Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests

Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP, a large immigration law firm, opposes the Interim Final Rule because it fails to recognize digital signatures as a valid alternative and does not account for the administrative and financial burdens of wet-ink signatures. They argue the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to consider modern, technology-neutral solutions like expanded online filing and digital authentication.

ASISTA Immigration Assistance and the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST) oppose the Interim Final Rule because it allows USCIS to deny benefit requests based on invalid signatures without providing an opportunity to cure the defect. They argue that this will disproportionately harm survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking who are already facing significant processing backlogs.

Parker Mackenzie Coyne, a law student at American University, opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it evades the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutes arbitrary and capricious conduct. The commenter highlights inconsistencies in the Department's logic regarding administrative burden and suggests that technological alternatives for signature verification exist.

The Berkeley Society of Friends opposes the interim final rule regarding signatures on immigration benefit requests, arguing that it creates a framework for post-acceptance denials without a general cure process. They request that USCIS withdraw the rule and instead publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to allow for meaningful public comment and the consideration of electronic signature methods.

The commenter, identifying as a civilian federal government employee, requests the approval of regulations regarding official oaths, original signatures, and identification documentation for immigration benefit requests. They argue for the inclusion of various federal acts and protections to support these requirements.

A graduate student studying international affairs opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it lacks clarity and creates punitive consequences for applicants. The commenter expresses concern that minor errors could lead to applicants losing their place in line without recourse, and questions the necessity of codifying procedures that are already in practice.

Pangea Legal Services, a non-profit immigration defense organization, opposes the interim final rule because it allows USCIS to deny accepted benefit requests for signature defects while retaining filing fees. They argue the rule causes irreversible harm to immigrants by resetting their place in line, imposes undue burdens on legal service providers, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

Paulina Mendez opposes the proposed rule because it allows USCIS to deny benefit requests with invalid signatures without providing a mechanism for applicants to correct honest mistakes. She argues the rule creates a revenue-generating penalty that disproportionately harms vulnerable populations, such as non-English speakers and those without legal representation, and suggests using Request for Evidence (RFE) processes instead.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) opposes the Interim Final Rule regarding signatures on immigration benefit requests, arguing it is punitive, inefficient, and lacks sufficient data to support its assumptions of applicant malintent. They advocate for the rescission of the rule, noting it disproportionately harms low-income individuals by allowing USCIS to retain filing fees for curable technical errors discovered late in the adjudication process.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule because it allows USCIS to deny benefit requests based on "technicalities" regarding signature validity without providing a mechanism to cure honest mistakes. They argue that the agency should issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) before denying an application to allow applicants to correct errors.