AILA Submits Comments on the Naturalization Fee Rule

August 24, 2026
Office of Policy and Strategy
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
5900 Capital Gateway Drive Camp Springs, MD 20746

Submitted via http://www.regulations.gov

Re: Naturalization Application Fee Adjustments (Docket No. USCIS-2026-0265)

To Whom it May Concern:

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) respectfully submits this comment in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Naturalization Application Fee Adjustments, 91 Fed. Reg. 37,500 (June 23, 2026). The proposed rule would substantially increase the filing fees for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, and Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings, while eliminating the reduced-fee option for Form N-400 and the fee waivers currently available for both forms. AILA opposes these changes as they are arbitrary and capricious and would unnecessarily create substantial financial barriers to naturalization without adequate consideration of less burdensome alternatives, the effects on financially vulnerable applicants, or DHS’s longstanding recognition of the significant public benefits of naturalization.

Established in 1946, AILA is a voluntary bar association of more than 18,000 attorneys and law professors practicing, researching, and teaching in the field of immigration and nationality law. Our mission includes the advancement of the law pertaining to immigration and nationality and the facilitation of justice in the field. AILA members regularly advise and represent businesses, U.S. citizens, U.S. lawful permanent residents, and foreign nationals regarding the application and interpretation of U.S. immigration laws. We believe that our members’ collective expertise and experience make us particularly well-qualified to offer views on this matter.

AILA is uniquely suited to comment on this proposed regulation. Not only do many of our members provide naturalization legal services either through private practice or working for nonprofits or social service agencies, but since 2003, AILA members have provided pro bono legal services at naturalization clinics we co-sponsor throughout the country in partnership with nonprofits providing legal services to low- and moderate-income clients. Many local and state governments also co-sponsor these clinics. AILA hosts an annual Citizenship Day to provide the public with free access to legal services.¹   Some of AILA’s chapters host similar clinics multiple times a year. Through these clinics, AILA members have grown very familiar with the challenges of access and barriers to naturalization, including its monetary cost. The availability of fee waivers and reduced fees allows naturalization to be accessible to more eligible people. This rule would in turn make naturalization less accessible, if not out of reach, for working families, refugees/asylees, the elderly and disabled permanent residents who would be otherwise eligible for naturalization. Additionally, naturalization aids the U.S. economy by boosting gross domestic product (GDP), increasing wages for all American workers, and improving revenue for Social Security and Medicare systems.² 

I. The Proposed Rule Is Arbitrary, Capricious, and Contrary to Law

The proposed rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because USCIS fails to provide a reasoned explanation, supported by evidence in the administrative record, for adopting a fee structure that the agency's own analysis acknowledges will create substantial financial barriers to naturalization for otherwise eligible lawful permanent residents. DHS concedes that "increasing fees might adversely affect some applicants' ability to apply for naturalization benefits," yet dismisses this impact by asserting, without supporting data, that naturalization is an "inelastic good," for which demand changes very little when the price increases, and that "most aliens would ultimately pay the fees."³  The agency acknowledges it "does not have any data indicating that the proposed fee changes would deter many aliens from applying for naturalization," but the absence of data demonstrating harm is not evidence of no harm, particularly where DHS proposes to increase the Form N-400 fee by 75% (from $760 to $1,330) while simultaneously eliminating all fee waivers and reduced-fee options.⁴ 

DHS proffers no evidence of inelasticity, nor studies concerning various populations, without adequate discussion of how this might foreclose eligible individuals from filing, or the long-term consequences of this policy. Furthermore, DHS arbitrarily fails to provide evidence of waiver/reduced fee abuse that needs to be rectified by this rule. USCIS's own historical fee-waiver data demonstrates that a substantial share of naturalization applicants have relied on fee relief. By eliminating that relief DHS risks creating a financial barrier that will deter or delay otherwise eligible lawful permanent residents from applying for naturalization. Individuals who do not file will lose the opportunity to apply for naturalization with the corresponding consequence that USCIS will collect no N-400 filing fee revenue.

The proposal represents an unexplained departure from the agency's longstanding policy of promoting equitable access to naturalization through affordable filing fees and fee relief. In prior fee rules, USCIS acknowledged that naturalization produces important benefits for both individuals and the nation and therefore sought to facilitate access to citizenship, with the goal of a fee structure.⁵  This NPRM does not adequately explain why the prior rationale, which DHS has relied upon, no longer applies. While DHS states it "still believes naturalization is the most meaningful immigration benefit the United States can bestow," it offers no reasoned basis for concluding that this acknowledgment no longer supports maintaining some degree of fee accessibility.

An agency may change policy, but it must acknowledge the change and provide a reasoned explanation for it. DHS should therefore explain with specificity why the considerations on which it previously relied no longer warrant retaining some form of reduced fee or fee-waiver eligibility.

II. DHS Fails to Meaningfully Evaluate Less Burdensome Alternatives

Over 9 million lawful permanent residents (LPRs) are potentially eligible for naturalization according to USCIS data from 2023.⁶  Comparatively, only a relatively small share of eligible LPRs naturalize per year. Access to naturalization is clearly an issue for the other potentially eligible LPRs.⁷  This rule adds barriers to naturalization by almost doubling the N-400 and N-336 filing fees and by eliminating reduced fees and long-standing fee waivers during a time of high inflation and increased costs of living.

The proposed rule fails to meaningfully evaluate less burdensome alternatives to the fee structure adopted.⁸  While the NPRM's "Alternatives" section (Section V.A.8) identifies three alternatives - maintaining the current fee, retaining fee waivers, and retaining the reduced fee - it briefly evaluates each only to reject them without considering any intermediate option that would preserve some form of fee relief for low-income applicants. For example, in 2024, DHS expanded the reduced-fee income ceiling from 150% to 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.⁹  Yet, nowhere in the NPRM does DHS consider returning the reduced-fee threshold to a level between 150% and 400%, a plainly reasonable middle ground that would maintain some accessibility for lower-income applicants while narrowing the purported cost/revenue gap DHS identifies. Nor does DHS suggest reasonable alternatives such as a sliding fee scale. This omission is particularly striking given that the 2024 expansion itself reflected DHS's own determination that reduced-fee eligibility served the public interest by enabling more applicants to qualify for the reduced fee.¹⁰  The agency also arbitrarily fails to discuss other options for the way it spends its money, such as less costly vetting measures.

The NPRM's internal logic undermines its own rationale. DHS justifies the fee increases by citing the costs of processing reduced fees and fee waivers. At the same time, DHS is proposing to eliminate the reduced fees and fee waivers. In other words, if DHS eliminates the reduced fees and fee waivers, they would no longer contribute to the cost of processing naturalization, therefore an increased fee should not follow. It then asserts that "simplification" of the fee structure independently justifies the elimination of reduced-fee options. DHS further justifies the speculative potential to limit future fee increases for other benefit requests but provides no concrete evidence that eliminating fee relief for naturalization applicants would in fact produce meaningful savings for other filers in a subsequent comprehensive fee rule. DHS has not demonstrated that eliminating all reduced-fee options is necessary to achieve its stated objectives, nor has it adequately explained why a less drastic alternative, such as narrowing reduced-fee eligibility range, would be insufficient.

III. Departure from Comprehensive Fee-Setting Undermines the Alternatives Analysis

DHS’s rationale for the proposed changes rests substantially on its asserted need for cost recovery, the beneficiary-pays principle, and financial sustainability of the immigration benefits system to justify the proposed changes. But Congress has not required USCIS to price every immigration benefit at its individually calculated cost. To the contrary, 8 USC § 1356(m). provides DHS flexibility in establishing fees and expressly contemplates fee waivers in appropriate circumstances. DHS has historically exercised its fee-setting authority by considering not only the calculated cost of adjudicating a particular benefit, but also broader policy considerations and the interrelationship among fees across the USCIS fee schedule. Relying solely on beneficiary-pays principal, DHS’ justifications are undercut by the agency's decision to depart from the comprehensive biennial fee review model it has historically employed, which it reaffirmed as recently as the 2024 Fee Rule.

In the 2024 Fee Rule, DHS explained that USCIS fees operate as an interrelated system.¹¹ In other words, to hold one fee below cost requires raising other fees to compensate. As a result, USCIS conducts a biennial review of all agency fees together. USCIS rejected commenters' proposals to phase in increases for individual forms, reasoning those piecemeal adjustments "would ensure that USCIS would not recover full cost and would be unable to fully fund its operational requirements."¹² By now, proposing to adjust only Form N-400 and Form N-336 fees in isolation, outside a comprehensive fee schedule revision, DHS contradicts its own prior reasoning and fails to account for the interrelationship among all fees. A comprehensive review would allow DHS to evaluate whether cost reallocation across the broader fee schedule could achieve full cost recovery while preserving some degree of fee relief for naturalization applicants, as it did in prior fee rules.

At a minimum, DHS should explain why the comprehensive fee-setting rationale it previously considered important no longer warrants consideration here and whether cost allocation across the broader fee schedule could permit USCIS to meet its revenue needs while preserving some degree of fee relief for naturalization applicants.

IV. DHS Fails to Meaningfully Consider the Disproportionate Impact on Financially Vulnerable Applicants

Congress has emphasized that naturalization should be affordable and accessible, and supported the continued availability of fee waivers.¹³ The combined effect of almost doubling the filing fees while simultaneously eliminating fee waiver and reduced fee option will impose significant financial barriers on many eligible applicants, including hard working families, the elderly, disabled, and asylees and refugees. In essence, the NPRM says one must be well off to become a naturalized citizen and therefore risks conditioning access to naturalization on an applicant's ability to pay rather than on eligibility for citizenship.

The proposed fee structure will directly affect a sizeable portion of applicants, considering that during fiscal years 2020 through fiscal year 2024 USCIS approved 581,385 fee waivers and 13,552 reduced fee requests for N-400 applicants. USCIS arbitrarily dismisses¹⁴ this population by asserting that their inability to pay is temporary and they "could apply for naturalization in the future," but provides no analysis of how long such delays would persist, what barriers to future payment could exist, or what collateral consequences flow from delayed naturalization. This dismissive approach is a blatant violation of the APA, which requires an agency to consider the impact of its actions on affected parties and to articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the policy choice made.

Based on our extensive experience running pro bono naturalization clinics with our nonprofit and local government agency partners, AILA understands that many applicants wait well beyond the minimum three-or five-year residence eligibility requirement in order to file due to various barriers. This includes the inability to pay fees, particularly for families seeking to apply together. AILA members often see applicants who have waited 10 years or more to file, many of whom are elderly or disabled, survivors of domestic abuse, refugees and low-income workers, or seek to qualify under the English exemptions. USCIS’ own statistics show that the median applicant spends approximately seven years in LPR status before filing for naturalization.¹⁵ The delayed filing may be attributable to prohibitive fees creating a barrier to citizenship for eligible individuals. By imposing further barriers to naturalization, this rule would not only delay these individuals access to naturalization but also delays their ability to fully contribute both economically and civically to the United States.

V. Policy Considerations and Congressional Intent Warrant Continued Inclusion of the Fee and Reduced Fee Waiver

Naturalization has several significant public benefits that warrant allowance of a fee waiver or reduced fee based on income and household size, lest eligible applicants are priced out. These include strengthening American democracy by allowing permanent residents to demonstrate the highest level of commitment to the United States. As USCIS states on its public resource website in response to the question, “Should I Consider U.S. Citizenship?”

The naturalization process confers great responsibilities on U.S. permanent residents that benefit the public good, including but not limited to, increasing the number of people living in the United States who have committed, through the naturalization process, to support and defend the Constitution; integrating new citizens who stay informed of the issues affecting their community; allowing stronger participation in the democratic process; participation in the payment of income and other taxes to federal, state, and local authorities; serve on a jury when called upon; service to our government.¹⁷

VI. DHS Should Provide Greater Transparency Regarding the Costs Purportedly Necessitating the Proposed Fee Increases

The NPRM relies on increased naturalization adjudication and vetting costs to justify the proposed fees. DHS should provide sufficient information in the administrative record to permit the public to meaningfully evaluate those asserted costs. This is particularly important given recent changes affecting naturalization adjudications, including changes in vetting procedures, staffing, and adjudication practices.

At a minimum, DHS should explain the principal cost drivers underlying the proposed N-400 and N-336 fees, including the personnel and adjudication assumptions used in calculating those costs; the incremental costs attributable to any enhanced vetting requirements; the extent to which those activities are performed manually or through automated systems; and the anticipated effects of those measures on adjudication times and staffing requirements. The proposed rule fails to include detailed accounting methodology around personnel in terms of adjudication work as it relates to recent policy changes.

VI. The Proposed Fee Schedule Will Frustrate the Mission of Citizenship Programs Devoted to Increasing Access to Counsel and Naturalization.

The hardship of paying filing fees can be particularly significant for families in which multiple eligible household members seek to naturalize at the same time. AILA members regularly serve elderly applicants, applicants with disabilities, survivors of domestic violence, refugees, and workers with limited income for whom an increased filing fee may be especially difficult to absorb. USCIS’s own statistics indicate that naturalizing citizens have typically spent substantially longer in LPR status than the minimum period required for eligibility.

AILA’s Citizenship Day mission is to promote access to legal counsel for people who would otherwise not be able to afford an attorney. Our members give their valuable time in these and other one-day workshops around the country, often multiple times a year. Our nonprofit partners who dedicate their work to serving low- and moderate-income individuals will also be significantly impacted by the proposed rule. Indeed, we expect our program to lose many participants given that many currently rely on fee waivers or reduced fees. We may need to redesign or even eliminate our program if not enough people come to us for services due to inability to pay the proposed filing fees. This would frustrate our mission to provide equal access to legal services and to encourage more people to file for naturalization.

VIII. Conclusion

AILA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed naturalization fee schedule. For the foregoing reasons, AILA urges DHS to retain both fee waivers and the reduced-fee option for naturalization applicants. At a minimum, DHS should retain meaningful means-tested fee relief, consider intermediate alternatives such as a narrower reduced-fee eligibility threshold or sliding-scale structure, and provide a reasoned explanation supported by the administrative record for any departure from its longstanding recognition that naturalization warrants distinctive treatment within USCIS’s fee structure.

Preserving meaningful access to naturalization is consistent with both sound fee policy and the substantial public benefits that flow from eligible lawful permanent residents becoming United States citizens.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 

¹ From 2022 through 2025, nearly 150 AILA members participated in Citizenship Day events serving approximately 623 clients annually. Approximately 60 Citizenship Day clients per year required a fee waiver or reduced filing fee, AILA's experience working directly with these applicants through a nationwide network of chapters and community partners demonstrates that filing fees remain a meaningful barrier to citizenship for many otherwise eligible lawful permanent residents.

² See reports from the Center for American Progress titled Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants Would Boost U.S. Economic Growth and How Citizenship Helps the Economy.

³ Naturalization Application Fee Adjustments, 91 Fed. Reg. 37500, 37535 (June 23, 2026).

⁴ Id.

⁵ See e,g, 75 FR 33461 (June 11, 2020). “DHS has determined that the act of requesting and obtaining U.S. citizenship deserves special consideration given the unique nature of this benefit to the individual applicant, the significant public benefit to the Nation, and the Nation’s proud tradition of welcoming new citizens.” Also, in USCIS’ FAQs to its 2023 proposed fee rule, USCIS explained that a below Consumer Price Index increase for naturalization applications was done “to support access for all eligible immigrants interested applying for naturalization.” DHS has consistently recognized that naturalization warrants special treatment within the USCIS fee schedule because of the substantial public benefits associated with citizenship. In the 2010 fee rule, DHS maintained a subsidized naturalization fee rather than imposing full cost recovery. Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule, 75 Fed. Reg. 58962 (Sept. 24, 2010). In the 2016 fee rule, DHS established a reduced N-400 fee for lower-income applicants, and in the 2024 fee rule it expanded eligibility for a 50% fee reduction to applicants with household incomes up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule, 81 Fed. Reg. 73292 (Oct. 24, 2016); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 89 Fed. Reg. 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024). These actions reflect a longstanding agency judgment that encouraging eligible lawful permanent residents to naturalize serves important governmental and societal interests that justify charging less than the full cost of adjudication.

⁶ Number of LPRs potentially eligible: Sarah Miller and Bryan Baker, Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States and the Subpopulation Eligible to Naturalize: 2023, Table 2, DHS, Office of Homeland Security Statistics, October 2023. Total U.S. Population, Percent Potentially Eligible and Percent Ineligible: CRS analysis of data from Miller and Baker and 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS), U.S. Census Bureau. See also Congressional Research Service Naturalization Policy, 4/14/2024,  https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43366. 

⁷ See, e.g., data from DHS, which reports that fewer than 1 million people became naturalized U.S. citizens per year between 2009-2019, https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/naturalization-statistics.

⁸ DHS could have considered reasonable alternatives that would have advanced its cost-recovery objectives while preserving access to naturalization, including more modest fee increases, inflation-based adjustments, retention of existing fee waivers and reduced-fee provisions, installment payment options, partial subsidies, phased implementation, additional congressional appropriations, and continued cross-subsidization from employment-based benefit requests.

⁹ 89 Fed. Reg. 6194, 6241.

¹⁰ Id.

¹¹ 89 Fed. Reg. at 6334.

¹² Id.

¹³ H. Rept. 116-458 – Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/116th-congress/house-report/458/1.

¹⁴ 91 Fed. Reg. at 37521.

¹⁵ See U.S. Naturalizations: 2024, table 8: https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/naturalizations/annual-flow-report/fy-24-naturalizations-flow-report. 7.5 years on average per USCIS 2024 data at https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/naturalization-statistics.

¹⁶ https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/should-i-consider-us-citizenship

¹⁷ Id.