Comment Submitted by Paulina Mendez

I am submitting this comment in response to DHS Docket No. USCIS–2026–0166, the interim final rule amending 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(A) to give USCIS discretion to either reject or deny a benefit request found to have an invalid signature after it has already been accepted for processing. I oppose this rule as currently written. I understand the agency's interest in preventing signature fraud and recovering costs, and I do not object to that underlying goal. But the rule lacks the due-process safeguards needed to prevent harm to applicants whose only failing is an honest, correctable mistake and it falls hardest on the applicants least equipped to avoid that mistake in the first place: non-English speakers, elderly applicants, and people relying on family or informal help to navigate USCIS forms. I have several concerns. The first being the fee creates a disproportionate penalty for a technical defect. A denial lets USCIS keep the filing fee even when the underlying application is valid and the signature defect was a genuine mistake, such as a shaky elderly signature or confusion about which line to sign. Rejection refunds the fee; denial does not. Applicants can face different financial consequences for the same underlying error, with no clear standard to predict the outcome. As a result, this is a revenue-generating penalty rather than an anti-fraud tool. Another concern is there is no opportunity to resolve, even for good-faith errors. The rule declines to let applicants fix a signature once a request is in adjudication, even though USCIS already uses a Request for Evidence mechanism to let applicants fix other missing information. Singling out signature defects for this treatment prioritizes convenience over fairness, and it will punish applicants who are doing their best to navigate a complex system without an attorney. USCIS's naturalization data show that in FY 2024, fewer than 18 percent of naturalized citizens had an attorney or accredited representative file on their behalf, meaning the large majority of applicants complete and sign their own forms without legal help (USCIS, Naturalization Statistics). A rule that removes any chance to correct a signature error will fall almost entirely on this majority. In addition, migrants with the most at stake are the least protected. Because a denied or rejected request loses its filing date, applicants tied to deadlines can be permanently harmed by an error caught months or years later. The rule acknowledges this risk but only exempts two citizenship forms from it which leaves U-visa petitioners, asylum seekers, and VAWA self-petitioners with no protection. As of mid-2025, nearly 946,000 approved employment petitions were sitting in the backlog (Migration Policy Institute, citing USCIS backlog data), meaning many applicants could wait years. Furthermore, this change was made without the standard public rulemaking process. DHS classified this as a "procedural" rule to bypass normal rulemaking, making it effective immediately and inviting comments only after it was implemented. This rule should have gone through the full Administrative Procedure Act process before taking effect due to its financial and status consequences. Suggestions to improve to policy could be to extend the "reject only, no denial" protection beyond the two previously mentioned applications (N-600 and N-600K) to other benefit categories, such as U-visa petitions which have an annual cap, asylum applications near the one-year filing deadline, and VAWA self-petitions. Another suggestion is to require officers to offer an opportunity to fix a signature defect via Request for Evidence before proceeding to denial. - Publish standardized adjudicator guidance for when rejection versus denial is appropriate, so the outcome does not depend on which officer reviews the file, and so applicants can meaningfully anticipate and appeal outcomes. It would also be helpful to track and report denial-versus-rejection rates so that DHS and the public can evaluate whether this discretion is affecting the most vulnerable applicant populations. Lastly, and most importantly, withdrawing this rule and reissuing it as a standard notice-of-proposed-rulemaking can allow the public to comment before it takes effect. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Paulina Mendez July 9th, 2026