the United States by 
a foreign country, he or she may apply for a special certificate for 
that purpose.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form N-565 
(paper filing) is 18,552 and the estimated hour burden per response is 
1.33 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection Form N-565 (online filing) is 9,138 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 0.917 hours; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 
27,690 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this

[[Page 56412]]

collection of information is 138,450 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $3,392,025.

USCIS Form N-600

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0057 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Certificate of 
Citizenship.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-600; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N-
600 collects information from respondents who are requesting a 
Certificate of Citizenship because they acquired U.S. citizenship 
either by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s), adoption by a U. S. 
citizen parent(s), or after meeting eligibility requirements after the 
naturalization of a foreign born parent. This form is also used by 
applicants requesting a Certificate of Citizenship because they 
automatically became a citizen of the United States after meeting 
eligibility requirements for acquisition of citizenship by foreign-born 
children. USCIS uses the information collected on Form N-600 to 
determine if a Certificate of Citizenship can be issued to the 
applicant.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form N-600 
(paper) is 33,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.58 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form N-600 (e-filing) is 34,000 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is .75 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 67,000 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 323,530 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $8,331,250.

USCIS Form N-600K

    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0087 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Overview of Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Citizenship and 
Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: N-600K; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N-
600K is used by children who regularly reside in a foreign country to 
claim U.S. citizenship based on eligibility criteria met by their U.S. 
citizen parent(s) or grandparent(s). The form may be used by both 
biological and adopted children under age 18. USCIS uses information 
collected on this form to determine that the child has met all of the 
eligibility requirements for naturalization under section 322 of the 
INA. If determined eligible, USCIS will naturalize and issue the child 
a Certificate of Citizenship before the child reaches age 18.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form N-600K 
(paper) is 1,300 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.08 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form N-600K (e-filing) is 1,700 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is 1.5 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection biometrics is 3,000 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 3.67 hours.

[[Page 56413]]

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection of information is 16,264 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $372,375.

H. Family Assessment

    This regulation may affect family well-being as that term is 
defined in section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 
1999, Public Law 105-277, Div. A, 112 Stat. 2681-528 (Oct. 21, 1998), 
as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601 note. This action has been assessed in 
accordance with the criteria specified by section 654(c). This 
regulation will enhance family well-being by helping DHS adjudicate 
immigration benefit requests, address national security, public safety, 
fraud concerns, and preclude imposters.

I. National Environmental Policy Act

    DHS Directive (Dir) 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes the procedures that 
DHS and its components use to comply with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
regulations for implementing NEPA. 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. The CEQ 
regulations allow federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and 
concurrence, categories of actions (``categorical exclusions'') which 
experience has shown do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not 
require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. 
40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii) and 1508.4. Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes 
categorical exclusions that DHS has found to have no such effect. Dir. 
023-01 Rev. 01 Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be categorically 
excluded from further NEPA review, Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01 requires the 
action to satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The 
entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical 
exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) 
no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a 
significant environmental effect. Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01 section V.B (1)-
(3).
    DHS analyzed this action and does not consider it to significantly 
affect the quality of the human environment. This proposed rule would 
only change USCIS biometrics collection and a few immigration benefit 
request requirements. DHS has determined that this rule does not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment because it fits within categorical exclusion number A3(d) 
in Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1, for rules that interpret 
or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental 
effect. This rule is not part of a larger action and presents no 
extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant 
environmental effects. This rule is categorically excluded from further 
NEPA review.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) requires rules 
to be submitted to Congress before taking effect. If implemented as 
proposed, we will submit to Congress and the Comptroller General of the 
United States a report regarding the issuance of the final rule before 
its effective date, as required by 5 U.S.C. 801.

K. Executive Order 13175

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of 
materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling 
procedures; and related management systems practices) that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. This rule 
does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the 
use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Executive Order 12630

    This rule would not cause the taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

N. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 requires agencies to consider the impacts of 
environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately 
affect children. DHS has reviewed this rule and determined that this 
rule is not a covered regulatory action under Executive Order 13045. 
Although the rule is economically significant, it would not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children. Therefore, DHS has not prepared a 
statement under this executive order.

O. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to consider the impact of 
rules that significantly impact the supply, distribution, and use of 
energy. DHS has reviewed this rule and determined that this rule would 
not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy. Therefore, this rule does not require a Statement of 
Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

P. Signature

    The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, having 
reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to 
electronically sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, who is the Senior 
Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel for DHS, for 
purposes of publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration.

8 CFR Part 103

    Administrative practice and procedure, Powers and Duties; 
Availability of Records; Authority delegations (Government agencies), 
Freedom of information, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Surety bonds.

8 CFR Part 204

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Employment, Petitions, Reporting, Passports and visas, and 
recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 56414]]

8 CFR Part 207

    Immigration, Refugees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 208

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 209

    Aliens, Immigration, Refugees.

8 CFR Part 210

    Aliens, Migrant labor, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 212

    Documentary requirements: Nonimmigrants; Waivers; Admission of 
certain inadmissible aliens; Parole.

8 CFR Part 214

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, Foreign 
officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Students.

8 CFR Part 215

    Controls of Aliens Departing from the United States; Electronic 
Visa Update System.

8 CFR Part 216

    Conditional Basis of Lawful Permanent Residence Status.

8 CFR Part 235

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 236

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration.

8 CFR Part 240

    Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration.

8 CFR Part 244

    Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 245

    Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 245a

    Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 264

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 287

    Immigration, Law enforcement officers.

8 CFR Part 316

    Citizenship and naturalization, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

8 CFR Part 333

    Photographs.

8 CFR Part 335

    Examination on application for naturalization.

    Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 5 U.S.C. 301; Public 
Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

0
2. Section 1.2 is amended by adding definitions for ``Biometrics'' and 
``DNA'' in alphaetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  1.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Biometrics means the measurable biological (anatomical and 
physiological) or behavioral characteristics of an individual, 
including an individual's fingerprints, palm prints, photograph (facial 
image), signature, iris (iris image), voice (voice print), and/or DNA 
(partial DNA profile) (subject to the limitations in 8 CFR 
103.16(d)(2).
* * * * *
    DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the genetic 
instructions used in the growth, development, functioning, and 
reproduction of all known living organisms.
* * * * *

PART 103--IMMIGRATION BENEFITS; BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS; 
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS

0
3. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 
1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 
et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557; 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 
8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 112-54.

0
4. Section 103.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(9), 
and (b)(13) to read as follows:


Sec.  103.2   Submission and adjudication of benefit requests.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) General. The non-existence or other unavailability of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or 
cannot be obtained, an applicant, petitioner, or requestor must 
demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as church or 
school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence 
also does not exist or cannot be obtained, the applicant, petitioner, 
or requestor must demonstrate the unavailability of both the required 
document and relevant secondary evidence, and submit two or more 
affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the 
petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and 
circumstances. Secondary evidence must overcome the unavailability of 
primary evidence, and affidavits must overcome the unavailability of 
both primary and secondary evidence. If DHS requires submission of 
specific biometrics, under 8 CFR part 103.16, neither secondary 
evidence nor affidavits will overcome the unavailability of the 
requested biometrics.
* * * * *
    (9) Appearance for interview. (i) DHS may require any applicant, 
petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or individual filing a benefit or 
other request, or any group or class of such individuals submitting 
requests, to appear for an interview at any time. Such appearance may 
also be required by law, regulation, form instructions, or Federal 
Register notice applicable to the request type.
    (ii) An interview may be waived by DHS, for an entire population or 
on a case-by-case basis, solely at its discretion.
    (iii) Each individual required to appear under this paragraph will 
be provided notice of the date, time, and location of an interview.
    (iv) Failure to appear for a scheduled interview without prior 
authorization from USCIS may result in denial, administrative closure, 
dismissal of the applicable immigration benefit request or other 
request, waiver of the right to an interview, or termination of status, 
if applicable. USCIS may reschedule the interview at its discretion.
    (v) Any individual required to appear under this paragraph or any 
individual authorized to file an application, petition, or benefit 
request on behalf of an individual who may be required to appear under 
this paragraph may, before the scheduled date and time of the 
appearance, either:
    (A) For good cause, request that the interview be rescheduled; or
    (B) If applicable, withdraw the application, petition, benefit 
request, or

[[Page 56415]]

any other request as provided in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(6).
    (vi) For an asylum application or asylum-related benefit, see 8 CFR 
208.10.
* * * * *
    (13) Effect of failure to respond to a request for evidence or 
failure to submit evidence or respond to a notice of intent to deny. If 
the petitioner, applicant, or requestor fails to respond to a request 
for evidence or to a notice of intent to deny by the required date, the 
benefit request may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied based on 
the record, or denied for both reasons. If other requested material 
necessary to the processing and approval of a case are not submitted by 
the required date, the application, petition, benefit request, or any 
other request may be summarily denied as abandoned.
0
5. Revise Sec.  103.16 to read as follows:


Sec.  103.16   Biometrics services.

    (a) Collection--(1) Required unless waived. Any applicant, 
petitioner, sponsor, derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual 
filing or associated with benefit requests as defined in this chapter, 
or any other request or form of relief, must submit biometrics to DHS 
unless the request is exempted or the requirement is waived by DHS. DHS 
may waive the requirement in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this 
section, a Federal Register notice, or as otherwise provided by law or 
regulation. This section applies only to individuals submitting 
applications, petitions, or requests to USCIS, including United States 
citizens, without regard to age.
    (2) Frequency of submission. DHS may collect biometrics for an 
individual more than once or, at its discretion, reuse previously 
collected biometrics, as necessary.
    (3) Method of submission. When not exempted or waived, DHS will 
prescribe the manner in which biometric collection is to be conducted 
in a notice to the individual. Each individual will be provided notice 
of the date, time, and location of his or her appointment for 
biometrics collection. DHS will schedule the biometric collection at 
the nearest appropriate location to the individual, unless there is 
good cause to schedule at another location.
    (4) Removal of exemption. DHS may change its decision to exempt 
biometrics for a form, program, or group at a later date and will 
provide public notification of the change.
    (5) Waiver of biometrics. DHS may waive the biometrics collection 
requirement for an individual or grant an exemption thereof for an 
entire group as follows:
    (i) For an individual waiver, initiated by DHS at DHS's discretion, 
or based on a request for a reasonable accommodation because of age, 
disability, or other reasons making it impossible or unreasonable to 
appear for biometrics or provide a prescribed biometric. In such 
instances, when photographs are required as part of the biometrics 
collection, USCIS will provide an alternative mechanism to meet the 
requirement.
    (ii) For exemption of an entire group, if the Secretary (or 
Secretary's designee) determines that biometrics, or certain biometric 
modalities, for that form, program, or group are not required and that 
an exemption would be in the Government's interest and consistent with 
other applicable law, DHS will provide notice in the applicable form 
instructions, a Federal Register notice, by posting notification on the 
USCIS website, or any combination thereof.
    (iii) As otherwise provided by law or regulation.
    (iv) Aliens who request a benefit that results in a secure identity 
document must submit a photograph in accordance with the requirements 
prescribed by DHS regardless of any exemption or waiver on the 
submission of biometrics that he or she may be provided.
    (6) Intercountry adoption biometrics. For intercountry adoption-
related applications and petitions under 8 CFR 204.3, or 8 CFR 204.301 
to 204.314, in addition to the individuals identified in paragraph 
(a)(1), USCIS will collect biometrics for the applicant or petitioner's 
spouse and each additional adult member of the prospective adoptive 
parents' household, regardless of citizenship, as defined at 8 CFR 
204.301. The particular intercountry adoption-related application or 
petition will state this requirement, where it applies, in the form 
instructions.
    (7) Reschedule submission. DHS or its designee may reschedule the 
biometrics collection at its discretion, or where, before issuing the 
biometrics notice, DHS received a valid change of address request but 
the biometrics notice was not sent to the updated address.
    (8) Reschedule timing. An individual may reschedule their 
biometrics collection appointment prior to the appointment, for any 
cause, one time.
    (b) Failure to appear for biometrics collection. If an individual 
fails to appear without good cause when DHS or its designee scheduled a 
biometrics appointment:
    (1) Waiver of rights. DHS will, as appropriate, deem any right to 
an interview waived, deny, reopen, refer to the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review, dismiss, and/or take any other administrative 
action on any associated pending immigration benefit or other request; 
or
    (2) Revocation. DHS may terminate, rescind, or revoke the 
individual's immigration status, petition, benefit, or relief, where 
authorized by law.
    (3) Asylum applicants. For an asylum application or asylum-related 
benefit, ``good cause'' requires a showing of exceptional circumstances 
see 8 CFR 208.10.
    (c) Updates to biometrics--(1) During adjudication. Unless waived 
or exempted, any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, beneficiary, or 
individual filing or certain individuals associated with a benefit or 
other request as described in this chapter, including U.S. citizens and 
lawful permanent residents, must appear as requested to submit 
biometrics to DHS upon notice while the benefit or other request is 
pending with DHS.
    (2) After approval. Any individual alien may be required to submit 
biometrics again for purposes of continuous vetting, unless and until 
he or she is granted U.S. citizenship. A lawful permanent resident or 
United States citizen may be required to submit biometrics if he or she 
filed an application, petition, or request in the past and it was 
either reopened or the previous approval is relevant to an application, 
petition, or benefit request currently pending with DHS. Regional 
center principals and, if the principal is a legal entity or 
organization, persons having ownership, control, or a beneficial 
interest in the principal legal entity or organization, including U.S. 
citizens, may also be required to submit biometrics again for purposes 
of continuous vetting.
    (d) Use and retention--(1) Biometrics other than DNA. DHS may store 
biometrics, other than raw DNA, submitted by an individual as required 
by this section and use or reuse these biometrics to conduct background 
and security checks, verify identity, produce documents, determine 
eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits, or as 
necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and 
naturalization laws. Biometrics collected, other than DNA, may be 
shared with appropriate federal, state, and local law enforcement; or 
intelligence community entities; foreign governments, as authorized by 
law and/or international agreements.
    (2) DNA evidence as proof of a genetic relationship. (i) DHS may 
require, request, or accept the submission of

[[Page 56416]]

DNA or DNA test results to verify a claimed genetic relationship or 
determine whether a genetic relationship exists. DHS may use and store 
DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, as evidence of a 
claimed genetic relationship:
    (A) To determine eligibility for immigration and naturalization 
benefits; or,
    (B) To perform any other functions necessary for administering and 
enforcing immigration and naturalization laws.
    (ii) DHS may at its discretion consider DNA test results, which 
include a partial DNA profile, as primary or secondary evidence of the 
claimed genetic relationships for any benefit or request.
    (iii) DHS will only use and handle raw DNA as long as necessary to 
obtain DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile. DHS will 
destroy raw DNA once these test results are obtained, and DHS will not 
share DNA test results unless required by law. The DNA test results, 
which include a partial DNA profile, on any individual obtained as part 
of the benefit request will remain a part of the file and record of 
proceeding, DHS will store and may share DNA test results, which 
include a partial DNA profile, for immigration adjudication purposes or 
for law enforcement purposes to the extent permitted by law.

PART 204--IMMIGRANT PETITIONS

0
6. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1184, 
1186a, 1255, 1324a, 1641; 8 CFR part 2.

0
7. Section 204.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(2)(v), (d)(2)(iv);
0
b. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(vi);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(vii) as (d)(2)(vi); and
0
d. Revising (e)(2)(v);
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  204.2  Petitions for relatives, widows and widowers, and abused 
spouses, children, and parents.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Evidence for petition for a spouse. In addition to evidence of 
United States citizenship or lawful permanent resident status, the 
petitioner must also provide evidence of the claimed relationship. A 
petition submitted on behalf of a spouse must be accompanied by:
    (i) Photograph(s) of the petitioner as described in the relevant 
form instructions,
    (ii) Photograph(s) of the beneficiary as described in the relevant 
form instructions,
    (iii) A certificate of marriage issued by civil authorities; and,
    (iv) Proof of the legal termination of all previous marriages of 
both the petitioner and the beneficiary.
    (v) Photographs that do not comply with form instructions may be 
accepted by USCIS when the petitioner or beneficiary reside(s) in a 
region where such photographs are unavailable.
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Good moral character. The self-petitioner's good moral 
character is determined upon review of any credible and relevant 
evidence, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence submitted by 
the self-petitioner and criminal history information obtained through 
the self-petitioner's biometrics. USCIS will assess the good moral 
character of the self-petitioner for a three year period immediately 
preceding the filing of the self-petition. USCIS may consider the self-
petitioner's conduct beyond the three years preceding the petition 
filing, if the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a 
determination of the self-petitioner's present moral character, and the 
conduct of the self-petitioner during the three-year period does not 
reflect that there has been a reform of character from an earlier 
period. Self-petitioners who lived outside the United States during the 
three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition 
must submit a law enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or 
similar report issued by an appropriate authority from any jurisdiction 
in which the self-petitioner resided for six or more months during the 
three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-
petition.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) Primary evidence for an adopted child or son or daughter. A 
petition may be submitted on behalf of an adopted child or son or 
daughter by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident if the adoption 
took place before the beneficiary's sixteenth birthday (or eighteenth 
birthday if the sibling exception at INA 101(b)(1)(E)(ii) applies), and 
if the child has been in the legal custody of the adopting parent or 
parents and has resided with the adopting parent or parents for at 
least two years. A copy of the beneficiary's birth certificate issued 
by the appropriate civil authority, establishing the beneficiary's 
identity, age, and birth parentage, and a certified copy of the 
adoption decree, issued by the appropriate civil authority, must 
accompany the petition.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Good moral character. The self-petitioner's good moral 
character is determined upon review of any credible and relevant 
evidence, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence submitted by 
the self-petitioner and criminal history information obtained through 
the self-petitioner's biometrics. USCIS will assess the good moral 
character of the self-petitioner for a three year period immediately 
preceding the filing of the self-petition. USCIS may consider the self-
petitioner's conduct beyond the three years preceding the petition 
filing, if the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a 
determination of the self-petitioner's present moral character, and the 
conduct of the self-petitioner during the three-year period does not 
reflect that there has been a reform of character from an earlier 
period. Self-petitioners who lived outside the United States during the 
three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-petition 
must submit a law enforcement clearance, criminal background check, or 
similar report issued by an appropriate authority from any jurisdiction 
in which the self-petitioner resided for six or more months during the 
three year period immediately preceding the filing of the self-
petition. All self-petitioners age 14 and over are required to submit 
evidence of good moral character as initial evidence with their 
application. For self-petitioners under the age of 14, USCIS may 
request evidence of good moral character at any time, in its 
discretion.
* * * * *


Sec.  204.3  [Amended]

0
8. Section 204.3 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(3).
0
9. Section 204.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(g)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  204.4  Amerasian child of a United States citizen.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Preliminary processing. Upon initial submission of a petition 
with the preliminary processing documentary evidence required in 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, USCIS will adjudicate the petition to 
determine whether there is reason to believe the beneficiary was 
fathered by a United States citizen, and if so request that the 
petitioner submit

[[Page 56417]]

the evidence required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section and any 
additional evidence required. The petitioner must submit all required 
documents within the deadline provided in the request or the petition 
will be considered to have been abandoned. To reactivate an abandoned 
petition, the petitioner must submit a new Petition for Amerasian, 
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant without the previously submitted 
documentation to USCIS.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Failure to meet the sponsorship requirements, including the 
completed background check, if USCIS finds that the sponsor is not of 
good moral character.
0
10. Section 204.5 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  204.5  Petitions for employment-based immigrants.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (4) Application for employment authorization. To request employment 
authorization, an eligible applicant described in paragraph (p)(1), 
(2), or (3) of this section must properly file an application for 
employment authorization, with USCIS, with the appropriate fee, in 
accordance with 8 CFR 274a.13(a) and the form instructions. Employment 
authorization under this paragraph may be granted solely in 1-year 
increments.


Sec.  204.310  [Amended]

0
11. Section 204.310 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).

PART 207--ADMISSION OF REFUGEES

0
12. The authority citation for part 207 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1157, 1159, 1182; 8 CFR 
part 2.

0
13. Section 207.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  207.1   Eligibility.

    (a) Filing. Any alien who believes he or she is a refugee as 
defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, and is included in a refugee 
group identified in section 207(a) of the Act, may apply for admission 
to the United States by submitting an application and the required 
evidence, in accordance with the form instructions. The application 
will be considered filed when it is completed and signed before a USCIS 
officer.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 207.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (e), and 
(f)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  207.7   Derivatives of refugees.

* * * * *
    (d) Filing. A principal refugee admitted under section 207(c)(1) of 
the Act may request following-to-join benefits for his or her spouse 
and unmarried, minor child(ren) (whether the spouse and children are 
inside or outside the United States) by filing a separate Request for 
Refugee/Asylee Relative petition in accordance with the form 
instructions for each qualifying family member. The request may only be 
filed by the principal refugee. Family members who derived their 
refugee status are not eligible to request derivative benefits on 
behalf of their spouse and child(ren). A separate Request for Refugee/
Asylee Relative petition must be filed for each qualifying family 
member within two years of the refugee's admission to the United States 
unless USCIS determines that the filing period should be extended for 
humanitarian reasons. There is no time limit imposed on a family 
member's travel to the United States once the Request for Refugee/
Asylee Relative petition has been approved, provided that the 
relationship of spouse or child continues to exist and approval of the 
Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative petition has not been subsequently 
reopened and denied. There is no fee for this benefit request.
    (e) Evidence. (1) Evidence must be provided as required by form 
instructions for the Registration for Classification as Refugee and/or 
Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative, as applicable, which establishes 
that:
    (i) The principal refugee applicant has the claimed relationship to 
the derivative where the derivative is accompanying the principal, or
    (ii) The petitioner was previously admitted as a principal refugee 
and that the petitioner has the claimed relationship to the following 
to join derivative.
    (2) The derivative refugee applicant or beneficiary may be required 
to provide additional evidence to establish eligibility.
    (3) The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he or she is an eligible petitioner 
and the following to join beneficiary is an eligible spouse or child.
    (f) * * *
    (2) Spouse or child outside the United States. When a spouse or 
child of a refugee is outside the United States and the Request for 
Refugee/Asylee Relative is approved, USCIS will notify the refugee of 
such approval.
* * * * *

PART 208--PROCEDURES FOR ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL

0
15. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; Title 
VII of Pub. L. 110-229; 8 CFR part 2.

0
16. Section 208.21 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and (f) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  208.21   Admission of the asylee's spouse and children.

* * * * *
    (d) Spouse or child outside the United States. When a spouse or 
child of an alien granted asylum is outside the United States, the 
asylee may request accompanying or following-to-join benefits for his 
or her spouse or child(ren) by filing a separate Request for Refugee/
Asylee Relative for each qualifying family member in accordance with 
the form instructions. A separate Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative 
for each qualifying family member must be filed within two years of the 
date in which the asylee was granted asylum, unless USCIS determines 
that the filing period should be extended for humanitarian reasons. 
When the Request for Refugee/Asylee Relative is approved, USCIS will 
notify the asylee of such approval. The approval of the Request for 
Refugee/Asylee Relative will remain valid for the duration of the 
relationship to the asylee and, in the case of a child, while the child 
is under 21 years of age and unmarried, provided also that the 
principal's status has not been revoked. However, the approved Request 
for Refugee/Asylee Relative will cease to confer immigration benefits 
after it has been used by the beneficiary for admission to the United 
States as a derivative of an asylee.
* * * * *
    (f) Burden of proof. (1) The burden of proof is on the principal 
alien or petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
that he or she is eligible to file for this benefit and that the 
individual on whose behalf he/she is making a request under this 
section is an eligible spouse or child.
    (2) Evidence must be provided as required by form instructions for 
the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal or Request 
for Refugee/Asylee Relative, as applicable, which establishes that:
    (i) The principal alien or petitioner has the claimed relationship 
to the

[[Page 56418]]

derivative where the derivative is accompanying the principal, or
    (ii) the petitioner was previously granted status as a principal 
asylee and that the petitioner has the claimed relationship to the 
following to join derivative.
    (3) The derivative asylum applicant or beneficiary may be required 
to provide additional evidence to establish eligibility.
* * * * *

PART 209--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF REFUGEES AND ALIENS GRANTED 
ASYLUM

0
17. The authority citation for part 209 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1228, 1252, 
1282; Title VII of Public Law 110-229; 8 CFR part 2.

0
18. Section 209.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  209.1   Adjustment of status of refugees.

* * * * *
    (b) Application. Upon admission to the United States, every refugee 
entrant will be notified of the requirement to submit an adjustment of 
status application one year after entry.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 209.2 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  209.2   Adjustment of status of alien granted asylum.

* * * * *
    (c) Application. An application for the benefits of section 209(b) 
of the Act may be filed on an Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status, with the correct fee, and in accordance 
with the form instructions. If an alien has been placed in removal 
proceedings, the application can be filed and considered only in 
proceedings under section 240 of the Act.
* * * * *

PART 210--SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

0
20. The authority citation for part 210 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1160, 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  210.1   [Amended]

0
21. Section 210.1 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
22. Section 210.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (iv), 
(c)(3)(iv), and (c)(4)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.2  Application for temporary resident status.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) An Application for Temporary Resident Status as a Special 
Agricultural Worker must be filed with the required fee.
* * * * *
    (iv) Each applicant, regardless of age, must appear at the 
appropriate USCIS office and submit biometrics, unless USCIS waives or 
exempts biometrics pursuant to 8 CFR 103.16. Each applicant will be 
interviewed by an immigration officer, except that the interview may be 
waived on a case-by-case basis at its discretion.
    (3) * * *
    (iv) An applicant at an overseas processing office whose 
application is recommended for approval will be provided with an entry 
document attached to the applicant's file. Upon admission to the United 
States, the applicant must contact USCIS for biometric collection, 
examination of the applicant's file, and issuance of employment 
authorization.
    (4) * * *
    (iii) Conditions of admission. Aliens who present a preliminary 
application will be admitted to the United States for a period of 
ninety (90) days with authorization to accept employment, if they are 
determined by an immigration officer to be admissible to the United 
States. Such aliens are required, within that ninety-day period, to 
submit evidence of eligibility which meets the provisions of Sec.  
210.3; appear for biometric collection; obtain a report of medical 
examination in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section; and 
submit to USCIS a complete application as defined in Sec.  210.1(c). 
USCIS may, for good cause, extend the ninety-day period and grant 
further authorization to accept employment in the United States if an 
alien demonstrates he or she was unable to perfect an application 
within the initial period. If an alien described in this paragraph 
fails to submit a complete application to USCIS within ninety days or 
within such additional period as may have been authorized, his or her 
application may be denied for lack of prosecution, without prejudice.
* * * * *
0
23. Section 210.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  210.5   Adjustment to permanent resident status.

* * * * *
    (b) Biometrics collection. To obtain proof of permanent resident 
status an alien described in paragraph (a) of this section must follow 
USCIS instructions for obtaining a Permanent Resident Card, including 
verifying identity and submitting biometrics. The alien may appear 
before the date of adjustment if requested to do so by USCIS. The 
Permanent Resident Card will be issued after the date of adjustment.
* * * * *

PART 212--DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS; 
ADMISSION OF CERTAIN INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE

0
24. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 6 U.S.C. 111, 202, 236 and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and 
note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1185, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 
1227, 1255, 1359; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-
458); 8 CFR part 2.

0
25. Section 212.7 is amended by removing paragraph (e)(6) and 
redesignating paragraphs (e)(7) through (e)(14) as paragraphs (e)(6) 
through (e)(13).

PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES

0
26. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 
1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305 and 1372; sec. 643, 
Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Public Law 106-386, 114 Stat. 
1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the 
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall 
Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 
1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.

0
27. Section 214.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(23)(viii) and 
(k)(1) and removing and reserving paragraph (w)(15) to read as follows:


Sec.  214.2   Special requirements for admission, extension, and 
maintenance of status.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (23) * * *
    (viii) Information for background checks. An applicant for E-2 CNMI 
Investor status or any applicant for derivative status as a spouse or 
child of an E-2 CNMI Investor, must submit biometrics as required under 
8 CFR 103.16.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) Petition and supporting documents. To be classified as a 
fiancé or fiancée as defined in section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) 
of the Act, an alien must be the beneficiary of an approved visa 
petition filed on a Petition for Alien fiancé(e).
* * * * *

[[Page 56419]]

Sec.  214.11  [Amended]

0
28. Section 214.11 is amended by removing the term ``fingerprint'' from 
the definition ``Bona fide determination'' and adding the term 
``biometrics'' in its place.
0
29. Section 214.15 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  214.15   Certain spouses and children of lawful permanent 
residents.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Contents of application. To apply for V nonimmigrant status, an 
eligible alien must:
    (i) Submit an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, in 
accordance with the form instructions and with the appropriate fee;
    (ii) Appear for biometric collection;
    (iii) Submit a Medical Examination of Aliens Seeking Adjustment of 
Status, without the vaccination supplement; and
    (iv) Submit Evidence of eligibility as described by Application to 
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status Supplement A and in paragraph (f)(2) 
of this section.
* * * * *

PART 215--CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES; 
ELECTRONIC VISA UPDATE SYSTEM

0
30. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202(4), 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1104, 
1184, 1185 (pursuant to Executive Order 13323 (Dec. 30, 2003)), 
1365a note, 1379, 1731-32; and 8 CFR part 2.

0
31. Section 215.8 is amended by revising the section heading and 
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  215.8   Requirements for biometrics from aliens on departure from 
the United States.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
32. Section 215.9 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  215.9   Temporary Worker Visa Exit Program.

    An alien admitted on certain temporary worker visas at a port of 
entry participating in the Temporary Worker Visa Exit Program must also 
depart at the end of his or her authorized period of stay through a 
port of entry participating in the program and must present designated 
biographic and/or biometrics upon departure. U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection will publish a Notice in the Federal Register designating 
which temporary workers must participate in the Temporary Worker Visa 
Exit Program, which ports of entry are participating in the program, 
which biographic and/or biometrics would be required, and the format 
for submission of that information by the departing designated 
temporary workers.

PART 216--CONDITIONAL BASIS OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS

0
33. The authority for part 216 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1184, 1186a, 1186b, and 8 
CFR part 2.


Sec.  216.4  [Amended]

0
34. Section 216.4 is amended by removing paragraphs (b) introductory 
text, (b)(1) and (2) and redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as (b).


Sec.  216.6  [Amended]

0
35. Section 216.6 is amended by removing paragraphs (b) introductory 
text, (b)(1) and (2) and redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as (b).

PART 235--INSPECTION OF PERSONS APPLYING FOR ADMISSION

0
36. The authority for part 235 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103, 1183, 1185 (pursuant to 
E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 278) 1201, 1224, 1225, 
1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1365b, 1379, 1731-32; Title VII of Public 
Law 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); 
Pub. L. 112-54.

0
37. Section 235.1 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (f)(1)(iv), removing the words ``paragraph (d)(1)(ii)'' 
and adding in its place ``paragraph (f)(1)(ii)'' and
0
B. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(1)(iv)(A).
0
38. Section 235.7 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph 
(a)(3) and revising paragraph (a)(4)(vi) to read as follows:


Sec.  235.7  Automated inspection services.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * * Notwithstanding the provisions of 8 CFR part 264, 
biometric collection in the manner prescribed by DHS may be required to 
participate in the PORTPASS program.
    (4) * * *
    (vi) If biometrics are required to assist in a determination of 
eligibility at that POE, the applicant will be so advised by DHS, 
before submitting his or her application. The applicant will also be 
informed at that time of any biometric fee for conducting the biometric 
collection and any identity verification and national security and 
criminal history background checks.
* * * * *

PART 236--APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF INADMISSIBLE AND DEPORTABLE 
ALIENS; REMOVAL OF ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED

0
39. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1224, 
1225, 1226, 1227, 1231, 1362; 18 U.S.C. 4002, 4013(c)(4); 8 CFR part 
2.

0
40. Section 236.5 is revised as follows:


Sec.  236.5  Biometrics.

    Every alien against whom proceedings based on inadmissibility under 
section 212(a) of the INA or deportability under section 237 of the INA 
are initiated, including proceedings under sections 235, 238(b), and 
240 of the INA, must submit biometrics at a time and place determined 
by DHS. DHS may also require submission of biometrics for any alien who 
is subject to INA section 241(a)(5) or 8 CFR 217.4(b) or (c).

PART 240--VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE, SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION AND 
SPECIAL RULE CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL

0
41. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103; 1182, 1186a, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 
1251, 1252 note, 1252a, 1252b, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. L. 105-
100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 
2681); 8 CFR part 2.

0
42. Section 240.21 is amended by revising (b)(2)(ii)(D) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  240.21  Suspension of deportation and adjustment of status under 
section 244(a) of the Act (as in effect before April 1, 1997) and 
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b) 
of the Act for certain nonpermanent residents.

    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Two photograph(s) meeting the requirements in the instructions 
to the relevant form.
0
43. Section 240.63 is amended by revising the third and fourth 
sentences of paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  240.63  Application process.

    (a) * * * Each application must be filed with the filing fee as 
provided in 8 CFR 103.7 and the form instructions,

[[Page 56420]]

or a request for a fee waiver must be filed. The fact that an applicant 
has also applied for asylum does not exempt the applicant from any fee 
for other benefit requests.
* * * * *
0
44. Section 240.67 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows:


Sec.  240.67   Procedure for interview before an asylum officer.

    (a) Interview and biometric collection. USCIS will notify each 
applicant to appear for an interview only after USCIS has scheduled the 
applicant for biometric collection in accordance with 8 CFR 103.16 and 
initiated national security and criminal history background checks.
* * * * *
0
45. Section 240.68 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  240.68  Failure to appear at an interview before an asylum 
officer or failure to follow requirements for biometrics.

    Failure to appear for a scheduled interview or biometrics will be 
handled in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9) and 103.16, respectively.
0
46. Section 240.70 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  240.70   Decision by the Service.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) The applicant failed to appear for a scheduled interview with 
an asylum officer or failed to comply with biometrics requirements and 
such failure was not excused by USCIS, unless the application is 
dismissed.
* * * * *

PART 244--TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR NATIONALS OF DESIGNATED 
FOREIGN STATES AND PERSONS WITHOUT NATIONALITY WHO LAST HABITUALLY 
RESIDED IN A TPS DESIGNATED STATE

0
47. The authority citation for part 244 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1254, 1254a note, 8 CFR part 2.

0
48. Section 244.6(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  244.6  Application.

    (a) An application for Temporary Protected Status must be submitted 
in accordance with the form instructions, the applicable country-
specific Federal Register notice that announces the procedures for TPS 
registration or re-registration and, except as otherwise provided in 
this section, with the appropriate fees as described in 8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
49. Section 244.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  244.17  Periodic registration.

    (a) Aliens granted Temporary Protected Status must re-register 
periodically in accordance with USCIS instructions. Such registration 
applies to nationals of those foreign states designated for more than 
one year by DHS or where a designation has been extended for a year or 
more. Applicants for re-registration must apply during the period 
provided by USCIS. Applicants re-registering do not need to pay the fee 
that was required for initial registration except the biometric 
services fee and if requesting employment authorization, the 
application fee for employment authorization. By completing the 
application, applicants attest to their continuing eligibility. Such 
applicants do not need to submit additional supporting documents unless 
USCIS requests them to do so.
* * * * *

PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR 
PERMANENT RESIDENCE

0
50. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; Pub. L. 105-100, 
section 202, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; Pub. L. 105-277, section 902, 112 
Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 110-229, tit. VII, 122 Stat. 754; 8 CFR part 2.

0
51. Section 245.15 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  245.15  Adjustment of status of certain Haitian nationals under 
the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act of 1998 (HRIFA).

* * * * *
    (h) Application and supporting documents. Each applicant for 
adjustment of status must file an application on the form prescribed by 
USCIS with the appropriate fee. Each application must be accompanied 
by:
    (1) A copy of the applicant's birth certificate or other record of 
birth;
    (2) A report of medical examination, as specified in Sec.  245.5;
    (3) Two photographs unless waived by USCIS;
    (4) A copy of the Arrival-Departure Record, issued at the time of 
the applicant's arrival in the United States, if the alien was 
inspected and admitted or paroled;
* * * * *
0
52. Section 245.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  245.21  Adjustment of status of certain nationals of Vietnam, 
Cambodia, and Laos (section 586 of Pub. L. 106-429).

* * * * *
    (b) Application. An applicant must submit an application on the 
form designated by USCIS with the fee specified in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1) 
and in accordance with the form instructions. Applicants must also 
appear for biometrics collection as described in 8 CFR 103.16.
* * * * *
0
53. Section 245.23 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  245.23  Adjustment of aliens in T nonimmigrant classification.

* * * * *
    (g) Good moral character. A T-1 nonimmigrant applicant for 
adjustment of status under this section must demonstrate that he or she 
has been a person of good moral character since first being lawfully 
admitted as a T-1 nonimmigrant and until USCIS completes the 
adjudication of their application for adjustment of status. Claims of 
good moral character will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking 
into account section 101(f) of the Act and the standards of the 
community. USCIS will assess the good moral character of the applicant 
for the requisite continuous period as described in section 
245(l)(1)(A) of the Act. USCIS will determine an applicant's good moral 
character as follows:
    (1) Reviewing any credible and relevant evidence, which includes, 
but is not limited to, criminal history information obtained through 
the applicant's biometrics and evidence submitted by the applicant.
    (2) USCIS may consider the applicant's conduct beyond the requisite 
period, if the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a 
determination of the applicant's present moral character, and the 
conduct of the applicant during the requisite period does not reflect 
that there has been a reform of character from an earlier period.
    (3) Applicants who lived outside the United States during the 
requisite period must submit a law enforcement clearance, criminal 
background check, or similar report issued by an appropriate authority 
from any jurisdiction in which the applicant resided during the 
requisite period.
    (4) All T nonimmigrant applicants for adjustment of status age 14 
and over are required to submit evidence of good moral character as 
initial evidence with their application. For T nonimmigrant applicants 
for adjustment of status under the age of 14, USCIS may request

[[Page 56421]]

evidence of good moral character at any time, in its discretion.

PART 245a--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSONS ADMITTED FOR 
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS UNDER SECTION 245A OF THE 
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

0
54. The authority citation for part 245a continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1255a and 1255a note.

0
55. Section 245a.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) introductory 
text, (d)(2)(ii), the last sentence of paragraph (e)(1) and paragraph 
(j) to read as follows:


Sec.  245a.2   Application for temporary residence.

* * * * *
    (d) Documentation. Evidence to support an alien's eligibility for 
the Legalization Program must include documents establishing proof of 
identity, proof of residence, and proof of financial responsibility, as 
well as biometrics and a completed medical report of examination. All 
documentation submitted will be subject to verification. USCIS may deny 
applications submitted with unverifiable documentation. Failure by an 
applicant to authorize release to USCIS of information protected by the 
Privacy Act and/or related laws in order for USCIS to adjudicate a 
claim may result in denial of the benefit sought. Acceptable supporting 
documents for these three categories are discussed below.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Proof of common identity. The most persuasive evidence is a 
document issued in the assumed name which identifies the applicant by 
biometrics. Other evidence which will be considered are affidavit(s) by 
a person or persons other than the applicant, made under oath, which 
identify the affiant by name and address, state the affiant's 
relationship to the applicant and the basis of the affiant's knowledge 
of the applicant's use of the assumed name. Affidavits accompanied by a 
photograph which has been identified by the affiant as the individual 
known to affiant under the assumed name in question will carry greater 
weight.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * * The applicant must appear for a personal interview and 
for biometric collection as scheduled.
* * * * *
    (j) Interview. Each applicant will be interviewed by an immigration 
officer; USCIS may waive the interview on a case-by-case basis, at its 
discretion.
* * * * *
0
56. Section 245a.3 is amended by removing ``(ADIT processing)'' from 
the last sentence of paragraph (b)(1) and revising paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  245a.3  Application for adjustment from temporary to permanent 
resident status.

* * * * *
    (e) Interview. Each applicant will be interviewed by an immigration 
officer, except that the adjudicative interview may be waived by DHS on 
a case-by-case basis at its discretion. An applicant failing to appear 
for a scheduled interview may, for good cause, be afforded another 
interview. Where an applicant fails to appear for more than one 
scheduled interview, his or her application will be held in abeyance 
until the end of 43 months from the date of the application for 
temporary residence was approved and adjudicated on the basis of the 
existing record.
* * * * *
0
57. Section 245a.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) introductory 
text, (b)(4)(ii)(D), (b)(5)(i), and (b)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  245a.4  Adjustment to lawful resident status of certain nationals 
of countries for which extended voluntary departure has been made 
available.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Documentation. Evidence to support an alien's eligibility for 
temporary residence status must include documents establishing proof of 
identity, proof of nationality, proof of residence, and proof of 
financial responsibility, as well as biometrics, and a completed 
medical report of examination. USCIS may deny any applications 
submitted with unverifiable documentation. USCIS may deny the benefit 
sought where an applicant fails to authorize release to USCIS of 
information protected by the Privacy Act or related laws in order for 
USCIS to adjudicate a benefit request. Acceptable supporting documents 
for the four categories of documentation are discussed as follows:
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Other credible documents, including those created by, or in the 
possession of USCIS, or any other documents (excluding affidavits) 
that, when taken singly, or together as a whole, establish the alien's 
nationality.
* * * * *
    (5) Filing of application. (i) An Application for Status as a 
Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form 
instructions. The applicant must appear for a personal interview and 
biometrics collection as scheduled. USCIS may, at its discretion:
    (A) Require the applicant to file the application in person; or
    (B) Require the applicant to file the application by mail; or
    (C) Permit the filing of applications whether by mail or in person.
* * * * *
    (10) Interview. Each applicant, regardless of age, must appear at 
the appropriate USCIS office to be interviewed by an immigration 
officer, except that the interview may be waived on a case-by-case 
basis at USCIS' discretion.
* * * * *
0
58. Section 245a.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  245a.12   Filing and applications.

* * * * *
    (b) Filing of applications in the United States. USCIS has 
jurisdiction over all applications for the benefits of LIFE 
legalization under this Subpart B. All applications filed with USCIS 
for the benefits of LIFE Legalization must be submitted in accordance 
with application form instructions. After proper filing of the 
application, USCIS will notify the applicant to appear for an interview 
and biometric collection.
* * * * *
    (d) Application and supporting documentation. Each applicant for 
LIFE Legalization adjustment of status must properly file an 
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in 
accordance with the form instructions and with the appropriate fee(s). 
An applicant should complete Part 2 of the Application to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status by checking box ``h--other'' and 
writing ``LIFE Legalization'' next to that block. Each application must 
be properly filed in accordance with the form instructions and with the 
appropriate fee, and accompanied by:
    (1) A report of medical examination, as specified in 8 CFR 245.5.
    (2) Two photographs, as described in the instructions to the 
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
    (3) Proof of application for class membership in CSS, LULAC, or 
Zambrano class action lawsuits as described in Sec.  245a.14.

[[Page 56422]]

    (4) Proof of continuous residence in an unlawful status since 
before January 1, 1982 through May 4, 1988, as described in Sec.  
245a.15.
    (5) Proof of continuous physical presence from November 6, 1986, 
through May 4, 1988, as described in Sec.  245a.16.
    (6) Proof of citizenship skills as described in Sec.  245a.17. This 
proof may be submitted either at the time of filing the application, 
subsequent to filing the application but before the interview, or at 
the time of the interview.
* * * * *

PART 264--REGISTRATION, BIOMETRIC COLLECTION, AND VETTING

0
59. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1201, 1303-1305; 8 CFR part 2.

0
60. The heading for part 264 is revised as set forth above.
0
61. Section 264.1 is amended by revising the section heading, and 
paragraphs (e) and (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  264.1  Registration and biometric collection.

* * * * *
    (e) Biometrics exemption. (1) For purposes of this chapter, DHS 
will not collect biometrics under this section from nonimmigrant aliens 
who are:
    (i) Admitted as foreign government officials, employees, and their 
immediate family members; international organization representatives, 
officers, employees, and their immediate family members; NATO 
representatives, officers, employees, and their immediate family 
members; and holders of diplomatic visas while they maintain such 
nonimmigrant status.
    (ii) Nationals of countries which do not require biometrics 
collection of United States citizens temporarily residing therein.
    (iii) Aliens exempted under this provision may be required to 
appear for DHS to collect a photograph that can be used to create a 
secure identity document.
    (2) Every nonimmigrant alien not included in paragraph (e)(1) of 
this section who departs from the United States within one year of his 
or her admission may be exempted from biometrics collection, provided 
he or she maintains his or her nonimmigrant status during that time; 
each such alien who has not previously provided biometrics will apply 
at once if he or she remains in the United States in excess of one 
year.
    (3) Every nonimmigrant alien that has not previously had biometrics 
collected will apply at once upon his or her failure to maintain his or 
her nonimmigrant status.
* * * * *
    (g) Registration and biometrics of children. Within 30 days after 
reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United States not exempt from 
alien registration under the INA and this chapter must apply for 
registration and submit biometrics, unless biometrics collection is 
waived by USCIS. This requirement does not preclude DHS from requiring 
any alien under the age of 14 who is not exempt from alien registration 
to submit biometrics.
    (1) Permanent residents. If an alien who is a lawful permanent 
resident of the United States is temporarily absent from the United 
States when he or she reaches age 14, he or she must apply for 
registration and submit biometrics within 30 days of his or her return 
to the United States in accordance with applicable form instructions. 
Furthermore the alien must surrender any prior evidence of alien 
registration and USCIS will issue the alien new evidence of alien 
registration.
    (2) Others. In the case of an alien who is not a lawful permanent 
resident, the alien's previously issued registration document will be 
noted to show that he or she has been re-registered and the date of re-
registration.
* * * * *


Sec.  264.2  [Amended]

0
62. Section 264.2 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d);


Sec.  264.5   [Amended]

0
63. Section 264.5(i) is removed.

PART 287--FIELD OFFICERS; POWERS AND DUTIES

0
64. The authority citation for part 287 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1225, 1226, 1251, 1252, 1357; 
Homeland Security Act of 2002,. Pub. L. 107-296 (6 U.S.C. 1, et. 
seq.); 8 CFR part 2.

0
65. Section 287.11(b)(3) is amended by revising the last sentence to 
read as follows:


Sec.  287.11  Pre-enrolled Access Lane.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * * DHS may require applicants to submit to biometrics 
collection, and DHS may provide that biometric data to Federal, State, 
and local government agencies for the purpose of determining 
eligibility to participate in the PAL program.
* * * * *

PART 333--PHOTOGRAPHS

0
66. The authority citation for part 333 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443.

0
67. Section 333.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  333.1  Required photographs.

    Every applicant under section 333 of the Act must provide 
photographs as prescribed by USCIS in the applicable form instructions.

PART 335--EXAMINIATION ON APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION

0
68. The authority citation for part 335 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443, 1447.

0
69. Section 335.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  335.2  Examination of applicant.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the 
biometrics or biometric data submitted for the criminal background 
check has been rejected.
* * * * *

Chad R. Mizelle,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2020-19145 Filed 9-4-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.