A functioning immigration service needs resources; a person seeking citizenship needs a comprehensible route through its charges. The USCIS fee rule published October 24, 2016 placed both concerns in view. This October 29 retrospective examines that prior-week rule, not a weekend announcement or evidence that its intended benefits had already reached applicants. [2016-25328]

The adopted schedule's weighted-average increase of 21 percent was not everyone's increase. The final N-400 provisions set a $640 ordinary filing fee, a $320 fee for documented income above 150 percent and no more than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and no application fee for qualifying military-service applicants under the specified statutory provisions. Those distinctions matter more to an individual's circumstances than the aggregate percentage. [2016-25328]

In the May proposal, USCIS projected an average annual $560 million fee-account shortfall if charges remained unchanged. The agency connected cost recovery with maintaining service. That is a relevant stewardship argument, but a projected financing gap does not by itself establish what any household can afford. Nor does creating a reduced fee demonstrate that everyone eligible can successfully navigate its documentation. [2016-25328][2016-10297]

A fair explanation should preserve both the service's financing constraint and the applicant's actual category. The new charges applied to applications or petitions mailed, postmarked or otherwise filed on or after December 23, the effective date. These two agency documents share a rulemaking chain; they are not independent evaluations of fairness. They offer a basis for asking about access and administrative reliability, not for declaring either obligation fulfilled. [2016-25328][2016-10297]

Source documents

  1. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedulehttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-10-24/html/2016-25328.htm
  2. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedulehttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-04/html/2016-10297.htm