Naturalization Application Fee Adjustments

Federal RegisterJun 23, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Part 106

[CIS No. 2834-25; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0265]

RIN 1615-AD08

Naturalization Application Fee Adjustments

AGENCY:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to adjust the fees that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) charges for Form N-400, and Form N-336, to end both the reduced fee option for Form N-400, and the availability of fee waivers for both forms. Current and former armed forces service members would remain exempt from paying the fees when filing for naturalization under statutes for members of the armed forces. The proposed rule is intended to align these fees with the relative costs to adjudicate these forms.

DATES:

Submission of Public Comments:

Written comments must be submitted on or before August 24, 2026. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior to midnight ET at the end of that day.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments on the entirety of this proposed rulemaking package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0265, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

https://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.

Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment by using

https://www.regulations.gov,

please contact the Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, by telephone at (240) 721-3000 for alternate instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000. Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation

II. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

B. Legal Authority

C. Summary of Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

D. Costs and Benefits

III. Background and Purpose

A. Legal Authority and Immigration Examination Fee Account

B. Full Cost Recovery

C. Screening and Vetting

D. Activity-Based Costing Methodology

E. Beneficiary-Pays Principle

F. Background on Naturalization

G. Background on Fee Waivers

H. Recent History of Form N-400 and Form N-336 Fees

1. General Fees

2. Form N-400 Reduced Fee

3. Fee Waivers for Form N-400 and Form N-336

I. Review of Form N-400 and Form N-336 Fees and Calculations of Proposed Fees

1. Volume

2. Cost Projections

3. Revenue Forecast

4. Results of Form N-400 and Form N-336 Fee Review

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Full Cost Recovery for Form N-400 and Form N-336 Fees

B. Remove Form N-400 Reduced Fee

C. End Fee Waiver Eligibility for Form N-400 and Form N-336

D. Impact of the Proposed Changes

E. Retain Fee Exemptions for Armed Forces Service Members

F. Scope and Timing of Proposed Changes

G. Related Rulemakings

H. Severability

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

1. Summary

2. Background and Purpose

3. Population

4. Fee Adjustments

5. Amendments

6. Total Quantified Cost Savings and Transfer Payments

7. Price Elasticity

8. Alternatives

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

F. Family Assessment

G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments)

H. National Environmental Policy Act

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. USCIS Form I-912

2. USCIS Form N-336

3. USCIS Form N-400

Table of Abbreviations

ABC Activity-Based Costing

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CPI-U Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOL Department of Labor

DOW Department of War (also known as the Department of Defense)

E.O. Executive Order

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

FDNS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate

FPG Federal Poverty Guidelines

FY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accountability Office

GMC Good Moral Character

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HSA Homeland Security Act of 2002

IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee Account

INA Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

IOAA Independent Offices Appropriations Act

IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

LPR Lawful Permanent Resident

MTB Means-Tested Benefit

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

OBBBA One Big Beautiful Bill Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPQ Office of Performance and Quality

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

SAM Staffing Allocation Model

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

SIJ Special Immigrant Juvenile

SIV Special Immigrant Visa

TPS Temporary Protected Status

TVPRA Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

VAWA Violence Against Women Act

VPC Volume Projection Committee

I. Public Participation

DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments, and arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS.

Instructions:

If you submit a comment, you must include the agency name (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0265 for this rulemaking. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at

https://www.regulations.gov,

and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy and Security Notice at

https://www.regulations.gov.

Docket:

For access to the docket and to read background documents or comments received, go to

https://www.regulations.gov,

referencing DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0265. You may also sign up for email alerts on the online docket to be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

II. Executive Summary

DHS proposes to adjust the fees for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, and Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings Under Section 336, in the USCIS Fee Schedule.

DHS's last comprehensive adjustment to the USCIS fee schedule occurred on January 31, 2024, and took effect on April 1, 2024.

See

89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (2024 Fee Rule).

See

USCIS, Form G-1055, “Fee Schedule,”

https://www.uscis.gov/g-1055

(Oct. 28, 2025 ed.).

DHS subsequently published two corrections.

See

89 FR 20101 (Mar. 21, 2024); 90 FR 5519 (Jan. 17, 2025).

USCIS is primarily funded by immigration and naturalization benefit request fees charged to applicants and petitioners. Fees collected from individuals and entities filing immigration benefit requests are deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA). These fee collections fund the cost of fairly and efficiently adjudicating immigration benefit requests, including those provided without charge to certain benefit requestors.

The proposed fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 would recover the full costs associated with adjudicating these forms according to the beneficiary-pays principle. This proposed rule also would eliminate fee waivers for both forms and the reduced fee for aliens and U.S. nationals

filing Form N-400. Qualified current and former armed forces service members would still be exempt from paying the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 because these fee exemptions are required by statute.

See

INA sec. 328(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1439(b)(4); INA sec. 329(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1440(b)(4).

An alien is defined as a person not a citizen or national of the United States.

See

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sec. 101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). However, nationals of the United States who are not citizens may also apply for naturalization under the INA. The INA defines a national of the United States as either a U.S. citizen or “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”

See

INA sec. 101(a)(22), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22). For ease of reading this preamble, the preamble will refer to “alien” or “applicant,” although the descriptions equally apply to U.S. nationals who are not U.S. citizens.

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The purpose of this proposed rule is to adjust the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336, including eliminating fee waivers and reduced fees for these forms, so that their fees recover the full cost of their adjudication, according to the beneficiary-pays approach to fee setting. These proposed changes aim to align the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 with the costs of processing those forms, while maintaining statutory compliance and supporting USCIS' financial sustainability. USCIS continually works to improve the integrity of the U.S. naturalization system and ensure full compliance with current naturalization laws. The current fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 do not recover the full cost of thoroughly adjudicating applications for naturalization, including necessary screening and vetting checks, which USCIS is continuously enhancing consistent with the President's Executive Orders.

On January 20, 2025, the President signed multiple Executive Orders related to immigration and naturalization policy. Executive Order (E.O.) 14161, Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, section 2, instructs DHS to coordinate with the Secretary of State to “vet and screen to the maximum degree possible” all aliens who are already in the United States, and identify all resources that may be used to do so.

See

90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025). Section 3(f) of E.O. 14161 also instructs DHS to coordinate with the Secretary of State to “recommend any additional measures to be taken that promote a unified American identity and attachment to the Constitution, laws, and founding principles of the United States.” 90 FR 8451, 8452. In addition, E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025), revoked E.O. 14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 5, 2021), and instructs DHS to take all appropriate action to promptly revoke all policies that were issued based on E.O. 14012.

On March 25, 2025, the President signed E.O. 14248, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, to prioritize vetting voters' citizenship and imposing actions against aliens who falsely claim U.S. citizenship to register or vote.

See

90 FR 14005 (Mar. 28, 2025). On August 25, 2025, the President signed E.O. 14341, Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag, 90 FR 42127 (Aug. 28, 2025). Section 2(d) of the E.O. instructs DHS to deny naturalization proceedings when a foreign national has engaged in American Flag-desecration activity under circumstances that permit the exercise of such remedies pursuant to Federal law.

See

90 FR 42127, 42127-42128. As discussed further in Section IV.F of this preamble, DHS has already

announced various changes to the naturalization process, which are expected to require additional resources for USCIS to process Form N-400 and Form N-336.

see also

DHS, Delegation 15006, Delegation to Director, USCIS, To Order Expedited Removal and to Enforce Immigration Laws, May 2, 2025, on file with USCIS (delegating authority to investigate alleged civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws within the jurisdiction of USCIS).

D. Activity-Based Costing Methodology

To determine the fees necessary to recover the full costs of adjudication and naturalization services, USCIS employs an Activity-Based Costing (ABC) methodology. This cost accounting method assigns resource costs to operational activities and allocates them to specific immigration benefit requests, including biometric services. USCIS uses commercially available ABC software

to create financial models that calculate the cost of each major step in processing benefit requests. This methodology, used in the last fee reviews, forms the basis of the current fee structure and ensures fees recover the full costs of providing services, consistent with 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m).

USCIS uses CostPerform. For information from the vendor on this commercial, off-the-shelf application, visit

https://www.costperform.com

(last visited Oct. 7, 2025).

Two of the last eight fee reviews did not result in fee changes. However, DHS revised USCIS fees five times based on fee review results that used similar methodology to this one.

See

72 FR 29851 (May 30, 2007); 75 FR 58962 (Sept. 24, 2010); 81 FR 73292 (Oct. 24, 2016); 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020); 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024).

Building on this foundation, USCIS identifies all major steps involved in processing immigration benefit requests, including intake, biometrics collection, background checks, adjudication, and notification of decisions.

Each activity is analyzed to determine the resources consumed, such as personnel time, technology infrastructure, and physical overhead. These resources are then allocated to specific forms and services based on their proportional workload required to deliver the USCIS mission. Furthermore, this methodology accounts for cost drivers that influence the overall expense of processing benefit requests, including application volumes and trends, the complexity of adjudication, inflationary pressures on labor and technology, and policy changes that require operational adjustments. Overhead costs, such as management and oversight, information technology systems, human resources, and legal and regulatory compliance, are also incorporated into the cost model and distributed across all forms and services.

DHS summarizes the fee-setting inputs, process, and calculations in this proposed rule and provides detailed analysis of the proposed fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 in the supporting documentation, which is available in the rulemaking docket for the affected public to read and comment.

See

N-336 and N-400 Fee Review Supporting Documentation, Naturalization Application Fee Adjustments Rule, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in the DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0265.

In addition to analyzing operational activities, USCIS conducts a detailed analysis of each form to determine its unique cost structure. Form N-400 involves the following:

Biometric Services and Identity Verification:

USCIS collects, stores, uses, and reuses biometric data for aliens seeking naturalization. Biometric services support background checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and identity verification of aliens applying for naturalization.

See

8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 103.16, 103.17, 335.1 and 335.2; USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chp. 2, Background and Security Checks,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-b-chapter-2

(last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

Extensive background checks and national security vetting:

In addition to FBI fingerprint checks, USCIS runs checks on aliens seeking naturalization through the FBI's National Name Check Program (NNCP). This searches against the FBI's Universal Index (UNI), which contains personnel, administrative, applicant, and criminal files compiled for law enforcement purposes.

Background checks also include TECS checks, which compare information on aliens seeking naturalization against various Federal Government systems.

Not only does USCIS conduct background checks during adjudication of Form N-400, but also prior to an alien taking the oath of allegiance.

FDNS develops policies, procedures, and programs designed to detect, deter, and administratively investigate naturalization fraud; develops and implements security screening policies, programs, and procedures for aliens seeking naturalization; establishes guidance and oversees processes for identifying, reviewing, vetting, and adjudicating cases involving national security concerns; and serves as USCIS' primary conduit for information sharing and collaboration with law enforcement and the Intelligence Community.

Id.

See

73 FR 77778 (Dec. 19, 2008).

See

INA sec. 337, 8 U.S.C. 1448; USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part J, Oath of Allegiance, Chp. 4, General Considerations for All Oath Ceremonies, Section B. Derogatory Information Received before Oath or Failure to Appear,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-j-chapter-4

(last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

USCIS established FDNS in 2004 in response to a Congressional recommendation to establish an organization “responsible for developing, implementing, directing, and overseeing the joint USCIS-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) anti-fraud initiative and conducting law enforcement/background checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to granting immigration benefits.” Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567 [Report 108-774], “Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,” p. 74,

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf; see also

USCIS, DHS, “Fraud Detection and Nat'l Security Directorate,”

https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/organization/directorates-and-program-offices/

fraud-detection-and-national-security-directorate

(last updated May 28, 2025); USCIS, “Fraud Detection and Nat'l Security Directorate (FDNS),” May 2022,

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/brochures/FDNS_Brochure_Web_V2_508.pdf.

Interviews:

USCIS conducts at least one in-person interview of every alien applying for naturalization, which typically includes administering the English and civics test.

Form N-400 adjudications routinely involve multiple interviews by USCIS, such as when the alien fails any portion of the English or civics tests during the first interview,

or when the officer needs to take a sworn statement, which may be particularly important in complex cases, such as those involving national security or fraud concerns.

INA sec. 312(a), 332, 335, 8 U.S.C. 1423, 1443, 1446; 8 CFR 335.2(a).

See

8 CFR 312.5(a).

See

USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 1, General Policies and Procedures, Part E, Adjudication, Chp. 6, Evidence, Sec. D, Types of Evidence, Subsec. 2, Testimonial Evidence,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-e-chapter-6

(last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

Complicated Adjudication Process:

Adjudication of Form N-400 typically includes a full review of the alien's entire immigration history

and international travel history during the applicable statutory period (usually 5 years),

and an evaluation of the alien's character to ensure that he or she is a person of good moral character (GMC), attached to the U.S. Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

Additional adjudication activities can include making and recording adjudicative decisions, requesting and reviewing additional evidence, consulting with supervisors or legal counsel, and researching applicable laws and decisions for non-routine cases. For more on the legal requirements for naturalization, see Section III.F., Background on Naturalization.

See

USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chp. 3, Naturalization Interview, Section B, Preliminary Review of Application,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-b-chapter-3

(last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

See

INA sec. 316(a), 8 U.S.C. 1427; USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part D, General Naturalization Requirements, Chp. 3, Continuous Residence, and Chp. 4, Physical Presence,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d

(last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

See

INA sec. 316(a), 8 U.S.C. 1427(a); USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part F, Good Moral Character,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-f

(last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

Public Oath Ceremony:

Most aliens who meet the eligibility requirements for naturalization acquire their citizenship at a public ceremony where they take the oath of allegiance to the United States.

USCIS also completes additional background checks before an Oath Ceremony. USCIS conducts ceremonies in such a manner as to preserve the dignity and significance of the occasion.

See

INA sec. 337, 8 U.S.C. 1448.

See

INA sec. 337, 8 U.S.C. 1448; USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part J, Oath of Allegiance, Chp. 4, General Considerations for All Oath Ceremonies,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-j-chapter-4

(last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

All of these activities contribute to the processing costs for Form N-400. Form N-336 includes many of the same cost activities, including biometric services and identity verification,

and additional background checks and national security vetting.

The adjudication process for Form N-336 builds on the complex adjudication process required for Form N-400, since the officer determines whether to conduct a: (1)

de novo

(

i.e.,

new and full) review of Form N-400, or (2) use a less formal review procedure based on the record, the complexity of issues to be reviewed or determined, and upon the necessity of conducting further examinations with respect to essential naturalization requirements.

The officer conducting the review administers any portions of the English or civics tests that the alien previously failed.

In addition to reviewing the evidence submitted for the underlying Form N-400, the reviewing officer may receive additional evidence and accept new testimony.

See

8 CFR 103.2(b)(9); USCIS, Form N-336, “Instructions for Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings Under Section 336,”

https://www.uscis.gov/n-336

(Apr. 1, 2024 ed.).

See

8 CFR 103.2(b)(9); USCIS, Form N-336, “Instructions for Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings Under Section 336,”

https://www.uscis.gov/n-336

(Apr. 1, 2024 ed.).

See

8 CFR 336.2(b); USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chp. 6, USCIS Hearing and Judicial Review, Section B, Timely Filed Hearing Request,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-b-chapter-6

(last updated Feb. 3, 2026).

See

USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 12, Citizenship and Naturalization, Part B, Naturalization Examination, Chp. 6, USCIS Hearing and Judicial Review, Section B, Timely Filed Hearing Request, Subsection 3, English and Civics Testing at Hearing,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-b-chapter-6

(last updated Feb. 3, 2026).

See

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-b-chapter-6

(Feb. 3, 2026).

To ensure fees are aligned with costs, USCIS uses the ABC methodology to evaluate whether current fees recover the full proportional costs of adjudicating each form. This process involves collecting historical data on processing times, resource use, and application volumes; developing financial models using commercially available ABC software to simulate the cost of processing each form; comparing estimated costs to revenue projections using current fees to identify gaps in cost recovery; and adjusting fees as necessary to ensure full cost recovery. After the ABC model generates cost outputs for every USCIS form, DHS considers adjusting certain fees based on value judgments and public policy reasons consistent with its statutory authority, including sections 286(m) and 344 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) and 1455, and statutory fee exemptions.

For example, statutory exemptions for military applicants filing Form N-400 are factored into the fee-setting process to comply with legal requirements.

DHS may adjust fees and fee methodologies, including based on policy preferences and value judgments, so long as it acts within its statutory authority and provides a reasoned explanation of the adjustment.

See, e.g., FCC

Fox Television Stations, Inc.,

556 U.S. 502, 513-16 (2009) (“the agency may change policy if it acknowledges the change, offers a rational explanation, and considers any serious reliance interests);

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (“the agency must examine relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation showing a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made”) (internal quotations omitted).

E. Beneficiary-Pays Principle

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, describes the equity of Federal user fees as a balancing act between two principles: beneficiary-pays and ability-to-pay.

Under the beneficiary-pays principle, the beneficiaries of a service pay the cost of providing that service.

Under the ability-to-pay principle, those who are more capable of bearing the burden of fees pay more for the service than those with less ability to pay.

Fee exemptions, fee waivers, and reduced fees for low-income households are based on the ability-to-pay principle. In its 2020 Fee Rule, DHS chose to emphasize the beneficiary-pays

principle.

See

84 FR 62280, 62298-62299 (Nov. 14, 2019) (2019 Proposed Fee Rule);

see also

85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020).

In its 2024 Fee Rule, DHS chose to reverse its approach and shift more toward the ability-to-pay principle.

See

88 FR 402, 424-426;

see also

89 FR 6194, 6206, 6240-6243. In this rulemaking, DHS proposes to shift toward the beneficiary-pays principle in setting the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 because DHS believes it is not only consistent with Congressional intent, but promotes fairness, and is better suited to achieving the President's policy goals regarding naturalization. In addition, the value of naturalization does not justify shifting the cost burden onto other individuals and firms who pay USCIS fees. For full discussion, see section IV.A.

See

U.S. Gov't Accountability Office (GAO), GAO-08-386SP, “Federal User Fees: A Design Guide” (May 29, 2008),

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-08-386sp; see also

84 FR 62280, 62298.

See

GAO, GAO-08-386SP, “Federal User Fees: A Design Guide,” pp. 7-12 (May 29, 2008),

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-08-386sp.

See

GAO, GAO-08-386SP, “Federal User Fees: A Design Guide,” p. 6 (May 29, 2008),

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-08-386sp.

The 2019 Proposed and the 2020 Final Fee Rule would have ended the availability of fee waivers for Form N-336, and limited fee waiver availability for Form N-400 to aliens covered by the TVPRA, Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs), and Afghan or Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) beneficiaries.

See

85 FR 46788. Although the rule was codified in the CFR, the rule was enjoined by courts before it could take effect.

See Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr.

Wolf,

491 F. Supp. 3d 520 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“

ILRC

”);

see also

Section III.H, Table III.1. Here, DHS proposes to align the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 with the relative burden on USCIS of processing them and recover the costs directly from the adjudications that cause those costs to be incurred. The fees proposed for Form N-400 and Form N-336 in this rule would further ensure full cost recovery as authorized by law and may limit

increases to other USCIS forms in future, comprehensive, fee rules.

The 2010 Fee Rule established a fee of $595 for Form N-400 but would have had to raise the fee to $655 to recover the full cost.

See

75 FR 33446, 33462-33463 (June 11, 2010). The 2016 Fee Rule established a fee of $640 for Form N-400, but would have had to charge, together with the biometric services fee, $946 to cover the full cost.

See

81 FR 73292, 73307 (Oct. 24, 2016) (2016 Fee Rule). In the 2024 Fee Rule, the fee was $760, although the full costs assessed was $1,135 based on paper filings.

Compare

8 CFR 106.2(b)(3),

with

USCIS, DHS, “Immigration Examinations Fee Account, Fee Review Supporting Documentation with Addendum” (Nov. 2023),

https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2021-0010-8176.

The fees proposed in this rule are consistent with DHS's statutory authorities in section 286(m) and 344 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) and 1455, and longstanding guidance of OMB Circular A-25, which directs agencies to recover their full costs. In past rules, DHS maintained lower fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 and provided for fee waivers using its broad discretionary authority to set and adjust fees for the services that USCIS provides.

See

INA sec. 286(m) and 344, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) and 1455.

Similarly, while section 344 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1455, requires the Secretary to charge a fee and requires DHS to deposit the fee in accordance with section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), it specifies that the prescribed fee should be set in accordance with the principles outlined in 31 U.S.C. 9701, including that they are “subject to policies prescribed by the President” and that each charge shall be “fair; and based on—the costs to the Government; the value of the service . . . ; public policy or interest served; and other relevant facts.”

See

31 U.S.C. 9701.

Furthermore, Congress, in section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, delegated to DHS general, broad authority to administer and enforce immigration laws in title 8 of the United States Code, which includes section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). Thus, DHS believes the proposed fee adjustments are permissible by statute.

“[F]ees for providing adjudication and naturalization services

may

be set at a level that

will

ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such services, including the costs of similar services provided without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants. Such fees

may

also be set at a level that will recover any additional costs associated with the administration of the fees collected.” INA sec. 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) (emphasis added). “In a case involving an agency, of course, the statute's meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion. For example, some statutes `expressly delegate' to an agency the authority to give meaning to a particular statutory term. Others empower an agency to prescribe rules to `fill up the details' of a statutory scheme, or to regulate subject to the limits imposed by a term or phrase that `leaves agencies with flexibility,' such as `appropriate' or `reasonable.' ”

Loper Bright Enterprises

Raimondo,

144 S. Ct. 2244, 2263 (2024) (internal citations omitted);

see also

Public Law 97-258 (HR 6128), sec. 9701(a) (1982). The House Report indicates that the general purpose of the bill was to restate in comprehensive form, without substantive change, certain general and permanent laws related to money and finance.

See

H.R. Rep. 97-651, 1 (July 21, 1982).

Compare

75 FR 33446, 33461-33462 (explaining why “the act of requesting and obtaining U.S. citizenship deserves special consideration,” and therefore the Form N-400 fee should be set a level below the ABC model output),

with id.

at 33472-33478 (generally not addressing whether to depart from the beneficiary-pays principle for most other forms);

compare

88 FR 402, 485-487 (explaining why DHS proposed to limit the fee increase to Form N-400 and shift costs to other fee payers),

with id.

at 517-530 (generally not addressing whether to depart from the beneficiary-pays principle for most other forms).

Having reexamined whether or not DHS should continue charging lower fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 and shifting those costs to other benefit requests, DHS now believes aliens filing these forms should pay the full cost of adjudication. As stated previously, U.S. citizenship is the most meaningful immigration benefit the United States can bestow on an alien. However, keeping the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 below cost requires DHS to shift the costs not covered by those fees to the fees paid for other forms. DHS no longer believes that the importance of naturalization sufficiently justifies funding naturalization from the fees paid for other immigration benefits. Upon reconsideration, DHS now believes that the great value of citizenship is why naturalization application fees should be set at the amount needed for total cost recovery using ABC.

In prior rulemakings, DHS explained that the act of requesting and obtaining U.S. citizenship deserves special consideration given the unique nature of this benefit to the individual applicant, the significant public benefit to the Nation, and the Nation's proud tradition of welcoming new citizens.

See

75 FR 33446, 33461; 81 FR 26904, 26915-26916; 88 FR 402, 487 (citing 2010 Proposed Fee Rule and 2016 Proposed Fee Rule). DHS stated that keeping the naturalization fee at lower levels would allow more immigrants to fully participate in civic life and would help promote citizenship and immigrant integration.

See

88 FR 402, 487. DHS reasoned that setting the Form N-400 fee at an amount less than its estimated costs and shifting those costs to other fee payers was appropriate and rational considering the significant value that the United States obtains from the naturalization of new citizens.

Id.

Although DHS still believes naturalization is the most meaningful immigration benefit the United States can bestow on an alien, and it provides significant benefits to new U.S. citizens,

DHS also believes other benefit requests provide significant benefits to alien applicants and

beneficiaries;

these aliens should not have to pay higher fees to subsidize naturalization. While newly naturalized citizens may provide benefits to the United States,

so do the recipients of other immigration benefits, such as immigrant and nonimmigrant visas.

U.S. citizens who file family-based visa petitions benefit directly from their ability to reunite with alien relatives, while employment-based petitioners benefit directly from their new employees. In contrast, the benefits of naturalization, such as increased civic participation or tax revenue (

see

89 FR 6194, 6300) may be less immediate, more uncertain, and more dispersed. Furthermore, while the United States has a history of accepting new citizens, it also has a history of accepting lawful immigrant and nonimmigrant aliens.

See generally

INA secs. 201 and 214, 8 U.S.C. 1151 and 1184. Some of the forms that are currently subject to fees substantially higher than their ABC model outputs include:

See, e.g.,

Madeleine Sumption & Sarah Flamm, “The Economic Value of Citizenship for Immigrants in the United States,” Migration Policy Institute (Sept. 2012),

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/citizenship-premium.pdf.

However, research has noted that some of the apparent economic benefits of naturalization are due to other factors: “naturalized immigrants have higher levels of education, better language skills, and more work experience in the United States.”

Id. at 1.

See, e.g.,

Miao Chi & Scott Drewianka, “How much is a green card worth? Evidence from Mexican men who marry women born in the U.S.,” Labour Economics Vol. 31, 103-116 (Dec. 2014),

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537114001328.

See, e.g.,

Holly Straut-Eppsteiner, Cong. Research Serv., R43366, “U.S. Naturalization Policy” (Apr. 15, 2024),

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43366?s=1&r=77

(Outcomes for the United States).

See, e.g.,

Sarah Donovan et al., Cong. Research Serv., R47164, “U.S. Employment-Based Immigration Policy” (Nov. 19, 2024),

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47164?s=1&r=48

(“Several studies identify positive contributions of foreign-born workers—particularly highly skilled immigrants—to the U.S. economy.”); Julia Gelatt, “Explainer: Immigrants and the U.S. Economy,” Migration Policy Institute (Oct. 2024),

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/explainer-immigrants-and-us-economy.

• Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancé(e),

• Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative,

• Form I-131, Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records,

• Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers,

• Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,

• Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.

Compare

USCIS, DHS, “Immigration Examinations Fee Account, Fee Review Supporting Documentation with Addendum” (Nov. 2023),

https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2021-0010-8176, with

USCIS, Form G-1055, “Fee Schedule,”

https://www.uscis.gov/g-1055

(Oct. 28, 2025 ed.).

DHS further recognizes that the lower fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 shift some costs from present naturalization applicants to future naturalization applicants.

That is, some of the resulting fee increases are borne by future Form N-400 applicants and their families, which impacts their ability to save for future naturalization fees. As articulated by one public comment on the 2023 Proposed Fee Rule:

See

Comment Submitted by Cato Institute (Apr. 17, 2023),

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USCIS-2021-0010-7325.

[T]he NPRM asserts that the naturalization fee is being set “at an amount less than its estimated costs,” arguing that “shifting those costs to other fee payers was appropriate in order to promote naturalization and immigrant integration.” This stance gets the principle of immigrant integration backward. Given that a green card is a prerequisite to naturalization, and a nonimmigrant visa is often a de facto prerequisite for a green card in many cases, raising fees for these categories prevents immigrant integration. USCIS should prioritize getting immigrants in a position where they are eligible to naturalize if it cares about integration. Other applicants should not have to bear the cost of naturalization when it is more pressing for them to receive green cards or other statuses in the United States.

So, while lower naturalization application fees may temporarily support naturalization efforts, due to USCIS' funding structure, there is no evidence that they result in a sustained increase in naturalization rates in comparison to fees that reflect the actual cost of adjudication.

As explained further in Section V.A.7 (Price Elasticity), while increasing naturalization fees may temporarily decrease naturalization application rates for some aliens, past fee increases have not led to long-term declines in overall naturalization application rates.

see also

Mohamad Moslimani, “Key facts about the wealth of immigrant households during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Pew Research Center (Dec. 4, 2023),

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/04/key-facts-about-the-wealth-of-immigrant-households-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

(Finding 3: “The longer an immigrant has been in the U.S., the more wealth their household typically has.”).

DHS agrees that naturalization provides a matchless benefit to aliens but does not believe that this justifies underpriced naturalization fees that fail to recover the cost of adjudicating such a valuable benefit. DHS believes that the unique privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen must be safeguarded through proper screening and vetting,

see

Section III.C., which necessarily increases the overall cost of naturalization. For these reasons, DHS is proposing to adjust the Form N-400 and Form N-336 fees to levels consistent with the cost of processing both forms.

See

proposed 8 CFR 106.2(b)(2) and (3).

B. Remove Form N-400 Reduced Fee

In addition to raising the fee for Form N-400, DHS proposes to remove the reduced fee option for those naturalization applicants with household incomes not more than 400 percent of the FPG, which is currently codified at 8 CFR 106.2(b)(3)(ii).

See

proposed 8 CFR 106.2(b)(3). Currently, qualifying aliens applying for naturalization applicants pay a reduced fee of $380.

In support of the proposed change, DHS reasserts the fee calculation and rationale given for setting the fee for Form N-400 at a level that achieves full cost recovery.

See

Section IV.A earlier in this preamble. Specifically, eliminating the reduced fee for Form N-400 would:

• Align the fee for Form N-400 with the cost of adjudicating the form;

• Ensure that USCIS has sufficient revenue to cover the cost of Form N-400 as costs of properly screening and vetting and adjudicating such applications increase; and

• Align with the beneficiary-pays principle and Congressional intent of section 344 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1455, and 31 U.S.C. 9701.

For the same reasons discussed earlier in this preamble regarding the existing Form N-400 and Form N-336 fees, DHS believes there is insufficient justification for the Form N-400 reduced fee. While naturalization is a unique benefit, so are other benefit categories and the potential benefits to and from newly naturalized citizens do not justify burdening other benefit requestors with higher fees to subsidize the reduced fee Form N-400.

Although DHS stated in its 2024 Fee Rule final rule that the broader eligibility requirements for Form N-400 would not require further fee increases to other forms to offset the costs, 89 FR 6194, 6236, this was achieved through revisions to the USCIS budget and transferring costs to premium processing revenue.

Id.

at 6206-6208. Had DHS left the income ceiling for the reduced fee Form N-400 at its prior level of 200 percent of the FPGs, this would have allowed DHS to further limit the fee increases to other forms.

See id.

at 6198-6204 (Table 1).

Furthermore, DHS notes that the reduced fee for Form N-400 is a stark anomaly in the USCIS Fee Schedule, which would require compelling justification to maintain. While DHS does set prices for some other USCIS benefits below cost and provides fee waivers for other forms,

see

8 CFR 106.3(a), it does not provide a reduced fee for any other USCIS benefit when the requestor's household income falls within a specific income range.

See

8 CFR 106.2. Maintaining this unique privilege for Form N-400 results in cost reallocations to other benefits. Additionally, the current income ceiling for the reduced fee for Form N-400 (at or below 400 percent of the FPG) is extraordinarily high. Table IV.2 illustrates that difference between the income ceiling for the reduced fee and median household income in the United States.

EP23JN26.010

As seen in Table IV.2, aliens who qualify for a reduced Form N-400 fee may have household income above (and in some cases, well above) U.S. median household income. For example, based on the 2025 FPGs, an alien living in the lower 48 States in a four-person household would qualify for a reduced fee if his or her annual household income was at or below $128,600 per year. Aliens in the 200-400 percent FPG range should be less price sensitive than those in the pre-existing 150-200 percent range. If aliens at this income level choose not to apply for naturalization in the absence of a reduced fee, this may not reflect a difficulty in paying the filing fee, but a choice to not file for naturalization.

In addition, DHS notes that eliminating the reduced fee for Form N-400 would mitigate the proposed increase to the general fee for Form N-400. By eliminating the cost/revenue gap caused by the reduced fee, DHS reduces the cost reallocations to the general Form N-400 fee that would be proposed. Also, ending the reduced fee would simplify the fee structure for Form N-400, and thereby simplify intake procedures for USCIS. Furthermore, the general Form N-400 fee, and the Form N-400 reduced fee were previously held below cost, which resulted in cost reallocations to other USCIS forms in prior fee rules.

So, eliminating the reduced fee and increasing the general Form N-400 fee could potentially enable DHS to limit increases to other USCIS forms in subsequent fee rules. Moreover, as discussed in Section IV.C, the reduced fee for Form N-400 incentivizes ineligible aliens to apply for naturalization, which unnecessarily consumes USCIS resources and forces eligible aliens to wait longer to naturalize.

See

88 FR 402, 488 (“Other fee payers are required to bear the cost of the reduced fee[.]”).

Reduced fee Form N-400s constitute a small portion of total Form N-400 filings, as discussed in Section III.H.2. Prior to the effective date of the income ceiling increase (from 200 percent to 400 percent), reduced fee Form N-400s were a mere 0.3 percent of total non-military Form N-400 receipts. Even after the drastic increase in the income ceiling, reduced fee Form N-400s only make up 3.2 percent of total non-military Form N-400 receipts. So, while eliminating the reduced fee for Form N-400 might cause certain aliens to delay applying for naturalization, DHS does not believe that this proposed change would affect the vast majority of aliens who wish to pursue naturalization.

C. End Fee Waiver Eligibility for Form N-400 and Form N-336

DHS proposes to end fee waiver eligibility for Form N-400 and Form N-336, which is currently codified at 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3)(i)(H) through (I).

See

proposed 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3)(i).

As previously stated, DHS's legal authorities related to the setting of naturalization fees, including section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), authorize USCIS to waive the fees for certain benefit request, but do not require it to do so. Although the TVPRA requires USCIS to allow aliens filing certain benefit requests to request fee waivers, this requirement only extends “through final adjudication of the adjustment of status.”

See

INA sec. 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7). Thus, the TVPRA's fee waiver requirements do not extend to Form N-400 or Form N-336.

DHS does not propose to modify 8 CFR 106.3(c), which authorizes the Director of USCIS to waive or exempt fees that are not otherwise waivable or exempt under the fee schedule regulation at 8 CFR part 106, and does not propose to modify the availability of fee waivers for any other forms as part of this rulemaking.

DHS now proposes to eliminate fee waivers for Form N-400 and Form N-336 in order to:

• Mitigate the proposed fee increases to Form N-400 and Form N-336 by increasing the percentage of fee-paying filers;

• Improve USCIS processing efficiency for Form N-400 and Form N-336 by simplifying intake procedures and reducing adverse incentives for ineligible aliens to file; and

• Align with the beneficiary-pays principle and be consistent with section 344 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1455, as well as 31 U.S.C. 9701.

First, as explained with regard to the reduced fee for Form N-400 in Section IV.B, eliminating fee waivers for Form N-400 and Form N-336 would mitigate the proposed increases to the general fees for both forms. Because DHS seeks to ensure that the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 are self-sustaining and recover the full cost of their own adjudication, the costs of maintaining these fee waiver requests would be covered through increased fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 applicants. DHS estimates that maintaining fee waivers for both these forms while proposing new fees would result in an extra $85-$120 per form, as displayed in Table IV.3, than it would if the proposed change to eliminate fee waivers is implemented.

EP23JN26.011

While an additional fee increase of $85-$120 may not be significant to certain households, USCIS recognizes that this may impose further financial burden on other households who are subject to the proposed fees. To limit the proposed fee increases, DHS has proposed to end the availability for fee waivers for these forms.

Second, DHS now believes that eliminating fee waivers for Form N-400 and Form N-336 would significantly improve USCIS processing of Form N-400 and Form N-336. As with the reduced fee for Form N-400, ending fee waivers for Form N-400 and Form N-336 would simplify intake procedures for USCIS, and allow USCIS to substantially reduce the resources spent on adjudicating fee waiver requests. Furthermore, DHS now believes that fee waiver eligibility for Form N-400 and Form N-336 (like the Form N-400 reduced fee) creates adverse incentives for aliens to apply for naturalization. In general, DHS believes that free filing or inexpensive fees may encourage aliens who know or suspect that they are ineligible for naturalization to apply anyway on the off chance that they may be approved.

As shown in Table IV.4 and Table IV.5, this incentive appears to have a notable effect on the filing of Form N-400 and Form N-336. This may be because a negative decision on an N-form does not typically result in enforcement action against the alien, who is typically an LPR, and because the ability of certain aliens to pass the English and civics test can depend on their “luck of the draw” of test questions.

See

GAO, GAO-08-386SP, “Federal User Fees: A Design Guide” (May 2008), p. 10,

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-08-386sp

(“[S]etting the fee too low induces overuse of agency resources and services.”).

See

90 FR 45047, 45050 (Sept. 18, 2025) (For its 2025 Naturalization Civics test, USCIS administers 20 questions out of a bank of 128 questions).

EP23JN26.012

EP23JN26.013

Tables IV.3 and IV.4 reveal statistically significant differences in denial rates between Form N-400 and Form N-336 applicants who pay the full fee, receive a fee waiver, or receive a reduced fee (Form N-400 only).

In FYs 2020-2024, the Form N-400 approval rate was 93 percent for those with no reduced fee or fee waiver, but 90 percent for those with a reduced fee and only 83 percent for those who received a fee waiver. While the failure rate on the English/civics test (INA 312 denial) was 3 percent for those with no reduced fee or fee waiver, the INA 312 denial rate was 6 percent for applicants who received a reduced fee and 12 percent for applicants who received a fee waiver. This indicates that aliens who are unprepared for the English/civics exam but eligible for a fee waiver or reduced fee could be incentivized to apply for naturalization prematurely, rather than waiting to master the exam content. Table IV.5 reveals a similar effect for Form N-336: While the approval rate for most requests was 62 percent, the approval rate is only 52 percent for fee-waived requests. By removing the incentive to file Form N-400 prematurely, ending fee waivers could help reduce the inefficient use of USCIS resources on ineligible naturalization cases and improve USCIS processing of eligible Form N-400 cases.

Based on a Z-test of proportion, the differences in denial rate between Form N-400 subgroups and Form N-336 subgroups are statistically significant at a 0.1 percent level.

Finally, DHS notes that eliminating fee waivers would be consistent with the beneficiary-pays principle and with section 344 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1455, as well as 31 U.S.C. 9701. As discussed further in Section IV.D., Impact of Proposed Changes, DHS acknowledges that elimination of fee waivers for Form N-400 and Form N-336 may prevent certain aliens from applying for naturalization in the short term, but notes that these aliens could apply for naturalization in the future. Eligibility for a fee waiver means that USCIS has determined that the alien currently lacks the ability to pay,

see

8 CFR 106.3(a)(1), not that the alien is permanently unable to pay for Form N-400 and Form N-336.

For these reasons, DHS believes that the benefits of eliminating fee waivers (which could reduce fee increases for Form N-400 and Form N-336 applicants and improve processing for both forms) outweighs the potential burdens to certain aliens who may currently lack the ability to pay.

See

USCIS, Form I-912, “Instructions for Request for Waiver,” p. 6,

https://www.uscis.gov/i-912

(July 22, 2025 ed.) (requiring that the means-tested benefit is currently being received);

id.

at 7 (requiring copy of “most recent Federal tax return, if available” or pay statements for the past month); USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 1, Part B, Ch. 4, Fee Waivers and Fee Exemptions,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-4

(last updated Nov. 3, 2025) (“Extreme financial hardship occurs when a requestor requires substantially all of their current income and liquid assets to meet current ordinary and necessary living expenses.”).

D. Impact of the Proposed Changes

DHS understands that some studies conclude that higher naturalization fees would prevent some LPRs from applying for naturalization, but does not believe that the level of impact is as great as these studies have attributed to fee increases.

Despite DHS's decision to maintain low fees for naturalization and broaden eligibility for the reduced fee Form N-400 in the 2024 Fee Rule, that rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) found Form N-400 to be an inelastic good,

meaning that the quantity demanded does not change substantially in response to changes in price. In this proposed rule, DHS maintains the position that Form N-400, or the citizenship benefit that it confers, is an inelastic good.

See

Section V.7. Consistent with this conclusion, DHS notes that one study has acknowledged that increases and subsequent drops in Form N-400 receipts surrounding significant fee increases in 1999 (137-percent fee increase) and 2007 (80-percent increase)

partially reflect a front-running of the fee changes by naturalization applicants,

and that other factors likely contributed to the rises and declines in naturalization filings surrounding these fee increases.

100

Furthermore, DHS notes that one study found some substitution effect for fee waivers—meaning that some aliens who obtain fee waivers for Form N-400 are able and willing to pay the full naturalization fee anyway.

101

Therefore, studies, including those cited by courts in challenges to past fee rules, do not demonstrate that naturalization is an elastic good, or that the proposed fee changes would result in long-term declines in naturalization application rates.

102

See

Pastor, “Nurturing Naturalization”; Hainmueller et al., “A randomized controlled design reveals barriers to citizenship for low-income immigrants,” PNAS 115(5), 939-44 (Jan. 30, 2018),

https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1714254115

(hereinafter, Hainmueller, “Barriers to Citizenship”); Gonzalez-Barrera et al., “The Path Not Taken: Two-thirds of Legal Mexican Immigrants are not U.S. Citizens,” Pew Research Center (Feb. 4, 2013),

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2013/02/04/the-path-not-taken/

(hereinafter, Gonzalez-Barrera, “The Path Not Taken”); Vasil Yasenov et al., “Standardizing the fee-waiver application increased naturalization rates of low-income immigrants,” PNAS 116(34), 16768-16772 (Aug. 6, 2019),

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1905904116

(hereinafter, Yasenov, “Standardizing the fee-waiver application”).

See

USCIS, DHS, “Regulatory Impact Analysis” (Jan. 2024),

https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2021-0010-8179.

See

Pastor, “Nurturing Naturalization,” at 6.

Id.

at 9 (noting the “`sticker shock' effect in which demand tried to race ahead of the planned price increase, then fell”).

100

See id.

at 7. Notably, the latter decrease in filings took place during the Great Recession (December 2007-June 2009).

See

Federal Reserve History, “The Great Recession” (Nov. 22, 2013),

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-recession-of-200709.

101

Yasenov, “Standardizing the fee-waiver application,” at 16769.

102

See ILRC; NWIRP.

DHS also notes that approval of a fee waiver request represents a finding by USCIS that the alien is currently unable to pay the fee for Form N-400 or Form N-336,

see

8 CFR 106.3(a)(1), not that the alien will permanently be unable to pay the fee.

103

An alien must only establish inability to pay by a preponderance of the evidence to obtain

a fee waiver.

104

While new fee waiver polices for all USCIS requests are not being proposed as part of this rulemaking, the current fee waiver eligibility criteria and policies allow fee waivers without requiring the applicant (depending on the fee waiver eligibility criteria) to account for all their financial resources, such as personal savings and other forms of wealth. Therefore, an alien who would have been approved for a fee waiver may still be currently able to pay the filing fee.

105

103

See

USCIS, Form I-912, “Instructions for Request for Waiver,” p. 6,

https://www.uscis.gov/i-912

(July 22, 2025 ed.) (requiring that the means-tested benefit is currently being received);

id.

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-4

104

USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Vol. 1, Part B, Ch. 4, Fee Waivers and Fee Exemptions,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-4

(last updated Nov. 3, 2025).

105

See

Yasenov, “Standardizing the fee-waiver application,” at 16769 (finding a substitution effect for some fee waivers).

Furthermore, even if naturalization were a more elastic good, DHS does not believe that a possible decrease in naturalization rates by low-income aliens should determine the appropriate fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336. Price elasticity (the impact that changes in price have on the amount demanded) is not a strong justification for DHS to maintain lower fees and fee waivers.

106

As noted in one study cited by a court, the demand for naturalization may be more elastic than that for other immigration benefits because “[t]hose who file the other forms do so out of necessity.”

107

In other words, aliens are more willing to pay higher fees for benefits that they need, but may choose not to pay the fee for naturalization because they have the reasonable option of continuing to live in the United States as an LPR instead.

108

The study's authors reach the conclusion that, therefore, naturalization fees should be kept low (possibly subsidized by other immigration benefits), but it is possible to reach the opposite conclusion. As discussed in Section IV.A earlier in this preamble, DHS believes that it makes less sense to provide below-cost naturalization fees for aliens who possess reasonable alternatives to naturalization (such as choosing to remain an LPR for additional years), than for aliens who must pay a fee to live and work in the United States. Aliens who possess other reasonable alternatives can choose to avoid or delay the potential hardship imposed by a high fee, whereas those without reasonable alternatives are forced to endure the hardship of a high fee. This rationale and result is more consistent with the fee waiver options required by the TVPRA, which requires USCIS to allow fee waivers for certain protection-based categories of immigration benefits, up to and including an application for adjustment of status but does not extend the requirement to naturalization applications. INA sec. 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7). Therefore, DHS now believes that for certain forms like Form N-400 and Form N-336, price elasticity would indicate that reduced fees and fee waivers are inappropriate.

106

Price elasticity is not a factor that Congress required DHS to consider when providing DHS with broad authority to set fees related to the adjudication of naturalization applications.

See

INA sec. 286(m), 344, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), 1455, 31 U.S.C. 9701.

107

Pastor, “Nurturing Naturalization,” at 5.

108

Id.

(“After all, those immigrants who have the option to become citizens and do not do so can still remain legal permanent residents and garner the base benefits of lawful residency, including the ability to work legally.”).

Finally, as further discussed in Section V. (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements), DHS acknowledges that increasing fees would result in a higher financial burden and might cause certain aliens to delay applying for naturalization or forgo certain expenses to afford the fees. Additionally, in response to the 2019 Proposed Fee Rule, commenters also stated, that possible harms stemming from increased immigration and naturalization fees could include reduced wages, broken families, and increased vulnerability to domestic violence.

109

DHS has considered that increasing naturalization fees, while ending fee reductions and waivers, could possibly contribute to the financial stresses that a low-income alien and his or her family already experience on account of general costs of living. However, because USCIS receives most of its operating revenue from the fees that it charges for its services, lower fees and fee waivers for naturalization do not reduce these social problems overall. Instead, preferencing naturalization applications with lower fees merely

shifts

these problems onto other populations—who may be in a worse position to cope with them than naturalization applicants because they must pay the resulting higher fees or leave the United States. Because LPR status is generally a requirement for naturalization, aliens considering filing Form N-400 already may live and work in the United States indefinitely, and, therefore, should generally have more financial flexibility to delay applying for naturalization and save up for the fee.

110

On the other hand, aliens applying for other immigration benefits will, in general, tend to have a more immediate need to acquire their status so they can seek lawful employment and avoid unlawful status in the United States.

109

See

85 FR 46788, 46881;

NWIRP,

496 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (“Confronted with calls to `account for the harm posed by increased naturalization fees such as reduced wages, broken families, and increased vulnerability to domestic violence,' . . . DHS did `acknowledge that some individuals will need to save, borrow, or use a credit card in order to pay fees,' . . . but it failed to consider that burden in weighing the costs and benefits of the Rule and failed to consider the impact the Rule would have on those unable to borrow the necessary funds. Instead, without analysis or support, it merely `disagree[d] that the fees will result in the negative effects' suggested by comments.”).

110

DHS acknowledges that aliens must also pay a fee to renew their Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card, by filing Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card.

See

8 CFR 106.2(a)(1). However, that fee ($465) is significantly lower than the proposed fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336, and Form I-551 typically must be renewed every 10 years, which gives most LPRs time to save up for the filing fee.

See

USCIS, DHS, “USCIS Policy Manual,” Volume 11, Travel and Identity Documents, Part B, Permanent Resident Cards, Chp. 1, Purpose and Background,

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-11-part-b-chapter-1

(last updated Feb. 3, 2026).

The choice to naturalize does not differ from the choices that most people face when tasked with prioritizing essential over non-essential expenses. DHS acknowledges that an alien who wishes to pursue naturalization might have to prioritize expenses related to naturalization over other expenses. Some might need to borrow, save, or use credit to pay the fees (for immigration benefits generally or naturalization). DHS also notes that it could be possible that some potential naturalization applicants might lack access to credit in the short term.

DHS also considered that the fee changes proposed in this rule might have some short-term impact on nonprofit legal service providers who serve low-income aliens. DHS does not expect this effect to be long-term based on its elasticity analysis.

See

Section IV.A.7 later in this preamble. DHS understands that certain legal service providers have client bases that qualify for fee waivers and reduced fees more frequently than most aliens. Just as some low-income aliens might have to delay filing for naturalization due to these proposed changes, nonprofit legal service providers might experience a temporary decrease in clients that they can assist in applying for naturalization. However, based on its elasticity analysis, DHS believes that these aliens would eventually be able to apply for naturalization, and therefore the proposed fee changes should not result in a long-term client shortage for nonprofit legal service providers.

U.S. citizenship is the most meaningful immigration benefit the United States can bestow on an alien. As explained earlier in this rulemaking, Congress has given DHS broad authority to set immigration fees, including the fees associated with the adjudication of

naturalization. Most importantly, Congress directed DHS to do so in a manner that covers the costs of the government service provided, which includes the costs of the adjudication of a naturalization application (including screening and vetting) to keep the United States safe. U.S. citizenship confers rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are vital to the security and safety of the United States. For the reasons articulated in Section IV of this preamble, DHS believes that any negative impacts of the proposed fees on aliens, their representatives, or the public at large are outweighed by the government's interest in collecting the full fee in support of its efforts to thoroughly and efficiently adjudicate Form N-400s and Form N-336s.

E. Retain Fee Exemptions for Qualified Current and Former Armed Forces Service Members

DHS does not propose to change the current fee exemptions for Form N-400 and Form N-336 for applicants who apply under section 328 or 329 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1439, 1440.

See

8 CFR 106.2(b)(2) and (3)(i). These fee exemptions are required by statute, so DHS cannot remove them through regulation.

See

INA sec. 328(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1439(b)(4); INA sec. 329(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1440(b)(4). In addition, the DOW reimburses USCIS for up to $7,500,000 of these fees, so USCIS already recovers some of their cost. 10 U.S.C. 1790.

F. Scope and Timing of Proposed Changes

DHS has decided to propose adjusting the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 in a separate rule rather than waiting to adjust those fees as part of a comprehensive change to USCIS' Fee Schedule. In the 2024 Fee Rule, DHS reallocated costs to other forms to make up for the cost/revenue gap that resulted from artificially maintaining lower fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336, the reduced fee Form N-400, and fee waivers for both forms. Were DHS to propose this rule as part of a comprehensive revision to the USCIS Fee Schedule, it would be possible to consider reductions to the fees for other immigration fees based on the adjustments to the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336.

111

However, DHS has decided to propose fee changes for the Form N-400 and Form N-336 in a separate rule for multiple reasons. First, the primary purpose of a comprehensive fee rule is to adjust the fees based on the increased overall costs to USCIS using an ABC total cost recovery model; not to implement policy goals. The changes proposed in this rule, on the other hand, are necessary to align the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 with USCIS' recent policy initiatives related to naturalization, which are designed to ensure the integrity of the naturalization benefit. The need for a thorough explanation of the rational basis for these proposed fee changes as well as the prominence of the Form N-400 fee, fee waivers, and reduced fees in past fee rules and related litigation, make it prudent for DHS to propose these fee changes in a rule separate from a comprehensive USCIS fee schedule.

111

DHS has recently proposed reducing the fees for several forms related to fifth preference employment-based (EB-5) visas.

See

90 FR 48516 (Oct. 23, 2025).

In furtherance and support of the policies outlined in E.O. 14159, E.O. 14161, and E.O. 14341, DHS and USCIS have already undertaken various changes:

• DHS proposed multiple revisions to Form N-400 to collect additional information to enhance identity verification, assessment of eligibility, vetting, and national security and public safety screening during adjudication of Form N-400.

See

90 FR 11054 (Mar. 3, 2025); 90 FR 11324 (Mar. 5, 2025); 90 FR 22750 (May 29, 2025); 90 FR 42604 (Sept. 3, 2025); 90 FR 44693 (Sept. 16, 2025); 90 FR 47318 (Oct. 1, 2025).

112

DHS estimates that collecting, reviewing, and adjudicating Form N-400 based on the new information to be collected would increase the cost of adjudicating Form N-400 and require additional resources.

112

Because Form N-336 is merely a request to reexamine an underlying Form N-400 denial, DHS did not propose to revise Form N-336 in this manner.

• USCIS announced that it will use a totality of the circumstances approach when assessing whether an alien meets the Good Moral Character (GMC) requirement for naturalization at section 316(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3).

113

DHS anticipates that restoring this holistic approach to assessing GMC will increase interview and adjudication times.

113

See

USCIS, DHS, “Restoring a Rigorous, Holistic, and Comprehensive Good Moral Character Evaluation Standard for Aliens Applying for Naturalization” (Aug. 15, 2025),

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/08.15.2025-Restoring_a_Good_Moral_Character_Evaluation_Standard_for_Aliens_Applying_for_Naturalization-Policy_Memorandum_FINAL.pdf.

• USCIS announced that it will resume personal investigations of aliens applying for naturalization in accordance with section 335(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1446(a).

114

Based on all the changes related to naturalization, USCIS expects that it will require additional time for investigations, screening and vetting, interviews, and case review, and that it may also need to hire additional employees.

114

See

USCIS, DHS, “Resumption of Personal Investigations of Aliens Applying for Naturalization (INA 335(a))” (Aug. 22, 2025),

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual/PM-602-0189_INA335.pdf; see also

8 CFR 335.1.

• USCIS implemented a new Naturalization Civics Test (the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test), first introduced in 2020, which includes a larger bank of possible test questions for each individual test, and requires aliens to correctly answer twelve out of twenty civics questions, instead of the previous six out of ten questions.

115

DHS expects that administering a longer civics test will increase the duration of naturalization interviews.

115

See

90 FR 45047 (Sept. 18, 2025); USCIS, DHS, “Revising Guidance on Naturalization Civics Educational Requirements,” (Oct. 20, 2025),

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251020-CivicsTest.pdf.

USCIS is still in the early stages of implementing changes to its policies regarding naturalization, so DHS is unable to accurately estimate the resource expenditure impacts of USCIS' initiatives on processing naturalization applications. Additionally, Form N-400 may undergo more changes based on public comments received, and additional needed changes based on priorities. Therefore, DHS did not consider these policy changes when deriving the ABC model output costs for the Form N-400 and Form N-336 fees proposed in this rule.

116

If this NPRM is finalized, that final rule will consider any additional costs that are known before it is published if the additional costs represent a logical outgrowth from this rule. Any additional costs DHS considers would be clearly identified and discussed in the preamble of a final rule.

While these recent initiatives relating to naturalization do not directly impact the fees in this proposed rule, they are reasons why DHS is taking these steps to increase the fees associated with the Form N-400 and the Form N-336 at this time, in advance of a comprehensive fee rule. DHS welcomes public comments on the new initiatives and how they may impact costs and fees. The new USCIS initiatives are likely to increase the cost of processing Form N-400 and Form N-336, which may require DHS to adjust the fees by a different amount in the final rule than what was proposed, or raise USCIS fees again in the future.

117

Furthermore, DHS expects that these initiatives may cause the costs for processing Form N-400 and Form

N-336 to rise at faster rates than the costs of processing other forms. DHS believes that increasing the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 now based on current cost data would (a) reduce the risk of needing to fund the costs of new initiatives by reducing the carryover balance, and (b) result in a more gradual increase in the fees for both forms. In its next comprehensive fee rule, DHS may assess the impact of its new naturalization fees on overall cost recovery, and the continuing need for cost reallocations assigned to other USCIS benefits.

117

If a further fee increase is needed, DHS will announce such a fee increase in a future regulatory action in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-557.

G. Related Rulemakings

DHS is engaging in multiple rulemaking actions that are in various stages of development.

118

DHS has considered and analyzed each of these rules for peripheral, overlapping, and interrelated effects on this rule and has incorporated their effects, if any, into the supporting documentation, fee calculations, policies, and regulatory text for this proposed rule. DHS has also, to the extent possible, considered the effects, if any, of possible policy changes of which USCIS is aware. DHS, however, does not and cannot assert that it knows and has considered every policy change that is planned and that may occur at all levels and agencies of the U.S. government that may directly or indirectly affect this rule. DHS believes that it has examined and considered all relevant aspects of the problems that this rulemaking proposes to solve and articulated satisfactory analysis and reasoned explanations for each proposed change. DHS, however, invites the public to submit comments during the 60-day comment period regarding anticipated interaction with related rules and policy changes.

118

See

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “Spring 2025 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,”

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain

(last visited Feb. 2, 2026).

H. Severability

It is DHS's intention that the proposed rule's various provisions, once finalized, be considered severable from one another to the greatest extent possible. For instance, if a court of competent jurisdiction were to prohibit USCIS from collecting any new fee for Form N-400 for any reason or ending the practice of providing fee waivers or reduced fee options for a particular population, DHS would intend for the court to leave the remainder of the rule in place with respect to the other aspects, circumstances, and covered persons. The same is true for the proposed new fee for Form N-336 and the proposal to end fee waivers for this form. DHS believes that the measures proposed in this rule, once finalized, are structured so that a stay, injunction, or vacatur of any of the fees or measures proposed could be narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm that a court may determine exists at that time. Thus, USCIS would be able to continue implementing the remaining provisions of the rule until DHS could either engage in new rulemaking to address the fees or otherwise correct the deficiencies that resulted in the court's order. DHS prefers a narrowly tailored measure over invalidation of the entire rule, which generally results in great disruption and deterioration of USCIS operations. DHS's overarching goal is to align fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 with the relative adjudication and administrative burden they place on USCIS.

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. E.O. 14192 directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with the new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”

OMB has designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant, as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, because its annual effects on the economy exceed $100 million in any year of the analysis. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been reviewed by OMB.

Additionally, this proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in INA sec. 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens.

See

OMB Memorandum M-25-20, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'” (Mar. 26, 2025).

1. Summary

The reduced fee amendment for Form N-400 would result in annualized transfer payments from current reduced fee eligible aliens to USCIS of approximately $16,730,450 (primary estimate, discounted at 3 and 7 percent). The total 10-year transfer payments from current reduced fee eligible aliens to USCIS would be $142,714,132 (primary estimate) at a 3 percent discount rate and $117,507,680 (primary estimate) at a 7 percent discount rate.

The fee waiver and reduced fee amendments for Form N-400 and Form N-336 would result in opportunity cost savings for aliens who are no longer eligible for the waived or reduced fees and do not need to fill out Form I-912 or Part 10 of Form N-400 of approximately $3,514,895 (primary estimate, discounted at 3 and 7 percent). The total 10-year cost savings for aliens would be $29,982,767 (primary estimate) at a 3-percent discount rate and $24,687,152 (primary estimate) at a 7 percent discount rate.

current naturalization laws and the President's Executive Orders. DHS anticipates this proposed rule would produce a qualitative benefit for USCIS by substantially reducing resources that would have been expended on adjudicating and processing fee waiver and reduced fee requests. Qualitatively, the proposed rule would also reduce administrative costs to adjudicate Forms I-912, N-400, and N-336 that are submitted by aliens ineligible for naturalization or a fee waiver, and who may know they are not eligible, but file the application anyway because it would potentially be free if USCIS ultimately approved the fee waiver.

119

Additionally, it reduces the administrative costs of adjudicating reduced fee requests that are submitted by aliens who are ineligible for naturalization or a reduced fee, and may know they are not eligible, but file the request anyway. On the other hand, increasing general fees and eliminating fee waivers and reduced fees might cause certain aliens who are eligible to become naturalized U.S. citizens to delay applying and paying the increased fee. This could result in additional LPR requests in the future for renewal of their Permanent Resident Cards (“Green” Card) which would be an added burden to applicants and USCIS.

119

See

USCIS, Form I-912, “Instructions for Request for Fee Waiver,”

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-912instr.pdf

(July 22, 2025 ed.).

Table V.1 shows the summary of impacts of the proposed regulatory changes and the associated estimated benefits, costs, cost savings, and transfers.

EP23JN26.014

EP23JN26.015

EP23JN26.016

Table V.2 presents the prepared accounting statement, as required by OMB Circular A-4, showing the costs associated with this proposed regulation.

120

Note that under costs and transfers, the primary estimates provided in the accounting statement are calculated from the median between the estimated populations before and after the 2024 Fee Rule went into effect on April 1, 2024.

See

89 FR 6194. The median accounts for the variability between the populations before and after the 2024 Fee Rule went into effect, as there were noticeable changes in filing behavior between the two periods even though population data are currently limited for the time period after the 2024 Fee Rule went into effect.

120

OMB, “Circular A-4” (Sept. 17, 2003).

EP23JN26.017

EP23JN26.018

2. Background and Purpose

USCIS administers the nation's lawful immigration system, through which hundreds of thousands of individuals file applications each year to become naturalized citizens of the United States. USCIS is funded, in part, by naturalization benefit request fees charged to applicants. Fees collected from naturalization benefit requests are deposited into the IEFA and are adjusted periodically to ensure that they are adequate to cover USCIS' costs associated with processing and adjudicating applications. Currently, the costs of processing and adjudicating Forms N-400 and N-336 are not fully covered by their associated fees; therefore, other form fee revenues are reallocated to make up for the cost/revenue gap. Form N-400 and Form N-336 fees are codified in 8 CFR part 106, which also provides eligibility for fee waivers and a reduced fee for Form N-400 to any alien who has a family income at or under 400 percent of the FPG.

So that the fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336 fully recover the cost of processing and adjudicating those benefit requests, this NPRM proposes to increase the fees listed at 8 CFR 106.2(b) for Form N-400, Application and Naturalization, and Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings Under Section 336. Secondly, this rule also proposes to amend 8 CFR 106.3(a) to end the availability of fee waivers for Form N-400 and Form N-336 and reduced fees for Form N-400. Lastly, this NPRM will not propose to eliminate the fee exemption for aliens who meet the requirements of INA sections 328 or 329 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1439, 1440, with respect to qualified current and former armed forces service members. Although USCIS does not charge a fee to military naturalization aliens, the DOW reimburses USCIS for costs related to such applications, up to $7.5 million annually or about 38 percent of these costs.

121

As discussed later, any costs that exceed the $7.5 million annual limit (10 U.S.C. 1790) would be paid for by other non-military Form N-400 alien applicants in the form of higher fees. In FY 2024, fees related to naturalization for aliens in the military cost around $20 million. Thus, about 38 percent of these funds are reimbursed by DOW ($7.5 million ÷ $20 million = 38 percent (rounded)).

3. Population

Population counts are used to estimate the economic impacts of the proposed provisions of this rule. This analysis presents populations from before and after the 2024 Fee Rule became effective on April 1, 2024. The 2024 Fee Rule promulgated changes in fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336, maintained the availability of fee waivers for Form N-400 and Form N-336, and expanded the reduced fee available for Form N-400 to any alien who has a family income at or under 400 percent of the FPG.

The time periods used in the population counts are FY 2019 through FY 2023 (prior to the 2024 Fee Rule) and April 2024 through March 2025 (after the 2024 Fee Rule). Full-year data for FY 2025 is currently not available at the time of this analysis, so one calendar

year of data is used. Breaking out and presenting the data into two time periods will fully account for impacted populations and provide a range of estimated economic impacts discussed in the following sections.

a. Form N-400

Table V.3 shows total receipts (paper and online) of Form N-400 for military and non-military aliens for FY 2019 through FY 2023 and April 2024 through March 2025.

EP23JN26.019

Table V.4 shows the total paper receipts (Column A), total approved fee waivers (Column B), the total approved reduced fees (Column C), and the net total paper receipts (Column D) for non-military Form N-400 applicants for FY 2019 through FY 2023 and April 2024 through March 2025. The net total paper receipts will be used later in this analysis to estimate the economic impact of the fee increase for Form N-400 from estimated populations that did not have the fee waived or reduced.

EP23JN26.020

b. Form N-336

Table V.5 shows total receipts (paper and online) of Form N-336 for military and non-military aliens for FY 2019 through FY 2023 and April 2024 through March 2025.

EP23JN26.021

Table V.6 shows the total paper receipts (Column A), total approved fee waivers (Column B), and the net total paper receipts (Column C) for non-military Form N-336 applicants for FY 2019 through FY 2023 and April 2024 through March 2025. The net total paper receipts will be used later in this analysis to estimate the economic impact of the fee increase for Form N-336 from estimated populations that did not have the fee waived.

EP23JN26.022

4. Fee Adjustments

USCIS employs an ABC methodology to determine the fees necessary to recover the full costs of adjudication and naturalization services. This approach assigns resource costs to operational activities and allocates them to specific immigration benefit requests, including biometric services. USCIS identified all the major steps and determined the resources consumed in processing Form N-400 and Form N-336. The methodology accounts for cost drivers that influence the overall expense of processing Form N-400 and Form N-336. USCIS also conducted a detailed analysis of each form to determine its cost structure. USCIS then used the costing methodology to evaluate whether current fees recover the full costs of adjudicating each form. Further, USCIS used the beneficiary-pays principle in setting the proposed fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336. Under the beneficiary-pays principle, the beneficiaries of a service pay the cost of receiving that service.

122

For more information on the ABC methodology and the beneficiary-pays principle, see Section III, Background and Purpose.

Table V.7 shows the current fees and proposed fees for Form N-400 and Form N-336.

123

DHS is not proposing to change the $50 discount for filing Form N-400 and Form N-336 online. This proposed rulemaking would also eliminate the reduced fee for aliens applying for Form N-400 whose household income is greater than 150 percent of the FPG but less than or equal

to 400 percent of the FPG (indicated by N/A in the table).

124

123

For current fees,

see

USCIS, G-1055, “Fee Schedule,”

https://www.uscis.gov/g-1055

(last updated Oct. 28, 2025).

124

The 2024 Fee Rule changed the reduced fee eligibility for Form N-400 applicants whose household income is greater than 150 percent of the FPG and is at or under 400 percent of the FPG from applicants whose household income is greater than 150 percent of the FPG and not more than 200 percent of the FPG.

EP23JN26.023

The populations impacted by the fee change would include aliens who submit Form N-400 and Form N-336. DHS uses receipts of Form N-400 and Form N-336 that did not have the fee waived or reduced (Table V.4 and Table V.6) to estimate the impact on populations affected by the proposed fee changes. Economic impacts are estimated using populations by time period, FY 2019 through FY 2023 and April 2024 through March 2025, then a median between the populations of the two periods is used to calculate a primary estimate.

125

The median accounts for the variability between the populations before and after the 2024 Fee Rule went into effect as there were noticeable changes in filing behavior between the two periods even though population data are currently limited for the time period after the 2024 Fee Rule went into effect.

Table V.8 shows the economic impacts of fee adjustments for Form N-400. DHS estimates that the number of receipts of Form N-400 from non-military aliens who would be impacted by the fee increase to Form N-400 would range between 697,124

126

(annual average, FY 2019 through FY 2023) and 802,553

127

(annual, April 2024 through March 2025); the median between these two time periods would be 749,839.

128

The estimated annual transfer payments from current full fee-paying applicants to USCIS for Form N-400 would range between $397,360,680

129

and $457,455,210;

130

the estimated median annual transfer payment would be $427,408,230 (primary estimate).

131

126

Calculation: 697,124 = 400,627 (Table V.3) + 296,497 (Table V.4).

127

Calculation: 802,553 = 601,859 (Table V.3) + 200,694 (Table V.4).

128

Calculation: 749,839 = 501,243 (Form N-400 non-military median online filing) + 248,596 (Form N-400 non-military median net paper filing).

129

Calculat

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.