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.

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.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) opposes the interim final rule as currently drafted, arguing that it creates a consequential post-acceptance denial framework without a general cure process for non-fraudulent errors. They request that USCIS withdraw the interim final rule and replace it with a notice of proposed rulemaking to allow for meaningful stakeholder input and a more practicable framework for electronic signatures.

Ellie Chang of Demidchik Law Firm, PC, opposes the "Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests" rule, arguing that wet-signature requirements are overbroad, ineffective at preventing fraud, and increase administrative burdens. The commenter suggests that DHS should instead focus on better electronic authentication methods, particularly for legal representatives and interpreters.

The Center for Strategy and Applied Insights at Fragomen opposes the Interim Final Rule because it imposes harsh penalties for technical signature errors without modernizing outdated signature requirements or clarifying standards. They argue the rule is arbitrary and capricious, as it fails to address their previous petition for rulemaking that proposed a more practical and modern solution involving digital and electronic signatures.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule because it creates operational friction, increases costs, and contradicts federal goals to eliminate paper filings by requiring "wet-ink" signatures on third-party documents. They argue that the rule disproportionately penalizes applicants for technical defects and suggest that USCIS should instead adopt secure digital infrastructure like Remote Online Notarization (RON) and e-signatures.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule requiring handwritten signatures, arguing that it is an outdated, unnecessary burden that ignores the reliability and widespread acceptance of digital signature technology. They contend that the requirement will decrease agency efficiency and that the USCIS should instead rely on modern software solutions already used by other federal agencies and private corporations.

An immigration attorney opposes the rule because it allows USCIS to deny (rather than reject) benefit requests for technical signature errors, which the commenter argues is unnecessarily punitive and results in the loss of expensive filing fees. The commenter suggests that USCIS should instead provide opportunities to cure defects, require rejection for technical issues, and modernize the system to accept secure electronic signatures.