AILA Submits Comments on the USCIS Signature Policy IFR

July 8, 2026

Business and Foreign Workers Division
Office of Policy and Strategy
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
5900 Capital Gateway Drive
Camp Springs, MD 20746

Submitted via http://regulations.gov

     Re: Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests, Docket No. USCIS-2026-0166

Dear Division Chief:

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) respectfully submits this comment in response to the interim final rule (IFR or rule), Signatures on Immigration Benefit Requests, published by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on May 11, 2026. The rule appears at 91 Fed. Reg. 25,479, is effective July 10, 2026, and sets July 10, 2026 as the deadline for public comments.ⁱ

Established in 1946, AILA is a voluntary bar association of more than 18,000 attorneys practicing and teaching immigration law. Our mission includes promoting fairness and reasoned development of immigration law and policy. 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 agrees with USCIS that it is important to ensure the integrity of immigration benefit
requests. However, based on the rule text, AILA respectfully submits that, as drafted, the IFR’s structure, timing, and implementation framework warrant reconsideration through notice-and-comment rulemaking to allow for actual consideration of stakeholder input and operational readiness. AILA believes that integrity can be protected without creating unnecessary administrative and efficiency hurdles.

I. The legal function of a signature

USCIS explains that a signature on an immigration benefit request serves as a certification under penalty of perjury that the contents of the request and its supporting evidence are true and correct, and that USCIS practice follows the model reflected in 28 U.S.C. § 1746 allowing unsworn signed declarationsⁱⁱ.

That statement establishes that the legal function of a signature is to evidence adoption and certification, not to prescribe a particular physical medium. The rule text describes this legal function but does not establish what AILA believes is appropriate, namely, a more granular framework for distinguishing between defects that undermine the certification function and those that are technical in natureⁱⁱⁱ. 

II. The rule creates a consequential post-acceptance denial framework

USCIS explains in the Executive Summary that DHS is adding a clarifying provision to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7) to address signatures it determines are invalid after a benefit request has been accepted. Under the rule, USCIS states that adjudicators may, in their discretion, reject or deny the request. USCIS further provides that, if it denies a request based on an invalid signature, it may retain the associated filing fee and consider the request fully adjudicated, rendering the applicant ineligible for the requested benefit^iv.

AILA is concerned that this framework may impose substantial consequences, including a lapse in status or missed filing windows, even where the underlying eligibility for the requested benefit is not the issue. That concern follows directly from the rule’s own statement that denial may occur after acceptance, with fee retention and treatment of the case as fully adjudicated^v. This is particularly problematic as many months may pass from the time of filing to the time a signature related denial may be issued, leaving the applicant unable to correct errors without consequence. Rather than waiting to determine the accuracy of the signature at the adjudicatory phase, USCIS should create an intake process that ensures that the validity of the signature is assessed before a case is accepted, thereby saving time and costs for both the government and the applicants, while also ensuring that an individual does not unnecessarily lose status.

III. The rule does not provide a general cure process

The IFR explains that USCIS policy since 2018 has been to deny a request that is accepted but later determined to have a deficient signature^vi. USCIS further states that, although requests for additional evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) may be used in limited circumstances to confirm signatory authority, the agency will not permit an opportunity to correct or “cure” an invalid signature and that this policy remains operative^vii.

AILA understands USCIS’ views that invalid signatures are a serious defect. Even so, the IFR’s text confirms that the agency has chosen to maintain a no-cure framework rather than adopt a general correction mechanism for non-fraudulent post-acceptance signature deficiencies^viii. USCIS should allow for defective signatures to be cured in instances where fraud is not indicated. For example, a parent might inadvertently sign for their child shortly after the child’s 14th birthday without understanding that the child should be signing directly at that age. There may also be instances where the signature is not legible or is faded and difficult to read due to an issue with scanning or photocopying, or where a signer’s signature appears to be a duplicate but in fact is simply someone who signs with a very similar mark every time. These are instances where there should be no concerns about fraud and USCIS should have a policy to allow for a signature cure in these instances.

IV. Federal law reflects a longstanding policy in favor of practicable electronic interaction with agencies.

The IFR states that USCIS policies have evolved alongside the increased use of electronic filing systems and that increasing numbers of immigration benefit requests are now filed through e-filing or the PDF upload process, consistent with congressional direction to reduce reliance on paper filings under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act^ix.

USCIS also explains that, to provide flexibility and efficiency, it does not generally require submission of the original document with a wet-ink signature and that a scanned, copied, or faxed version of the originally signed benefit request suffices^x. In addition, the rule acknowledges that certain electronic signatures are accepted in specific USCIS filing contexts and explains that such options are limited and not uniformly available across all submission types^xi.

These findings are consistent with federal statutory direction that agencies employ information technology to allow electronic submission and acceptance of electronic signatures where practicable, including 44 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1)(B)(vi) and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. Examples include income tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service^xii, certain filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission^xiii, and certain Federal Court filings.^xiv In a particularly striking recognition of the validity of electronic signatures, the June 2026 Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran laying out the terms of a peace agreement was electronically signed by President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian.^xv

Before the interim final rule takes effect, USCIS should ensure that its filing systems are aligned with this longstanding federal policy by permitting electronic filing in all practicable circumstances. In particular, USCIS should provide the option of consistent electronic submission through the myUSCIS platform across all form types and filing channels, including in cases where applicants and petitioners are represented by counsel. Like other federal agencies noted above, USCIS should also develop policies allowing for recognition of reliable electronic signature methods that go beyond a traditional wet-ink signature. Taking these steps would promote uniform application of signature requirements, and better position both the agency and the public to comply with the rule’s emphasis on signature validity in a modern, technology-enabled environment.

V. DHS should have provided the public meaningful opportunity to comment before finalizing a rule that has substantive impact 

The Federal Register notice states that the rule becomes effective on July 10, 2026, the same date that comments are due^xvi. As a result, the rule takes effect before the agency has the opportunity to consider and respond to public comments. This sequencing limits the agency’s ability to incorporate stakeholder input prior to implementation and runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act.^xviiAlthough, DHS argues that notice and comment is not necessary because it is a procedural rule, as discussed above, a denial may have significant substantive consequences on an individual’s immigration status, in addition to having to simply “complete a new request and pay a new fee to re-apply after a denial.”^xviii

Moreover, the Regulatory Flexibility Act contemplates that agencies will assess a rule’s impact on small entities, including through analyses prepared in connection with proposed rulemaking and final rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. §§ 603 and 604.

AILA respectfully submits that the current procedural posture constrains fuller development of the public record on the IFR’s impact, including on small businesses and other small entities, before the rule takes effect.

Accordingly, AILA urges USCIS to withdraw the IFR and replace it with a notice of proposed rulemaking.

VI. Requested relief

For the reasons above, AILA respectfully requests that USCIS:

1. Withdraw the interim final rule and publish a notice of proposed rulemaking before adopting a final rule on signature validity in immigration benefit requests^xix.
2. Provide additional guidance consistent with AILA recommendations on the treatment of post-acceptance signature defects, the absence of a general cure process, and the relationship between the rule and the agency’s increasing use of electronic filing systems^xx.

Conclusion

The rule establishes significant consequences tied to signature validity, including post-acceptance denial authority and fee retention, while simultaneously becoming effective on the same date comments are due. The Federal Register notice confirms these elements and describes the agency’s evolving use of electronic processes. AILA respectfully submits that a notice of proposed rulemaking would permit fuller consideration of public input and operational impact before the rule is implemented^xxi.

Sincerely,

American Immigration Lawyers Association