USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures Required by H.R.1 Reconciliation Bill
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures Required by H.R.1 Reconciliation Bill
- Posted
- Apr 29, 2026
- Comment period
- Apr 29, 2026 – Jun 30, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-08333
- CFR
- 8 CFR Parts 103, 106, 208, 244, and 274a
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | Asylum fee penalty severity | Impact on employment authorization | Undue financial burden on immigrants |
|---|
10 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by AFL-CIOOpposeUnion📎 Attachment
The AFL-CIO, a federation of 65 national and international unions, opposes the rule because it creates severe consequences for asylum seekers and TPS holders who cannot pay the annual asylum fee or maintain work permits. They argue the rule creates wealth-based barriers to relief, causes significant economic harm, and unlawfully bypasses required notice-and-comment procedures.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by AFL-CIOOpposeUnion📎 Attachment
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) opposes the rule, arguing it creates severe consequences for asylum seekers and TPS holders by imposing new fees and making it difficult to maintain work permits. They contend the rule causes significant economic harm, ignores reliance interests, and unlawfully bypasses required notice-and-comment procedures.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by Office of Congresswoman Andrea SalinasOpposeGovernment📎 Attachment
A group of Members of Congress is writing to strongly oppose the interim final rule regarding USCIS immigration fees. They argue that the rule creates a punitive fee system that threatens the legal status and work authorizations of asylum seekers and TPS holders, causes significant economic harm to industries, and improperly bypasses the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by Roots RebornOpposeAdvocacy
Roots Reborn, an advocacy organization, opposes the proposed rule because it codifies fee increases that will cause financial strain on immigrant families and children. They argue that the fees are disproportionate to income and create a "Catch-22" for asylum seekers, recommending that the government prioritize clearing the court backlog instead of seeking new funding through fees.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by NYC Mayor's Office of Immigrant AffairsOpposeGovernment📎 Attachment
The City of New York opposes the Interim Final Rule because it imposes harsh consequences on asylum applicants for failing to pay fees and creates significant barriers for TPS holders to maintain work authorization. The City argues that these measures will harm the local economy, strain public services, and negatively impact the well-being of residents.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by New York Immigration CoalitionOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC), an umbrella organization representing over 200 immigrant and refugee groups, opposes the proposed Interim Final Rule regarding immigration fees. They argue that the rule imposes punitive consequences for nonpayment—such as terminating asylum claims and employment authorization—that are not required by statute and fail to account for government-created delays and the needs of vulnerable populations.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by Cities for ActionOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
Cities for Action, a coalition of nearly 200 U.S. mayors and county executives, opposes the Interim Final Rule because it creates barriers to asylum and work authorization for millions of residents. They argue the rule will harm regional economic development, strain local emergency systems, and reduce state and local tax revenues.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio, LLC, and Legal Aid Society of ClevelandOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio, LLC, and the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland oppose the Interim Final Rule because they argue it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, undermines due process by rejecting applications without sufficient notice, and removes procedural safeguards for asylum-seekers' employment authorization. They contend that these changes will disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, including survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking, while also causing negative economic consequences for communities.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by Berkeley Society of FriendsOpposeAdvocacy
The Berkeley Society of Friends (Quakers) opposes the proposed rule because it imposes significant financial burdens on asylum seekers, such as an annual fee for pending applications and the retention of filing fees on rejected applications. They argue that these costs penalize vulnerable individuals for administrative backlogs and call for the inclusion of hardship waivers and the refunding of fees.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment Submitted by MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund)OpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
MALDEF, a Latino civil rights organization, opposes the interim final rule because it imposes severe financial hardships and punitive consequences on asylum seekers and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders. They argue that the rule lacks proper notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act and creates barriers to legal employment and protection for low-income Latinos.
Read comment →
