Comment Submitted by Rebecca Rojas

I am an immigration attorney who has practiced for 10+ years, and I respectfully oppose the portion of this interim final rule that allows USCIS to deny, rather than reject, a benefit request when USCIS later determines that the request lacks a valid signature. I support the need for valid signatures and the integrity of immigration filings, but this rule is unnecessarily punitive. It creates a harsh “gotcha” consequence for what may often be a technical or inadvertent error in a system where filing fees are expensive, processing times are extremely long, and small filing issues can have devastating consequences for applicants and families. The difference between rejection and denial is not minor. If a filing is rejected, the applicant or petitioner can generally correct the problem and resubmit the filing with the fee. If the filing is denied, USCIS may keep the filing fee and require the applicant to start over. For many families, this can mean losing hundreds or thousands of dollars and years of time. For example, in a Form I-601A provisional waiver case, a missed or allegedly invalid signature could result in a denial after the applicant has waited years for adjudication. That person may then have to refile, pay a new filing fee, and restart a very long queue. This is disproportionate for a technical defect, especially where the applicant may have intended to sign, signed other pages, or made a simple oversight. The rule also does not adequately account for USCIS’s own role in delay. If USCIS accepts a filing, issues a receipt notice, and then does not identify a signature issue until months or years later, it is unfair to place the full consequence of that delay on the applicant. If a signature issue is discovered after acceptance, the fairer approach would be to issue a notice and allow the applicant to cure the issue, or at minimum reject rather than deny the filing and return the fee. The proposed approach is especially troubling because USCIS filing fees are not inexpensive administrative fees. They are often several hundred or over a thousand dollars. A rule that allows USCIS to deny a case and keep the filing fee because of a technical signature issue is unfair. I am also concerned that USCIS’s current position on electronic signatures is outdated and inconsistent with modern technology. USCIS itself uses electronic signatures extensively in its own notices, decisions, and communications. Yet USCIS continues to impose very limited and rigid signature options on applicants, petitioners, attorneys, and representatives. This is out of step with how legal, financial, medical, and government documents are signed in ordinary practice. USCIS should revise the rule to permit secure electronic signatures through reputable platforms that provide an audit trail, such as DocuSign, Dropbox Sign, Adobe Sign, or similar services. These platforms can provide more security and accountability than a scanned handwritten signature. They can show when a document was signed, the email address or account used, the IP address, and other audit information. That information may make it easier for USCIS to detect improper bulk-signing, suspicious patterns, or unauthorized signatures. USCIS’s concerns about copied-and-pasted signatures, signature images, and unauthorized signing are legitimate. But the answer should not be a punitive rule that denies filings and keeps fees for technical defects. The better solution is to modernize USCIS signature rules and allow secure electronic signatures with reliable audit trails. DHS should revise the rule as follows: 1. Do not permit denial solely for an invalid or deficient signature unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, or a repeated pattern of abuse. 2. Require USCIS to provide a meaningful opportunity to cure a signature defect discovered after acceptance, especially where the defect appears inadvertent. 3. If USCIS does not allow cure, require rejection rather than denial where the only issue is a deficient signature, and require return of the filing fee. 4. Permit secure electronic signatures from reputable third-party platforms that provide an audit trail, including information such as date, time, email/account verification, IP address, and document history. 5. Allow USCIS to request the electronic audit trail or other proof of signature validity when there is a specific concern about authenticity. 6. Reserve denial and fee retention for cases involving clear evidence that the requestor did not authorize the filing, the signature was fraudulent, or there was a deliberate practice of submitting invalid signatures. A fair immigration system should enforce filing requirements, but in a way that is proportional, modern, and reasonable. This rule, as written, is punitive and reinforces the perception that administrative agencies rely on technical traps rather than fair adjudication.