Alien Registration Form and Evidence of Registration

Federal RegisterJun 29, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Part 264

[CIS No. 2810-25; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0004]

RIN 1615-AC96

Alien Registration Form and Evidence of Registration

AGENCY:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION:

Final rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

On March 12, 2025, DHS issued an interim final rule (IFR) with request for comments amending DHS regulations to designate a new registration form for aliens to comply with statutory alien registration and fingerprinting provisions. Unregistered aliens may use this general registration form to satisfy their statutory obligations. This final rule responds to public comments, amends DHS regulations to adjust the lists of forms and processes that may serve as registration forms and evidence of alien registration, and seeks comments on other potential changes to the regulations relating to alien registration and fingerprinting.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on June 29, 2026.

Comment period for solicited comments:

Comments on the other potential changes relating to alien registration and fingerprinting described in section V, Request for Comments, of this preamble must be submitted on or before August 28, 2026.

ADDRESSES:

Comment period for solicited additional comments:

You may submit comments on the specific issues identified in section V, Request for Comments, of this preamble via Federal eRulemaking Portal at

https://www.regulations.gov,

to DHS Docket Number USCIS-2025-0004. Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.

Comments submitted in a manner other than via

https://www.regulations.gov,

including emails or letters sent to the Department's officials, will not be considered and may not receive a response from the Department. Please note that the Department cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, the Department cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage, such as CDs, DVDs, or USB drives. The Department is not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment by using

https://www.regulations.gov,

please contact John R. Pfirrmann-Powell, Acting Chief, 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:

Branch Chief, Residence and Admissibility Branch, Residence and Naturalization Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Basis and Purpose

B. Legal Authority

C. Summary of the Changes From the Interim Final Rule to the Final Rule

D. Request for Comments on Potential Future Changes

E. Severability

F. Costs and Benefits

II. Background

A. Alien Registration Requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act

B. Regulations Prior to the 2025 IFR

C. The March 2025 IFR

III. Response to Public Comments on the IFR

A. Overview of Comments on the IFR

B. Support for the IFR

C. Opposition to the Rule and Policy Objections

1. General Negative Impacts

2. Impact on Specific Populations

3. Impact on Aliens' Legal Services

4. Impact on the Immigration System and Government Operations

5. Impact on Communities and Public Safety

D. Legal Issues and Statutory Provisions

1. General Legal Authority and Legality of the IFR

2. Legal Basis for the IFR

3. Constitutional Concerns Related to the IFR

4. The IFR's Compliance With International Law

E. Applicability

1. General Applicability

2. Applicability to Minors

3. Applicability to Canadian Citizens

4. Applicability to Aliens Seeking Humanitarian Relief

5. Applicability to Other Immigrant Populations

F. Specific Rule Provisions

1. Regulatory Structure of 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b)

2. Submission Process

3. Proof of Registration

4. Biometrics Process

5. Filing Fee

6. Registration Validity

G. Other Issues Relating to the Rule

1. Confidentiality/Privacy of Registration and Fingerprinting

2. Implementation Timeline

3. Other Issues Related to the Rule

H. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

1. Administrative Procedure Act

2. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Costs, and Benefits (E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563)

3. Other Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

I. Out of Scope

1. Registration Requirements Under Pre-Existing Statute and Regulation

2. Enforcement of Criminal Provisions

3. Other Out of Scope (Not Related to Registration Requirements)

IV. Additional Changes in the Final Rule

A. Changes to the Prescribed Registration Forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a)

1. Removing Prescribed Registration Forms

2. Updating Prescribed Registration Form Names, Numbers, and Related Classes

B. Changes to Forms Constitute Evidence of Registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b)

1. Updating Form I-94 as Evidence of Registration

2. Updating Forms Name and Numbers Related to Bordering Crossing Cards

3. Adding Forms that Constitute Evidence of Registration

4. Remove “Form” in 8 CFR 264.1(b)

C. Changes to Fingerprint Waiver in 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1)

D. Updates to 8 CFR 264.1(g)

E. Changes to Temporary Evidence of Permanent Resident Status in 8 CFR 264.5(h)

F. Changes to Related to the Application for a Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Record in 8 CFR 264.6

V. Request for Comments

A. Prescribe Additional Registration Forms To Align With DHS Information Collections and Ensure Screening and Vetting to a Uniform Baseline

B. Ensuring That Evidence of Registration Is Provided to Aliens Who Have Registered and Been Screened and Vetted to a Uniform Baseline

1. Eliminate Certain Prescribed Evidence of Alien Registration Forms From 8 CFR 264.1(b)

2. Updates to the Classes of Aliens for Whom a Form I-94 Constitutes Evidence of Registration Under 8 CFR 264.1(b)

C. Issuance of Evidence of Registration Prior to Adjudication of Related Benefit Request

D. Updating Outdated Waivers of Biometrics Requirement for Certain Nonimmigrants

1. Eliminate or Replace the Biometrics Waiver for Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens

2. Clarify “Not Previously Fingerprinted” in 8 CFR 264.1(e)(2) and (3)

E. Requirement To Apply for Replace Permanent Resident Card When Alien Reaches 14 Years Old

VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Administrative Procedure Act

1. Procedural Rule Exception

2. Delayed Effective Date

B. Executive Order 12866, 13563

1. Summary

2. Affected Population

3. Costs

4. Benefits

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act)

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

I. Family Assessment

J. National Environmental Policy Act

K. Paperwork Reduction Act

Table of Abbreviations

APA—Administrative Procedure Act

ADIT—Alien Documentation Identification and Telecommunication

ARR—Alien Registration Requirement

ASC—USCIS Application Support Center

BCC—Border Crossing Card

BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals

CBP—U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

CPI-U—Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers

CRCL—DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

DACA—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

DHS—Department of Homeland Security

DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice

DOL—U.S. Department of Labor

EAD—Employment Authorization Document

ELIS—Electronic Immigration System

E.O.—Executive Order

EOIR—Executive Office for Immigration Review

EWI—Entered Without Inspection

FAM—Foreign Affairs Manual

FBI—Federal Bureau of Investigation

FISMA—Federal Information Security Modernization Act

FOIA—Freedom of Information Act

FR—Federal Register

HHS—U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HSA—Homeland Security Act

ICE—U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ID—Identification Card

IFR—Interim Final Rule

IIRIRA—Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

INA—Immigration and Nationality Act

INS—Immigration and Naturalization Service

IRCA—Immigration Reform and Control Act

IT—Information Technology

LPR—Lawful Permanent Resident

NATO—North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NEPA—National Environment Policy Act

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NSEERS—National Security Entry-Exit Registration System

NTA—Notice to Appear

OHSS—Office of Homeland Security Statistics

OIRA—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

ORR—Office of Refugee Resettlement

PIA—Privacy Impact Assessment

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act

Pub. L.—Public Law

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act

SAW—Special Agricultural Worker

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

Secretary—Secretary of Homeland Security

SIJ—Special Immigrant Juvenile

SORN—System of Record Notice

SSN—Social Security Number

State—U.S. Department of State

TPS—Temporary Protected Status

TVPA—Trafficking Victims Protection Act

TVPRA—William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

TTP—Trusted Traveler Programs

UAC—Unaccompanied Alien Child

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

U.S.C.—United States Code

USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

VAWA—Violence Against Women Act

VTVPA—Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act

Public Participation

Instructions for providing comments are in the

ADDRESSES

caption.

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the specific issues identified in section V, Request for Comments, of this preamble by submitting relevant written data, views, comments, and arguments by the deadline stated in the

DATES

caption. To provide the most assistance to DHS, comments should explain the reason for any recommendation and include data, information, or authority that supports the recommended course of action. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments submitted in a manner other than pursuant to the instructions, including emails or letters sent to the Department's officials, will not be considered comments on the rule and may not receive a response from the Department.

Privacy:

You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any public comment submission you make to the Department. The Department may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that they determine 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-2025-0004. You may also sign up for email alerts on the online docket to be notified when additional documents are added to the docket.

I. Executive Summary

A. Basis and Purpose

On March 12, 2025, DHS issued an IFR with request for comments.

See

90 FR 11793 (Mar. 12, 2025). The IFR was effective on April 11, 2025. The IFR amended DHS regulations to designate a new registration form for aliens to comply with the statutory alien registration and fingerprinting provision. The IFR partially implemented section 7 of the Executive Order (E.O.) 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025), which directed the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), among other things, to take appropriate action to ensure that all previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply with the statutory registration requirements.

After careful consideration of the public comments submitted in connection with the IFR, DHS is finalizing the IFR and making additional procedural and technical modifications to the regulatory text at 8 CFR 264.1 in response to the public comments. The rationale for the changes provided to 8 CFR 264.1 in the IFR and the reasoning provided in the IFR's preamble remain valid, except as distinguished in this final rule.

The purpose of this final rule remains the same as articulated throughout the IFR: to improve the registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens to better ensure that all previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply with the statutory requirements in sections 261 through 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306. The IFR filled a gap in the DHS regulatory regime by prescribing a registration form available to all aliens regardless of their status and corresponding evidence as proof of that registration. This final rule adopts the IFR as final. The rule improves DHS law enforcement efficacy, making it easier and safer for DHS to enforce the law by providing more comprehensive information about the location of aliens in the United States. Additionally, increased compliance with fingerprinting requirements will provide DHS with additional information about an alien's criminal record, including whether the alien is a known or suspected terrorist.

The final rule also makes additional technical corrections in the existing regulations to replace the name, description, and number of certain forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) that have evolved or changed over time, eliminates references to certain long-

expired forms that aliens cannot use to register, and prescribes some additional forms as evidence of registration. The final rule also makes technical amendments and corrections to the fingerprinting waiver provisions of 8 CFR 264.1(e) and 8 CFR 264.1(g) related to the registration requirement of aliens who turn 14 years, as well as the provisions of 8 CFR 264.5(h) relating to temporary evidence of registration and lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. Finally, the rule makes technical corrections to 8 CFR 264.6. These changes reduce confusion and improve the usability of the revised provisions. These technical amendments and corrections do not substantively impact the regulated public.

B. Legal Authority

The authority for the Secretary to issue this final rule is found in various provisions of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101

et seq.,

including section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration laws and establish such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out such authority. The authority is furthermore found in sections 262 through 266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1306, which govern the registration of aliens and authorizes the Secretary to prepare forms for registration and fingerprinting of aliens. Section 102(a)(3) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), 6 U.S.C. 112(a)(3), vests all functions of all DHS officers, employees, and organizational units in the Secretary.

See also

6 U.S.C. 202, 271; INA sec. 214(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1).

C. Summary of the Changes From the Interim Final Rule to the Final Rule

Following careful consideration of the public comments received in response to the IFR, this final rule makes additional changes to DHS's registration and fingerprinting regulations. DHS is not seeking public comments on these changes. DHS is taking the following actions in this final rule:

• Adopting the changes to 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) made by the IFR as final. DHS is adopting as final the IFR's amendments to 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) without change. The IFR added to the list of prescribed registration forms in the table of 8 CFR 264.1(a) a reference to the Form G-325R, Biographic Information (Registration). The IFR also added to the list of evidence of registration in the table of 8 CFR 264.1(b) the USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration.

• Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(a) by removing the entries related to the I-67, Inspection Record—Hungarian refugees (Act of July 25, 1958), I-691, Notice of Approval for Status as a Temporary Resident, and I-700, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident.

• Revising the tables in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) by updating the Arrival-Departure Record Form Number and Class. In 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b), DHS is adding Form I-94A/94W to the item for the Form I-94. DHS is also removing in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b) the entry referring to the class of “aliens whose claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot be verified, they having satisfactorily established residence in the United States since prior to July 1, 1924.”

• Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(a) by updating the entry relating to Form I-181, Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence. In 8 CFR 264.1(a), DHS is revising the class to “aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence during a temporary visit abroad admitted without a visa under 8 CFR 211.1(b).”

• Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(a) by updating the entry relating to Form I-485 and the Adjustment of Status Form Title. In 8 CFR 264.1(a), DHS is revising the form title for Form I-485 to “Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, or its predecessor or successor form.”

• Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(a) by updating the form title and class of alien of the Form I-590. In 8 CFR 264.1(a), DHS is revising the form title and class of alien of Form I-590 to read as “Form I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee or its successor form, or its predecessor form—Applicants under section 207 of the INA and Refugee-escapees paroled pursuant to section 1 of the Act of July 14, 1960.”

• Revising the table of 8 CFR 264.1(a) by updating the entry relating to Form I-817, Application for Voluntary Departure under the Family Unity Program. In 8 CFR 264.1(a), DHS is revising the form title of Form I-817 to “Application for Family Unity Benefits or its successor form, or its predecessor form.”

• Revising the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b) by removing the references to Form I-185, Nonresident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card, and Form I-186, Nonresident Alien Mexican Border Crossing Card. DHS is removing the form numbers and titles of the Canadian Border Crossing Card (BCC) and the Mexican BCC and adding Form DSP-150, B-1/B-2 Visa and Border Crossing Card or its successor form, or its predecessor form in 8 CFR 264.1(b).

• Amending the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b) by adding Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, and Form I-871, Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order and the class of aliens for each form. DHS is adding “Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal” with the class of aliens who have been determined to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and “Form I-871, Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order” with the class of aliens who reentered the United States illegally and whose prior order of removal has been reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b).

• Amending the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b) by removing “Form” from the entry relating to the I-862, Notice to Appear, and the I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge.

• Amending the table in 8 CFR 264.1(b) by adding “CBP-approved document or its electronic equivalent for the Trusted Traveler Programs NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, and Global Entry—Aliens who were last admitted to the United States through NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, or Global Entry facilitated processing.”

• Amending 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) relating to fingerprint waiver. DHS is removing the language waiving the fingerprinting requirements for “nonimmigrant aliens admitted as foreign government officials and employees; international organization representatives, officers and employees” from 8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) and adding reference to 22 CFR 41.26(a)(2) and section 101(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to describe aliens who are holders of diplomatic visas. Additionally, DHS is also adding language to clarify that the attendants, servants, or personal employees of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) representatives, officers, and employees (NATO-7 nonimmigrants) are not themselves eligible for the waiver because they are not and have never been classified as NATO representatives, officers, or employees.

• Restructuring paragraph (e) of 8 CFR 264.1 to separate the three fingerprint waivers into three paragraphs and adding “she” or “her” where appropriate.

• Amending 8 CFR 264.1(g) to add “or by law” after “under the Act.”

• Amending paragraph (g)(1) of 8 CFR 264.1(g) to clarify that an LPR who reaches 14 years old must apply for registration in accordance with the applicable form instructions and with the fee specified in 8 CFR 106.2 to replace a permanent residence card within 30 days of the alien's return to the United States; to remove the requirement of a physical photograph when applying for registration; to remove “if a lawful permanent resident of the United States in the second sentence of the provision; and to add “she” or “her” where appropriate.

• Amending 8 CFR 264.5(h) to state that USCIS may issue temporary evidence of registration and LPR status to an alien who is a “lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident alien who has properly filed an application for a replacement permanent resident card or for naturalization, petitioned for the removal of the conditions on his or her residence using the form prescribed by USCIS, or as otherwise determined by USCIS in accordance with the form instructions.” In 8 CFR 264.5(h), DHS is also clarifying that the temporary evidence of registration placed by USCIS in the alien's passport does not need to be surrendered to USCIS by the alien when the alien is issued a new Form I-551.

• Amending 8 CFR 264.6 related to the application for a nonimmigrant arrival-departure record. DHS is amending regulations in 8 CFR 264.6 by making technical editorial updates to remove obsolete regulatory references.

While DHS did not impose a fee as part of the IFR, DHS requested comments on adding a potential biometric services fee per registrant of $30. After careful consideration of the comments received, DHS has determined that it will not, at this time, impose a biometric services fee, but may impose an application or biometric services fee in the future.

Additionally, within the IFR, DHS requested comments on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved Form G-325R, Biographic Information (Registration), for purposes of the 60-day

Federal Register

Notice under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq. See

90 FR 11793, 11799 (Mar. 12, 2025). The comment period for purposes of the PRA ended on May 12, 2025. Any public comment received on Form G-325R as a result of the IFR has been responded to in the 30-day

Federal Register

Notice published for purposes of obtaining OMB approval of Form G-325R

on August 11, 2025, at 90 FR 38655. The information collection instrument with instructions and additional supporting documents, including responses to comments submitted as part of the 60-day

Federal Register

Notice, can be accessed by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:

https://www.regulations.gov

under Docket ID number USCIS-2025-0005.

DHS had requested, and OMB approved, Form G-325R on an emergency review basis pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR 1320.13, on March 5, 2025.

See

Notice of Action for OMB Control Number 1615-0166 (Mar. 5, 2025),

https://www.reginfo.gov.

The information collection was submitted to OMB on August 22, 2025 and is pending OMB approval.

D. Request for Comments on Potential Future Changes

In section V of this preamble, DHS solicits comments on certain potential amendments throughout the existing regulation in 8 CFR part 264 to improve usability and reduce the need for conforming changes in future rules. Potential future amendments for which DHS is seeking comments include:

• Prescribing additional registration forms, including but not limited to Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Status, and Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.

• Eliminating certain prescribed evidence of Alien Registration forms from 8 CFR 264.1(b), such as Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document;

• Updating the classes of aliens for whom Form I-94 constitutes evidence of Registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b).

• Issuing evidence of registration prior to the adjudication of related benefit requests.

• Updating and clarifying edits related to the waiver of fingerprinting requirements in 8 CFR 264.1(e).

E. Severability

In issuing this final rule, it is DHS's intention that the rule's various provisions be considered severable from one another to the greatest extent possible. If a court of competent jurisdiction were to hold that any of the provisions amended were not to be applied to a particular category of individuals or circumstances, DHS would intend for the court to leave the remainder of the rule in place with respect to all covered persons and circumstances. DHS's overarching goal is to improve the registration outcomes of aliens not previously registered consistent with the provisions of the INA.

F. Benefits and Costs

This rule makes available another method for aliens to comply with the alien registration requirements of the INA. The rule does not impose new registration or fingerprinting obligations separate from the obligations already contained in the INA. The rule provides benefits by providing a general registration option to allow unregistered aliens to comply with their registration requirements and improve DHS enforcement. DHS recognizes that there are costs to aliens to comply with registration requirements in the INA. Because this rule does not impose new alien registration or biometric obligations separate from those already contained in the INA, the costs are inherent to compliance with the statute and are not a result of this rule. This rule may result in increased compliance costs for aliens that use this option. Costs to aliens may include the time to complete and file a registration form, as well as time spent traveling to an ASC, submitting fingerprints, and record retention. There is currently no fee for applicants to file the form or to submit biometrics. This rule may increase costs to DHS from additional alien registrations resulting from this rule. DHS estimates current registration and biometrics submissions under this rule have cost aliens approximately $21.3 million, as of May 7, 2026. The estimated burden to the Agency is $0.6 million from collecting and processing biometrics. DHS has considered the possibility that this rule, perhaps in combination with other policies, could have some indirect effects, such as increased legal costs for those who choose to seek legal assistance and potential workforce impacts. We do not have sufficient information to quantify these effects.Table 1 provides a summary of the regulatory changes and the estimated costs and benefits associated with the expected impacts.

Table 1—Summary of Estimated Impacts of the Rule, FY 2025

Summary of the change to provision

Expected impact of the rule

Amend existing regulations to make available another method for aliens to comply with the alien registration requirements of the INA

Quantitative:

Benefits

• None.

Costs

• $21.3 million to aliens in registration costs.

• $0.6 million to USCIS in biometric costs.

Qualitative:

Benefits

• The rule is expected to result in increased alien registrations that are consistent with provisions of the INA.

Costs

• Technical changes are expected to have a

de minimis

effect on costs.

• Indirect costs of the rule may include increased legal costs for those who choose to seek legal assistance and potential workforce impacts. Public comments identified these and other potential indirect effects, which are difficult to quantify.

Source: USCIS analysis.

II. Background

A. Alien Registration Requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, was enacted into law on June 28, 1940.

The Smith Act generally required all aliens in the country beyond 30 days to apply to register and to be fingerprinted. Congress later incorporated these requirements, as amended, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414, 66 Stat. 163. The registration and fingerprinting requirements currently appear, as amended, in part VII of subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 8, United States Code (8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306). Throughout this preamble, we refer to such requirements as the alien registration requirements or the alien registration requirements of the INA.

See

Public Law 76-670, 54 Stat. 670 (June 28, 1940).

Under the alien registration requirements of the INA, with limited exceptions (

e.g.,

for visa holders who have already been registered and fingerprinted (through their application for a visa) and A and G visa holders),

all aliens above the age of 14 who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer must apply for registration and be fingerprinted before the expiration of 30 days.

See

INA sec. 262(a), 8 U.S.C. 1302(a). Similarly, parents and legal guardians must ensure that their children below the age of 14 are registered.

See

INA sec. 262(b), 8 U.S.C. 1302(b). Within 30 days of reaching his or her 14th birthday, the alien child must “apply in person for registration and to be fingerprinted.”

Id.

The Secretary may, in his discretion and on the basis of reciprocity pursuant to such regulations as he may prescribe, waive the requirement of fingerprinting specified in section 262(a) and (b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302(a) and (b), in the case of any nonimmigrant.

See

INA sec. 262(c), 8 U.S.C. 1302(c). As discussed in the next section, the Secretary has exercised this discretion with respect to certain nonimmigrants.

See

INA sec. 221(b), 8 U.S.C. 1201(b).

An alien's willful failure or refusal to apply to register or to be fingerprinted is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both.

The same applies to an alien's parent or legal guardian's willful failure or refusal to register.

See

INA sec 266(a), 8 U.S.C. 1306(a). Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of an alien who files a registration application “containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or through another person by fraud” is subject to criminal prosecution.

See

INA sec. 266(c), 8 U.S.C. 1306(c).

See, e.g.,

18 U.S.C. 1001, 1546. A conviction for fraudulent registration constitutes a ground of removal under section 237(a)(3)(B)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(B)(i).

See

INA sec. 266(a), 8 U.S.C. 1306(a). 8 U.S.C 1306(a) refers to a fine of up to $1,000, but the general fine provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3571 supersede that language. As a class B misdemeanor, the applicable fine is not more than $5,000.

See

18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(7).

The Secretary has authority to “prepare forms for the registration and fingerprinting of aliens,” which “shall contain inquiries with respect to (1) the date and place of entry of the alien into the United States; (2) activities in which he has been and intends to be engaged; (3) the length of time he expects to remain in the United States; (4) the police and criminal record, if any, of such alien; and (5) such additional matters as may be prescribed.”

See

INA sec. 264(a), 8 U.S.C. 1304(a). The Secretary also has authority to prescribe “special regulations and forms for the registration and fingerprinting of” certain classes of aliens, including “aliens of any other class not lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence,” “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of” sections 261 and 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1301 and 1302.

See

INA sec. 263(a), 8 U.S.C. 1303(a). Although this rule is fully consistent with sections 261 and 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1301 and 1302 and related authority, the Secretary also invokes section 263(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1303(a) to the extent necessary to support this rulemaking.

Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the alien registration requirements of the INA must “be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the [Secretary].”

Every registered alien 18 years of age and over must at all times carry and have in his or her personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card. Noncompliance is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both.

See

INA sec. 266(b), 8

U.S.C. 1306(b); 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(8), 3571(b)(6).

See

INA sec. 264(d), 8 U.S.C. 1304(d). As of March 1, 2003, in accordance with section 1517 of title XV of the HSA, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the INA describing functions that were transferred from the Attorney General or other DOJ official to DHS by the HSA “shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary” of Homeland Security. 6 U.S.C. 557 (2003) (codifying HSA, title XV, sec. 1517); 6 U.S.C. 542 note; 8 U.S.C. 1551 note.

Finally, each alien required to be registered under the alien registration requirements of the INA who is within the United States must notify DHS in writing of each change of address and new address within 10 days from the date of such change and provide such additional information as the Secretary may require by regulation.

See

INA sec. 265(a), 8 U.S.C. 1305(a). Noncompliance is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. In addition, any alien who has failed to comply with the change-of-address notification requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1305 is removable unless the alien establishes that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

See

INA sec. 237(a)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(A).

B. Regulations Prior to the 2025 IFR

Longstanding regulations provide that within 30 days after reaching the age of 14 years old, an alien in the United States who is not exempt from alien registration must apply for registration and fingerprinting, unless fingerprinting is waived under 8 CFR 264.1(e),

in accordance with applicable form instructions.

See

8 CFR 264.1(g).

DHS may waive fingerprinting requirements for some nonimmigrants. Such waivers are in the DHS's discretion, on the basis of reciprocity, and pursuant to such DHS regulations. See

INA sec. 262(c), 8 U.S.C. 1302(c). DHS regulations waive fingerprinting requirements for some nonimmigrants, which covers various diplomatic and similar categories; other nonimmigrant aliens, while they maintain nonimmigrant status, who are nationals of countries which do not require fingerprinting of U.S. citizens, temporarily residing therein; and nonimmigrants who depart from the United States within 1 year of admission.

See

8 CFR 264.1(e)(1) and (2). A nonimmigrant who fails to maintain his or her nonimmigrant status must apply to be fingerprinted at once upon failing to maintain nonimmigrant status.

See

8 CFR 264.1(e)(3).

If such alien is an LPR of the United States and is temporarily absent from the United States when he or she reaches the age of 14, the alien must apply for registration and provide a photograph within 30 days of his or her return to the United States in accordance with applicable form instructions.

See

8 CFR 264.1(g)(1). The alien, if an LPR of the United States, must surrender any prior evidence of alien registration.

Id.

DHS regulations prescribe forms that satisfy the alien registration requirements.

See

8 CFR 264.1(a). The regulations also designate certain forms as constituting evidence of registration.

See

8 CFR 264.1(b).

Before the IFR added Form G-325R, 8 CFR 264.1(a) identified the following forms as registration forms:

• I-67, Inspection Record—Hungarian refugees (Act of July 25, 1958).

• I-94, Arrival-Departure Record—Aliens admitted as nonimmigrants;

aliens paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; aliens whose claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot be verified, they having satisfactorily established residence in the United States since prior to July 1, 1924; aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence who have not been registered previously; aliens who are granted permission to depart without the institution of deportation proceedings or against whom deportation proceedings are being instituted.

This includes aliens admitted as B-1/B-2 nonimmigrants through the Visa Waiver Program who were issued a Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94W).

• I-95, Crewmen's Landing Permit—Crewmen arriving by vessel or aircraft.

• I-181, Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence—Aliens presumed to be lawfully admitted to the United States under 8 CFR 101.1.

• I-485, Application for Status as Permanent Resident—Applicants under sections 245 and 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended, and section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957.

• I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee—Escapee—Refugee-escapees paroled pursuant to section 1 of the Act of July 14, 1960.

• I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident—Applicants under section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.

• I-691, Notice of Approval for Status as a Temporary Resident—Aliens adjusted to lawful temporary residence under 8 CFR 210.2 and 245A.2.

• I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident—Applicants under section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.

• I-700, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident—Applicants under section 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.

• I-817, Application for Voluntary Departure under the Family Unity Program.

See

8 CFR 264.1(a).

Before the IFR added “USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration,” 8 CFR 264.1(b) listed the following forms as constituting evidence of registration:

• I-94, Arrival-Departure Record—Aliens admitted as nonimmigrants; aliens paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; aliens whose claimed entry prior to July 1, 1924, cannot be verified, they having satisfactorily established residence in the United States since prior to July 1, 1924; and aliens granted permission to depart without the institution of deportation proceedings.

• I-95, Crewmen's Landing Permit—Crewmen arriving by vessel or aircraft.

• I-184, Alien Crewman Landing Permit and Identification Card—Crewmen arriving by vessel.

• I-185, Nonresident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card—Citizens of Canada or British subjects residing in Canada.

• I-186, Nonresident Alien Mexican Border Crossing Card—Citizens of Mexico residing in Mexico.

• I-221, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing—Aliens against whom deportation proceedings are being instituted.

• I-221S, Order to Show Cause, Notice of Hearing, and Warrant for Arrest of Alien—Aliens against whom deportation proceedings are being instituted.

• I-551, Permanent Resident Card—Lawful permanent resident of the United States.

• I-766, Employment Authorization Document (EAD).

• Form I-862, Notice to Appear—Aliens against whom removal proceedings are being instituted.

• Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge—Aliens against whom removal proceedings are being instituted.

See

8 CFR 264.1(b).

In addition, under a note to 8 CFR 264.1(b), a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant DHS admission or parole stamp in a foreign passport constitutes evidence of registration.

C. The March 2025 IFR

On March 12, 2025, DHS published an IFR with request for comments in the

Federal Register

90 FR 11793 (Mar. 12, 2025). The IFR partially implemented section 7 of E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, issued on January 20, 2025.

See

90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025). Section 7 directs the DHS, in coordination with the Department of State (State) and the Attorney General, to take all appropriate action to:

• Immediately announce and publicize information about the legal obligation of all previously unregistered aliens in the United States to comply with the requirements of part VII of

subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 8, U.S. Code (8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306);

• Ensure that all previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply with 8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306; and

• Ensure that failure to comply with the legal obligations of 8 U.S.C. 1301 through 1306 is treated as a civil and criminal enforcement priority.

See

90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Following the issuance of this E.O., DHS reviewed the registration regulations at 8 CFR part 264 and determined that it would be appropriate to designate a general registration form in addition to those already identified in the regulations to improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens who currently lack a designated registration form, such as aliens who are present without being admitted or paroled and have not otherwise been encountered by DHS, or Canadian nonimmigrants for business or pleasure who are not issued Form I-94.

See

90 FR 11793, 11795 (Mar. 12, 2025).

Consistent with the E.O. and the alien registration requirements of the INA, the IFR designated new Form G-325R, Biometric Information (Registration) as a general registration option available to all unregistered aliens regardless of their status.

See

90 FR 11793, 11795 (Mar. 12, 2025). As explained in the IFR, to use this option, aliens must create their own unique account, or an account for their child, in myUSCIS at

https://my.uscis.gov/

and then complete the Form G-325R, Biographic Information (Registration).

See

90 FR 11793, 11796 (Mar. 12, 2025). There is no fee.

Submission of the registration in myUSCIS initiates the process for the alien's biometric services appointment at a local USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for the collection of biometrics, including fingerprints, photograph, and signature.

Once an alien successfully completes his or her biometrics appointment at an ASC, the USCIS Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) case management system triggers the creation of “USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration” with a unique identifier printed on the document. For those aliens, such as Canadian nonimmigrants and aliens under the age of 14 years old, required to register but for whom the fingerprint requirement is waived, the ELIS case management system triggers the creation of the “USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration” upon receipt of the Form G-325R. This “USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration” document is then posted to the alien's myUSCIS account. In the myUSCIS account, the alien is allowed to download a PDF version of the document and can print it. This document serves as evidence of the alien's registration for purposes of section 264(d) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(d).

The IFR filled the gaps in the regulatory regime by prescribing a registration form available to all aliens regardless of their status, in addition to the other forms already listed. Specifically, the IFR listed the new form at 8 CFR 264.1(a) and listed the corresponding evidence of registration at 8 CFR 264.1(b).

See

90 FR 11793, 11796 (Mar. 12, 2025).

Consistent with section 289 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1359, DHS interpreted the registration and fingerprinting requirements of section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 to exclude from “all aliens” American Indians born in Canada who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American Indian race who are present in the United States under the authority of section 289 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1359, as section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 and other provisions of subchapter II of chapter 12, title 8 of the U.S. Code are construed consistent with their right to pass the borders of the United States.

Therefore, the registration form added in the IFR is not used by these entrants because such entrants do not have to register.

See Akins

Saxbe,

380 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Me. 1974);

Matter of Yellowquill,

16 I&N Dec. 576 (BIA 1978). Members of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians similarly are not required to register.

See

Texas Band of Kickapoo Act, Public Law 97-429, sec. 4(d) (1983) (“Notwithstanding the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101, all members of the Band shall be entitled to freely pass and repass the borders of the United States and to live and work in the United States.”).

While DHS wrote in the IFR that American Indians born in Canada who enter the United States under INA sec. 289, 8 U.S.C. 1359, may register using Form G-325R “if they wish,” this is not consistent with the statute. Just as U.S. citizens and nationals are excluded from “all aliens,” so are American Indians Born in Canada who enter under INA sec. 289, 8 U.S.C. 1359, and members of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas who enter the United States under the Texas Band of Kickapoo Act. If individuals in any of these groups submit Form G-325R to USCIS, USCIS will not register them and instead will send them a notice informing them that they are not required to register.

The IFR did not impose any new registration or fingerprinting obligations separate from the obligations already contained in the INA. An alien who has previously registered consistent with 8 CFR 264.1(a), or an alien who has evidence of registration consistent with 8 CFR 264.1(b), generally need not register again, although such an alien is subject to ongoing change of address reporting requirements under section 265(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1305(a) and 8 CFR 265.1, which are in addition to, and separate from, any other address reporting obligations the alien may have.

While DHS did not incorporate a fee for filing the Form G-325R, DHS requested comments in the IFR on the option of adding biometric services fee per registrant of $30, for the collection, use, and storage of biometric information, pursuant to 8 CFR 103.16 and 17.

III. Response to Public Comments on the IFR

A. Overview of Comments on the IFR

When issuing the IFR, DHS invited the public to participate in the rulemaking by submitting post-promulgation comments on every aspect of the rule. DHS also invited the public to comment on a potential biometric services fee, including on the calculation of the fee. Additionally, the IFR contained a secondary comment period for purposes of the 60-day

Federal Register

notice under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

and OMB approved Form G-325R, Biographic Information (Registration).

See

90 FR 11793, 11799 (Mar. 12, 2025). DHS requested that comments on the information collection included the term OMB Control Number 1615-NEW. The comment period for purposes of the PRA ended on May 12, 2025. Any public comment received on Form G-325R has been responded to as part of the 30-day

Federal Register

notice published for purposes of obtaining OMB approval of Form G-325R

on August 11, 2025, at 90 FR 38655. The information collection instrument with instructions and additional supporting documents, including responses to comments submitted as part of the 60-day

Federal Register

Notice, can be accessed by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket ID number USCIS-2025-0005.

12 DHS had requested, and OMB approved, Form G-325R on an emergency review basis pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR 1320.13, on March 5, 2025.

See

Notice of Action, OMB Control Number 1615-0166 (Mar. 5, 2025),

https://www.reginfo.gov.

The information collection approved on an emergency review basis had a subsequent information collection request for revision of the information collection submitted timely to OMB and thus, USCIS may continue to conduct the information collection while the submission is pending OMB review.

Comments were submitted by a range of entities and individuals, including attorneys and legal service providers, applicants, individual commenters, professional organizations, unions, advocacy groups, religious organizations, research and community

organizations, and State and local government agencies or elected officials.

In response to the IFR, DHS received 4,198 public comment submissions during the initial comment period that ended on April 11, 2025, for purposes of the IFR and the information collection. The secondary comment period for purposes of the information collection closed on May 12, 2025, with 71 additional submissions received to the docket after April 11, 2025.

DHS appreciates all comments and feedback. A few commenters expressed their support for the IFR or parts thereof, and the registration requirements. The majority of commenters opposed the statutory registration requirement and thus, the implementation thereof, including the IFR, Form G-325R, or the form's contents based on the impact on various populations or past practices but without providing specific suggestions. The majority of the commenters requested that DHS rescind the rule.

DHS is responding to the feedback received in this final rule but reiterates that, for approximately 85 years, the laws of the United States, including longstanding regulations, have required most aliens present in the United States who remain for 30 days or longer to register and, with some exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted. The IFR and this final rule have not modified these statutory requirements. Similarly, the IFR and final rule do not modify the criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago that apply when aliens fail to meet their registration and related obligations. This rule is consistent with E.O. 14159 and the alien registration requirements in sections 262 through 265 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1305, and establishes a general registration option available to all unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status. DHS has no authority to rescind the E.O. or the alien registration requirements of the INA.

B. Support for the IFR

Comment:

Multiple commenters expressed support for the IFR. One commenter noted the IFR is a means for DHS and USCIS to comply with E.O. 14159. The commenter reasoned that a general registration form for all unregistered aliens,

regardless of status, would improve registration outcomes and support the enforcement of immigration laws and regulations. The commenter added that this new registration form would bridge the regulatory gap between “certain immigration statuses” and appropriate registration procedures and requirements. Another commenter reasoned that “aliens need to be vetted” to protect the safety of U.S. citizens, including by knowing “who has entered our country,” and encouraged DHS to “pass” this regulation.

The commenter used the word “alien,” consistent with the terminology in the alien registration provisions of the INA. Other commenters used different terminology. In general, when describing comments in this preamble, DHS has sought to mirror the language used in those comments, sometimes with quotation marks for clarity. Otherwise, DHS has used the statutory term “alien.”

Response:

DHS agrees that the new registration form and evidence of registration will improve registration outcomes and support the enforcement of immigration laws and regulations. DHS appreciates the commenters' feedback and support for DHS obligation to faithfully execute immigration laws established by Congress.

C. Opposition to the IFR and Policy Objections

1. General Negative Impacts

a. Overreach and Invasiveness Concerns

Comment:

Many commenters voiced concerns with Federal overreach as a result of the IFR. Commenters variously wrote that the IFR is “invasive,” “out of bounds,” would create a “police state,” “has no place in our system of democratic laws,” would violate the rule of law, would allow excessive surveillance or government control that sets a troubling precedent, represents an abuse of power, and is a dangerous expansion of state control that will enable the government to surveil millions of people. A commenter stated that once implemented, the IFR could provide a tool by which any future administration could enact targeted, repressive measures against alien residents of the United States. The commenter remarked that authority, once delegated to governing bodies, is rarely yielded or revoked, and that DHS should take care to consider the regulatory precedent the IFR would establish. Another commenter stated that the IFR imposes a similar registration requirement that was imposed by Germany during World War II as a means to control unpopular groups. A commenter added that while the registration is codified in the laws of the United States and it is lawful to ensure compliance, the law disproportionately impacts individuals and their families who have been living and contributing to society peacefully for years, especially those with pending immigration relief or humanitarian protections.

Another commenter stated that the normalization of mass surveillance for one group sets a dangerous precedent, potentially paving the way for broader erosions of privacy and civil rights for all individuals. A commenter stated that the IFR gives the Secretary of Homeland Security unchecked discretionary power to monitor, register, and remove immigrants and thus, was “a sweeping revision of prior powers to the Secretary.”

Commenters expressed reservations about the implications of surveillance by law enforcement. For example, a commenter wrote that surveillance measures weaken the social fabric of entire communities. Other commenters wrote that the expansion of surveillance could eventually include all U.S. citizens, with another expressing concern about the ease with which the policy could expand surveillance and restrict individual liberties.

A commenter wrote that the IFR would create “undignified” monitoring requirements that would be a barrier to integration, economic participation, and community trust. Another commenter said the IFR is an “absolute abomination,” as it targets and entraps people who contribute to the cultural depth and economic vitality of the United States. One commenter stated that this tactic relies on lies to divide people, while another commenter said that “this program” sends an unwelcoming message.

Another commenter expressed concern that the data collected under the IFR could facilitate human rights abuses, similar to those seen in historical mandatory registration programs. The commenter cited examples such as the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, the post-September 11 NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) program, and the registration of Jews during the Holocaust. The commenter remarked that there are no safeguards in the IFR to prevent such abuses and recommended rescinding the rule to protect privacy and prevent potential harm.

A commenter wrote that if the Federal Government intends to enforce a “show me your papers” rule against aliens, then every person in the United States, including U.S. citizens, must carry proof of their immigration status or face penalties. With regard to “carrying papers,” a commenter stated that registered immigrants risk prosecution if they do not carry them or update their address, while aliens face deportation or criminal charges. A different commenter said that certain States have already

seen immigration enforcement and said that with a nationwide “show me your papers” law, U.S. citizens without proof on them, or LPRs, are also at risk of being unlawfully detained and even deported. The commenter stated that the rule and registration processes are an affront to public safety as well as national security, which this process purports to uphold.

Another commenter criticized the IFR as a “deep overreach” in Federal authority, despite the administration's promises to turn more power to the States. Another commenter viewed the IFR as contradictory to the administration's stated goal of reducing regulations. Commenters also wrote that the rule and forced registration reinforces the idea of a “Deep State” and surveillance state, where government officials use registration data to track, target, and punish individuals in direct violation of human rights and U.S. rights.

A commenter stated that requiring registered aliens to update the government with their current residence is surveillance “on par with a parole sentence that no other U.S. citizen has to go through.” Commenters stated that the IFR and the registration requirement are a step toward mass surveillance and criminalization of “undocumented” communities; that these requirements are “Orwellian;” and that they have the potential government overreach and the misuse of data to surveil immigrants.

Numerous commenters suggested that the rule is un-American or runs contrary to U.S. values, authoritarian, un-democratic, that it would reinforce harmful stereotypes; or that it was an “attempt to complete [an] authoritarian takeover,” or establish a dictatorship. Other commenters stated that the IFR disagrees with the American value of free movement; is dangerous; fascist; punitive; inhumane; immoral; or exploitative. A few commenters wrote that only Native Americans are not immigrants to the United States, and that the IFR's policies are hypocritical as a result.

Commenters wrote that the IFR is “cruel” and contradicts the values of welcoming aliens and providing them with safety and freedom, as represented by the Statue of Liberty. Similarly, a few commenters remarked that the United States is a nation of immigrants that should embrace diversity and be more respectful of those immigrants; that the U.S. immigration system should be fair and provide viable paths to legal status, and that the rule does not further those goals. Other commenters said that the United States should not intimidate or demean aliens and that the United States should honor its reputation of accepting aliens in need of protection from persecution, threats, torture, and death from their own country. Stating that the rule imposes an undue burden and creates fear in communities, a commenter said that making criminals out of people who are contributing to society was nonsensical. Discussing efforts in their State, the commenter noted that there can be “calls for border security” while still treating all people with respect and acknowledging the value of immigrants in society.

Several commenters called the registration requirement a violation of human rights. A commenter also said that the IFR would open the door for human rights abuse. Commenters stated that the IFR risks damaging the United States' international reputation as a champion of fairness, human rights, and due process. Another commenter wrote that the IFR aims to “reduce the immigrant to an undesirable person,” which contradicts religious principles, is against Christian values, and prevents individuals from practicing their religious beliefs. Commenters also stated that the IFR raises moral and legal questions and harkens back to dark days in Jewish history.

A commenter stated that the Federal Government, under the previous Presidential administration, repeatedly committed to a humane, trauma-informed immigration policy, particularly for children and families. The commenters said that the IFR contradicts those values and codifies fear-based compliance mechanisms without providing pathways to safety, legal relief, or stability, which was particularly concerning in cities like Chicago, where thousands of asylum seekers are still awaiting work permits, school placements, and basic housing.

Response:

DHS disagrees with the characterization of the IFR as overreach, discriminatory, or otherwise contrary to the principles and values of American society, as raised by the commenters. DHS also disagrees with the concerns raised by commenters that equate the registration program with government overreach, mass surveillance, eroding civil liberties, punishment, lack of safeguards, and setting precedents for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens. Congress directed and provided the necessary authority for the registration of aliens, including the content of the registration in sections 262 through 266 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1306. It is Congress that sets the policy and consequences; DHS is directed by Congress and committed to carry out the congressional mandate.

President Trump directed DHS to take all appropriate action to ensure that previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply with their duty to register with the government. DHS identified a gap in the regulatory regime and established a new general registration option so that previously unregistered aliens could comply with the longstanding statutory requirement. As explained throughout this rulemaking, registration has existed for over 80 years; administrations had implemented the registration requirement in the longstanding regulation at 8 CFR 264.1, listing forms and evidence of registration, such as Form I-485. The IFR and this final rule is limited in scope by prescribing an additional registration form and evidence of registration for unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status. The general registration form collects basic biographic information and information required by section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a), which USCIS has a legal responsibility to safeguard, similar to the other form types collected by the agency.

See

INA sec. 264(b), 8 U.S.C. 1304(b).

b. Effect on Removal, Detention, and Criminalization

Comment:

Many commenters criticized the rule as an attempt to entrap aliens by forcing them to either register (causing them to face potential deportation), or face criminal penalties for failing to comply. Another commenter described the rule as “unnecessarily complicated and clearly designed to entrap and ensnare people,” while another described it as a “bad faith `policy' ” meant to confuse immigrants into providing information that would be used to persecute them by illegal or unconstitutional means.

A commenter stated that in media interviews, then-Secretary Noem indicated that the purpose of registration is to facilitate removal of people from the United States, and that those who register would likely face detention, removal proceedings, and eventual deportation. A commenter stated opposition to the IFR and the potential detention of aliens resulting from it, describing conditions in immigration detention centers as potentially deadly and noting reports of medical abuse.

Numerous other commenters stated that the IFR would lead to unjust detentions, the criminalization of aliens' presence in the United States, arbitrary searches and seizures, unjust deportations (including for aliens in the country legally and awaiting court hearings), scapegoating of hardworking

immigrants, and punishing people without merit. A commenter expressed concern that the main purpose of the rule is to make it easier for DHS to identify and deport aliens, and stated that following the IFR's logic, similar measures should be applied to U.S. citizens because it would be easier to identify them for arrest should it be deemed necessary. Another commenter stated that coupling the new registration requirement with an E.O. requiring DHS to prioritize prosecuting violations and misdemeanors, rather than serious crimes, highlights that the purpose of this registration is “mass deportation.” A commenter expressed concern that the current administration would weaponize the process against individuals who have no criminal history and no immediate path to legal status under the current law, but are otherwise valued members of society.

A commenter wrote that E.O. 14159, alien registration, and the focus on deportation indicate that the primary aim of the Federal Government in enforcing these provisions is to use the registry as a tool to identify, detain, and deport “undocumented immigrants” or incentivize them to self-deport. Other commenters stated that the IFR fails to meaningfully distinguish between lawfully present aliens and those without status, which they said could lead to the treatment of all aliens as potential enforcement targets, regardless of their legal status or history.

Other comments stated that, unlike programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), this registration process offers no benefits, no legal protections, no form of immigration relief, and no shield from deportation, and added that the IFR makes no promises that the data collected through this process would not be used for enforcement purposes. Another commenter stated that past attempts to enforce registration requirements in the interest of national security included explicit assurances that those who complied would be afforded due consideration for immigration relief, and stated that such a requirement without providing opportunities for registrants to pursue legal pathways toward status adjustment undermines our collective commitment to establishing a just, efficient immigration system that prioritizes the wellbeing of long-term residents. The commenter said that rather than incentivizing compliance, this policy punishes those who self-identify.

A commenter indicated that the rule would fail to meet the administration's policy goals of improving registration outcomes because the administration fails to incentivize “undocumented immigrants” to register. Discussing the historical context of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, the commenter wrote that Congress had given then Attorney General Robert H. Jackson the power to relieve registrants of penalties for illegal entry. As a result, and because of the Attorney General's successful public messaging encouraging aliens to register, approximately 5 million aliens registered with the Federal Government by January 1941. In contrast, according to the commenter, this Administration made clear that it plans to use the registration process to advance its immigration enforcement activities, including removal, which fails to incentivize “undocumented immigrants” to register. Similarly, a commenter also indicated that it is the first time the government has required registration as part of a campaign to prioritize the prosecution of immigration offenses and encourage self-removal, rather than providing assurances, unlike in the past, that registration might lead to lawful status or that the alien does not have to fear adverse consequences for registering.

Several commenters expressed concerns that DHS would use the rule to facilitate deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Response:

The goal of the IFR and this final rule is to fill a gap in the regulatory regime by prescribing a general registration form available to all aliens. The IFR did not establish the statutory requirements to register or carry evidence of registration, or establish the criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago that apply when aliens failed to meet their registration and related obligations.

DHS agrees that the registration is not an immigration status, and the registration documentation does not evidence an immigration status, establish employment authorization, or provide any other right or benefit under the INA or any other U.S. law.

However, the statute provides that most aliens 14 years of age or older who were not registered and fingerprinted (if required) when applying for a U.S. visa and who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer, must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted. The statute imposes civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply. The purpose of this rule is to provide a straightforward way for aliens to meet their statutory obligations to register, rather than to provide incentives beyond those already contained in the INA.

As then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson stated in his address before the Common Council for American Unity, “[t]hese detailed individual records enable the government to deal with any alien problems on the basis of individual merits, and they take away any excuse for indiscriminating dragnet procedures or mass action.”

Many aliens who are present in the United States have already fulfilled their duty to register through a variety of pathways identified in 8 CFR 264.1. Each registration Form G-325R will undergo an individual review to determine if the alien has already complied with the registration requirements in some other way and does not need to submit Form G-325R or if the alien is required to appear for a biometric services appointment.

See

“Address of Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, before the Common Council for American Unity” (Apr. 4, 1941),

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-03-1941.pdf.

DHS believes that improved registration outcomes will improve DHS law enforcement efficacy by providing more comprehensive information about the location of aliens in the United States, which makes it easier and safer for DHS to enforce the law. The increased compliance with fingerprinting requirements would provide DHS with additional information about an alien's criminal record, including whether the alien is a known or suspected terrorist. DHS does not believe that a nexus between registration and law enforcement efficacy is problematic; Congress specifically provided for the sharing of alien registration information with Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and DHS complies with the laws as duly passed by Congress.

See

INA sec. 264(b), 8 U.S.C. 1304(b).

c. Administrative and Financial Impacts to Nonimmigrant Populations

Comment:

Commenters opposed the IFR due to financial and administrative burdens on immigrant populations. A commenter stated that registration requirements would challenge immigrants experiencing changes in living situations, particularly those needing to relocate quickly. The commenter noted that change-of-address update requirements could impede immigrants' ability to navigate the court system, while bureaucratic backlogs might incorrectly label mobile immigrants as non-compliant with registration requirements.

A commenter expressed concern about potential financial burdens if DHS implemented processing fees for Form G-325R, especially for individuals submitting multiple registrations due to

changing circumstances. These administrative requirements would compound existing challenges immigrants face while managing legal proceedings, education, family responsibilities, and digital barriers. Many commenters suggested that requiring the Form G-325R would add unnecessary bureaucratic and financial burdens, as immigrants already submit extensive documentation.

Response:

The IFR and this rule are limited in scope and designate a new registration form for aliens to comply with the statutory alien registration and fingerprinting provisions. DHS was directed through E.O. 14159 to take all appropriate action to ensure that aliens understand their duty under the law and have a path to satisfy that duty through the new general registration process and form. This rulemaking has not modified the duty established by Congress for aliens to register and be fingerprinted. Similarly, this IFR did not create or modify the criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago that apply when aliens fail to meet their registration and related obligations, including the requirement to notify DHS of change of address. The law created by Congress requires that aliens who are required to register update their address with the government within 10 days of moving.

See

INA sec. 265, 8 U.S.C. 1305.

The general registration form collects basic biographic information and information required by section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(a). The form is a digital form that can be easily accessed through an internet browser or a person's cell phone. Additionally, public libraries and other private and public institutions provide access to the internet. The burden assessed for the average hour burden per response for completion of Form G-325R is 2.5 hours. Also, many aliens in the United States have already registered, as required by law, and would not need to complete Form G-325R. DHS thus disagrees with the characterization that the rule imposes an undue burden on the public or compounds existing challenges immigrants are facing. If an individual encounters difficulties with registering, DHS recommends contacting the USCIS Contact Center for live assistance.

USCIS Contact Center,

https://www.uscis.gov/contactcenter

(accessed Oct. 24, 2025).

DHS has determined that it will not impose a biometric services fee for registration applicants as part of this final rule. Section III.F.5 of this preamble provides more details on the determination of the filing fee.

Comment:

Commenters said that the additional Form G-325R registration requirement would impose financial burdens on low-income aliens due to legal and application costs or other costs associated with the IFR, such as missing work or school, arranging childcare, and even travel for biometrics appointments, or to obtain specific documentation, which places an undue strain on their limited resources, all of which can make compliance unattainable. A commenter stated that immigration forms frequently require outside assistance to ensure compliant completion, and prospective registrants are likely to seek external support given the penalties for noncompliance.

Response:

DHS acknowledges there are burdens to registrants associated with this rule. These costs include, but are not limited to, time burden to submit biometrics, and travel costs to go to an ASC. A more detailed breakdown of the costs associated with this rule is in section VI, the Statutory and Regulatory Requirements section of this preamble.

d. Health Impacts

Comment:

A commenter stated that the IFR would endanger communities' mental and physical well-being. Another commenter cited a study finding that restrictive immigration policies and surveillance measures correlate with poorer mental and physical health outcomes among aliens, including heightened anxiety and depression, as well as reduced access to healthcare services. Yet another commenter expressed concern that the IFR would limit their ability to provide medical care to patients due to patients' fear of encountering ICE, and further raised concerns about the health conditions in alien detention facilities, stating that “multiple people” have died in them due to inhumane, unsafe, and unsanitary conditions. A commenter wrote that the increased stress from the IFR to vulnerable populations would lead to higher contact with emergency rooms, mental health agencies, and primary health care providers. A commenter wrote that the additional burden from the IFR on USCIS processing centers could increase stress for aliens waiting for decisions, leading to mental and physical health challenges.

Response:

For over 80 years, the laws of the United States have required most aliens present in the United States who remain for 30 days or longer to register and, with some exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted.

DHS identified a gap in the regulatory regime and established a new general registration option that aliens, who are required to register but have not yet done so, may use to satisfy their statutory obligations. The IFR and this rule are limited in scope by amending DHS regulations to designate a new registration form and evidence of registration for unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status.

2. Impact on Specific Populations

a. Groups Based on Immigration Status

Comment:

A commenter said that the population of refugees, asylum seekers, visa holders, and permanent residents they serve almost exclusively comprises aliens who have been persecuted in their home countries, adding that a new registration requirement gives them more reason to fear the place they have come to for refuge and protection. Another commenter stated that the rule may cause aliens who are already legally registered using other registration forms to be increasingly fearful and uncertain. Multiple commenters added that the IFR would severely impact lawful immigration.

Some commenters stated that the registration would be used to single out “undocumented” individuals for law enforcement actions. A commenter stated that the “undocumented” community includes hardworking individuals who contribute to the United States but do not see the benefits of their work. The commenter concluded that registration would harm communities and generate fear.

Others indicated that the IFR would negatively impact individuals who contribute richly to our country and pose no threat to U.S. citizens, including DACA recipients and other individuals who arrived in the United States at a young age.

A commenter stated that the organization's members, including “noncitizens” who entered without inspection, are directly impacted by the registration requirements and potential criminal penalties for noncompliance. The commenter expressed concern for members with pending immigration relief applications or deferred action requests (such as U visas or DACA) who have completed biometrics appointments but lack EADs that would qualify as valid registration. The commenter said it had helped submit numerous DACA applications in 2020 to 2021 that were never adjudicated due to a court order.

A commenter wrote that the IFR would target and disproportionately affect long-term U.S. residents awaiting

immigration relief or humanitarian protections. A commenter questioned the rationale behind DHS's decision, suggesting that it creates an additional procedural hurdle for vulnerable populations who have likely already submitted their biometric data to the government. Another commenter expressed concern that registration often leads to negative outcomes, such as surveillance, segregation, and incrimination. The commenter remarked that identifying a group as separate from the rest can have serious consequences, regardless of the original intentions.

Response:

The IFR and this rule are limited in scope to establish a general registration option available to all unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status to improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens. An alien who has been issued one of the documents designated as evidence of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b) has already registered, and an alien who has submitted one of the forms designated at 8 CFR 264.1(a) and provided fingerprints (unless waived), but was not issued one of the evidence of registration designated at 8 CFR 264.1(b), has complied with the registration requirement of section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. If an alien does not have any other pathway to register and to be fingerprinted, the alien may file the Form G-325R to comply with their duty under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. Aliens who are registered and reached 14 years old may use the new form to register if they have no other pathway to satisfy this requirement.

DHS is aware that there are areas of the existing regulations that could be improved, including amending the list of forms prescribed as registration forms in 8 CFR 264.1(a) and the list of forms constituted as evidence of registration in 8 CFR 264.1(b). As part of this final rule, DHS is requesting comments on various ways to amend the DHS regulation to improve implementation of the registration requirement under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302. See section V of this preamble.

b. Families and Children

Comment:

Many commenters state that the IFR would harm children and families. Several commenters indicated that the IFR could deter families from enrolling children in school, from seeking medical care, or from reporting crimes. Speaking to the impact on children's education, a commenter stated that the registration system could lead to a risk of punishment and parents may be hesitant to register themselves or their children out of fear the information could be used to initiate removal proceedings. They concluded that this undermines the trust necessary not only to cooperate with local law enforcement to reduce crime, but for educators, social workers, and healthcare partners to serve these families effectively.

Several other commenters remarked that the IFR does not contain safeguards for families and stated that the IFR could lead to the deportation of parents or caregivers, and leading to family separation, including for mixed-status families. A commenter criticized USCIS' assumption that potential registrants would understand they need to register and described immigrants as “targets for family separation, detention, or deportation.”

A commenter voiced concern that the IFR would create burdens for those families with minor children who lack access to stable housing, legal counsel, digital literacy, or reliable internet and potentially facing criminal penalties if not successful at registering.

Another commenter stated that the IFR fails to consider the significant impact on its application of expedited removal to parolees would have on families and communities, adding that subjecting them to removal without appropriate procedural protections could result in severe social and economic consequences for these individuals and their families. With regard to the economy, commenters wrote that many “mixed-status” families would be harmed, despite having significantly contributed to the economy.

A commenter wrote that some immigrant families are already in the midst of pursuing lawful immigration relief and that the IFR could introduce confusion and risk of unintentional noncompliance into that process. Another commenter stated the rule would cause immigrant families to withdraw from everyday life for fear of criminalization, leading to negative impacts on local communities, economies, and public safety.

Numerous commenters stated that the trauma of fear of deportation and family separation resulting from the IFR and from registration leads to long-term emotional, developmental, health (including heart disease, diabetes, substance abuse, and depression), and educational harm for children. Another commenter wrote that the IFR would impact hardworking families, taxpayers, and individuals who speak and write in English, and would harm the mental health of alien children, leading some to consider taking their own lives. Another commenter wrote that the administration is using immigrants, regardless of status, and children whose parents arrived to the United States “undocumented,” as “pawns” in a “power struggle.” Another commenter stated that IFR would make children who are victims of trafficking and abuse less likely to come forward and report their experiences to law enforcement.

Response:

DHS has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws established by Congress, including provisions related to the alien registration requirements.

See

INA sec. 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a).

President Trump directed DHS to take all appropriate steps to ensure that previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply with the statutory duty to register with the government. DHS identified a gap in the regulatory regime and established a new general registration option to improve registration outcomes of certain groups of aliens. The IFR and this rule are limited in scope to establishing the new registration form and evidence of registration for unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status. This rulemaking has not created these requirements or modified the duties established by Congress for aliens.

DHS notes that the statute requires, with limited exceptions, all aliens 14 years or older who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of 30 days. Similarly, parents and legal guardians of aliens below the age of 14 must ensure that those aliens are registered. Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th birthday, all previously registered alien must apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted.

Before the IFR, longstanding regulations already provided that within 30 days after reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United States who is not exempt from the alien registration requirement must apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted, unless fingerprinting is waived. The IFR and this rule do not change those procedures but fill a gap in the regulation by adding a general option available to unregistered alien, regardless of status to improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens. Also, many aliens in the United States have already registered, as required by law. An alien who was issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa and at his or her most recent arrival was admitted into the United States using that visa is registered.

See

INA sec. 221(b), 8 U.S.C. 1201(b). This includes aliens admitted

as nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors.

Id.

For these reasons and the reasons articulated in previous responses, DHS does not believe that the IFR or this rule, particularly when viewed separate and apart from the alien registration requirements of the INA, creates a burden for families and children or otherwise leads to a negative impact on families, local communities and public safety.

Comment:

Numerous commenters expressed opposition to the IFR's application to minors and children. Several commenters urged DHS to rescind or abandon the IFR on the basis of potential impacts to minors subject to the registration requirements.

A commenter stated that many children affected by the IFR have experienced trauma, such as threats of harm or death, abuse, or neglect, and that trauma-related challenges can further impair their ability to comply with the numerous and complex requirements of the IFR.

A commenter wrote that young people are often particularly fearful of procedures such as fingerprinting due to trauma they experienced in their home countries. The commenter said that if they are navigating the immigration legal system with specially trained legal advice and support, they are able to overcome such fears as part of the process of being scrutinized for lawful status in the United States but added that many of these children are set to lose representation due to funding cuts and thus are not able to successfully navigate the legal process as they will lack the help to understand the purpose and relative safety of such procedures. A commenter wrote that the information required for registration may be either unavailable or incomprehensible to children, including unaccompanied children and especially those in Federal Government custody. The commenter said that especially for children who have faced significant trauma, best practice indicates that they be provided special consideration and trauma-informed care, not an expectation to comply with the same requirements as adults for processes that potentially implicate criminal liability.

Expressing concerns about the IFR's requirement for children between the ages of 14 and 18 to submit to registration, fingerprinting, and background checks, a commenter stated that these registration's invasive requirements failed to account for evolving understanding of childhood vulnerabilities since the underlying law was written. The commenter noted the increased exploitation of vulnerable migrants, particularly minors, under a universal registration requirement, because on account of fraudsters and scammers, including those impersonating Federal agents. The commenter urged DHS to reconsider registration requirements to preserve civil rights and public safety protections for minors. Similarly, a commenter expressed concern for children between the ages of 12 and 18 who may not have a license being targeted for their skin color or lack of English language skills, and the commenter therefore opposed the requirement to carry ID or registration cards.

Similarly, commenters expressed concern about the impact of the registration requirements on children and youth. A commenter stated that the criminal penalties contemplated also extend to children between the ages of 14-18, placing them at particular risk of profiling and criminalization, noting that a 1940-era statute does not account for the decades of improvement that have been made regarding the criminal prosecution of juveniles.

Other commenters stated that the IFR makes no exceptions for the severe consequences of not registering, treating youth the same as adults. One commenter stated that with the return of family detention, youth could potentially be held with their parents or alone, facing possible deportation to countries where their safety and well-being may be compromised. The commenter cited the American Academy of Pediatrics' position that “no amount of time in detention is safe for a child” and referenced a DHS advisory committee report concluding that “detention is generally neither appropriate nor necessary for families” and is “never in the best interest of children.”

Another commenter stated that if children's sponsors and family members are criminally prosecuted for failing to register or not having proof of registration on their person, children would remain detained even longer awaiting reunification and release, and many would be left without anyone to house and care for them.

Another commenter expressed concern that the rule's requirement to carry registration documentation could be used as a pretext for law enforcement actions against children and families. The commenter stated this could lead to racial profiling of people who may appear “foreign” to law enforcement officials, a practice the commenter described as disproportionately harming “Black and Brown” youth and their families, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The commenter said that failure to register or carry documentation essentially criminalizes youth by default and creates additional distrust of law enforcement, making it less likely that young people and families report crimes or seek assistance from law enforcement. The commenter suggested this could particularly impact unaccompanied youth who are at higher risk for child labor exploitation and other types of abuse, as they may be more reluctant to seek help. Another commenter stated that the IFR would harm children subjected to profiling based on skin color or perceived nation of origin, and children who are victims of trafficking or other crimes.

Response:

The statute requires, with limited exceptions, all aliens 14 years or older who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of 30 days. Similarly, parents and legal guardians of aliens below the age of 14 must ensure that those aliens are registered. Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th birthday, all previously registered aliens must apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted. The statute further requires aliens 18 years or older in the United States who are required to register must at all times carry with them and have in their personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to them. DHS, with the IFR and final rule, has not created these requirements or modified the duties established by Congress for aliens.

Longstanding regulations before this IFR already provided that, within 30 days after reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United States who is not exempt from the alien registration requirement must apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted, unless fingerprinting is waived. The IFR and final rule do not change those procedures but fill a gap in the regulatory regime by prescribing a general registration option available to all aliens regardless of their status and corresponding evidence as proof of that registration.

The comments regarding the enforcement of the criminal provisions are out of scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking does not set civil immigration or criminal enforcement policies or priorities. Children under 14 years of age face no criminal penalties for a willful failure or refusal to register.

See

INA sec. 266(a), 8 U.S.C. 1306(a).

Comment:

Comments said that the IFR would also disproportionately harm children with disabilities, youth with certain mental health, developmental or cognitive disabilities, and those with

limited English proficiency, adding that youth with certain mental health, developmental or cognitive disabilities may face challenges in being able to comprehend that the registration requirement applies to them, complete the requirements, or understand that they need to carry proof of registration with them at all times. Another commenter said that youth who are unable to speak or read English may also face significant challenges, especially since unaccompanied youth come from all around the globe, many of whom speak indigenous languages and other uncommon languages and often lack access to interpretation assistance. Another comment stated that faced with law enforcement interactions, youth with certain mental health, developmental, or cognitive disabilities are at higher risk of worse outcomes, such as arrest, detention, or even physical harm.

Commenters also stated that children with limited technology access or who otherwise need support to comply with the requirement may seek guidance from teachers and other school personnel, adding burdens to the education system.

Another commenter said that the registration requirement would prejudice children in living situations where they may not have access to their immigration paperwork or have not had the opportunity to speak to a lawyer. The commenter added that children may not have an adult who understands English, let alone the complex nature of the form required for registration.

Response:

The statute provides that, with limited exceptions, all aliens 14 years or older who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of 30 days.

See

INA sec. 262, 8 U.S.C. 1302. Similarly, parents and legal guardians of aliens below the age of 14 must ensure that those aliens are registered. Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th birthday, all previously registered aliens must apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted.

See

INA sec. 262(b), 8 U.S.C. 1302(b). DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not changed the requirements established by Congress for aliens. The IFR and this rule are limited in scope, designating a new registration form for aliens to comply with the statutory registration and fingerprinting requirements.

DHS acknowledges the challenges that children may encounter, in particular children with disabilities, mental health difficulties, limited English proficiency, or based on socio-economic situation. These difficulties apply generally to any statutorily imposed obligations codified by Congress, and the longstanding alien registration requirement does not distinguish itself in this manner. To address concerns about disability and access issues, DHS provides various accommodations, in accordance with current laws. DHS and USCIS electronic and information technology (IT) systems meet and in some respects may exceed the requirement of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d) and related guidance. DHS and USCIS are committed to making the public information and data accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities in a manner that is comparable with individuals who do not have disabilities. USCIS provides accommodations consistent with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

See USCIS, “Disability Accommodations for the Public,”

https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/disability-accommodations-for-the-public

(last updated Oct. 19, 2022).

USCIS also established a dedicated website with information on the Alien Registration Requirement (ARR) and an ARR Tool that help aliens determine if they must register.

The tool poses a series of questions to aliens and based on an alien's responses, may help an alien determine if they must register.

See USCIS, “Alien Registration Requirement,”

https://www.uscis.gov//alienregistration

(last updated May 6, 2025).

Comment:

A commenter expressed concern that the IFR creates a financial burden on unaccompanied children who typically lack independent income sources. The commenter stated that children might feel compelled to work to comply with the IFR, though many cannot, due to lack of work authorization or school attendance. The commenter identified several costs that would burden children, including application fees, technology access, transportation to biometrics appointments, document costs, fingerprinting fees, interpretation services, and legal consultation expenses. The commenter concluded that these financial barriers would prevent many children from complying with the requirements, potentially subjecting them to criminal liability.

Response:

The statute requires, with limited exceptions, that all aliens 14 years or older who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer must apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of 30 days. Similarly, parents and legal guardians of aliens below the age of 14 must ensure that those aliens are registered. Within 30 days of an alien reaching his or her 14th birthday, all previously registered aliens must apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted.

DHS, with the IFR and final rule, has not modified the duties established by Congress for aliens. Before the IFR, regulations already provided that within 30 days after reaching the age of 14, any alien in the United States who is not exempt from the alien registration requirement must apply for re-registration and be fingerprinted, unless fingerprinting is waived. The IFR and final rule do not change those procedures but fills a gap in the regulation by adding an option for aliens to comply with the existing statutory registration requirements. DHS notes that some unaccompanied alien children will already be registered by virtue of having been placed in removal proceedings via the Form I-862, Notice to Appear.

c. People With Disabilities

Comment:

Commenters stated that the IFR would disproportionately harm people with disabilities. Similarly, commenters stated that individuals with mental, developmental, or health-related disabilities may be unable to reliably carry documentation as described in the IFR. The commenter wrote that without available assistance from family members or others, these individuals would face increased risk of law enforcement actions, incarceration, and removal from the United States without meaningful due process.

Similarly, commenters stated that the IFR would deter sponsors and family members from providing support for Non-Qualified Respondent Program participants with mental disabilities. The commenter noted that immigration judges often require individuals with mental disabilities to be released into family members' care during bond hearings, ensuring their participation in legal proceedings. According to the commenter, the IFR would discourage family members from acting as sponsors due to concerns about potential consequences if the respondent fails to register. The commenter said this would prolong detention of individuals with mental disabilities, who may lose their support system and be unable to meaningfully participate in immigration proceedings.

Similarly, commenters stated that people with disabilities would not have meaningful access to the registration process for several reasons. The commenters wrote that people with certain mental health, developmental, or cognitive disabilities may be unable to determine if the registration requirement applies to them. The commenters stated that additionally,

registration requires access to the internet, a computer or smartphone, and an email address, which may be difficult or impossible for people with various disabilities, including those who are blind or have low vision, those with mobility issues affecting manual dexterity or ability to navigate technology, and those with intellectual or cognitive disabilities. Commenters added that the registration process also requires cognitive capacity to follow a multi-step process for creating an account and registering for myUSCIS, including a two-factor authentication process. Finally, a commenter said that registrants must have the cognitive capacity to answer a long list of questions with minimal instructions or risk civil and criminal penalties.

A commenter said that expecting individuals with disabilities to comply with the registration requirement would place “an unrealistic and significant burden on them,” reasoning that clients with health needs living in the community are frequently without stable housing. Specifically, the commenter noted that as these individuals move from one transitional housing situation to another, papers are frequently lost, and, often, possessions are stolen.

Response:

DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not changed the requirements established by Congress for aliens. The IFR and this rule are limited in scope, designating a new registration form for aliens to comply with the statutory registration and fingerprinting requirements.

Most aliens in the United States already complied with the registration requirement prior to the publication of the IFR. For many decades, these aliens have satisfied the requirement through a variety of pathways. However, the IFR and this final rule fills a gap in the regulatory regime by prescribing a general registration option available to all aliens regardless of their status and corresponding evidence as proof of that registration. DHS believes that this new option may improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens.

DHS and USCIS are committed to making electronic and information technologies accessible to individuals with disabilities. The myUSCIS site and its technology are designed to ensure individuals with disabilities can access and use information and data in a way that is comparable to those without disabilities.

The Form G-325R complies with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act; additionally, USCIS provides reasonable accommodations in accordance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

As part of the accommodation, we encourage individuals to reach out to the USCIS Contact Center if they require help with alien registration.

See USCIS, “Disability Accommodations for the Public,”

https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/disability-accommodations-for-the-public

(last updated Oct. 19, 2022).

DHS notes that this rulemaking has not changed the requirement that all aliens 18 years or older in the United States who are required to register must at all times carry with them and have in their personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to them. These are statutory requirements under section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e).

d. Victims of Crime and Abuse

Comment:

Commenters stated that the IFR undermines and threatens the safety of victims of human trafficking and domestic and sexual violence, and law enforcement depends on community cooperation to maintain public safety, which becomes difficult when crime victims are afraid to report crimes or speak to police. A commenter emphasized that immigrant women, particularly those who are “undocumented,” are extremely vulnerable to domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and other violent crimes. The commenter explained that these victims face significant barriers to seeking safety because perpetrators, often U.S. citizens, exploit the victims' immigration status to control them and threaten escalated violence if they seek help. The commenter reasoned that the expanded registration requirements in the IFR create an unnecessary climate of fear in immigrant communities that undermines public safety, as crime victims would avoid contacting police due to fears of penalties, detention, or deportation. The commenter stated that the IFR effectively renders current Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) legal protections for immigrant victims of human trafficking and domestic/sexual violence meaningless. The commenter wrote that the IFR puts immigrant victims with pending applications for protection and those already working with government authorities at immediate risk for deportation or criminal prosecution, removing incentives for immigrant victims of violent crime to seek help. The commenter further noted that the new registration process creates an additional tool for abusive partners to harm victims by establishing what they described as an impossible barrier to safety for immigrant survivors.

A commenter stated that the IFR would cause people to be targeted by ICE before they have had a chance to get trustworthy legal advice, including individuals who have survived human trafficking, and adolescents and young children who have been granted specialized status due to their victimization. The commenter wrote that the IFR would retraumatize these groups by arresting them and forcing them to show documentation. A commenter said that the IFR introduces new requirements that would deter survivors from coming forward, increase the risk of re-traumatization, and make it easier for abusers and perpetrators to maintain control over their victims. A commenter raised specific concerns regarding the impact on survivors of abuse who have received or are seeking humanitarian protection through VAWA, T, or U visas.

A union said that the IFR will chill reporting of serious workplace violations and harm “applicants” for U and T nonimmigrant status, in violation of congressional intent of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA). The commenter elaborated, discussing various implications of the IFR for U and T visa applicants that the commenter said DHS did not consider. The commenter remarked on unnecessary and unjustified paperwork burdens, a lack of clarity around privacy protections, and “bad policy” set forth in the IFR that undoes the victim and witness protection scheme set forth in the VTVPA, triggering adverse immigration consequences, “intolerable” abuses against individual alien workers, and harms to all U.S. workers.

A commenter expressed concern about the IFR's lack of privacy and confidentiality protections associated with the registration requirement. According to the commenter, this deficiency could enable abusers to leverage survivors' fears to prevent their access to the immigration system. Multiple commenters remarked that abusers might manipulate, control, coerce, and intimidate survivors by interfering with the registration process, preventing access to necessary technology, obstructing biometrics appointments, or hindering access to legal assistance. The commenter reported that their organization has observed clients struggling to determine whether they need to register and experiencing fear and hesitancy around the registration process.

A few commenters similarly described the existing barriers survivors

experience while submitting requests for immigration benefits, such as: language access; the length and complexity of the forms; ability to gather the necessary documents and evidence to support their claims; and geographical barriers to accessing government offices and legal, community, and financial services. The commenters suggested that the IFR would exacerbate the barriers, fear, and confusion this population already faces. Another commenter added that the broad scope and lack of clear delineation regarding who must register may inadvertently create opportunities for fraudulent actors to exploit vulnerable populations. The commenter stated that despite DHS's ongoing initiatives to combat immigration services scams, in the absence of explicit guidance, individuals may fall prey to scams promising assistance with the registration process, leading to financial loss and further misinformation.

Multiple commenters remarked that domestic or sexual violence perpetrators could manipulate the registration process by erroneously registering survivors or interfering with a survivor's ability to complete registration, including attending biometrics appointments, thus exposing them to criminalization and enforcement. Other commenters noted that abusers might also prevent survivors from carrying proof of registration, exposing them to enforcement under section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e). A commenter recommended that any registration process provide flexibility for survivors to correct inconsistencies and consider how victimization may impact compliance before conducting enforcement actions based on section 264(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1306(a).

A commenter noted that immigration-related abuse is a common tactic used by abusers and perpetrators of crime to maintain power and control over victims, citing the National Center for Domestic and Sexual Violence's “Immigrant Power and Control Wheel.” The commenter explained that survivors often depend on abusive partners or employers for their immigration status, housing, transportation, income, and access to technology, creating dependencies that abusers intentionally maintain to isolate and control survivors. The commenter stated that these vulnerabilities are compounded in today's digital environment, citing research indicating that 80 percent of stalking victims report being stalked using technology, with over one-third targeted by current or former intimate partners. The commenter said that phones, apps, and digital tools have become weapons for monitoring, harassing, and interfering with survivors' efforts to escape or seek help. The commenter reasoned that the IFR's registration requirements could be manipulated by abusers who might block internet access, withhold necessary documents, prevent survivors from attending biometrics appointments, or deliberately mislead survivors about compliance requirements, causing them to unknowingly fall out of compliance. The commenter wrote that without survivor-specific safeguards, the registration process could become another tool of coercion, placing survivors at further risk of removal or harm. The commenter recommended that if DHS does not rescind the IFR, it should include clear provisions allowing survivors to correct abuser-generated inconsistencies, explain delays or gaps, and avoid penalties for noncompliance resulting from abuse. The commenter emphasized that no survivor should face immigration consequences because of coercion, fear, or manipulation by someone who has already caused them harm.

A commenter also stated that the requirement to possess proof of registration at all times would disproportionately harm survivors of violence who may be fleeing abuse or whose abusers control their documentation as a means of maintaining power and control. The commenter urged DHS to consider factors such as emergencies, victimization, and health conditions in its enforcement actions related to 8 U.S.C. 1304(e).

Response:

DHS notes the IFR and this rule have not changed the registration requirements established by Congress. This rulemaking establishes a general registration option available to all unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status to improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens.

The INA requires that, with limited exceptions, most aliens in the United States who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer must apply for registration and fingerprinting. Prior to the IFR, most aliens already complied with the registration requirements, however, the IFR and this final rule fill a gap in the regulatory regime by prescribing a registration form for unregistered aliens.

The IFR and this final rule have not changed any current procedures or processes related to aliens who are eligible for and recipients of victim-based immigration relief (specifically, VAWA self-petitioners as well as applicants and petitioners for, and recipients of, T and U nonimmigrant status). Also, the IFR and this final rule have not changed the procedures or practices of DHS agencies to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable information that it collects, uses, or maintains.

DHS notes that if a registered alien does not have immediate possession of his or her evidence of registration, DHS agencies have access to DHS databases to confirm whether an alien satisfies the registration requirement.

DHS recognizes that the immigration processes can be complex and that requestors, including registrants, may still be at risk of becoming victims of scams or fraud. DHS encourages requestors to use the information on the USCIS website to avoid becoming victims of common scams, fraud, and misconduct.

See USCIS, “Scams, Fraud, and Misconduct,”

https://www.uscis.gov/scams-fraud-and-misconduct/scams-fraud-and-misconduct

(last visited June 23, 2025).

e. Other Populations

Comment:

Several commenters stated that individuals with limited English proficiency or limited access to technology or financial access barriers would be exposed to punitive ramifications due to inability to file the Form G-325R electronically. Another commenter also said that the IFR makes no mention of its impact on “noncitizens” with limited English proficiency or other language barriers, and noted that the IFR does not account for any translation of the registration forms or instructions.

One of the commenters voiced concern that those with limited English proficiency might inadvertently register when not required to do so, potentially triggering erroneous immigration enforcement actions. Other commenters stated that the rule fails to mention its impact on “noncitizens” with limited English proficiency or other language barriers, nor does it account for any translation of Form G-325R or the rule itself.

Response:

any new registration or fingerprinting obligations separate from the obligations already contained in the INA.

DHS acknowledges there are costs to registrants associated with the statutory requirements to register. These costs include, but are not limited to, time burden to submit biometrics, and travel costs to go to an ASC. As a result of comments received, a more detailed breakdown of the costs associated with this rule is in section VI, the Statutory and Regulatory Requirements section of this preamble.

USCIS also established a dedicated website with information on the ARR and an ARR Tool that may help aliens determine whether they must register.

DHS also notes Form G-325R is a digital form that can be easily accessed through an internet browser or a person's cell phone. Additionally, public libraries and other private and public institutions can provide access to the internet.

See

USCIS, “Alien Registration Requirement,”

https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration

(last updated May 6, 2025).

DHS notes that USCIS' immigration forms are offered and must be submitted in English.

USCIS also provides a PDF copy of Form G-325R for aliens to access before completing the form.

An alien may also use the assistance of an interpreter for reading the instructions and questions on the new registration form. If the alien uses an interpreter, he or she must provide the contact information of that interpreter and upload the interpreter's certification and signature when applying for registration.

The exception to this general rule is the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, which is offered in the Spanish language for employers in Puerto Rico only, and is not filed with USCIS.

See

USCIS, “I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification,”

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9

(last updated Apr. 2, 2025). USCIS also has a Multilingual Resource Center,

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/multilingual-resource-center,

and a website in Spanish,

https://www.uscis.gov/es/herramientas/centro-de-recursos-multilingues.

23 See USCIS, “G-325R, Biographic Information (Registration),”

https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/g-325r

(last updated Apr. 11, 2025).

3. Impact on Aliens' Legal Services

Comment:

Commenters stated that as providers of comprehensive legal services to refugees and displaced persons, the IFR would adversely impact their client communities as well as stretch their resources, hindering their mission to expand access to protection, lasting safety, and due process for aliens and displaced persons. Another commenter stated that confusion surrounding the IFR would cause them to expend more resources to investigate which of their clients would require registration. A commenter remarked that their organization has been receiving numerous inquiries from community members asking whether they need to register or not, creating a strain on their resources that could be better utilized helping people to apply for immigration relief.

A commenter said that they would need to screen every individual they encounter, potentially changing intake processes, risk assessment, advisal, and training to determine registration applicability for clients and their family members. The commenter noted that providing competent legal advice would require assessing the IFR's constitutional implications, necessitating expert review and supervision for each case. The commenter remarked that these changes would require additional staff hours, diverting resources from serving more clients. The commenter anticipated clients facing fines and criminal penalties that would require legal advice and rapid response review. Additionally, the commenter expressed concern about potential “notario” misrepresentation and abuse, which could defraud individuals acting under faulty registration advice. The commenter concluded this would significantly reduce their capacity to provide services and pursue permanent relief for immigrants and asylum seekers they would normally serve. A commenter said that since providers are overwhelmed across the country due to funding cuts and increased demand for services, it is unlikely that they and other nonprofit organizations would have capacity to assist with registration under the rule, which is needed for many aliens with limited English proficiency, raising a host of fairness concerns.

A commenter similarly wrote that the IFR places heavy administrative, time, and financial burdens on organizations serving immigrants, as they must educate community members and help navigate complex compliance requirements. The commenter described determining registration eligibility as “extremely time-consuming” and difficult for individuals who may lack necessary records. The commenter contextualized the IFR within numerous other immigration policy changes, citing alleged confusion created by actions revoking certain grants of parole. The commenter stated that proper notice is impossible if the Administration changes status determinations in real time without resolving ambiguities, concluding that the IFR's requirements could change without due consideration of impacts on immigrant communities and supporting organizations.

A commenter voiced concern that the IFR would be burdensome and limit their ability to fulfill their mission of serving alien communities in New York. The commenter expressed that there is widespread confusion about the rule among immigrant communities, stating that individuals with various immigration statuses have raised questions about the rule's applicability to their particular situations. The commenter indicated that the complexity and rapid implementation of the IFR have created vulnerability to misinformation. According to the commenter, addressing this confusion requires extensive one-on-one consultation with their members, which exceeds their organization's capacity. The commenter stated that their legal team's experience has demonstrated both the complexity of determining registration requirements and the significant barriers to understanding and complying with the rule. The commenter explained, for instance, that determining whether an alien has previously registered requires knowing whether the alien has filed a Form I-485 or Form I-765 and knowing the outcome of such application. The commenter further noted that clients could reasonably be confused about whether they had registered if the client had previously submitted extensive documentation to USCIS that does not qualify as registration under the regulations. The commenter said that for some aliens, the only way to verify their registration status and obtain the documents they must now carry by law would be through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request—which is a multi-step process that can take months, consumes their organization's staff time, and requires maintaining contact. Other commenters also remarked that the IFR would lead to an increase in FOIA requests due to a lack of clarity about who is required to complete the new registration process and would place burdens on immigration attorneys to file FOIA requests.

A commenter stated that the IFR's complexity and inconsistency pose significant challenges to their staff, who cannot confidently advise members on registration requirements in group settings such as committee meetings and workshops that often include dozens of attendees. According to the commenter, the confusing nature of the registration requirement, coupled with its nearly universal impact, undermines their model of providing community education and know-your-rights presentations. The commenter stated

that with tens of thousands of members, their legal team lacks the capacity to provide individual advice to all potentially affected individuals. A commenter stated that the rule's unclear requirements and lack of a concerted rollout or public education on the part of USCIS impose tremendous burdens on its organization and its members. The commenter said this also creates an environment ripe for fraud.

A commenter said that it would be forced to prioritize helping clients obtain registration documents quickly to avoid enforcement actions, adding that its staff would have to devote more time and resources abiding by such a rule, which would divert capacity to assist with other vital legal services and pathways to relief.

A commenter wrote that Michigan professionals who serve survivors of domestic and sexual violence would be “left in the lurch” about what could happen to survivors when they register, adding that without being able to safely provide guidance and avoid unauthorized practice of law, such advocates would struggle to support their clients to stay safe and to keep their children safe. The commenter also stated that Michigan police officers would struggle to secure supportive witnesses in their investigations because survivors would be so fearful of removal that they would not come forward.

A commenter voiced concern about the IFR's impact on organizations like themselves, stating that their organization has already experienced a significant increase in requests for information, legal advice, and assistance from existing clients regarding the IFR's registration and proof requirements. Additionally, the commenter reported increased inquiries and concerns from the broader community, which has interfered with their core function of providing immigration legal services. The commenter explained that the complexity and “inconsistencies” of the rule, coupled with its nearly universal impact, mean that even existing clients who may be considered “registered” would need legal advice to confidently make that determination. The commenter added that this is particularly true for clients with pending applications or those in mixed-status households where there is greater ambiguity about who needs to comply with the process. The commenter raised concerns about the IFR's impact on their organization's funding and operations. The commenter explained that they receive a significant portion of their funding from grants and contracts that require specific deliverables of immigration legal services, with some contracts paid on a “per case” basis and others paid in cycles based on reporting requirements. The commenter said that advising and assisting existing clients and community members around the new rule would not qualify under these grants as deliverables, since those grants fund other specific services. The commenter warned that failure to comply with current grant metrics and reporting requirements due to the diversion of resources to address the IFR may result in the loss of remaining funds under those grants. The commenter expressed concern that this could jeopardize the organization's ability to apply for future grants, potentially leading to staff layoffs and other cost-cutting measures, ultimately reducing their ability to assist existing and future clients.

A commenter wrote that the immigrant registration requirement would present a conflict of interest for their organization and the defense attorneys they work with because it would force attorneys to advise “noncitizens” to comply with a law that likely violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The commenter further said that since failure to register can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, it would be more difficult to accurately advise on the risks and benefits of criminal case dispositions and would complicate plea negotiations. Another commenter said that the IFR creates moral issues for attorneys, who are not going to want to advise their clients not to register because of the associated legal obligations.

Response:

DHS understands that organizations may experience an increase in inquiries from client communities, or an expansion of an organization's services to include additional assistance about the alien registration requirement. However, this is often the case with new processes and is not unique to this IFR. DHS disagrees with the characterization that the IFR and alien registration presents legal organizations and defense attorneys with a conflict of interest or moral issues. Legal services providers would presumably advise their clients about the directives of section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, as they would any other legal obligation.

DHS also notes that the IFR and this final rule have not changed the registration requirements and related obligations established by Congress many decades ago. The statute requires that, with limited exceptions, all aliens 14 years or older who were not registered and fingerprinted, if required, who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer, must apply for registration and fingerprinting. These rulemakings fill a gap in DHS's regulatory regime by establishing a general registration option available to all aliens, regardless of status. DHS believes that this option may improve registration outcomes for certain groups of aliens.

USCIS also established a dedicated website with information on the ARR and an ARR Tool that may help aliens determine whether they must register.

See USCIS, “Alien Registration Requirement,”

https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration

(last updated May 6, 2025).

As part of this rulemaking, DHS is also requesting comments on proposed amendments to prescribe certain existing forms with information collection and thorough biometric-based screening and vetting for use by aliens to improve registration outcomes for certain populations of aliens while increasing efficiency and reducing burden for the public and the government.

See

Section V.A of this preamble.

4. Impact on the Immigration System and Government Operations

a. Unclear Benefits to Enforcement Capabilities

Comment:

Many commenters said that the IFR fails to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the current system is inadequately enforced or that the proposed rule would provide a benefit for enforcement effectiveness or efficiency, public safety, or national security. Multiple other commenters described the rule as unnecessary, highly costly, and ineffective, with several commenters calling for its rescission. A commenter expressed concern that the IFR does not meaningfully distinguish between different immigration statuses, which could lead to confusion and duplicated registrations. A couple of commenters warned that similar registration policies were used during World War II and “consistently failed to enhance security.” A commenter described the IFR as “addressing a problem that does not exist.” A different commenter reasoned that perpetrators of serious crimes would not be likely to follow the registration requirement, writing that the similar NSEERS registration requirement imposed after September 11th was not productive and that there was no evidence of any terrorist identified through the program. Similarly, a commenter wrote that sweeping registries “don't make us safer.” The commenter stated that after September 11, 2001, a similar program

(NSEERS) targeted Muslim immigrants and failed to produce a single terrorism conviction—while causing lasting harm. They added that true safety comes from trust and smart, targeted policies—not from a fear-based overreach. Another commenter expressed concern that the rule would consume vast amounts of resources for data likely to be of poor quality.

A commenter said that the rule would press immigration authorities to detain more individuals based on the perception of noncompliance, including U.S. citizens, undermining public safety and wasting enforcement resources that should target legitimate security threats. The commenter articulated that the rule lacks evidence to justify the costs to benefit public safety, citing studies indicating that past uses of this section of immigration law do not provide such evidence. Some commenter said the rule would apply more resources to immigration enforcement by flooding courts with low-level administrative cases, which would divert resources away from prosecuting crimes against public safety, such as felonies and other serious crimes and limit agency resources on border enforcement, fraud prevention, and asylum adjudication. Another commenter said the rule's effects would be compounded for immigration enforcement officers in the field, who would be required to spend disproportionate time seeking out and reviewing registration documents rather than focusing on priority enforcement tasks, with consequences for national security and overall public safety.

A few commenters similarly wrote that it is unclear how the rule would significantly improve national security or law enforcement efficacy beyond existing measures. One of these commenters discussed the existing measures at both the State and Federal level to verify employment, driver's licenses, and legal status and cited research from the Migration Policy Institute to demonstrate that measures such as E-Verify and REAL ID are sufficient. A commenter stated that DHS already possesses registration and biometric data for most individuals it interacts with, and the background checks associated with the G-325R form replicate checks already done through visa, asylum, TPS, and employment authorization applications. The commenter stated that, rather than improving DHS's ability to identify threats, the rule may hamper enforcement by overloading systems with redundant data and discouraging cooperation from immigrant communities who fear retaliation for attempted compliance. A commenter similarly said that existing processes and systems already track individuals who interact with immigration agencies and there is no indication that current tracking mechanisms have left DHS unable to identify or apprehend individuals who pose real public safety or national security risks, making this “sweeping expansion” both unnecessary and inefficient. Similarly, another commenter urged the Department to focus on improving existing systems rather than creating unnecessary administrative complexities, while a different commenter described the registry requirement as an “unnecessary overhaul” of the immigration system.

One commenter expressed concern that the IFR would be impossible to enforce. Another commenter recommended that DHS ensure the proposed registration would not automatically trigger enforcement actions.

Response:

The IFR and final rule do not change current procedures but fill a gap in the regulatory regime by prescribing a general registration option available to all aliens regardless of their status and corresponding evidence as proof of that registration. The rule is expected to improve DHS law enforcement efficacy by providing more comprehensive information about the location of aliens in the United States to make it easier and safer for DHS to enforce the law. The increased compliance with fingerprinting requirements provides DHS with additional information about an alien's criminal record, including whether an alien is a known or suspected terrorist. DHS also notes that most aliens lawfully present in the United States are likely already registered. Finally, DHS notes that even if this rulemaking lacked a clear net positive effect on law enforcement efficacy, DHS would pursue this rulemaking consistent with DHS's duty to faithfully implement the alien registration requirements of the INA and the President's direction in E.O. 14159.

b. Government Cost and Misallocation of Government Resources

Comment:

Many commenters expressed concern regarding increased DHS costs arising from the IFR and described it as misallocation of government resources. For example, some commenters opposed the use of tax dollars to fund the policing and deportation of individuals fleeing conditions they attributed to U.S. foreign policy. Another commenter recommended against using resources to fund policing practices they viewed as invasive. A couple of commenters wrote that government resources should be directed toward ensuring basic human needs.

A commenter stated that the rule would create an expensive, bloated bureaucracy in an effort to criminalize neighbors if they fall behind on their paperwork and constitutes a waste of resources given that the government already has all the information it needs.

A commenter stated that DHS would need to create a whole new system to keep track of these registrations, creating an undue burden. A commenter stated that, as currently written, any LPR who takes even a 1-hour trip to Mexico could be subject to having to tender their Green Card upon each re-entry and be re-fingerprinted, leading to an “absurd result” and waste of time and resources.

One commenter wrote that it would not be an efficient use of resources to institute this registration process, describing it as “unrelated to the general welfare of Americans nor to the provision of the benefits USCIS already administers.”

Other commenters said the rule's criminal penalties for failing to comply with registration requirements would create a high cost for civil and criminal law enforcement. Describing the difficulty authorities faced in effectively carrying out the NSEERS program and its financial costs, a commenter wrote that this history and the lack of a clear and manageable method of implementing the various aspects of the program should be informative to the IFR and its potential financial implications, as the impending registration requirement would require multiple agencies and authorities to troubleshoot the various aspects of the program. Some commenters wrote that the IFR would lead to more litigation and abuse, with an individual commenter expressing concern about “legal fees” DHS might incur and become a “waste of taxpayer money.”

Response:

With this IFR and final rule, as always, DHS strives to be fair and efficiently execute the laws established by Congress. This rulemaking addresses a gap in the existing regulatory regime and ensures that there is a way for all aliens, regardless of their immigration status, to comply with their duty under the law and to improve overall registration outcomes.

To address the resource and efficiency concerns of the comments, the Form G-325R process is entirely electronic. Anyone issued Form I-94 or I-94W upon their admission or parole to the United States is already registered. LPRs

who reenter the United States after a temporary absence abroad have generally already been registered as they are in possession of a Form I-551 (“a green card”) and are generally not seeking admission to the United States.

See

INA sec. 101(a)(13)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C).

The statute requires an alien to provide fingerprints, unless waived, as part of the registration process, and in general, USCIS has not seen any significant delays or inefficiencies in biometric collection services. Section VI.B.3 of this preamble provides further discussion on the estimated cost to the agency of this rulemaking.

To the extent that the commenters suggest that DHS should not fully administer and enforce the alien registration requirements of the INA, DHS respectfully disagrees. Furthermore, the rule does not obligate additional enforcement of the existing statute DHS will administer, enforce, and faithfully execute these laws consistent with DHS's statutory duties under the INA, and as directed by the President, which includes defending against challenges from those who would prefer that the government not enforce these laws. DHS does not believe that defending the faithful implementation of immigration laws, as passed by Congress, against legal challenges is a waste of government resources, but instead is part of the government's mandate.

Comment:

A few commenters expressed general concerns that the IFR would support government corruption and inappropriate usage of the immigration system. One of the commenters wrote that the requirement could lead to an increase in officers within the immigration system abusing their position of authority and that the government is trying to appear effective without being effective.

Response:

As part of E.O. 14159, President Trump made it a priority to enforce the registration requirement in accordance with the law, and to publicize information about the duty of aliens described in section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302, to register and be fingerprinted (if required), as well as the related requirements to carry such evidence of registration and notify DHS of changes of address.

The goal of the IFR and final rule is to faithfully implement the alien registration requirements of the INA. DHS seeks to better ensure that aliens understand their duty under the law and have a path to satisfy that statutory duty through the new general registration process and form. Speculation about potential future misuse of authority or other malfeasance by government officials is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking does not set enforcement policy and cannot reasonably be expected to comprehensively account for such activity.

c. Duplicating Existing Processes and Exacerbating Backlog

Comment:

Many commenters wrote that the IFR does not adequately address how DHS would handle the massive influx of registrations and the associated administrative and enforcement costs of the rule, as well as impacts to the existing backlog and other essential DHS functions. Many commenters also expressed concern that the new registration system would further burden an overwhelmed system and exacerbate the USCIS backlog, resulting in negative effects, such as loss of protection, delays in visa and petition processing, and interruption in employment authorization.

Many commenters similarly stated that requiring millions of people to register and enforcing proof of registration would increase administrative costs for DOJ and USCIS, including costs for personnel, training, and materials; they said the latter agency already has severe backlogs in processing several benefit categories. Likewise, a commenter stated that creating, maintaining, and enforcing compliance with a massive registration regime would be extraordinarily costly and require new bureaucracy, increased surveillance, and extensive enforcement operations to act on the data collected, thus overwhelming DHS resources and layering on to existing backlogs. A commenter stated that the significant challenges USCIS already faces in processing Form I-765 filings would only become more acute if resources are diverted to process millions of Form G-325Rs, thus increasing current EAD processing backlogs and harming workers, businesses, and the overall economy in the process. A few commenters encouraged DHS to focus on other priorities, including improving efficiency within the existing system, such as reducing the case backlog, instead of expanding alien registration requirements.

A commenter stated that DHS does not have the necessary resources for increased logistics, staffing, training, and developing and maintaining a system, adding that if DHS does currently have the funding, the government could put it to better use in other departments within the government ” to improve services, staffing, training, etc.” A commenter also noted that the IFR would create unnecessary administrative burden for DHS employees during a period of Federal job reductions. Several commenters critiqued the rule for its lack of discussion on the current backlog at USCIS or how the rule would affect this backlog. Commenters expressed concern that USCIS is already experiencing significant backlogs in processing various applications, including asylum applications, Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status petitions, and other immigration benefits. Commenters also critiqued the IFR for its lack of discussion on the potential costs of adding “significant” additional workload to the overburdened state of USCIS, describing the ongoing economic damage of the backlog across benefit categories.

One of the commenters wrote that the government collects extensive biometric and biographic data through multiple agencies. Some commenters stated that many aliens are already registered, including individuals who have been granted or applied for lawful permanent residence, received a Form I-94 when arriving in the United States, were issued an EAD, or were issued a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa prior to their most recent arrival in the United States. Similarly, a commenter said relevant information is already collected via longstanding forms such as I-94, I-485, I-589, and I-765. The commenter stated that this rule fragments the system further, confusing both applicants and government agencies, creating overlap with existing databases and identification mechanisms, thus directly contradicting calls for immigration system streamlining. The commenter urged DHS to develop registration mechanisms that integrate with existing forms and databases, rather than creating redundant and confusing parallel systems.

Multiple commenters similarly expressed concern with the requirement for asylum applicants, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and others who have applied for humanitarian benefits not currently listed as a registration form, to submit the G-325R. A commenter noted that this duplication places a significant and unnecessary burden on DHS employees at a time when the Federal Government is cutting jobs.

A commenter stated that numerous immigration forms that require biometrics upon receipt as part of the form's application process are not listed as acceptable forms of registration, writing that this omission shows that this type of mandatory registration is outdated and unnecessary. For example,

the commenter said Form I-589 is not included on the list of accepted forms, but as part of the asylum process, all applicants must disclose extensive biographical and demographic information on Form I-589 and also complete the biometrics process. Therefore, the commenter reasoned that to consider asylum applicants as “not registered” is unreasonable and arbitrary and that the same argument would hold for a variety of different immigration forms and application processes, including U and T visas, SIJ, and VAWA relief. The commenter concluded that to force asylum, U visa, T visa, SIJ, and VAWA applicants to register using the G-325R would be a waste of government resources and time since the government already has the same information that is being asked for in the G-325R.

Response:

DHS has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws established by Congress, including the alien registration requirement. The statute requires most aliens who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer to apply for registration and with some exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted. DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not created or modified the statutory requirements of an alien's duty to register with the government under section 262 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302.

In general, the IFR has not caused any significant processing delays or an increase of backlogs on other immigration benefits processed by USCIS. DHS purposefully streamlined the process by which unregistered aliens may register and comply with the law as required by the INA to benefit aliens and USCIS. The Form G-325R process is entirely electronic. Unlike paper filings, an unregistered alien submits information through the electronic process and is automatically prompted to provide necessary information to complete his or her registration. An alien obtains evidence of registration (USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration) almost instantly after applying for registration or after providing biometrics, if required. In the alien's myUSCIS account, he or she will be able to download and print a PDF version of the evidence of registration (USCIS Proof of Alien G-325R Registration), which is of significance in light of the requirement in section 264(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1304(e), that all aliens 18 years or older in the United States who are required to register must at all times carry with them and have in their personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to them. The electronic processing of the Form G-325R eliminates manual intake processing that includes opening envelopes of a mailed submission, checking forms against acceptance criteria, and scanning the documents to convert them into electronic format or otherwise entering form responses into USCIS systems. Manual intake processing is more time-consuming and burdensome for the agency and could lead to delays in processing and data integrity issues. The electronic processing of Form G-325R has enhanced automated services for unregistered aliens and USCIS. This process has not created any significant processing delays and has not required reallocation of resources from other workloads in USCIS.

At this time, under 8 CFR 264.1(a) and (b), aliens who have filed the Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, and other forms that are not enumerated in the existing regulations, are not considered to be registered. DHS notes that Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document, is listed as evidence of registration at 8 CFR 264.1(b). Many asylees, asylum applicants, TPS applicants, and other aliens have received such evidence of registration.

See

section V of this preamble.

5. Impact on Communities and Public Safety

a. Impacts and Implications for Law Enforcement and Participation in Community Safety

Comment:

Many commenters expressed concerns that the rule would undermine public safety and law enforcement effectiveness. A commenter stated that communities across the country rely on a strong relationship with law enforcement officers; they said the IFR threatens that relationship due to the increased threat or perception of wrongful arrests, which would lead to a downward spiral of eroding trust impacting both U.S. citizens and aliens. Similarly, a different commenter expressed concern that enforcement agencies would be unable to distinguish between immigrants of different registration statuses and that there would be an increase in false arrests. With regard to trust, commenters wrote that the policy would damage community trust in law enforcement, subject both U.S citizens and lawfully present aliens, including LPRs, to wrongful arrests and detentions, and place additional strain on the immigration legal system without achieving meaningful public safety benefits. One commenter wrote that the current administration has already engaged in “haphazard and aggressive pattern of enforcement actions,” and that “this IFR will only fuel the alarming enforcement practices commonplace in this administration.” In connection with their stated concerns about public safety, some commenters wrote that aliens commit crime at lower rates than U.S. citizens.

Separate commenters wrote that the policy would pave the way for widespread abuse without improving community safety, with others adding that it would impede cooperation with law enforcement, make communities less safe, and also undermine officer safety. As an alternative to the IFR, a commenter recommended concentrating on improved coordination with local law enforcement agencies on tailored cooperation and focusing resources on the most serious national security and public safety threats, rather than registering and pursuing millions of aliens indiscriminately. A different commenter suggested that policymakers should pursue immigration policies that benefit the economy and increase public safety and prioritize the removal of legitimate public safety threats over individuals without a criminal record.

A commenter wrote that the IFR is expected to divert law enforcement from essential duties. The commenter warned that local officers directed to enforce the requirement to carry evidence of registration would need to engage in “complex interactions with considerable fourth and fifth amendment entanglements without appropriate funding for training in immigration requirements,” reducing overall public safety efficacy. With regard to police, a commenter stated that they are not trained in immigration law and may struggle to differentiate if someone is properly registered, potentially leading to false charges and litigation. The commenter cited a 2008 report from the Goldwater Institute stating that the effectiveness of the Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff's Department “was compromised by misplaced priorities,” including immigration enforcement.

A commenter stated that law enforcement officials themselves have expressed concern about the impact of immigration enforcement on community trust, in particular when people are unwilling to or fearful of calling the police, report victimization, or cooperate as witnesses, it increases the vulnerability of everyone in the city to victimization. A commenter said that because of the severe penalties for not having registration, immigrants would be reluctant to have any contact with law enforcement officials, even if they are victims or witnessed a crime.

Many commenters stated that mandatory registration might deter individuals from seeking essential services, seeking help, or reporting crimes. For example, one of those commenters cited research that, per the commenter, showed that Hispanic community members were 30 percent less likely to report crimes during the implementation of Secure Communities, a 2008 program that automatically forwarded fingerprints of all arrestees to DHS. The same commenter noted that a review of local cooperation in Federal enforcement programs found that “none reduced violent crime [and] on the contrary, two of the arrangements significantly increased a person's risk of experiencing violent crime.” Another commenter wrote that the IFR makes communities less safe by creating a hostile environment for immigrants, affecting both immigrants and U.S. citizens. They said this could result in over-policing and stated that mandatory registration might deter “noncitizens” from reporting crimes, therefore undermining public safety and allowing crimes to go unreported, which impacts the broader community.

Expressing agreement with this viewpoint, another commenter wrote that there would be a “dramatic” spike in detention and deportation. They also wrote that USCIS fails to consider the impact of arbitrary and discriminatory searches, seizures, detentions, and deportations premised on the rule and the impacts on “noncitizens” and U.S. citizens alike. Numerous commenters expressed concern that the IFR would harm or instill fear in immigrant communities. A commenter stated that the rule may cause aliens who are already legally registered using other registration forms to be increasingly fearful and uncertain. A commenter wrote that fear among alien communities is being exacerbated by the administration's “threatening” rhetoric and by the tactics employed in immigration enforcement. Numerous commenters raised concerns that fear stemming from the IFR would lead to deterioration of trust in the immigration system and potential chilling effects on aliens' access or willingness to engage with public services, health care, the legal system, or legal immigration processes. For example, a commenter discussed potential fears that registering could expose individuals to future enforcement actions, deportation proceedings, or discriminatory treatment, and stated that the rule exacerbates fears, rather than addressing legitimate concerns transparently. Other commenters stated that the IFR would generally discourage civic participation or limit access to social services, because aliens are being treated with suspicion, rather than as valued members of society.

Response:

DHS disagrees that the IFR negatively impacts public safety and participation in community safety, puts an undue burden on law enforcement, or would divert them from performing their essential duties. The alien registration requirement is not new. For the last 85 years, the laws of the United States have required most aliens present in the United States who remain for 30 days or longer to register and, with some exceptions based on age or nonimmigrant status, be fingerprinted. The requirement that aliens register and update their address with the government within 10 days of moving, and the requirement that aliens issued evidence of registration carry such evidence on their person, were also established by Congress in the middle of the 20th century.

DHS, with the IFR and this final rule, has not created these requirements or modified the duties established by Congress for aliens. Similarly, this IFR did not create or modify the criminal penalties established by Congress many decades ago that apply when aliens fail to meet their registration and related obligations. This rule is consistent with E.O. 14159 and the alien registration requirements in sections 262 through 265 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1302 through 1305, and establishes a general registration option available to all unregistered aliens regardless of immigration status. It is within Congress' control and its policy choice to change the statutory registration requirement.

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, required all aliens in the United States beyond 30 days to apply to register and to be fingerprinted.

See

Public Law 76-670, 54 Stat. 670 (June 28, 1940).

Furthermore, the rule does not obligate additional enforcement of the existing statute. The rule also does not oblige the removal of any unauthorized alien from the country. The rule establishes that those aliens that have not registered through other means can now register using Form G-325R. As explained in the IFR, the rule is expected to improve DHS law enforcement efficacy and to provide more comprehensive information about the location of aliens in the United States. Further, it will make it easier and safer for DHS to enforce the law and increase alien compliance with statutory fingerprinting requirements. These biometrics would provide the Department with additional information about an alien's criminal record, including whether the alien is a known or suspected terrorist.

b. Impacts on Communities

Comment:

Commenters stated that registration programs do not make communities safer but instead undermine community wellbeing, harm the community, drive families into hiding, and weaken the community instead of strengthening it. While expressing opposition

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.