USCIS I-864 30-day Public Comment Responses

I-864 REV 30-day Public Comment Responses_85 FR 20292.pdf

Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act

USCIS I-864 30-day Public Comment Responses

OMB: 1615-0075

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1615-0075 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

Matrix ID
Number

Commenter

Comment
I write to comment regarding OMB Control Number 1615-0075,
agency name/Docket ID USCIS- 2007-0029.

1.1

David Isaacson

The proposed requirement that an I-864, I-864EZ or I-864A be
notarized by a notary public would be in violation of federal statute,
specifically section 1746 of Title 28, United States Code. That
section provides:
"Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule,
regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any
matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced,
established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification,
certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person
making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or
an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a
notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be
supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn
declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such
person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury,
and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify,
verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on (date).
(Signature)".
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions,
or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under

Draft Response/
Comments
USCIS appreciates this comment.
28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
1

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
on (date).
(Signature)"."
Congress has determined that in matters subject to federal law and
regulation, any affidavit which would ordinarily be required to be
taken before a notary public may instead be substituted "with like
force and effect" by an unsworn declaration under penalty of
perjury including the appropriate language. USCIS has no authority
to override this statute through a change in form instructions, If the
instructions are not altered to allow for the possibility of an
unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC
1746, rather than a notarization, they will be in violation of the law.
USCIS is well aware of how to offer the option of a statement under
penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746 instead of a notarized
signature. Page 4, Part 4 of the Form G-639, Freedom of
Information/Privacy Act Request, contains precisely this option. If
USCIS insists on adding notarization or the equivalent to Forms I864, I-864A, and I-864EZ, then it must provide the same option as
on the G-639.

support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
The proposed requirement to provide bank account information is
also in severe tension with the statute. 8 USC 1183a(g)(6) clearly
provides that certified copies of tax returns, accompanied by a
written statement under oath or under penalty of perjury under
section 1746 of title 28 regarding such copies, are the primary
means of demonstrating means to maintain the required level of
income, and that the possibility of proving assets is an additional
form of "flexibility" offered where necessary:
"(6) Demonstration of means to maintain income
(A) In general
(i) Method of demonstration

1.2

David Isaacson

For purposes of this section, a demonstration of the means to
maintain income shall include provision of a certified copy of the
individual's Federal income tax return for the individual's 3 most
recent taxable years and a written statement, executed under oath
or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title
28, that the copies are certified copies of such returns.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
(ii) Flexibility
For purposes of this section, aliens may demonstrate the means to
maintain income through demonstration of significant assets of the
sponsored alien or of the sponsor, if such assets are available for
the support of the sponsored alien."
It does not demonstrate "flexibility" to require sponsors, or
sponsored aliens, to prove their assets or related information in
circumstances where the certified copies of the sponsor's tax
returns provided under 8 USC 1183a(g)(6) already establish ability
to maintain sufficient income. Doing so is therefore inconsistent
with the statutory structure.
Moreover, there are good practical reasons for sponsors not to
want to provide information regarding their bank accounts
unnecessarily. In the event of lost or misdirected mail, for example,
such information could facilitate the theft of funds from the
sponsor by anyone who were to inappropriately come into
possession of the I-864, I-864A or I-864EZ. USCIS has no statutory
basis to impose this risk on those who can demonstrate sufficient
income through their tax returns.

1.2
2.1

David Isaacson
Jeraline Edwards,
Law Offices of J S
Edwards

These proposed changes appear to represent an inappropriate
effort by USCIS to hinder family-based immigration authorized by
Congress, without statutory authority to do so. They should be
rejected.
Having to provide account numbers and bank numbers will make
sponsors very vulnerable to fraud.

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made in response to this
comment.

3.1

Daniel M. Kowalski

4.1

Kaurie Clough

These added burdens will only discourage citizens from petitioning
for family members. That is, however, the explicit intention of this
racist, White Nationalist administration. We need more
immigration, not less. We need to make it easier to immigrate, not
more difficult. I oppose these changes. In November I will vote to
oust this ignorant administration.
While collecting the sponsors bank information is a great way to
ensure that tax paying citizens are responsible for the beneficiary, I
personally thing that adding the beneficiary's bank information and
credit score should also be in effect. It is so easy to not disclose this
information and then the tax paying american is not the hook for an
immigrant that will not and has no intention on becoming self
sufficient or a part of society to further benefit our country.
I am impacted by this additional language by ensuring my tax
dollars aren't paid for an immigrant who is using benefits that our
government assists with. Additionally I know first hand by my
immigrant step-mother who is on public benefits now claiming she

No change will be made in response to this
comment.

USCIS appreciates this comment. No changes will
be made in response to this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
has no money but fails to claim her investment accounts so its a win
win for her since she is only an LPR

The proposed revisions are unlawful because they require a
sponsor to have the form notarized. Federal law permits an
declaration under penalty of perjury in lieu of notarization. 28 U.S.
Code 1746. By not permitting such a declaration USCIS not only
ignores this statute, but it is also inconsistent with other forms
where that is permitted. For example, form G-639 Freedom of
Information Act Request, permits either notarization or an
declaration under penalty of perjury.
This unlawful rule creates unnecessary burdens on the sponsors
who would be using this form. The sponsors would have to seek out
a notary, often at their own expense, imposing both time and
financial burdens that are not necessary or required under the law.
This requirement is inconsistent with the statute.
The proposed rule does not provide any explanation or legla basis
whatsoever for this change.

5.1

Joseph Muller

Additionally, this rule imposes unnecessary obligations on the
sponsors by requiring bank account information. This information is
intended to dissuade potential sponsors from completing the form.
A reasonable person would understand that providing bank account
information will expose extremely sensitive financial information to
risk such as hacking or misuse. The potential benefit to USCIS of

USCIS appreciates this comment.
28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. it
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
having this information is extremely limited, since no financial
transaction is being made and it is unlikely that USCIS would ever
use the provided information for any of the sponsors who provide
it. As such, it exposes potentially millions of people's sensitive
financial information for almost no reason, and appears to be
intended to dissuade sponsors rather than assist USCIS with
adjudications.
The proposed rule does not provide any explanation or legal basis
for the need to include bank information.

6.1

Kyle Knapp

The proposed changes to the I-864, I-864EZ, and I-864A forms and
instructions are neither appropriate nor necessary. The two
disconcerting items are requiring bank account information
regardless of whether assets are being used to demonstrate the
financial ability to serve as a sponsor or joint sponsor and requiring
a notarized signature. First, if a sponsor has sufficient income to
serve as a sponsor, collecting bank account information is not
necessary; rather it serves merely to complicate and obfuscate the
process and burden an otherwise-qualified sponsor. Second,
requiring a notarized signature is a deviation from long-established
practices for the Affidavit of Support and similarly merely adds an

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
unnecessary burden to persons seeking immigration benefits and
those serving as sponsors. The proposed changes to the forms and
instructions are ill-conceived and should be withdrawn.

the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
The proposed revision requiring that Forms I-864, I-864A, and I864EZ be notarized does little to further the goals of the
Memorandum on Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors
of Aliens while placing a significant burden on law-abiding
immigrants and their sponsors during a pandemic. We urge USCIS
to reconsider this proposal because notarization does not have a
significant impact on enforcement, there is an additional cost, this
stagnates efficiency and is a hazard to public health in the midst of
the coronavirus.
The directives in the Presidential Memo all aim to improve the
government's ability to enforce Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ
filers' sponsorship obligations. It is unclear how new form versions
requiring notarization will improve enforcement. The current
versions of Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ all require signatures
under penalty of perjury by an immigrant's sponsor or co-sponsor.
Submission of these signed forms permit any Federal, state, local,
or private agency to compel reimbursement from a sponsor for any
means-tested benefit provided to a sponsored immigrant. Requiring
these signatures to be notarized will not have any impact on the
government's right or ability to enforce Forms I-864, I-864A, and I864EZ.

7.1

Doug Ballanco

By contrast, a notarization obligation will place additional burdens
on all immigrants and their sponsors. The costs of notary services
would be passed on to all individual petitioners. Moreover, USCIS
will be unable to streamline Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ for
electronic submission, hampering agency efforts to improve
efficiency and thus passing additional costs on to immigrants or
taxpayers.

USCIS appreciates this comment. The Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA is a unique
contract between a sponsor and the Federal
Government, and the Contract Between Sponsor
and Household Member has a related support
obligation. A notarized signature will better ensure
that the person executing the Affidavit of Support
Under Section 213A of the INA or signing the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
is actually the sponsor or household member
agreeing to the support obligation.
In addition, since this requirement helps ensure
that the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ,
or Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
9

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Additionally, the proposed requirement adds a burden on public
health that does not appear to be reflected in the agency's
estimates. A notary public must witness a signature for it to be
valid, so sponsors seeking to have their Forms I-864, I-864A, or I864EZ notarized would need to physically visit a notary's office in
the midst of a pandemic. As of April 23rd, there have been at least
865,585 COVID-19 cases in the United States and 48,816 deaths.
States of emergencies have been issued in every state for an
unclear amount of time. While notary agents are essential workers,
requiring sponsors or immigrants to get their documents notarized
in the midst of an extended pandemic and its aftermath is an
unnecessary and dangerous risk to public health.
For the reasons stated above, we urge USCIS to not pursue any
aspect of this proposal, to extend the deadline for all Requests for
Comment until the pandemic emergency ends, plus at least 30
days, and to pursue regulatory policy that affirms and uplifts our
immigrant communities.

identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

- Anisa Rahaman, Aswini Periasamy, and Doug Ballanco

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.2

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0130&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
The Proposed Revisions to the Instructions and Forms are Not
Written in Plain Language
As a general comment, the additional language proposed in these
revised instructions and forms do not conform to the Plain Writing
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-274) and OMB Guidance Implementing
the Act1. Specifically, the Guidance states that “avoiding vagueness
and unnecessary complexity makes it easier for members of the
public to understand and to apply for important benefits and
services for which they are eligible.
Plain writing can also assist the public in complying with applicable
requirements simply because people better understand what they
are supposed to do.” We note below the many ways the proposed
revisions to the instructions and forms create more complexity, and
in some instances, are vague, which makes it more difficult for the
public to understand their rights and responsibilities. The resulting
confusion will lead to costly and inefficient operations of federal
Gabrielle Lessard,
National Immigration agencies and create more burden on the public using the forms as
Law Center
they try to understand and navigate the additional information.

USCIS has reviewed the forms and instructions for
plain language and legal accuracy. Where possible,
USCIS has employed plain language to improve
readability and avoid unnecessary complexity.
However, USCIS must also ensure that sponsors
and household members have all the information
they need to properly complete the forms and
understand the specific legal obligations to which
they are agreeing.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.3

Means-tested benefits, page 1
In the second paragraph, we are concerned with the replacement
of the modifier, “designated”, with “any” Federal, state, or local
means-tested public benefits. The instruction then references Part
9 of the contract. Part 9 only refers to the section of federal law
that specifies federal programs that are not considered federal
means-tested public benefits for purposes of deeming and sponsor
liability. Federal benefits determined to be means-tested for
purposes of sponsor deeming and sponsor liability are
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps (Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid (nonemergency), and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services outlined the very specific criteria to
determine which federal public benefits meet the definition of
federal means-tested public benefits under the 1996 welfare law. 2
Furthermore, the regulations require that federal, state,
local government agencies issue a public notice of their
determinations of which benefits, if any, under their jurisdiction
would be considered federal, state or local means-tested public
benefits for purposes of these laws. The regulations expressly state
1 Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
“Final Guidance on Implementing the Plain Writing Act of 2010,”
Office of Management and Budget, M-11-15 (April 13, 2011). 2 HHS,
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA), “Interpretation of ‘Federal Means-Tested Public
Benefit,’” 62 FR 45256 (Aug. 26, 1997). 3 that sponsors are not
liable for reimbursing government agencies for any benefits
received by the sponsored immigrant prior to the time that this
public notice is provided. See 8 CFR 213a.4(b).
Recommendation: Use of the word “any” is overinclusive and will

Form I-864 is governed by INA 213A and 8 CFR
213a. 8 CFR 213a.1 defines means- tested public
benefits as “either a Federal means-tested public
benefit, which is any public benefit funded in whole
or in part by funds provided by the Federal
Government that the Federal agency administering
the Federal funds has determined to be a Federal
means-tested public benefit under the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193, or a State meanstested public benefit, which is any public benefit
for which no Federal funds are provided that a
State, State agency, or political subdivision of a
State has determined to be a means-tested public
benefit…” Therefore, if the benefit granting agency
hasn’t determined the benefit to be a meanstested public benefit, it is not considered.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
cause confusion for sponsors as well as sponsored immigrants
regarding which benefits are potentially subject to reimbursement
under the contract. We ask that the language regarding which
benefits are included remain limited to the means-tested benefits
that have been designated specifically as such by the federal, state
or local entity administering the
benefits per regulation.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.4

Sponsor and Beneficiary Liability, page 3
We are concerned with the addition of the sentence: “Under
section 213A of the Act, if the individual you are sponsoring
receives means-tested public benefits, you must reimburse the
agency that provides the benefits, and the agency that provides the
benefits may be able to sue you to recover the cost of the benefits
provided if you do not reimburse the agency.” The sentence omits
an important step in the process, among others, that the agency
providing the benefits must make a request to the sponsor for
repayment of the benefits. If this step is omitted, one could read
the
sentence as requiring the sponsor to repay the agency whenever
the sponsored immigrant receives the benefit regardless of
whether the agency has taken any action to notify the sponsor,
seek reimbursement or determine whether liability applies. See 8
USC 1183a(b)(1).
Recommendation: The language should mirror the language in the
second paragraph under the Section, Means-tested Public Benefits,
with the modification above limiting it to designated benefits and
adding the italicized additional helpful language: “If an immigrant
sponsored in this affidavit receives designated Federal, state or
local means-tested public benefits after having become a lawful
permanent resident and while the affidavit of support is in effect,
the agency providing the benefit may request that you reimburse
the agency for the cost of those benefits. That agency can sue you if
you do not reimburse the benefit granting agency for the cost of
the means-tested public benefits provided.”

Under section 213A of the Act and 8 CFR 213a.4, a
sponsor must reimburse the agency upon request
of reimbursement. USCIS has made edits to Form I864 and Form I-864EZ as a result of this comment.
The language has been modified to read, “…upon
request, you must reimburse the agency that
provides the benefits.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.5

Liability Due to Misinformation
Similar to the section above, it is unclear why USCIS is including
information about liability stemming from other federal agencies’
programs and statutory authorities. Again, it is unclear how this is
related to the affidavit of support and could cause 4confusion and
concern that it is related to the immigration process. It is also
unnecessary and confusing to include the last paragraph regarding
its inapplicability to refugees and other categories of individuals
who are not required to file an I-864. Recommendation: Strike this
section in its entirety.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.6

Part 9. Sponsor’s Contract, Statement, Contact Information,
Certification, and Signature
What If I Do Not Fulfill My Obligations?
We are concerned about the paragraph:
“If a Federal, state, local, or private agency provided any covered
means-tested public benefit to the person who becomes a lawful
permanent resident based on this Form I864 that you signed, you
are responsible for reimbursing the agency for the amount of the
benefits they provided. If you do not make the reimbursement, the
agency may sue you for the amount that the agency believes you
owe. If you fail to reimburse the benefit granting agency, you may
become ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future.”
The proposed revised language omits the required step, among
others, that the benefits granting agency request reimbursement
before the sponsor is required to repay the benefits. This may lead
the sponsor to believe that they must reimburse the benefits
agency upon the sponsored immigrant’s receipt of the benefits
regardless of whether the agency has taken any action to notify the
sponsor, seek reimbursement or
determine whether liability applies. See 8 USC 1183a(b)(1).
The proposed addition of the last sentence regarding the possible
disqualification of the sponsor to sponsor anyone in the future is
not authorized by statute. There is no legal basis for this statement.
The statute sets forth the requirements for being a sponsor or joint
sponsor. 8 USC 1183a(f). The regulations further define the
requirements for being a sponsor. 8 CFR §§ 213a.2(c)(1)(i)(A), (B),
and (C)(1). Nowhere in the statute or regulations is it written that
reimbursement of means-tested benefits for other sponsored
immigrants is a requirement for being a sponsor. The agency cannot
create new law through amending a form. The 30-day notice
acknowledges this by stating: “The regulations governing the

USCIS is editing the Sponsor’s Certification
statement in response to this comment. The
language will be changed from “If you fail to
reimburse the benefit granting agency, you may
become ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future”
to “If you fail to reimburse the benefit granting
agency upon request, you may be found ineligible
to be a sponsor in the future” (edit in italics).

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Affidavit are provided in 8 CFR 213a and will not be changed by this
form change.” However, adding the above sentence would have the
effect of changing the regulations. Moreover, the proposed
additional language implies that the sponsor’s obligations continue
without exception and in perpetuity.
Recommendation: Replace the above paragraph with the following:
“If a Federal, state, local, or private agency provided designated
means-tested public benefits to the person who has become a
lawful permanent resident based on a Form I864 that you signed,
while the I-864 is in effect, the agency may ask you to reimburse
them for the amount of the benefits they provided. If you do not
make the reimbursement, the agency may sue you for the amount
that the agency believes you owe.”

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.7

Sponsor Certification, page 8.
We are very concerned about the expansion of the certification
section that includes authorizations for release of information,
including personal identifying information that sponsors are asked
to agree to as part of executing the affidavit of support, and that
are not related to law enforcement or administration of the
programs.
Section F, which refers to the Sponsor and Beneficiary Liability
section in the instructions, does not include any reference to a
sponsor’s responsibilities under the Social Security Act or the Food
Stamp Act. It is therefore unclear of what specific responsibilities
the sponsor is certifying to being aware. Furthermore, it is outside
the scope of USCIS’ authority to require certification of awareness
of other federal agency statutory authorities.
Recommendation: Strike the second part of the sentence, “and am
aware of my responsibilities as a sponsor under the Social Security
Act, as amended, and the Food Stamp Act, as amended.”

INA 213A(a) and (b) and 8 CFR 213a explain
sponsor obligations and responsibilities when
executing the Affidavit, including reimbursement of
public benefits. The sponsor certification ensures
the sponsor is aware and agrees to these
obligations. The current I-864 already has language
authorizing the release of the information for the
administration and enforcement of immigration
laws as is permitted by INA 213A. The added
consent language clarifies that this includes release
of information to DHS from the means-tested
public benefit agencies for the purpose of
administering and enforcement of immigration
laws under the same authority.
USCIS notes that the new consent language
specifically concludes with “and only as permitted
by law.” Therefore, the consent language does not
permit disclosure for an unlawful purpose.
Finally, sharing the information at issue with DHS is
consistent with the referenced statutes because it
permits an administering Federal or State agency,
working with DHS in support of the efficient
18

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
administration of its program, to better administer
sponsorship requirements, including pursuit of
recoupment when warranted from a sponsor who
is a liable third party. This information collection
supports the purposes of Federal means-tested
public benefit programs in assisting the valid
administrative needs of the respective programs as
they relate to the sponsorship obligations found at
section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1631, in DHS
regulations at 8 C.F.R. Part 213a, and in applicable
guidance.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.8

In new Sections L and M, the sponsor must authorize agencies and
entities that administer or oversee means-tested public benefits to
disclose information concerning the sponsor’s obligations to
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of
State (DOS). It is unclear what authority DHS is using to require this.
Only the Federal, state or local agency that provides the meanstested public benefit have authority to enforce the affidavit of
support. DHS and DOS have no authority and play no role in
enforcement, other than DHS’ providing copies of the affidavit of
support to the benefits granting agency and verifying whether the
affidavit is valid. There is no obligation that the benefits agency
provide information to DHS and DOS regarding sponsor
reimbursement. In fact, the agency may violate their own program
rules by disclosing the information.
State and federal laws protect the confidentiality of individuals who
apply for or receive public benefits. The federal statute under which
the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program
was established permits information sharing for the purpose of
program administration, and the limited purpose of enforcing child
support obligations. However, the statute also requires states to
have adequate safeguards to ensure that any information
exchanged is protected against unauthorized disclosure and
is made available only to the extent necessary to assist in the valid
administrative needs of the program (42 USC 1320b-7(a)(5)).
The authorizations requested in the proposed revised I-864 fall
outside the parameters authorized by the SAVE and benefits
statutes and regulations. In establishing the SAVE system, Congress
granted specific authorization to HHS to receive information for
child support purposes. 42 USC 1320b-7(a)(4)(B). See also 42 CFR
435.945(c). There is no similar grant of authority to DHS or USCIS.
The absence of a similarly specific authorization for sharing

Same response as above in 8.7.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
information with USCIS for use by USCIS suggests that it is barred by
the more general protections against sharing information.
...
Recommendation: Strike Sections L and M from Part 9.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.9

Section N of the proposed revised form requires sponsors to
“acknowledge” that failing to meet the obligations of sponsorship,
could render them ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future. There
is no statutory or regulatory authority for this exclusion from
sponsorship. See above discussion.
Recommendation: Strike Section N.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.10

Means-tested Public Benefits, page 2:
In the second paragraph, we are concerned with the statement that
“any” Federal, state, or local means-tested public benefits may be
subject to reimbursement. The instruction then references Part 7 of
the contract. Part 7 refers only to the section of federal law that
lists the federal benefit programs that are not considered Federal
means-tested benefits. The only federal benefits that have been
determined to be “federal means-tested public benefits” for
purposes of sponsor deeming and sponsor liability are
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps (Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid (non-emergency), and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Federal public benefits must meet very specific criteria [see
footnote 2] to be considered federal means-tested public benefits
under the 1996 welfare law. The statement is even less useful in
providing guidance on which state and local benefits may be
covered. Indeed, the affidavit of support regulations require that
federal, state, local government agencies issue a public notice of
their determinations of which benefits are considered “meanstested public benefits” for these purposes. The regulations
expressly state that sponsors are not liable for reimbursing
government agencies for benefits received before this notice is
provided. See 8 CFR 213a.4(b).
Recommendation: Use of the word “any” is overinclusive and will
cause confusion for sponsors as well as sponsored immigrants. We
ask that the contractual language focus specifically on the meanstested benefits that have been designated as such by the federal,
state or local entity administering the benefits per regulation. We
recommend replacing the word, “any,” with “designated,”
consistent with the recommended wording on the I-864.

Same response as above for this issue as it applies
to the I-864.
Form I-864 is governed by INA 213A and 8 CR 213a.
8 CFR 213a.1 defines means- tested public benefits
as “either a Federal means-tested public benefit,
which is any public benefit funded in whole or in
part by funds provided by the Federal Government
that the Federal agency administering the Federal
funds has determined to be a Federal means-tested
public benefit under the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-193, or a State means-tested public
benefit, which is any public benefit for which no
Federal funds are provided that a State, State
agency, or political subdivision of a State has
determined to be a means-tested public benefit…”
Therefore, if the benefit granting agency hasn’t
determined the benefit to be a means-tested public
benefit, it is not considered.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

8.11

Sponsor and Beneficiary Liability, page 3
We strongly object to the revision of the sentence: “Under section
213A of the Act, if the individual you are sponsoring receives
means-tested public benefits, you must reimburse the agency that
provides the benefits, and the agency that provides the benefits
may be able to sue you to recover the cost of the benefits provided
if you do not reimburse the agency.” The sentence omits an
important step in the process, among others, that the agency
providing the benefits must make a request to the sponsor for
repayment of the benefits. This may lead the sponsor to believe
that they must reimburse the benefits agency upon the sponsored
immigrant’s receipt of the benefits regardless of whether the
agency has taken any action to notify the sponsor, seek
reimbursement or determine whether liability applies. See 8 U.S.C.
1183a(b)(1).
Recommendation: The language should mirror the recommended
language in the second paragraph under the Section, Means-tested
Public Benefits, with the modification above limiting it to
designated benefits and adding the clarifying italicized
language in red: “If an immigrant sponsored in this affidavit
receives designated Federal, state or local means-tested public
benefits after having become a lawful permanent resident and
while the affidavit of support is in effect, the agency providing
the benefit may request that you reimburse the agency for the cost
of those benefits.
That agency can sue you if you do not reimburse the benefit
granting agency for the cost of the means-tested public benefits
provided.”

9.1

Mass Mail Campaign
1: Comment
Submitted by Kelsey
Perez Lopez, Total as
of 4/29/2020: 55

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. it benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
25

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.

same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law
Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ
permit the sponsor (and household member, if applicable) to sign
these forms under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal,
USCIS is proposing to require that these forms must be notarized by
a notary public in order for the forms to be properly executed. Such
a requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section
1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form
I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require that these forms
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic.
9.2

Under Oregon state law (where I reside), it is illegal for a notary to

USCIS appreciates this comment.
28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
notarize an immigration form as it does not have any notary
certificate wording or place to stamp on the form. This would also
be an unreasonable burden to our clients. Making them find a
notary and pay extra fees to get the document notarized (which
currently no state is allowed to, due to my explanation above). It
would also delay the filing of applications for our clients.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

Form I-864, Form I-864EZ, and Form I-864A all
contain fields for a notary to fill out and a place for
the notary stamp.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to the Form I-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ which would require U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card to provide in-depth bank account
information. Specifically, sponsors (and household members whose
income and/or assets are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would
be required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders.

10.1

Frederick Benz

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. it
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

Evan Benz
31

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.
I am an immigration attorney working primarily with medium
income families. They make enough to sponsor a family member,
but some have to ask for a joint sponsor in cases such as where the
US Citizen wife stays at home with the children and the immigrant
husband is working to provide for the family.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary

11.1

Kristin Boscia

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

Bank account information is not necessary or even relevant in order
to verify the sponsor or household member's income, which is done
through the submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
and tax statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.

will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

When we have to get a joint sponsor for a family based immigration
case, it is very difficult to convince some people to share the
information that is already required for the I-864. Putting the
requirement in place that we have to submit bank records will
make it impossible to convince some potential joint sponsors to be
willing to sign the Affidavit of Support, making it impossible for
some people to apply for their green card.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic.
I, as an attorney, find it incredibly difficult to get documents
notarized even though I have access to resources and other
colleagues who can help me get something notarized. This will
create an undue burden for applicants and will add additional cost
which is unnecessary for applicants to have to shoulder.

11.2

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
35

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.
I am an attorney with 10 years experience, working for low-income
immigrant communities.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
Access to detailed bank account information is not necessary to see
proof of income and assets for those who must show financial
support. In addition, there are privacy concerns for a sponsoring
individual. This step will deter some potential sponsors because of
their well-founded mistrust of what the immigration agencies may
do with personal information. Finally, this additional info on the
form will slow down the application and adjudication process, a
process that is already more lengthy than it should be.

12.1

Matthew Lamberti

Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
37

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
This is nothing more than a dilatory, needless hurdle for applicants.
A sworn statement is a sworn statement, and a petitioner,
preparer, or beneficiary submitting USCIS forms has already signed
many spaces, averring the truth of the statements and
acknowledging the penalties for misrepresentation. Particularly in
the middle of the public health crisis, this additional burden is
irresponsible and punitive.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to the Form I-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ which would require U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card to provide in-depth bank account
information. Bank account information is not necessary or even
relevant in order to verify the sponsor or household member's
income, which is done through the submission of Federal income
tax returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and letters of
employment. In some limited circumstances where the sponsor is
using assets, specifically money in a bank account to satisfy the 125
percent of the federal poverty guidelines, sponsors are already
required to provide evidence of those assets by submitting copies
of bank statements.
13.1

Barbara Bleisch

I believe this unnecessary requirement is being added for the
purpose of intimidating and discouraging potential sponsors.

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
39

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden
Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ
permit the sponsor (and household member, if applicable) to sign
these forms under penalty of perjury. The requirement to have the
form notarized by a notary public also adds undue and unnecessary
burdens on sponsors and the household members, especially under
conditions resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID- 19)
pandemic.
I believe this requirement is unnecessary, and it being added for the
purpose of discouraging potential sponsors.

For the reasons above, I oppose the agency's proposal to require
additional detailed banking information and notarization of the
sponsorship forms. These requirements are unnecessary and
intended to discourage sponsorship. I urge USCIS to remove these
requirements before the new editions of Form I-864, Forms I-864A,
and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Dear Sir/Madam:
This comment opposes changes to Form I-864, Affidavit of Support,
and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control Number 16150075. USCIS is proposing to require, among other things, that
"sponsors" providing this form to intending immigrants provide
unnecessary and unwarranted in-depth bank account information
and that the forms be notarized.
I oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms
I-864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.
I have been practicing immigration law for over 47 years and have
seen many changes to the law and the forms designed to
implement the law. These proposed changes serve no real
legitimate purpose and only service to create obstacles to the
orderly administration of our duly enacted immigration laws..
In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is an
Unwarranted Intrusion Without Any Legal Justification
Specifically, sponsors (and household members whose income
and/or assets are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would be
required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders.
14.1

Edwin Rubin

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
since the "sponsor" or household member's income is documented

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
through the submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
and tax statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns
especially in today's environment where cybercrime and identity
theft are becoming increasingly more prevalent. Even bank account
statements do not include full account numbers on statements in
recognition of this problem.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law

Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ are
signed under penalty of perjury. Requiring the forms to be signed in
front of a notary is inconsistent with and ultra vires under federal
law. 28 U.S.C. section 1746 which permits federal forms, including
Form I-864 and related Form I-864A and Form
I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury. Requiring the
notarization is also violative of the Administrative Procedure Act by
imposing this new requirement through a form revision rather than
rulemaking with notice and the opportunity to comment.
This requirement also adds an undue and totally unnecessary
burden on "sponsors". It appears solely designed to discourage
such sponsors from executing the forms without providing any
additional public benefit or serving any legitimate government
42

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
purpose.
Edwin Rubin

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
I oppose proposed changes to Form I-864 and related forms, USCIS2007-0029; OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS proposed,
among other things, that US citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their spouse for a green card provide in-depth
bank account information and have the forms notarized. For the
reasons below, I oppose the proposed changes to Forms I-864, I864A, and I-864EZ. I urge USCIS to remove these requirements
before the new editions of these forms are released.
I am a US Citizen, attorney, and law school faculty member. I have
been involved with the immigration system personally and
professionally over the past 20 years. The most impactful data
breach to me was the OPM breach when hackers obtained my
personal information, including social security numbers, past
addresses, past employers, etc. This was from my application for
security clearance, which should have been among the most
protected information the US Government maintained.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS proposes to add a new requirement to Forms I-864, I-864A,
and I-864EZ to require US citizens and lawful permanent residents
sponsoring their relatives for a green card to provide bank account
information. Specifically, sponsors (and household members) would
be required to provide the name of their bank, their bank account
number, the bank routing number, the account holder's name, and
the name of any joint account holders.
15.1

Kraig Rice

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all US citizen and lawful permanent resident sponsors. Bank

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
44

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
account information is not necessary or even relevant in order to
verify the sponsor or household member's income, which is done
through the submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
and tax statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this requirement raises significant privacy concerns. In
today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed bank account
information, particularly when it is not even relevant or necessary,
exposes them to risk of becoming an identity crime victim.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

I was personally affected by the OPM data breach, and as such, I am
sensitive to the information that is collected and potentially
available to hackers.

15.2

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Currently, Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ permit the sponsor (and Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
household member, if applicable) to sign these forms under penalty has a related support obligation. A notarized
of perjury. In its new proposal, USCIS proposed to require these
signature will better ensure that the person
forms to be notarized by a notary public in order for the forms to be executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
properly executed. Such a requirement is inconsistent with federal
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
law. 28 USC section 1746 permits federal forms, including Form ISponsor and Household Member is actually the
864, I-864A, and I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require that these forms
support obligation. In addition, since this
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
requirement helps ensure that the individual
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
requirement through a form revision.
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the
the immigration system and individuals that may
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by not wish to assume the significant financial
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
responsibility of sponsorship.
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID- submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
19) pandemic.
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
Particularly, during the middle of the coronavirus pandemic this
smacks of government-imposed burdens to create a hurdle for
46

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
petitioner/sponsors. Please do not increase the amount of personal
contact required among people to complete these forms. As an
attorney, I can file a declaration signed under penalty of perjury in
court which is legally equivalent to a notarized signature. Do not
introduce new rules that will help the virus spread!
Thus, I oppose USCIS's proposal to require, among other things, US
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their relatives
for a green card to provide in-depth bank account information on
Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ, and have these forms notarized. I
urge USCIS to remove these requirements before the new editions
of Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ are released to the public.

16.1

Mass Mail Campaign
2: Comment
Submitted by
Jacqueline Johnson,
Total as of 5/4/2020:
6

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
introduced changes to immigration Form I-864/Affidavit of Support
(and related forms) that would require U.S. citizens and resident
sponsors to provide in-depth bank account information in addition
to the extensive tax documentation requirements already in place.
The proposed revisions would also require all related forms to be
notarized by a notary publican unnecessary and inconvenient
regulation with no legal basis. The proposed changes would impose

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
needless burdens on immigrant families, and would not contribute
to the improvement of our current immigration system.
If similar documentation is not required by our President, there is
certainly no need to require this of immigrant families!

Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. it benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.

17.1

Jeremy Ehrlich

I strongly oppose these proposed changes. Requiring detailed bank
account information is burdensome, not necessary due to the
extensive tax documentation that is already required, and has the
potential to discriminate simply due to issues of poverty. Requiring
forms to be notarized, an expensive process and another hurdle to
jump through for immigrant families, is not necessary to ensure the
proper information is collected and is designed simply to prevent
these families from successfully applying. The current level of
information collected, and the manner in which it is currently
collected, is sufficient--these changes are entirely unnecessary.
Please reject them.

I am writing to oppose the proposed changes to immigration Form
I-864/Affidavit of Support that would require U.S. citizens and
resident sponsors to provide in-depth bank account information in
addition to the extensive tax documentation requirements already
in place. These revisions, along with the proposed amendment to
require all related forms to be notarized by a notary public, impose
unnecessary and inconvenient burdens on immigrant families with
no legal justification.

Commenter:
Christine Vivio

18.1

Submitter
Information
Submitter's
Representative:
Pramila Jayapal

I am a U.S. citizen who will be sponsoring my fiancee for a green
card in the coming months. There is no legal reason that my
personal bank account information needs to be shared with USCIS
to confirm my income, which can be done by reviewing my federal
income tax returns and W-2 wage statements. I am particularly
concerned about the sharing of such private information given the
associated cybersecurity risks. I was personally affected by the OPM
data breach after an internship with the Department of Justice
which required me to obtain security clearance. I refuse to support
my personal financial data being potentially exposed to hackers for
no legitimate purpose other than to add hurdles to the immigration
process. These changes will not improve our immigration system;
they will just add needless costs and logistical challenges to
immigrant families like mine.

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation.

19.1

Debra Wollesen

These proposed revision do not improve the process to the
immigration process. They are burdensome and no value. Requiring
a notary and at this time in particular is just short of ridiculous.

In addition, since this requirement helps ensure
that the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ,
or Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
51

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
financial responsibility of sponsorship. No changes
will be made based on this comment.

20.1

Pamela Gudino

This comment is submitted in opposition to the opposed changes. I
believe these changes will discourage people from applying to
adjust immigration status by creating additional barriers. It seems
an attempt to make immigration even more difficult for family
members. As a US citizen who has attempted to apply for legal
status for family members, I can attest the process is already
lengthy and burdensome. I applied for family members prior to
2012 and to this date have not heard any updates on status. I
believe that this measure also unfairly singles out people who are
low income and have less resources. People's economic status
should not be a criteria for immigration. Requiring notarization and
bank accounts puts sponsors at risk for exploitation and cybercrime.
An efficient and fair immigration system is a priority and these
measures only increase meaningless bureaucracy and create
additional barriers for the most vulnerable.

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
52

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

I am writing in opposition.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
introduced changes to immigration Form I-864/Affidavit of Support
(and related forms) that would require U.S. citizens and resident
sponsors to provide in-depth bank account information in addition
to the extensive tax documentation requirements already in place.
The proposed revisions would also require all related forms to be
notarized by a notary publican unnecessary and inconvenient
regulation with no legal basis. These proposed changes would
impose needless burdenson immigrant families, and would not
contribute to the improvement of our current immigration system.
21.1

Ruthanne RanzAppell

Again, I oppose these changes. Thanks for listening.
Ruthanne Ranz Appell

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
53

The proposed changes neither advance the rule of law, nor provide
additional information that is necessary. The information already
required and procedures already on the books are more than
sufficient. The agency has done its job effectively in the past while
using the existing information to process immigrant paperwork,
including affidavits.
The proposed requirement that all related forms would need to be
notarized by a notary public is an unnecessary and inconvenient
regulation with no legal basis. It is a solution in search of a problem;
the agency has provided no convincing evidence that the quality of
information it gathers would improve by requiting notarization.

22.1

Jeremy Pressman

Overall, the proposed changes would impose needless burdens on
immigrant families and would not contribute to the improvement
of our current immigration system.

No changes will be made based on this comment.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation.
In addition, since this requirement helps ensure
that the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ,
or Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant

23.1

Dawn Aiken

24.1

Anonymous

I am writing to oppose the proposed changes to Form I-864,
Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB
Control Number 1615-0075. The proposed revisions would require
an unnecessary and inconvenient regulation with no legal basis. The
proposed changes would impose needless burdens on immigrant
families, and would not contribute to the improvement of our
current immigration system. These unfair suggestions do not
represent the government that I vote for.
Thank you.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
introduced changes to immigration Form I-864/Affidavit of Support
(and other related forms) that would require U.S. citizens and
resident sponsors to provide detailed bank account information in
addition to the extensive tax documentation requirements that
already exist. The proposed revisions would also require all related
forms to be notarized by a notary public. This additional revision is
an unnecessary and inconvenient regulation with no real legal basis.
The proposed changes would add unnecessary burdens on
immigrant families, and would subsequently not contribute to the
improvement of our current immigration system in the United

No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
States. Because of all of the above, I am advocating against the
proposed process revisions that would burden immigrant families in
the United States of America.

25.1

Anonymous

As a concerned citizen, I strongly oppose these proposed changes.
As a publicly funded agency, USCIS must fulfill its mission to protect
the rights of all immigrants. It is unacceptable to require that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card provide in-depth bank account
information and have the forms notarized by a notary public. There
is no justification for imposing a tax on a person who is engaging in

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
this lawful behavior. I demand that USCIS withdraw this proposal
immediately.

the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

26.1

Anonymous

I am writing in opposition to proposed changes to Form 1864/Affidavit of Support (and related forms). These changes would
require U.S. citizens and resident sponsors to provide in-depth bank
account information in addition to the extensive tax documentation
requirements already in place. The proposed revisions would also
require all related forms to be notarized by a notary public, which is
an unnecessary and inconvenient regulation with no legal basis. The
proposed changes would impose needless burdens on immigrant
families, and would not contribute to the improvement of our
current immigration system.

Kelsey Livingston

28.1

Joy Scaglione

I am against these revisions. They will cause an unnecessary burden
on immigrants, and will not make the immigration system better.
These proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A
and I-864EZ would impose needless burdens on immigrant families,
and would not contribute to the improvement of our current
immigration system.
I am writing to oppose the changes outlined by USCIS to require
U.S. citizens and resident sponsors to provide in-depth bank
account as part of immigration Form I-864 and related forms.
Because sponsors must already provide tax forms demonstrating
that they have the resources to meet income and asset
requirements, this request for bank details accomplishes no new
purpose, while also increasing the burden on respondents. There is
no practical benefit to the agency, and the rule will not increase or
improve compliance with the current immigration rules.
Similarly, adding a requirement that forms be notarized is
unnecessary, lacks legal basis, and poses a significant obstacle to
applicants, especially in light of the current pandemic.

29.1

Janet Stein

These proposed changes impose burdens on American families that
are far greater than any supposed benefit to the agency or the US
government. I strongly oppose their approval.

No changes will be made based on this comment.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

30.1

Anonymous

As a citizen, a voter, and a taxpayer, I oppose this proposed
revision. AILA has made it clear that this revision places an undue
burden immigrant families by demanding extensive information
about their bank accounts and by requiring notarization for forms.
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services department exists to
SUPPORT and FACILITATE the process of applying for citizenship-that's why it has the word "Services" in its name, rather than
"Impediments" or "Obstacles" or "Undue Burdens"! I stand with
AILA, aspiring Americans, and immigrant families trying to file the
proper papers: please do not implement this unnecessary revision.

31.1

Julie Damerell

The proposed changes would impose needless burdens on
immigrant families, and would not contribute to the improvement
of our current immigration system. In fact, most citizens would
have trouble completing this amount of paperwork.

No changes will be made in response to this
comment.

32.1

Anne Esacove

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the

33.1

Jaime Giesen

34.1

Laurel Singleton

These changes are not being proposed for the stated reasons "returning the rule of law" or to strengthen the American
immigration system. These changes are being proposed to
advanced a racist agenda. There is no large-scale breaking of the
rule of law. The American people see this bigortry for what it is
worth. These changes are disgraceful.
I am writing to oppose the proposed changes to Immigration Form
I-864/Affidavit of Support (and related forms). These changes-requiring in-depth bank account information on top of the
comprehensive tax documentation already required and mandating
that all forms be notarized--place unnecessary burdens on sponsors
and immigrant families. And they would not contribute in any way
to improving our immigration system.

No changes will be made in response to this
comment.

Please stop making changes designed to cause difficulties to
immigrants.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
The proposed changes would impose needless burdens on
immigrant families, and would not contribute to the improvement
of our current immigration system.

35.1

Lisa Finlay

36.1

Anonymous

37.1

Lemlem D

38.1

Nina Miller

No changes will be made in response to this
comment.

I went through this process with my current husband, who was
sponsored by my father, 15 years ago. It was difficult and
burdensome then. We don't need to complicate it further.
This is annoying. I had to get all these documents together for a K-1 No changes will be made in response to this
visa and it took forever; there's no need for additional bank account comment.
information, especially for it to be notarized, when you're already
seeing all the tax information. You're just trying to make it harder to
bring immigrants, who ADD to this society, to the US. We see
through it.
This unfair proposed legislation would add an unnecessary
challenge to the already rigorous application process on the Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ.
Humanity is more important than ever during times like these;
please reject these proposed changes to require bank account
information and a notarized letter.

I oppose USCIS Changes to Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, and
Related Forms, Which Would Impose Unnecessary Burdens on
Immigrant Families.

USCIS posted a Federal Register Notice requesting
comment on a revision to an information
collection, not a rulemaking or proposed
legislation.
No changes will be made in response to this
comment.
No changes will be made in response to this
comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

39.1

40.1

41.1

Wendy Hoben

Ivan Stobert

denise fisher

These are unnecessary and burdensome revisions that do nothing
to address real issues in our immigration and citizenship systems.
Please don't waste government time and sponsor time and money
(to notarize additional documents) on these provisions.

This is violation of my rights. You already have all my tax filings!!
Routing and account number ???!!! Really ??!! All that can easily be
accessed by Freedom act by ANYONE!

The proposed revisions would require all related forms to be
notarized by a notary publican unnecessary and inconvenient
regulation with no legal basis. The proposed changes would impose
needless burdens on immigrant families, and would not contribute
to the improvement of our current immigration system.
Make life easier for people and make these regulations worthwhile.
Getting to a bank and getting papers notorized are not always easy
if you are working an 8-5 job. Stop making life harder for people
Denise Fisher

No changes will be made in response to this
comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

I am writing to oppose changes to the F1864/Affidavit of Support
and other forms that must be completed by sponsors of
immigrants, which would require them to submit bank account
details and to have their submissions notarized. Neither of these is
necessary nor legal under current laws.
Neither is necessary, either, and both are extremely inconvenient
and in many cases prohibitive, especially during the quarantine
periods rightfully observed by these citizens.
Mr. Mnuchin and others in the executive administration must alter
their values toward those of the citizenship, to support those trying
to do the right thing in this country.

42.1

Virginia Bove

Insistently,
Rev. Virginia Bove

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
I oppose changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, and related
forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control Number 1615-0075. I
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.

43.1

Kathleen Heid

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card. Bank account
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.

43.2

Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ
permit the sponsor (and household member, if applicable) to sign
these forms under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal,
USCIS is proposing to require that these forms must be notarized by
a notary public in order for the forms to be properly executed. Such
a requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section
1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form
I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require that these forms
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.
The requirement also adds undue and unnecessary burdens on
sponsors and the household members whose income and/or assets
are being used by the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign
national for a green card. In particular, this new requirement would
impose unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges
on the sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized
by a notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in
light of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic.

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. it
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
69

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

44.1

45.1

Bibie Adesioye

Anonymous

USCIS' Proposed Changes to the Affidavit of Support are
Unnecessary and Unlawful
The proposed collection of information absolutely is not necessary
for the "proper performance of the functions of the agency." The
information will similarly not have practical utility. For example,
why on G-d's green earth would you need the banking information
of the entire household if the regulation only requires the financial
guarantee of the sponsor? Another example of a failure of this
proposal - why would you need to have the tax forms notarized
when they are already official government documents? This is just
another burden placed on lawful immigrants trying to bring family
members lawfully by creepy Stephen Miller and the whole country
sees through it. Moreover, the Trump administration claims to be
trying to "fix" the immigration system while actually burdening it.
Why would you try to turn immigration lawyers into tax lawyers,
which is essentially what these new regulations are doing to the

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
70

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
practice. Similarly, this proposed rule does NOT fall in line with the
Administration's stated purposes of "small government" as they're
reaching into the banking information of United States' citizens all
over the country - whether that citizen is sponsoring an immigrant
or not. I bet the vast majority of the 420 comments that have been
submitted so far are against this rule, and I bet they will all be
ignored. Your administration (Trump Administration) is universally
reviled and this proposed rule will not help.
Please accept this comment on my opposition to changes for Form
I-864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS should remove
requirements that, among other things, require green card holders'
sponsors to disclose financial info before the new editions of these
forms are released to the public.
I am the child of immigrant parents and work in the immigrant
rights field. I see the effects of punitive immigration policy changes
ripple through communities seeking a better life for themselves and
their families. Our country is better than this, particularly because
we owe our successes and accomplishments as a country to
immigrants.

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary

46.1

Cynthia Housel

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
relatives for a green card to provide in-depth bank account
information. Specifically, sponsors (and household members whose
income and/or assets are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would
be required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders.
Why is USCIS asking for this when they have no standing to do so?
This additional requirement is just another delay tactic and undo
burden to prove what is already satisfactorily shared in the current
process.
This also exposes people to potential identify theft or other
unauthorized use of private information.
The process is already thorough enough. This is unnecessary.
I am not an attorney, but I stand with those in opposition to this
change. I implore USCIS to delete these new changes before the
new editions of Form I-864, Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are
released to the public.

47.1

Izzy Snyder

I am commenting to oppose changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of
Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control
Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require that U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card provide in-depth bank account
information and have the forms notarized by a notary public. I

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ. I have friends and family members who are
immigrants or legal permanent residents who already had to go
through many hurdles to achieve citizenship status. I believe that
adding more bureaucracy to this process will do nothing to increase
national security or ensure that immigrants are entering the
country legally, and will instead create an undue burden on
immigrants through an already tedious process and delay already
backed up legal immigration processes. Furthermore, these
additions are redundant, as bank account information is not
necessary or even relevant in order to verify the sponsor or
household member's income, which is done through the submission
of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and
letters of employment. Moreover, this exposes more people to the
risk of identity theft by disclosing detailed bank account
information, even though it is not even relevant or necessary. I urge
the agency to remove these requirements before the new editions
of these forms are released to the public.

Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. it benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
No changes will be made based on this comment.

I oppose the proposed changes to Form I-864, Affidavit of Support,
and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control Number 16150075. USCIS proposes to require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents who sponsor foreign relatives for LPR status to provide
personal bank account information and have forms notarized. I urge
the agency to drop these ominous and unnecessary requirements.
I am the owner of Rose Immigration Law Firm and represent
numerous families, and occasionally employer, that must submit
form I 864.
Requiring Bank Account Information from Sponsors is Unnecessary.
According to your proposal, petitioner:sponsors (and household
members whose income and/or assets are being used by a sponsor
to qualify) would be required to provide the name of their bank,
account and routing number, and name of the account holder and
any joint account holders.

48.1

Linda Rose

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information. The
current requirements provide sufficient information and proof of
income by way of federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
74

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
circumstances, the sponsor might use money in a bank account to
satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines and to
support this sponsors are already required to provide their banking
information.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy and
security concerns. In today's environment where cybercrime and
identity theft are becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to
disclose detailed bank account information, particularly when it is
not even relevant or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of
becoming an identity crime victim.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized is a
Needless Burden
Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ
permit the sponsor (and household member, if applicable) to sign
these forms under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal,
USCIS is proposing to require that these forms must be notarized by
a notary public in order for the forms to be properly executed. Such
a requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section
1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form
I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, the agency's proposal violates the Administrative
Procedure Act by imposing this new requirement through a form
revision.

48.2

The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds completely unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
75

not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. USCIS should
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public. Thank
you. Linda Rose, Esq.
My name is James Montana; I am a practicing immigration
attorney. I spent five years working in a legal aid nonprofit for
immigrants, and am now the principal attorney of a small
immigration law practice.

49.1

James Montana

I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. The proposed rule change
requires sponsors, joint sponsors, and household members to

USCIS posted a Federal Register Notice requesting
comment on a revision to an information
collection, not a proposed regulation.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
76

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
provide bank account information, including routing and account
numbers.
I am aware that many of my fellow practitioners have submitted
separate statements concerning the administrative burden of the
proposed regulation. I wish to add my voice to make one very
specific point: the regulation will not achieve the aim of forcing
sponsors to make good on their I-864 obligations.
The reason for this is simple: the regulation attacks the wrong
bottleneck. Federal and state law enforcement officials already
have a valid contract, enforceable in federal court, in state court,
and even as a private right of action, typically in family court
matters. See, e.g., Moody v. Sorokina, 40 A.D.2d 14, 19 (N.Y.S.
2007). Obtaining the routing and account numbers will not
significantly ease contract enforcement, because government
attorneys will need to sue for enforcement *before* collecting on
sponsors' obligation. The government isn't doing so now, and the
regulation provides no reason to believe that the government will
do so in the future. See., e.g., Greg McLawsen, The I-864 Affidavit of
Support: An Intro to the Immigration Form You Must Learn to
Love/Hate, Vo 48. No. 4 ABA Fam. L. Quarterly (Winter 2015).

Adding the administrative burden of collecting bank account
information, as well as notarization, would therefore serve no
legitimate end. The government is unlikely to recover a single dollar
more from sponsors in the event that the regulation is
promulgated.
77

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Respectfully,
James Montana, Esq.
Arlington, VA
I submit this comment to oppose changes for Form I-864, Affidavit
of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control
Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require, among other
things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card provide in-depth
bank account information and have the forms notarized by a notary
public. For the reasons outlined below, I oppose these proposed
changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and Form I-864EZ.
I urge the agency to remove these requirements before the new
editions of these forms are released to the public.

50.1

Leah Rumsey

I write as someone who has sponsored a foreign-born spouse.
While my family was well above the required income for
sponsorship, completing the paperwork required was extremely
difficult and we were separated for over a year because of this and
other administrative barriers. Since our marriage and his
immigration, my husband and I have contributed significantly to
American economic and educational life. We have served our town,
our religious communities, and our educational systems, but we
have not forgotten the barrier USCIS placed in our way.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to the Form I-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ which would require U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card to provide in-depth bank account
information. Specifically, sponsors (and household members whose
income and/or assets are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would
be required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders.

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

50.2

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.
Given that USCIS already requires extensive tax documentation, it is
clear that these new requirements are merely part of racist efforts
to limits to immigration to the United States. This looks especially
foolish as the Coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the extend
to which American rely on immigrants in fields such as medicine,
engineering, and public health.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

51.1

Kelli Livermore

The USCIS proposes significant changes to Form I-864, Affidavit of
Support, and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ. The proposed
changes would require, in addition to other requirements, a U.S.
citizen, and a lawful permanent resident sponsoring his or her
foreign spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth
bank account information, including the name of the banking
institution, account number, routing number, and the names of all
account holders. This information is unnecessary and irrelevant.
Sponsors already have to show they have enough income and/or

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
80

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
assets to support their foreign spouses or relatives at 125% of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines by submitting Federal income tax
returns and other relevant documentation. In addition, in some
limited circumstances in which the sponsor relies on assets,
specifically money in a bank account, to satisfy the 125% of the
federal poverty guidelines, the sponsor must provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Additionally, USCIS proposes to require sponsors to have the Form
I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ notarized, an
inconvenient and needless burden which has no basis in the law.
U.S. law permits these forms be executed under penalty of perjury.

52.1

Cara Ruiz

The changes introduced by the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services to the immigration form I-864/Affadavit of
Support that would require U.S. citizens and resident sponsors to
provide in-depth bank account information in addition to the
extensive tax documentation requirements already in place. This
new requirements seems unnecessary with the information already
required and a waste of money for the USCIS as they would then be
required to have additional personnel to review this information for

will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
81

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
an already time encumbersome process. Additionally, the proposed
revisions would require all related forms to be notarized by a notary
public which seems to be especially unnecessary and inconvenient
as well as unsafe during this time of COVID 19.

identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

53.1

Charlottte Frantz

I object to these changes, especially the collection of bank account
information. That seems invasive and unnecessary, given that
families or sponsors already are required to submit tax information.
Also, requiring a notary places an undue burden on those who must
submit materials.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

54.1

55.1

Amy Valens

Sara Siegel

It is unnecessary and too much of a burden to ask for this additional
information. It appears to me to be simply a way to dissuade people
from participating.

The proposed revisions would unnecessarily require all relevant
forms to be notarized by a notary public at any time this would be
an unnecessary and inconvenient regulation with no legal basis.
During a global health pandemic, this is truly a prohibitive action.
These proposed changes would impose needless burdens on
immigrant families, and they would not contribute to the
improvement of our current immigration system. They are just
another example of unnecessary hurdles implemented to further
harm our most vulnerable populations.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

56.1

57.1

Elizabeth Griffin

Shannon Baruch I

I am against the proposed change to formI-864/Affidavit of
Support. The change requiring Bank account information is
unnecessarily intrusive, and the information the agency needs can
be supplied, as it presently is, by access to the tax forms of the
sponsoring persons. This seems to me to be just one more way of
throwing roadblocks in the path of immigrants and the persons who
wish to sponsor them. Stop trying to make everything harder;
sponsorship is a good idea, but making the process more and more
iddifcult is simply unfair.
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
85

Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
This requirement at law would constitute an economic
strangulation of prospective sponsors, U.S. citizens and Lawful
Permanent Resident of immigrants for the sole purpose of
immigration control. The information would be futile since, over
the required) forty (40) quarters, bank accounts information may
likely change or sponsors may simply move their account to
another bank by simply closing the then. Under the current law,
Form I-864 provides the Government with sufficient security, the
sponsors' tax information assured that in perpetuity.
Sponsors' banking account information would become public
knowledge and can be requested under FOIA or subpoenaed
particularly in judicial proceedings, exposing the sponsors to
personal insecurity including cybercrime and identity theft.
Constitutionally, this would constitute an invasion of privacy by the
Government.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
86

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements from the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ before they become law and are
released to the public.
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

The proposed collection of information absolutely is not necessary
for the "proper performance of the functions of the agency." The
information will similarly not have practical utility. For example,
why would the agency need the banking information of the entire
household if the regulation only requires the financial guarantee of
the sponsor? Another example of a failure of this proposal - why
would you need to have the tax forms notarized when they are
already official government documents?

58.1

Anonymous
Anonymous

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

USCIS proposes to add a new requirement to the Form I-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ which would require sponsors to
provide the name of the banking institution, the number of the
bank account, the routing number of the account, the account
holder's name, and the name of any joint account holders.

59.1

Jeremy Jennings

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information.
Bank account information is not necessary or relevant in order to
verify the sponsor or household member's income, which is done
through the submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
and tax statements, and letters of employment. In the limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, sponsors are
already required to provide evidence of those assets by submitting
copies of bank statements.
88

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

This new requirement raises significant privacy concerns and
needlessly exposes sponsors to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim. As proposed, the I-864 will contain the
sponsor's name, date of birth, place of birth, social security
number, current address, and all personal bank information in one
document. It would be a hacker's dream.
Moreover, it also significantly increases liability of practicing
attorneys who will be required to obtain and store this very
sensitive financial information in order to represent our clients.
Professional liability insurance rates are likely to increase to cover
the heightened risk of loss, as are compliance costs as firms work to
safeguard this information.
Under its new proposal, USCIS is proposing to require that I-864
forms be notarized by a notary public in order to be properly
executed. Such a requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28
U.S.C. section 1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and
related Form I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under
penalty of perjury. Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require
that these forms must now be notarized by a notary public violates
the Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.

59.2

Further, no other immigration form, not even the new I-944, has a
notarization requirement. It is duplicative, unnecessary, and
apparently required only to increase the burden on potential
sponsors. This requirement would impose unnecessary costs, travel

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
burdens, and logistical challenges. This requirement is particularly
burdensome in light of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home
orders that are being imposed by local and state authorities, as well
as countries around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel
coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic.
Therefore, I oppose the agency's proposal and urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

60.1

Diana Gibaldi

Requiring documents to be notarized during a pandemic is unsafe
for all parties and is an unnecessary step in this process. Regardless
of the pandemic, this would not be an improvement to the current
system and would place a burden on families trying to immigrate to
the U.S. The bureaucracy and red tape required in this process
ought to be streamlined and made more efficient. Rather, it is a
process that requires someone to physically take printed material
to another person to handle, sign and then mail. This is creating a
measure that endangers the health and safety of immigrant families
and is another barrier to a legal pathway here.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

61.1

Margaret Shippert

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
introduced changes to immigration Form I-864/Affidavit of Support
(and related forms) that would require U.S. citizens and resident
sponsors to provide detailed bank account information in addition
to the existing financial information requirements. The proposed
changes would also require forms to be notarized by a notary public
which is unnecessary and inconvenient and has no legal basis. The
proposed changes would impose unnecessary and significant
burdens on immigrant families, and would not contribute to the
improvement of our current immigration system.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

62.1

Susan Loucks

63.1

Melissa Chavin

I am not in favor of these proposed changes to immigration Form I864/Affidavit of Support (and related forms). Speaking as someone
who was once a notary public in the state of Massachusetts,
notaries do not provide value for cost. I was not given guidance as a
notary - I bought the equipment, signed documents, and put them
in my ledger, without that meaning anything to either me or the
people whose documents I notarized. I don't see why increasing
bureaucracy and cost is an improvement to our already
cumbersome and inefficient immigration system. Please suggest
changes that lead to less paperwork, not more.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS- The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
2007-0029-0176&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
I am a US lawyer practicing immigration law since 2006 under
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
license from New York and Connecticut (inactive, but licensed and
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
in good standing in Texas). I am based in London, United Kingdom.
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
The new regulations would require notarization of signature from
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
the sponsors. Affidavit of Support forms already require signature
92

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
under penalty of perjury. Often sponsors are located outside the
United States, as they are spouses living with their foreign partners
abroad. These US citizens plan to move to the US with their foreign
national spouse, as soon as their immigrant visa is obtained. They
do not have access to American notary publics, except through the
US Embassy in London (USE London). The USE London notary
publics would be unduly burdened to have to have I-864
notarization added to their duties. Notary publics in the United
Kingdom, and much of Europe, are highly trained and provide more
than just signature witnessing services. As such, they charge lawyer
rates for their services, as opposed to the often free service
provided by bank branches in the United States.
This revision proposes to collect detailed bank account information
from half a million sponsors annually on both the Affidavit of
Support for a principal sponsor and a joint sponsor, as well as a
member of household. This includes account holder name, joint
account holder name, name of bank, bank account number and
bank routing number. This information would be invasive
information collection from US citizens by the Department of
Homeland Security/ USCIS. The information is private financial
information which could be used for maleficent purposes in the
wrong hands. It is not required information to determine
whether the applicant would become a public charge, when tax,
employment, and income information are already part of the
Affidavit of Support package. Please do not expose hundreds of
thousands of US citizens and legal permanent residents to
cybercrime and identity theft with unnecessary information
collection burdens.
I oppose collection of the gender of the sponsor. This information is

Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
Gender is a piece of biographical information that
USCIS collects across many of our forms to help
facilitate identity verification where needed.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
not relevant to whether under the totality of the circumstances the
immigrant would become a public charge

64.1

65.1

Janice O

Sally Ahnger

I am writing to OPPOSE the proposed revisions that would require
all related forms to be notarized by a notary publican unnecessary
and inconvenient regulation with no legal basis. The proposed
changes would impose needless burdens on immigrant families,
and would not contribute to the improvement of our current
immigration system.

I am opposed to these changes. The changes requested present
onerous and unnecessary requirements for people filling out the
Immigration form. If you have the tax info, you don't need bank

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
94

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
account info - that's an invasion of privacy. Also requires forms to
be notarized makes it that much harder for immigrants.

support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

66.1

Danielle Carne

I am writing to oppose requiring U.S. citizens and resident sponsors
to provide in-depth bank account information in addition to the
extensive tax documentation requirements already in place. The
proposed revisions would also require all related forms to be
notarized by a notary publican unnecessary and inconvenient
regulation with no legal basis. The proposed changes would impose
needless burdens on immigrant families, and would not contribute
to the improvement of our current immigration system. In fact, it
would seem to be designed to bury immigrants in red tape when
we should be welcoming them in anticipation of the Covid-19 death
toll.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I
oppose these proposed changes.
As an attorney I have assisted many US citizens and permanent
residents who sponsored their foreign immediate relatives and
relatives to USA in the past 38 plus years. These are my comments.

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary

67.1

K C Li

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.
As the forms will be used by the foreign relatives oversea and the
banking information is highly sensitive and protected under US law
it will make many potential sponsors Nervous as it may get into the
wrong hands when these informations are sent out.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law

67.2

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
98

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors .
I recalled that in the very beginning the Form was required to be
notarised and later it was changed to do away with the
notarisation. We all believed that was indeed a great improvement
on the part of the government. But now going backward with no
actual benefits but causing tremendous burden to US citizens are
not justified nor reasonable under the circumstances.

the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

68.2

Alethea Gerding

Requiring a notary creates a needless burden for these families, and
will slow down efficiency which is necessary for both the people
responsible for the procedures and for the families reliant on
decisions.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.

69.1

Nydia Gallego

I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.
As a practicing immigration attorney I know that applicants for
residency very much appreciate and value a sponsor's decision to
offer their support and to sign a legally binding contract with the
Government on their behalf. At the time of signing the Affidavit of
Support the sponsor is aware of the rules, seriousness and legally
binding commitment to be financially responsible for the alien to

No changes will be made based on this comment.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
100

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
the U.S. Government, and willingly provides the government with
sufficient evidence of his financial assets that show his or her ability
and willingness to offer support to the alien and willingly signs the
Affidavit of Support under penalty of perjury.
The present rules mandate disclosure of more than enough
information, which under the present rules the sponsor already
provides through filings of his or her tax returns, W2s, employment
letters, and even on his assets.
The new requirements USCIS is proposing would add an
unnecessary burden and would needlessly intrude into an sponsor's
private affairs without adding any information the Government is
already able to discover.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.
These new requirements are obviously a way for the Government
to deter many sponsors to offer their financial support to family
and friends and thereby add restrictions to legal immigration.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

101

2. USCIS violates Section 5 United States Code 706(1) and Norton v.
S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (the Congress
requests the petitioner to prove financial capacity to support the
beneficiary. All necessary information has been verified by I-944).

USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes violate
5 U.S.C. 706(1), the case law, or civil rights.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

3. USCIS simply creates unnecessary burden for the petitioner
and/or the cosponsor, which i snot supported by the U.S.
Constitutional right of pursue happiness.
I urge the agency to remove these requirements before the new
editions of these forms are released to the public.
70.1

Camlinh Rogers, Esq.

CAMLINH Nguyen Rogers, Esq.

102

71.1

Missy Guenther

I don't believe this unnecessary, burdensome regulation will
improve our current system.
The is a Comment on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) Notice: Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of
a Currently Approved Collection: Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the Act
For related information, Open Docket Folder
Comment
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075.
USCIS is proposing that Petitioner's/Sponsors submit personal and
time-consuming information in order for them to financially
sponsor a relative. In addition, USCIS is proposing that these forms
would need to be notarized - a burdensome and unnecessary
requirement. For the reasons outlined below, I oppose these
proposed changes to Form I-864. I urge USCIS to reconsider the
impact these changes could make and to remove these
requirements on the new form edition.

72.1

Holly Pai

I am an immigration practitioner in the state of Washington. I live
and work just 20 minutes from the Canadian border and much of

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
103

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
my practice consists of US citizens petitioning for their Canadian
spouse. My clients are mostly upper-middle class, professionals.
These requirements would be intrusive and insulting to the
thousands of US citizens attempting to have to their spouse live in
the same country as them.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to the Form I-864
which would require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card to
provide in-depth bank account information. Specifically, sponsors
would be required to provide the name of the banking institution,
the number of the bank account, the routing number of the
account, the account holder's name, and the name of any joint
account holders.
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card. Bank account
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment.
In some limited circumstances where the sponsor is using assets,

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.

104

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
sponsors are already required to provide evidence of those assets
by submitting copies of bank statements.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
Requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed bank account
information, particularly when it is not even relevant or necessary,
exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an identity crime
victim.

See response provided at 72.1.

Much of my correspondence with clients is done via email and we
send documents back and forth via email, or uploading into shared
cloud drives. Having sponsors send such information via
email/cloud sets them up to be victims of cyber crime or hacking.
Requiring Form I-864 to be Notarized by a Notary Public is an
Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent with U.S. Law

72.2

Currently, the Form I-864 require sponsors to sign these forms
under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal, USCIS is
proposing to require that these forms must be notarized by a
notary public in order for the forms to be properly executed. Such a
requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section 1746
permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form I864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require that these forms
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
105

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors whose income
and/or assets are being used to qualify a foreign national for a
green card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor to have these forms notarized by a notary public. This
requirement is particularly burdensome in light of social distancing
protocols and stay-at-home orders that are being imposed by local
and state authorities, as well as countries around the globe, as a
result of COVID 19
In addition, the requirement of having a form notarized by a notary
public does not increase the security or accuracy of these forms.
Notary publics merely notarize that the person signing the
document is who they purport to be. They in no way verify the
information contained in the document.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.
106

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

73.1

Beth Stickney, Maine
Business
Immigration
Coalition

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS- See responses below.
2007-0029-0202&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
The proposed form revisions will result keep families apart and
result in reduced family-based immigration and increased
demographic challenges in our aging country. The proposed form
revisions will result in reduced family-based immigration to the U.S.
Many U.S. citizens and permanent resident family-based petitioners
need household members or joint sponsors to to sign the I-864
form. The requirement that sponsors or joint sponsors provide their
bank account information, which in this age of identity theft is
generally closely guarded, or that they must have a notary witness
their signature, will make it even harder for petitioners to get joint
sponsors. Much of Maine's population lives in rural areas, and
getting a notarial signature can entail a long drive and substantial
effort. And this is not just a Maine problem - potential I-864
sponsors or joint sponsors in other states with rural populations
would face similar challenges in executing the I-864 if a notarial
signature is required. In Maine, more than two-thirds of immigrants
annually are family-based immigrants. From 2010 to 2016, Maine
gained barely more than 3000 new residents. Without family-based
immigration, Maine would have experienced a net population LOSS
during those years. And Maine is the nation's oldest state. Maine's
population of people over age 65 is already larger than its
population of people under 18. Simply put, family-based
immigrants are essential to Maine's demographic and economic
future. Maine's family-based immigrants tend to be younger, more
highly educated and are inclined to have more children (our next
generation of workers) than native Mainers. Adding needless new
requirements to the I-864 that will dissuade potential sponsors and
joint sponsors from signing the form, resulting in the inability of
qualifying family members to immigrate, will harm Maine's families
107

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

73.2

communities, Maine's employers, Maine's economy, and Maine's
future. And while Maine is ahead of the rest of the nation in terms
of our aging demographics, the rest of the country is not far behind.
This proposed I-864 changes goes against the nation's economic
interest and while ostensibly just a change in a form, is in fact a bad
policy choice. The proposed changes should be withdrawn for those
reasons, as well as for the specific objections raised below.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary USCIS is proposing to add a new
requirement to the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I864EZ which would require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card to provide detailed bank account information. There is no legal
authority for USCIS to require this information from all U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card. Bank account information is not
necessary or even relevant in order to verify the sponsor or
household member's income, which is done through the submission
of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and
letters of employment. In some limited circumstances where the
sponsor is using assets, specifically money in a bank account to
satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, sponsors
are already required to provide evidence of those assets by
submitting copies of bank statements. Moreover, this new
requirement raises significant privacy concerns. In today's
environment where cybercrime and identity theft are becoming
more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed bank
account information, particularly when it is not even relevant or
necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an identity
crime victim.

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.

108

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

73.3

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
has a related support obligation. A notarized
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
signature will better ensure that the person
with U.S. Law Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
and I-864EZ permit the sponsor (and household member, if
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
applicable) to sign these forms under penalty of perjury. Under its
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
new proposal, USCIS is proposing to require that these forms must
be notarized by a notary public in order for the forms to be properly sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
executed. Such a requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28
U.S.C. section 1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
related Form I864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under
the actual sponsor or household member that
penalty of perjury.
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require that these forms
the immigration system and individuals that may
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
not wish to assume the significant financial
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
responsibility of sponsorship.
requirement through a form revision. And as noted previously, this
new requirement would impose unnecessary costs, travel burdens,
and logistical challenges on the sponsor/household member to
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
have these forms notarized by a notary public. This requirement is
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
particularly burdensome in light of social distancing protocols and
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
stay-at-home orders that are being imposed by local and state
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
authorities, as well as countries around the globe, as a result of the petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
2019 novel coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic. In conclusion, I
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
oppose the agency's proposal and urge USCIS to remove these
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
requirements before the new editions of Form I-864, Forms I-864A, exposure and spread of COVID-19.
and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

109

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require that
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their
foreign spouse or relatives for a green card provide in-depth bank
account information and have the forms notarized by a notary
public. I oppose these changes. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS wants to add a requirement to the Form I-864 and related
Forms I-864A and I-864EZ to require U.S. citizens and lawful
permanent residents sponsoring their foreign relatives for a green
card to provide in-depth bank account information. Sponsors (and
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
a sponsor to qualify) would be required to provide the name of the
banking institution, the number of the bank account, the routing
number of the account, the account holder's name, and the name
of any joint account holders.
74.1

John Egan

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
110

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information.
Bank account information is not necessary to verify the sponsor or
household member's income. That is done through the submission
of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and
letters of employment.
This is just one more way to impose unnecessary hurdles in the
process, and discourage applicants.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law
Currently, Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ permit
the sponsor to sign these forms under penalty of perjury. USCIS is
proposing to require that these forms be notarized by a notary
public. 28 U.S.C. section 1746 permits federal forms, including Form
I-864 and related Form I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed
under penalty of perjury.
This proposal adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors
and the household members by imposing unnecessary costs, travel
burdens, and logistical challenges.
This requirement is particularly burdensome in light of social
distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders as a result of the
2019 novel coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic.

COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

I urge USCIS to remove these requirements before the new editions
111

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
of Form I-864, Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the
public.

75.1

Diane Paul

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.
I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to proposed
changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms,
USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control Number 1615-0075. I urge the
USCIS to remove these requirements before the new editions of
these forms are released to the public. My comments are based on
my experience as an attorney and social worker serving families and
children in New York City.
USCIS states that it has made changes to Form I-864 and related
documents "to better inform sponsors and household members of
their support obligations and better ensure the support obligation .
. . will be met." However, USCIS's proposed requirements are
neither relevant or necessary to this purpose.

76.1

Mary Jane Cotter

USCIS proposes a requirement that sponsors (and household
members whose income and/or assets are being used by a sponsor
to qualify) provide the name of the banking institution, the number
of the bank account, the routing number of the account, the

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
account holder's name, and the name of any joint account holders.
However, USCIS already has the ability to verify the sponsor's or
household member's income through the submission of Federal
income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and letters of
employment.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
Identity theft is widespread and requiring all sponsors to disclose
detailed bank account information, particularly when it is not even
relevant or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of
becoming an identity crime victim.
USCIS is also proposing to require that these forms be notarized by
a notary public in order for the forms to be properly executed. Such
a requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section
1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form
I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
In effect, USCIS is imposing a new requirement via a form revision
and this proposal violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
Further, the proposed requirement to have the form notarized by a
notary public also adds undue and unnecessary burdens and costs
on sponsors and the household members whose income and/or
assets are being used by the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign
national for a green card, and is especially burdensome at a time of
social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders being imposed
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

In sum, I strongly oppose USCIS's proposal that would require,
114

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card must provide in-depth bank account information on Form I864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ, and have these forms
notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to remove these
requirements before the new editions of Form I-864, Forms I-864A,
and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.

Please stop adding red tape for no reason to make things hard for
asylum seekers to the United States. This is punching down with a
vengeance and fearful, hate-filled heart. There is no logical reason
for this. It adds nothing other than pain, difficulty, and hardship to
people already suffering. Just stop adding stuff like this.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

I oppose this completely. It is a waste of resources for everyone.
STOP making things harder on people. This doesn't make any of us
safer and we are in desperate need of new people in this country.
We are founded on taking in all peoples who want to make a new
life. Let us keep up our values and traditions instead of trying to
keep out the new. The new sustains us.
77.1

Eileen Gormly

78.1

Allyson Whipple

Thank you,
I oppose the changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, and
related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control Number 1615-0075.
I oppose the proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ that require lawful US citizens and
permanent residents to provide in-depth bank account information
and have those forms notarized. I urge the agency to remove these

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.
There is no legal reason why bank account information should be
required, and USCIS has no authority to require it. There are other
methods in place to verify income, such as tax forms (If people
aren't submitting their taxes, there are bigger problems!) and
letters of employment. Sponsor forms and letters can also verify
income and assets. We already have the infrastructure in place.
Requiring bank account information is invasive, and also a personal
security risk. Cybercrime is a constant threat, and as our lives move
more and more online, that risk increases by the day. It seems like
data breaches are part of the national landscape now. I do not trust
USCIS to keep people's private financial data safe. If that
information is compromised it could be financially devastating. We
do not need another avenue for people to become financial crime
victims.
The notary public requirement is also burdensome and
unnecessary. Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A
and I-864EZ permit the sponsor (and household member, if
applicable) to sign these forms under penalty of perjury. The notary
public requirement is inconsistent with federal law, and violates the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision. Household members and
sponsors already have heavy requirements placed upon them.
Adding this doesn't actually help. Furthermore, in light of COVID-19,
it's especially unhelpful.

Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
116

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029;
OMB Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.

79.1

Cathleen Dinsmore

I am a practicing immigration attorney for a nonprofit organizations
representing low income immigrants. The proposed requirements
for sponsors would significantly impact my clients in several

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
significant ways.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card. Bank account
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
These new requirements would place an undue burden on sponsors
an expose them to a greater threat of identity theft and cyber crime
as well as unnecessarily diminish their right to privacy.
Consequently, some potential sponsors will decide the risks and
threats are not worth being a sponsor.

integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law

See response to 79.1

79.2

Working remotely to serve my low income immigrant clients during
COVID-19 has made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
forward original documents to my clients, have them sign the
documents, and then return those documents to me in a
reasonable time. Requiring that documents be signed in front of a
notary public would be not only unfeasible but also unreasonable,
119

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
not to mention unnecessary given all the other information the
sponsor must provide and the government has at its disposal to
determine financial eligibility. Our country relies heavily on
immigrants and, particularly, low income immigrants who fulfill our
country's employment needs for manual labor and other essential
jobs many citizens are unwilling to perform.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

80.1

Anonymous
Anonymous

81.1

NK Stevenson

I am in opposition to this proposed change as it is not only
unnecessary but also borderline invasive as the required
information is already provided by means of Tax returns/
transcripts etc. I believe it is not in the best interest of the sponsors
or the intending immigrants to place added pressure on them while
navigating an already sensitive and somewhat stressful process.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

I am writing because I have become aware that the The US
Citizenship and Immigration Services has introduced changes to the
immigration Form I-864/Affidavit of Support and other related
forms.

I am writing to oppose these changes that would require U.S.

120

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
citizens and their sponsors to provide detailed bank account
information for many reasons bur especially because extensive tax
documentation requirements are already required.
These proposed revisions would also require the variety of forms to
be notarized by a notary public which I feel is an unnecessary and
inconvenient regulation that carries no legal regard.
In summary, I oppose these proposed changes because they would
impose severe burdens on immigrant families and would not cause
any improvements to our current immigration system.
Thank you!

121

No changes will be made based on this comment.

I am from CA ZIP 94403, and I am commented against the proposed
process revisions.
The existing process already requires the US Citizen and resident
sponsors to submit extensive tax documentation; the addition of
the in-depth bank account information is superfluous and onerous.

82.1

Forrest McDonald

Additionally, requiring notarization of all of the documents adds
redundant burdens on the immigrant families and their sponsors.
The Form I-864 process already carries significant penalties for
falsifying information; the notarization process will not significantly
contribute to the submission of accurate information.

With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
122

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).

No changes will be made based on this comment.
The proposed changes to the immigration rules should not be
implemented and are yet another disgrace for our country.
Countries across the world have taken on the responsibility of
aiding refugees fleeing their home countries for fear of their lives.
I've seen the housing that Spain built in the Canary Islands for
refugees from Africa and I've seen the housing that Turkey built to
for its Syrian refugees until it ran out of funds to do so. Turkey, a
predominantly Muslim country has, at this point, taken in 3.6
million Syrian refugees - more than any other country.
83.1

USCIS posted a Federal Register Notice requesting
comment on a revision to an information
collection, not a proposed regulation.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Cecilia Ball
123

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Yet here in the United States, the 2019 ceiling for Latin American
and Carribbean countries was set at 3,000, in spite of the fact that
the majority of our produce is picked by illegal immigrants from
Latin America. As Covid19 has proven, these people are desperately
needed to pick our crops. Farmers will continue to use illegal
immigrants to pick crops and Slaughter houses will continue to use
illegal immigrants to kill and butcher meat because it's so much
easier to bully illegal immigrants into accepting poor and dangerous
working conditions and substandard pay. These new rules are
simply another way to insure the United States has a "slave" class
of people to do it's hardest jobs.
If this administration really wants people to carry their own weight,
it would never have allowed obscenely rich companies to drain the
funds which were meant to help small businesses in the Covid19
relief legislation. Collectively, small businesses are the largest
employers in this country.
These new rules are shameful - and anyone who had a hand in
crafting them or justifying them should be ashamed.

84.1

Donna Dominguez

I am writing in opposition to the USCISs proposal to add a new
requirement to the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I864EZ which would require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card to provide in-depth bank account information. Specifically,
sponsors (and household members whose income and/or assets are
being used by a sponsor to qualify) would be required to provide
the name of the banking institution, the number of the bank

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
124

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
account, the routing number of the account, the account holder's
name, and the name of any joint account holders.
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card. Bank account
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.

identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made as a result of this
comment.

Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.

85.1

Lisa Liang

I oppose the agency's proposal that would require, among other
things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card must provide indepth bank account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and
Form I-864EZ, and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I
urge USCIS to remove these requirements before the new editions
of Form I-864, Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
public.
Bank account information is not necessary or even relevant in order
to verify the sponsor or household member's income, which is done
through the submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
and tax statements, and letters of employment. The new
requirement also raises significant privacy concerns. In today's
environment where cybercrime and identity theft are becoming
more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed bank
account information, particularly when it is not even relevant or
necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an identity
crime victim.
The notary public requirement is particularly burdensome in light of
social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are being
imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries around
the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID- 19)
pandemic.
The new requirements would impose needless burdens on
immigrant families, and would not contribute to the improvement
of our current immigration system.
Again, I urge USCIS to remove these requirements before the new
editions of Form I-864, Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are
released to the public.

the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
126

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

86.1

Rachael Grant

The additional requirements of notarization and bank account
information do not make sense and seem to have no purpose other
than making the Affidavit of Support more difficult, timeconsuming, and unnecessarily invasive. The instances of having to
enforce a sponsor's contract are exceedingly rare and there are
already existing provisions in the law for such enforcement--which
are not made any easier by these new requirements. Why should
sponsors have to provide their bank account information? The
government doesn't have the authority to levy those bank
accounts, even if the sponsored immigrant later does end up
getting public benefits. Having a sponsor's bank account number
does not further any adjudicative outcome. As for notarization-what purpose does that serve? The sponsor is already swearing
under penalty of perjury that the information is correct. I am a
notary public, and I know that a notary's acknowledgement only
confirms the identity of the signer--the notary public doesn't
independently confirm the truth of any information in the
document. If the Service has doubts about the authenticity of a
sponsor's signature or identity, there are mechanisms in place for
probing that issue more deeply. But having a notary public reconfirm every sponsor's sworn attestation is an overreaction,

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
particularly because it (1) exposes the sponsor's personal
information to more strangers, and (2) requires the sponsor to
travel to and pay a notary public, who must sign and stamp the
documents in person. In a time when the government is supposed
to be encouraging everyone to reduce their movement and
interpersonal contacts due to COVID-19, why is the immigration
service seeking to impose additional unnecessary social contacts
between strangers? Neither of these requirements are rational or
logical, unless you consider the unstated, just-barely-hiddenbeneath-the-surface purpose of reducing legal immigration.
Needless to say, that is NOT a legitimate purpose of this agency.

make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

87.1

Evangelina Alvarez,
The Michigan
Immigrant Rights
Center (MIRC)

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0205&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
The Proposed Revisions to the Instructions and Forms are Not
Written in Plain Language The additional language proposed in the
revised instructions and forms do not conform to the Plain Writing
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-274) and OMB Guidance implementing

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

87.2

the Act7 . Specifically, the Guidance states that “avoiding vagueness
and unnecessary complexity makes it easier for members of the
public to understand and to apply for important benefits and
services for which they are eligible.” Plain language makes it easier
for the public to comply with applicable requirements simply
because they will better understand what they are supposed to
do.” Throughout this comment, we note the many ways the
proposed revisions to the instructions and forms create more
complexity, and in some instances, are vague, which makes it more
difficult for the public to understand their rights and
responsibilities. The confusion resulting from these proposed
changes will inevitably lead to costly and inefficient operations of
federal agencies and create more challenges for the public using
the forms as they try to understand and navigate the additional
information.
I. Comments on Proposed Revisions to Instructions to Form I-864
Means-tested benefits, page 1 In the second paragraph, we are
concerned with the replacement of the modifier “designated”, with
“any” Federal, state, or local means-tested public benefits. The
instruction then references Part 9 of the contract. Part 9 only refers
to the section of federal law that specifies federal programs that
are not considered federal means-tested public benefits for
purposes of deeming and sponsor liability. Federal benefits
determined to be means-tested for purposes of deeming and
sponsor liability are Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food
stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP),
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid (nonemergency), and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services outlined the
very specific criteria to determine which federal public benefits
meet the definition of federal means-tested public benefits under

and household members have all the information
they need to properly complete the forms and
understand the specific legal obligations to which
they are agreeing.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

87.3

the 1996 welfare law.8 Finally, the regulations require that federal,
state, and local government agencies issue a public notice of their
determinations of which benefits, if any, under their jurisdiction
would be considered federal, state, or local means-tested public
benefits for purposes of these laws. The regulations expressly state
that sponsors are not liable for reimbursing government agencies
for any benefits received by the sponsored immigrant prior to the
time that this public notice is provided. See 8 CFR 213a.4(b).
Recommendation: Use of the word “any” is overbroad and will
cause confusion for sponsors as well as for the sponsored
immigrants regarding which benefits are potentially subject to
reimbursement under the contract. We believe that the language
regarding which benefits are included be limited to the meanstested benefits that have been designated specifically as such by
the federal, state, or local entity administering the benefits per
regulation.
Sponsor and Beneficiary Liability, page 3 We believe that the
addition of the sentence “Under section 213A of the Act, if the
individual you are sponsoring receives means-tested public
benefits, you must reimburse the agency that provides the benefits,
and the agency that provides the benefits may be able to sue you to
recover the cost of the benefits provided if you do not reimburse
the agency” will cause confusion among both immigrants and their
sponsors. The sentence removes an important step in the process,
among others, that the agency providing the benefits must make a
request to the sponsor for repayment of the benefits. If this step is
removed, one could read the sentence as requiring the sponsor to
repay the agency whenever the sponsored immigrant receives the
benefit, regardless of whether the agency has taken any action to
notify the sponsor, seek reimbursement or determine whether
liability applies. See 8 U.S.C 1183a(b)(1). Recommendation: The

hasn’t determined the benefit to be a meanstested public benefit, it is not considered.

130

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

87.4

87.5

language should mirror the language in the second paragraph under
the Section “Means-tested Public Benefits,” with the modification
above limiting it to designated benefits and adding the italicized
additional helpful language. It should read: “If an immigrant
sponsored in this affidavit receives designated Federal, state, or
local means-tested public benefits after having become a lawful
permanent resident and while the affidavit of support is in effect,
the agency providing the benefit may request that you reimburse
the agency for the cost of those benefits. That agency can sue you if
you do not reimburse the benefit-granting agency for the cost of
the means-tested public benefits provided.”
Liability Due to Misinformation Similar to the section above, it is
unclear why USCIS is including information about liability stemming
from other federal agencies’ programs and statutory authorities.
We are unsure as to how this is related to the affidavit of support
and it could cause confusion and concern that it is related to the
immigration process. It is also unnecessary and confusing to include
the last paragraph regarding its inapplicability to refugees and other
categories of individuals who are not required to file an I-864.
Recommendation: Strike this section entirely.
II. Comments on Proposed Revised Form I-864 Part 9. Sponsor’s
Contract, Statement, Contact Information, Certification, and
Signature 4 What if I Do Not Fulfill My Obligations? We are
concerned about the following paragraph: “If a Federal, state, local,
or private agency provided any covered means-tested public
benefit to the person who becomes a lawful permanent resident
based on this Form I-864 that you signed, you are responsible for
reimbursing the agency for the amount of the benefits they
provided. If you do not make the reimbursement, the agency may
sue you for the amount that the agency believes you owe. If you fail
to reimburse the benefit-granting agency, you may become

INA 213A, 8 CFR 213a and Form I-864 deal with
support obligations, which includes
reimbursement. This section provides additional
clarity on joint and several liability and was added
to ensure sponsors are better informed of their
obligations. USCIS notes this does not alter the
existing support obligations under INA 213A. No
changes will be made based on the comment.
USCIS is editing the Sponsor’s Certification
statement in response to this comment. The
language will be changed from “If you fail to
reimburse the benefit granting agency, you may
become ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future”
to “If you fail to reimburse the benefit granting
agency upon request, you may be found ineligible
to be a sponsor in the future” (edits in italics).

131

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future.” The proposed revised
language removes the required step, among others, that the
benefits granting agency request reimbursement before the
sponsor is required to repay the benefits. This may lead the sponsor
to believe that they must reimburse the benefits-granting agency
upon the sponsored immigrant’s receipt of the benefits, regardless
of whether the agency has taken any action to notify the sponsor,
seek reimbursement, or determine whether liability applies. See 8
U.S.C 1183a(b)(1). The proposed addition of the last sentence
regarding the possible disqualification of the sponsor to sponsor
anyone in the future is not authorized by statute. There is no legal
basis for this statement. The statute sets forth the requirements for
being a sponsor or joint sponsor. 8 U.S.C 1183a(f). The regulations
further define the requirements for being a sponsor. 8 CFR §§
213a.2(c)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (C)(1). Neither the statute nor the
regulations contain language stating that the reimbursement of
means-tested benefits for other sponsored immigrants is a
requirement for being a sponsor. The agency cannot create new
law through amending a form. The 30-day notice acknowledges this
by stating: “The regulations governing the Affidavit are provided in
8 CFR 213a, and will not be changed by this form change.”
However, adding the above sentence would effectively change the
regulations. Moreover, the proposed additional language implies
that the sponsor’s obligations continue without exception and in
perpetuity, even after the sponsored immigrant becomes a U.S.
citizen. Recommendation: Replace the above paragraph with the
following: “If a Federal, state, local, or private agency provided
designated means-tested public benefits to the person who has
become a lawful permanent resident based on a Form I-864 that
you signed, while the I-864 is in effect, the agency may ask you to
reimburse them for the amount of the benefits they provided. If
132

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
you do not make the reimbursement, the agency may sue you for
the amount that the agency believes you owe.”

87.6

Sponsor Certification, page 8. We are concerned about the
expansion of the certification section that includes authorizations
for release of information. These releases of information include
personal identifying information that sponsors are asked to agree
to as part of executing the affidavit of support that are not related
to law enforcement or administration of the programs.
Section F, which refers to the Sponsor and Beneficiary Liability
section in the instructions, does not include any reference to a
sponsor’s responsibilities under the Social Security Act or the Food
Stamp Act. It is unclear of what specific responsibilities the sponsor
is certifying to being aware. Furthermore, it is outside the scope of
USCIS’ authority to require certification of awareness of the
statutory authorities of other federal agencies. Recommendation:
Strike the second part of the sentence, “and am aware of my
responsibilities as a sponsor under the Social Security Act, as
amended and the Food Stamp Act, as amended.”

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

87.7

sponsorship requirements, including pursuit of
recoupment when warranted from a sponsor who
is a liable third party. This information collection
supports the purposes of Federal means-tested
public benefit programs in assisting the valid
administrative needs of the respective programs as
they relate to the sponsorship obligations found at
section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1631, in DHS
regulations at 8 C.F.R. Part 213a, and in applicable
guidance.
Same response as 87.7.

134

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
and is made available only to the extent necessary to assist in the
valid administrative needs of the program (42 U.S.C 1320b-7(a)(5)).
The authorizations requested in the proposed revised I-864 fall
outside of the parameters authorized by the SAVE and other
benefits statutes and regulations. In establishing the SAVE system,
Congress granted specific authorization to HHS to receive
information for child support purposes. 42 U.S.C 1320b-7(a)(4)(B).
See also 42 CFR 435.945(c). There is no similar grant of authority to
DHS or USCIS. The absence of a similarly specific authorization for
information sharing with USCIS for use by USCIS suggests that it is
barred by the more general protections against sharing
information. Notably, the statute that governs the enforcement of
the affidavit of support grants authority to the Attorney General to
provide information that can be retrieved through the SAVE system,
about whether a person has an enforceable affidavit. 8 U.S.C
1183a(a)(3)(C). No similar authorization exists for states to report
their own activities with respect to sponsor reimbursement. And
the regulations implementing that provision address only USCIS’
provision of information to the states, upon request from the state.
8 CFR 213a.4(a)(v)(3). Neither 8 U.S.C 1183a (the affidavit of
support statute), the SAVE statute, nor any other statute,
authorizes USCIS to require sponsors to consent to allow other
federal and state and local agencies to share information about
them as a prerequisite for becoming a sponsor. 42 U.S.C 1320b7(A)(5)(B) grants various federal agencies the authority to
determine the purposes that fall within the scope of administering
the program, versus the “other purposes” for which unauthorized
disclosure must be protected (e.g. Secretary of Labor for
unemployment compensation). The section below it, 42 U.S.C
1320b-7(d) does not grant DHS/USCIS any similar authority. States
that operate health care, nutrition, or economic support programs
135

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
agree to protect the information, and to use and disclose it only for
the purposes of determining eligibility or administering the
program, with very limited exceptions. For example, the Medicaid
program requires states to safeguard information concerning
applicants and recipients by restricting the use or disclosure of such
information to purposes directly connected to the administration of
the plan, with few exceptions. See 42 U.S.C 1396a(a)(7). Similarly,
state agencies that administer SNAP must include in their state
plans safeguards that prohibit the use or disclosure of information
obtained from applicant households except for the administration
of the program or enforcement pursuant to the SNAP statute or
other federal assistance programs. See 7 U.S.C 2020(e)(8). Critical
for all consumers is the expectation of privacy. The proposed
information sharing here falls outside of these permissible uses and
adds to the fear and confusion that prevents eligible immigrants
and their family members from securing necessary services. By
compelling a sponsor to pre-authorize this otherwise impermissible
information sharing, DHS is attempting to circumvent these
program privacy and confidentiality protections. This is
unnecessary, potentially unlawful, and will create additional
burdens for benefits agencies. Recommendation: Strike Sections L
and M from Part 9.

87.8

Section N of the proposed revised form requires sponsors to
“acknowledge” that failing to meet the obligations of sponsorship,
could render them ineligible to sponsor any other immigrant in the
future. There is no statutory or regulatory authority for this
exclusion from sponsorship. See above discussion.
Recommendation: Strike Section N.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

87.9

III. Comments on Proposed Revisions to Instructions for Form I864EZ Means-Tested Public Benefits, page 2: In the second
paragraph, we are concerned with the statement that “any”
Federal, state, or local means-tested public benefits may be subject
to reimbursement. The instruction then references Part 7 of the
contract. Part 7 refers only to the section of federal law that lists
the federal benefit programs that are not considered Federal
means-tested benefits. The only federal benefits that have been
determined to be “federal means-tested public benefits” for
purposes of sponsor deeming and sponsor liability are
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps (Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid (non-emergency), and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Federal public benefits
must meet very specific criteria [see footnote 2] to be considered
federal means-tested public benefits under the 1996 welfare law.
The statement is not useful in providing guidance on which state
and local benefits may be covered. Indeed, the affidavit of support
regulations require that federal, state, and local government
agencies issue a public notice of their determinations of which
benefits are considered “means-tested public benefits” for these
purposes. The regulations expressly state that sponsors are not
liable for reimbursing government agencies for benefits received
before this notice is provided. See 8 CFR 213a.4(b).
Recommendation: Use of the word “any” is overbroad and will
cause confusion for sponsors as well as sponsored immigrants. We
ask that the contractual language focus specifically on the meanstested benefits that have been designated as such by the federal,
state, or local entity administering the benefits per regulation. We
recommend replacing the word “any” with “designated,” consistent
with the recommended working on the I-864.

Same response as 87.2.

137

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Sponsor and Beneficiary Liability, page 3 We strongly object to the
revision of the sentence: “Under section 213A of the Act, if the
individual you are sponsoring receives means-tested public health
benefits, you must reimburse the agency that provides the benefits,
and the agency that provides the benefits may be able to sue you to
recover the cost of the benefits provided if you do not reimburse
the agency.” The sentence removes an important step in the
process, among others, that the agency providing the benefits must
make a request to the sponsor for repayment of the benefits. This
may lead the sponsor to believe that they must reimburse the
benefits agency upon the sponsored immigrant’s receipt of the
benefits, regardless of whether the agency has taken any action to
notify the sponsor, seek reimbursement, or determine whether
liability applies. See 8 U.S.C. 1183a(b)(1). Recommendation: The
language should mirror the recommended language in the second
paragraph under the Section “Means-Tested Public Benefits”, with
the modification above limiting it to designated benefits and adding
the clarifying italicized language in red: “If an immigrant sponsored
in this affidavit receives designated Federal, state, or local meanstested public benefits after having become a lawful permanent
resident and while the affidavit of support is in effect, the agency
providing the benefit may request that you reimburse the agency
for the cost of those benefits. That agency can sue you if you do not
reimburse the benefit granting agency for the cost of the meanstested public benefits provided.”

87.10

88.1

Susan Permut

I very much oppose making it more difficult for immigrant families
and their sponsors to provide more in-depth information about
their finances. I believe the regulations already in place are
sufficient.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

138

89.1

90.1

Anonymous

Charlotte JonesCarroll

Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
I am a us citizen and aware of the process it takes to get a loved one
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
to the us via immigration. It is lengthy and requires a lot of
identifiable information. Bank account information
documentation. Immigration agents already have access to the
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
sponsors income in the I485 with the income tax. To request bank
same manner as other sensitive information
statements is absurd and not necessary. Not only is it making more
possessed by USCIS.
work for the agents processing the documents but it is also
intrusive to the sponsor. The procedure is already intrusive enough No changes will be made based on this comment.
why make more issues and waste more time. Not necessary at all.

I work with a faith group that seeks just and fair treatment of
immigrants. The excessive information requirements of this
proposed rule change are unreasonable and unnecessary. Sufficient
information is available in affidavits of support, including tax
returns and related information provided by the sponsor. Banking
information is never going to be complete nor is providing it
without risk of identity theft. A notarization requirement is not only
burdensome and unnecessary, but also risky these days, in the
COVID-19 social-distancing period. I believe this is just the latest in
a long string of unnecessary bureaucratic demands aimed at
delaying the processing of legitimate immigrants.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

140

91.1

92.1

Anonymous

Joanne Smallen

I have been done so wrong approval but yet to see a penny of any
of my money I've lent security to the government you think I would
be able to get housing I see all these addicts and drunks with no
children with homes funded by the government and my children
and I have been deprived of benefit that could HELP us be a family
again and there not giving to us because a social worker in his
feelings

I am writing in opposition to the USCIS proposed changes to
Immigration Form 1-864/Affidavit of Support (and related forms)
that would require U. S. citizens and resident sponsors to provide
in-depth bank account information in addition to the extensive tax
documentation requirements already in place. The proposed
revisions, which also include requiring all related forms to be
notarized, would impose needless burdens on immigrant families,
and would not contribute to the improvement of our current
immigration system.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

93.1

Peggy Gleason,
Immigrant Legal
Resource Center
(ILRC)

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS- USCIS disagrees that it is inappropriate to make the
2007-0029-0206&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
proposed changes as part of the PRA process. See
responses below.
I. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Process is Inappropriate for
Substantive Guidance Changes USCIS has proceeded in this process
with a collection of information under the PRA. The PRA requires
the agency to explain the purpose of the form being produced and
its burden on the public. Here, however, much more than a form or
collection of information is involved, and the use of the streamlined
PRA process is inappropriate. The changes proposed here are not
information collection. Instead, they go to the heart of a
142

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
substantive eligibility requirement that is being finalized without
sufficient public notice and comment. U.S. immigration law is
centered on the principle of family reunification. The Affidavit of
Support (I-864) has been a statutory requirement since the 1996
passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act, which created the I-864 as a way of enforcing
public charge inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(4). The Affidavit of
Support applies principally to family-based visa applicants, who
have an absolute requirement to present a sufficient I-864 and
supporting documentation at the time they are admitted. The
sponsor on the I-864 is, by definition, a U.S. citizen, lawful
permanent resident, or U.S. national.1 The proposed changes have
the effect of discouraging family immigration by creating onerous
requirements on sponsors that are beyond what is legally required.
In addition, the proposed changes exceed the language of the
statute and the regulations.2 The changes in counting of household
size, the requested information of unreliable, privately generated
credit scores, in addition to IRS tax transcripts, the requirement of a
notary signature, and the requirements of private bank account
information from sponsors and household members are ultra vires,
and should be stricken. At a minimum, the agency should have to
undergo a meaningful public comment process when making such
substantive changes by publishing proposed regulations for
comment and deliberating on the public response. Placing such
major changes in the disguise of form revision is an attempt by the
agency to avoid public scrutiny, which is not legally permissible.

143

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

93.2

II. Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information and Requesting
Credit Reports from All Sponsors is Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to the Form I-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ that would require U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card to provide in-depth bank account
information. Specifically, sponsors (and household members whose
income and/or assets are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would
be required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders. There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this
information from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
sponsoring their foreign spouses or relatives for a green card. Bank
account information is not necessary or even relevant in order to
verify the sponsor or household member's income, which is done
through the submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
and tax statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets—specifically,
money in a bank account—to satisfy the 125 percent of the Federal
poverty guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide
evidence of those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.
In addition to being unnecessary and a privacy risk, the requirement
of bank information is intimidating, and will discourage sponsors
from completing the process. The law and regulations require that

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Credit reports will be used to help USCIS evaluate if
a sponsor has demonstrated the means to maintain
income as required by INA 213A and whether the
sponsor or household member will be able to meet
his or her support obligation during the period of
enforceability. This use of the credit report is for
determining the sufficiency of the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA.
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.

144

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

93.3

sponsor’s income be verified, and that is already done through the
submission of government-produced documentation of tax
transcripts and W-2s. The additional requirement of bank account
information, including account numbers and routing numbers, is
hazardous for sponsors because of the many breaches of such
information that can occur. Breaches have impacted millions of
account holders in recent years and are not likely to stop in the
near future.3 For these reasons, the requesting of credit scores in
the proposed changes is also objectionable. Sponsors are already
providing government-generated proof of income in their tax
transcripts. The documentation produced by private credit bureaus
is problematic for privacy reasons, and also because it can be
inaccurate as often as one time out of five, according to
government studies.4
III. Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden and is
Inconsistent with U.S. Law Currently, the Form I-864 and related
Forms I-864A and I-864EZ permit the sponsor (and household
member(s), if applicable) to sign these forms under penalty of
perjury. Under its new proposal, USCIS is proposing to require that
these forms be notarized by a notary public in order for the forms
to be properly executed. Such a requirement is inconsistent with
federal law. Title 28, section 1746 of the U.S. Code permits federal
forms, including Form I-864 and related Form I-864A and Form I864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury. Furthermore, the
agency's proposal to require that these forms must now be
notarized by a notary public violates the Administrative Procedure
Act by attempting to impose this new requirement through a form
revision. Moreover, the agency previously had to correct the I-864
to remove an initial 1997 requirement of signature in front of a
notary in order to comply with federal law and did so by deleting

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
145

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
the notary requirement.5 The requirement to have the form
notarized by a notary public also adds undue and unnecessary
burdens on sponsors and the household members whose income
and/or assets are being used by the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a
foreign national for a green card. In particular, this new
requirement would impose unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and
logistical challenges on the sponsor and household member(s) to
have these forms notarized by a notary public. This requirement is
particularly burdensome in light of social distancing protocols and
stay-at-home orders that are being imposed by local and state
authorities, as well as countries around the globe, as a result of the
2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.

93.4

IV. The Proposed Changes Alter the Computation of Household Size,
Contradicting the Regulations The proposed changes include
language that would alter how many people are considered to be in
the household by misconstruing the contractual obligation of a
sponsor. The contractual obligations of a sponsor do not begin until
the intending immigrant actually obtains permanent residence, but
the proposed changes advise sponsors to count anyone that they
have submitted a previous I-864 for, without acknowledging that
there is no legal effect if that applicant did not become a
permanent resident. The current instruction reads, “If you have
sponsored any other persons on Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ who
are now lawful permanent residents…,” they must be counted in
the household. The proposed change omits the “who are now
lawful permanent residents” language, such that a sponsor would

No changes will be made based on this comment.
USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes alter
the current computation of household size.
8 CFR 213a.1 defines household size to include “the
number of aliens the sponsor has sponsored under
any other affidavit of support for whom the
sponsor's support obligation has not terminated…”
When calculating household size, the form states:
“If you have sponsored any other persons on Form
I-864 or Form I-864EZ who are now lawful
permanent residents and for whom your support

146

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
need to include someone for whom they may have signed an
affidavit of support, whether or not it was later withdrawn or the
individual was not approved for permanent residence, in which
case there is no contractual obligation to support them. The
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 213a.1 are contradicted here, because they
define “sponsored immigrant” for contractual obligation as, “any
alien who was an intending immigrant, once that person has been
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, so that the affidavit of
support filed for that person under this part has entered into
force.” The proposed change ignores that distinction and
overcounts household size, thus mandating sponsors to have more
income than legally required. In conclusion, for all the reasons
outlined above, I oppose the agency's proposed changes to Form I864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ. I urge USCIS to remove these
requirements before the new editions of Form I-864, Forms I-864A,
and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

94.1

Don Hayler

Requiring bank account information is dangerous since that's
enough information for a scammer to impersonate someone and
steal money from someone's account. What is the government's
plan to reimburse people for their loses if and when the
information is stolen from the government and people lose money?
There is also a cost for them to change accounts and deal with
identity theft. It is a financial and internet industry standard to
store the minimum amount of information necessary to minimize
the risk when systems are hacked. Given that this information is
unnecessary to determine someone's financial standing and is a

obligation has not ended, enter the number here.”
(emphasis added).
The form Instructions also state, “Note: If you
executed a Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ on behalf of
an intending immigrant where the support
obligation is not yet in effect, that intending
immigrant is not counted as part of your household
size. However, if that intending immigrant
becomes a lawful permanent resident before your
support obligation on this Form I-864 becomes
effective, that sponsored immigrant is counted as
part of your household size.” (emphasis added).
An intending immigrant for whom the sponsor
executes a Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ, but is not
yet an LPR, would not be counted as part of the
sponsor’s current household size.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
147

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
risk, I believe as a concerned US citizen that the government should
not collect this data. Thank you.

will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

95.1

Anonymous

This administration is a complete and total disgrace! You criminal
president and his sycophants should be and need to be prosecuted
for the crimes they are committing against the Constitution and the
people of the United States! The attorney general is just as corrupt
and criminal and sit a puppet of this unfit president! There is
nothing and no one in this administration that seems to have a
backbone and stand up to this disgusting president and his
cowardly sycophants and try to stop this madness! All you
abhorrent people in this criminal administration do is accept bribes
to enrich yourselves! One day you all will be responsible for the
downfall of the United States and history will expose to the idiots of
this country what your mentally insane and morally bankrupt
president and his groveling sniveling cowardly cronies have done to
destroy the Constitution and this country! You people don't want
comments from the public! It's proven by all the regulations that
have been rolled back after asking for these comments and the
majority of people have commented against all these rules and
regulations that you all are taking away! The only thing you people
want is money in your pockets and obviously a dictatorship! Karma
will get you all in the end! I am disgusted by your lack of integrity
and caring for this country and the citizens of this country! DRAIN
THE SWAMP

No changes will be made based on this comment.

148

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS- Gender is a piece of biographical information that
2007-0029-0214&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
USCIS collects across many of our forms to help
facilitate identity verification where needed.
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0214&attachmentNumber=2&contentType=pdf

96.2

96.3

Monica Kane, Law
Offices of Monica
Kane

Gender The current versions of Forms I-864 and I-864EZ do not
address the gender of the principal immigrant. The Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) now proposes to add this item as Part 2,
Number 5, on each form. The principal applicant’s gender has no
significance whatsoever to the purpose of the affidavit of support,
which is to assess the petitioner’s or joint sponsor’s qualifications to
sponsor an intending immigrant. The lack of an item addressing
gender has in no way hindered or affected the use of Forms I-864
and I-864EZ to date. Thus, there is no reason to add this item now.
Relationship to Sponsor DHS proposes to add an item for the
principal immigrant’s relationship to the sponsor signing Form I864, at Part 2, Number 9. The purpose of Form I-864 is to
implement the affidavit of support requirement mandated by INA
Section 213A and explained further in the regulations at 8 C.F.R.
Section 213a. Neither the statute nor the regulations refer to the
relationship between the sponsor and the immigrant. Furthermore,
it should not matter what the relationship between the sponsor
and the immigrant is. The point of the affidavit of support is to
ensure that someone will be responsible for the intending
immigrant, should she not support herself. If a person meets the
requirements to be a sponsor and is willing to sign a binding
contract and be subject to requests for reimbursement and legal
action as a result of their legal obligations as a sponsor, there is no
reason why their I-864 should be viewed differently depending on
their legal/social relationship to the intending immigrant. The legal
149

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
obligations grow out of the signing of the I-864, not the legal/social
relationship between the sponsor and the immigrant, and
completing and signing the affidavit of support, combined with
providing the required documentation of income and/or assets is
what matters.

96.4

Bank Account Information Bank account information is wholly
inappropriate for the purposes of Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ.
Bank account and routing information is generally provided on a
form in any other context where a specific and imminent payment
is expected to be debited or credited to the account, such as on
one’s tax return. Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ relate to a more
general obligation to support a person, not a specific and imminent
payment. This would be confusing to potential sponsors and
intending immigrants, and it could expose potential sponsors to
misuse of their banking information. Furthermore, potential
sponsors generally complete and sign Form I-864, I-864A, or I-864EZ
prior to any obligation going into effect and long before any
hypothetical reimbursement would be required. Should
reimbursement become necessary, the proper enforcement
mechanism is a government agency request or a lawsuit, as the
language in the “What If I Do Not Fulfill My Obligations?” section
makes clear. By the time a sponsor could be required to make a
reimbursement payment, the sponsor’s bank account information
could have changed, rendering this information useless or even
leading to problems should any individual or agency try to use this
banking information to obtain reimbursement.

150

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

96.5

96.6

Credit Report There is no reason to suggest or encourage sponsors
or their household members to include a copy of their credit report
with Forms I-864, I-864A, or I-864EZ. Credit history or score is not
mentioned in INA Section 213A or the corresponding regulations.
Furthermore, one person can have excellent credit, but no income
or assets, while another person can have horrible credit, with more
than sufficient income and assets to qualify as a sponsor pursuant
to INA Section 213A and the corresponding regulations. There is no
correlation between credit score and one’s ability to be a sponsor
for purposes of INA Section 213A, and this language should not be
added to Forms I-864, I-864A, or I-864EZ. Furthermore, requesting a
credit report for purposes of the affidavit of support would add an
unnecessary expense for sponsors, and reviewing the report would
create unnecessary additional work for officers. For sponsors who
do have credit histories, the report itself may be voluminous and
take time to comb through. It also feels invasive of the sponsor’s
privacy and prerogative to apply for credit and manage their
obligations as the market allows.
Notarization Early versions of Form I-864 and I-864A required a
notarized signature. This requirement was eliminated when DHS
issued its final rule regarding affidavits of support in 2006. (See, 71
Fed. Reg. 35739 (June 21, 2006), attached.) Neither INA Section
213A nor the regulations at 8 CFR Section 213a require that
affidavits of support be signed before a notary. For almost 14 years,
affidavits of support have been signed under penalty of perjury, and
there is no indication that this has created any problems. There is
no reason to require a notarized signature now. Given the current
COVID-19 crisis, this is not the time to add an unnecessary step that
involves in-person services. According to the ABA, “notary laws
generally contain the requirement for the notary and the principal
signer to be in ‘close physical proximity’ during a notarization.”

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Again, for almost 14 years, affidavits of support have been executed
and enforceable without notarization, and USCIS should not
suddenly require notarized signatures on affidavits of support at a
time when we, as a society, are trying to limit in-person contact.
The proposed revisions seem geared towards making the process of
securing a sponsor or joint sponsor more burdensome and placing
additional obstacles in the way of intending immigrants. In my
practice, the intending immigrant is often the spouse of a U.S.
citizen, already living in the United States as part of a mixed-status
family, many times as the only non-U.S. citizen in the household. If
the statute and regulations allow an individual to apply for
adjustment of status to become a lawful permanent resident and
thereby bring more security and stability to their family of U.S.
citizens, we should facilitate that process because it will benefit not
only that one family of U.S. citizens, but their community at large.
We should not make the process harder than the law requires by
adding unnecessary information collection and notarization to a
government form. I urge DHS to remove the proposed language
addressed above before the new editions of these forms are
released to the public.
USCIS' proposed changes to the Affidavit of Support are yet
additional attempts by USCIS to impose new requirements on the
public, disguised as a form change, for which the agency lacks
statutory and regulatory authority. The agency's blanket proposal
mandating the collection of detailed bank account information from
all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their
foreign spouse or relative for a green card is an unauthorized
information collection.
97.1

Anonymous

In addition, the new notary requirement is an inconvenient and

member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
needless burden which has no basis in the law. It will add undue
and unnecessary burdens on sponsors by imposing unnecessary
costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges to have these forms
notarized by a notary public. This requirement is particularly
burdensome and potentially dangerous in light of social distancing
protocols currently being imposed by local and state authorities, as
well as countries around the globe, in response to the 2019 novel
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS provides an estimated cost to respondents
based on a percentage of an estimated high cost
that respondents may incur, as not all respondents
will incur every possible cost associated with this
collection of information.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors

153

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).

98.1

Amanda Berling

I disagree strongly with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services
proposed changes requiring U.S. citizens and resident sponsors to
provide in-depth bank account information in addition to the
extensive tax documentation requirements already in place. The
proposed revisions would also require all related forms to be
notarized by a notary publican unnecessary and inconvenient
regulation with no legal basis. The proposed changes would impose
needless burdens on immigrant families, and would not contribute
to the improvement of our current immigration system.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).

99.1

James Alley

I have been given to understand that the US Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) is trying to modify immigration Form I864/Affidavit of Support (and related forms) to require U.S. citizens
and resident sponsors to provide in-depth bank account
information in addition to the extensive tax documentation
requirements already in place. The changes would also require all
related forms to be notarized by a notary public. What legal
purpose would such new hurdles serve? They would be a needless
burdens to immigrant families, and would not contribute to the
improvement of our current immigration system.
Thank you for your attention. James Alley, Port Ewen, New York

100.1

101.1

Betsy Webster

Koula Glaros- King,
Community Legal Aid

These new rules add more burdens to those who are seeking
immigration to OUR country
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0222&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
Using Form Revision Procedures to Change Requirements Violates
the APA. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) directs that
federal administrative agencies, such as USCIS, use appropriate
procedures for rulemaking, described as the "agency process for
formulating, amending, or repealing a rule." To comply with the
APA, when an agency action changes a rule, it must acknowledge
the change and explain its reasoning2. "IA] agency rule would be
arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which
Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider
an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its
decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is
so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view
or the product of agency expertise." 3 In this instance, USC1S has
failed to acknowledge a substantive change and provide an
explanation. Form 1-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ, the
changes to which are at issue in this NPRM, constitute the three
versions of the USCIS Affidavit of Support from all sponsors (and
household members whose income and/or assets are used by a
sponsor to qualify4). USCIS specifically states in the NPRM
describing the proposed changes that it is not changing any
regulations. With that statement, USCIS discounts without
explanation the significance of the revisions. In particular, the
agency's proposal to require detailed banking information for all

USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes are a
violation of the APA.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.

156

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

101.2

sponsors as part of a form revision imposes a new requirement for
sponsorship in violation of the APA. Likewise, through the proposal
revisions to the forms, USCIS seeks without explanation to require
that each of the sponsor's signatures on these forms be notarized
by a notary public. The substantive nature of these changes is
detailed below. The violation of the APA stems from USCIS' lack of
acknowledgment of the substantive nature of these changes and
failure to provide adequate reasons for these changes.
Requiring Detailed Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary USCIS proposes adding a new
requirement to Form 1-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ
to require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card to provide detailed
bank account information. Specifically, sponsors would be required
to provide the name of the banking institution, bank account
number, routing number of the account, account holder's name,
and name of any joint account holders. This information is sensitive
and personal; any entity with access to this information can
withdraw money from the account holders' account. Any
requirement to share this information should be tailored to those
instances where it is relevant and necessary. In many instances,
bank account information is not relevant or necessary to confirming
that the sponsor has the resources to ensure that the immigration
applicant will not become a burden to the public. Where sponsors
are swearing that their income is sufficient to support the
immigration applicant, sponsors already document and verify their
ability to support the prospective immigrant with their Federal
income tax transcripts or W-2/1099 statements, tax returns,
current pay stubs and letters of employment. Only in the limited
circumstances where a sponsor or household member uses assets,
specifically bank account deposits, to satisfy the minimum support

157

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

101.3

guidelines, is evidence of those deposits and supporting
documentation necessary. In those limited circumstances, Forms1864 and I-864A already require sponsors to identify and provide
proof of ownership and value of any bank account used as an
asset.5 As is clear from these Forms, it is not mandatory that each
sponsor use assets to satisfy the financial support guidelines. If the
sponsor chooses NOT to use assets, the Forms, as they currently
exist, properly indicate that bank account information is not
required.
Requiring Detailed Banking Information is Bad Public Policy Because See response to 101.2.
it Increases Risk of Identity Theft, Invades Privacy, and Incorrectly
Presumes All People Engage in the Traditional Banking System. This
new requirement raises significant privacy and security concerns. In
today's environment of wide-spread cybercrime and identity theft,
requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed bank account
information, particularly when it is not relevant or necessary,
exposes them to a heightened risk of becoming identity theft crime
victims. Once USC1S gains banking information, the sponsor's
private associations and activities are exposed to the USCIS,
potentially including but not limited to information about the
sponsor's donations to a religious institution or a political campaign.
These private uses of money would be laid bare for USCIS to view
when making determinations about the immigrant's application.
This revision further presumes all sponsors regularly maintain
traditional bank accounts. Due to the rise in identity theft and the
recently reported unethical and predatory practices of several of
the largest banks in the United States, many depositors lost
confidence in these traditional institutions. Many of our clients no
longer deposit and risk their hard-earned wages in banks that are
charging escalating fees just for the cost of the bank doing business.
We have seen that our clients, especially immigrants, have always
158

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
taken their household finances very seriously. They carefully and
responsibly attend to their financial obligations without maintaining
regular bank accounts. Their ability to support an immigrant family
member cannot be judged by the lack of a bank account.

101.4

Requiring Form 1-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law USCIS is proposing to require that Form 1-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ be notarized by a notary public in
order for the forms to be properly executed. As is clear in federal
law, the legal purpose of notarization is already achieved by
requiring that signatories sign under penalty of perjury. According
to 28 USC 1746, any statement that requires a sworn declaration
can be executed with the same effect as a sworn statement if the
signatory signs "under penalty of perjury (emphasis added). A
specific provision of the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual explicitly
recognizes that since signatures "are made under penalty of
perjury" "notary jurats are no longer required."6 All three forms
already contain explicit statements warning the sponsor that they
are signing under the penalty of perjury.
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public is
unnecessary. The formal process of notarization serves only two
limited purposes, both of which are already met without the
burden of notarization. 1. Through notarization, an agency can
verify a signer's identity. Verification through notarization is
unnecessary because the sponsor must already submit copies of
their government issued U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent
residence identity documents with their Affidavit of Support forms.
Use of a notary does not improve verification of sponsor's identity.
2. Through notarization, the signer states that their signature is

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
159

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
voluntarily given and that the contents of the document are true.
These conditions are also already satisfied by the existing form,
which the sponsor signs under penalty of perjury. With their
signature, the sponsor indicates that their signature is freely given
and the contents are complete, true, and correct. Notably, the
agency can test the veracity of the documents by reviewing the
supporting documentation or by scheduling an interview with a
sponsor. The notary does not evaluate the veracity of the actual
contents of the forms in any way. The requirement to notarize the
form also adds an undue burden to the already-cumbersome
process. Affidavit of Support notarization would require each
sponsor to personally appear with their government-issued photo
identification documents to sign the forms before a duly-licensed
U.S. notary or, if overseas, before the U.S. consulate. Access to a
notary or to the U.S. consulate for notarization is often very limited
due to increased fees and travel expenses as well as time
availability. At this time, the United States Consulates charge a
$50.00 fee for each notarized document but, due to security
concerns, offer very restricted access to this non-emergency
service. Adding a notary requirement to these forms may mean that
the U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident who is overseas must
seek an appointment with the nearest U.S. consulate that offers
this specific service, travel potentially a great distance (possibly
even to a third country), and secure overnight accommodations, all
at significant expense. In the current public health emergency due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, appointments for consular notary
services are not even available. Notary services within the United
States also incur costs and access to such services is also
burdensome due to transportation, work responsibilities, difficulty
appearing before a notary during regular business hours, and now
the stay-at-home orders resulting from the Covid-19 Pandemic.

State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.

160

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

102.1

Savannah Sisk

USCIS requires these Affidavits of Support for all those applying for
lawful permanent residence. Requiring notarizations only increases
costs and delays in preparing these forms for all sponsors and has
an adverse chilling effect on potential sponsors. It does nothing to
make the obligation to support an immigrant more enforceable.
Conclusion For all the reasons outlined above, Community Legal Aid
Services contends that the agency's proposed changes to Forms 1864, I-864A, and I-864EZ are unnecessary, unduly burdensome, and
in violation of existing law. In addition, the form revision process by
which USCIS attempts to make these changes violates the
Administrative Procedures Act. Community Legal Aid Services urges
USCIS to remove these banking and notarization requirements
before the new editions of the Forms 1-864, 1-864A, and I864EZ
and associated instructions are released to the public.
I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposed changes to Form I864 and Form I-864EZ and Form I-864A. The additional requirement
of obtaining a notary signature unnecessarily increases the burden
of the collection of information for respondents. I can speak from
experience that locating and obtaining a notary signature increases
the time required to complete document submission by more than
just the hour it may take to visit in person - it increases the burden
by days due to the difficulty of finding a notary nearby and available
during hours at which the seeker does not work. This is a not
insignificant responsibility to add for sponsor and immigrant
families without any proof of positive changes to the immigration
process. I also believe that requiring additional bank information is
another unnecessary step that violates privacy when extensive tax
information is already required and collected. I do support changes
to language that provide increased clarity; however, I do not
believe that the additional collection of information will support a

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
161

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
better of understanding in sponsors but indeed could lead to more
confusion.

103.1

Rebecca Eissenova

I am the director of an immigration law program through Catholic
Social Services. My clientele are predominately family members of
U.S. citizens seeking to live together with their foreign-born
spouses, parents, or children. They are largely young and not

Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
162

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
earning enough yet to sponsor themselves. They need joint
sponsors to keep their family unit in tact and moving toward legal
status. In the current climate of high identity theft and
unemployment, finding a joint sponsor is already difficult. Finding
one willing to share large amounts of personal financial information
asked on the new Forms would be even more difficult--likely
impossible in many situations.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to the Form I-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ that would require U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives to provide in-depth bank account information. Specifically,
sponsors would be required to provide the name of the banking
institution, number of the bank account, routing number, account
holder's name, and name of any joint account holders.

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information.
Bank account information is not necessary or even relevant to
verify the sponsor or household member's income, which is done
through the submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
and tax statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
163

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not relevant or
necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an identity
crime victim.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law
Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ
permit the sponsor (and household member, if applicable) to sign
under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal, USCIS seeks to
require these forms be notarized. Such a requirement is
inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section 1746 permits
federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form I-864A and
Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury. Further, the
proposal to require these forms be notarized violates the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose a new
requirement through a form revision.

103.2

The requirement to have the form notarized also adds undue and
unnecessary burdens. In particular, this new requirement would
impose unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges
on the sponsor/household member. This requirement is particularly
burdensome in light of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home
orders that are being imposed by local and state authorities as a
result of the coronavirus pandemic.

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
164

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

For the reasons above, I oppose the agency's proposal to require
sponsors to provide in-depth bank account information on Form I864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ, and have these forms
notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to remove these
requirements.

104.1

105.1

Kim Le

Aja Pardini

The new I-864 would put U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent
Residents at risk! The I-864 is not only used in the United States,
but it is also used in consular processing cases. Based on current
requirements, applicants must bring an original copy of the I-864 to
the consular interview. This means that the original signed I-864 will
usually have to be sent to the beneficiary abroad. The documents
may pass through many people before getting to the beneficiary.
Including sensitive financial information such as account numbers
along with biographical information such as date of birth, place of
birth, social security numbers and addresses making sponsoring
citizens and residents natural targets for identity theft.

Information provided on forms, including sensitive
personally identifiable information, is necessary for
adjudication of the form. All information provided
on the form will be protected by government
agencies when in their possession in accordance
with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

I submit this comment opposing changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of
Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control
Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require, among other
things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card provide in-depth
bank account information and have the forms notarized by a notary
public. I oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related
Forms I-864A and Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
165

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
I am a practicing immigration attorney. The burden already placed
on my clients as a result of the form I-944 is already truly
outrageous. I have never in my life - through mortgage applications,
loan applications and the like - provided the detailed information
and documentation now required as part of the I-944. Adding even
more information requests on additional forms is a waste of the tax
dollars these new forms are purported to protect.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
Sponsors (and household members whose income and/or assets
are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would be required to
provide the name of the banking institution, the number of the
bank account, the routing number of the account, the account
holder's name, and the name of any joint account holders.
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card. Bank account
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.

Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
166

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.
USCIS is already requiring the last TWELVE months of bank
statements from both the intending immigrant AND the household
member. There is no additional relevant information to be gleaned
by providing bank account number and routing number other than
the likelihood of a horrifying security breach.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law
Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ
permit the sponsor (and household member, if applicable) to sign
these forms under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal,
USCIS is proposing to require that these forms must be notarized by
a notary public in order for the forms to be properly executed. Such
a requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section
1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form
I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require that these forms
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.
105.2

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
167

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
As USCIS FINALLY authorizes digital signatures - due to issues
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic - this threatens to move us
further backward with regard to utilizing secure technology to
efficiently submit and store client files. USCIS is moving toward
electronic filings across the board. This makes absolutely no sense
and requires hard copy filings which are a waste of paper not to
mention other government resources including the personnel
required to receive shipments, unload them, review them and enter
pertinent info into an electronic system, scan the entire submission
etc...when we could simply do all that work for them and save tax
dollars.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

106.1

Linda Apgar

I respectfully but strongly disagree with the US Citizenship and
Immigration Services proposed changes requiring U.S. citizens and
resident sponsors to provide in-depth bank account information in
addition to the extensive tax documentation requirements already
in place. The proposed revisions would also require all related
forms to be notarized by a notary publican unnecessary and
inconvenient regulation with no legal basis. The proposed changes
would impose needless burdens on immigrant families, and would

not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
168

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS- Bank account information will be used to evaluate
2007-0029-0265&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
A. Requirements of Providing Previous Affidavit, Bank Account
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
Information It is proposed that revised Forms (I-864 and I-864EZ)
will now require sponsors and household members to include their maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
bank account information, which includes their bank account
number and their routing information, and may require them to
With regards to the possibility of not having a bank
submit a credit report. The proposed revisions to these Forms (I864 account, as indicated in the form instructions,
and I-864EZ) will also require sponsors to include information about sponsors should “Answer all questions fully and
previously submitted affidavits. Typically, the financial ability of the accurately. If a question does not apply to you (for
sponsor to support the beneficiary has been established through
example, if you have never been married and the
proof of sufficient income and/or proof of sufficient assets.
question asks, “Provide the name of your current
Disclosing banking information has never been a requirement of
spouse”), type or print “N/A,” unless otherwise
these Forms. This requirement is completely arbitrary, as sponsors
directed. If your answer to a question which
and household members are already tasked with either proving
requires a numeric response is zero or none (for
that their income is 125% above the poverty line for their
example, “How many children do you have” or
not contribute to the improvement of our current immigration
system.

107.1

Carl Bergquist,
Coalition for
Humane Immigrant
Rights (CHIRLA)

169

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
household size and/or they have assets that can be liquidated in a
year whose value is 125% above the poverty line for their
household. The submission of tax returns, pay stubs, valuations of
assets and even letters from the sponsor’s or household member’s
employer verifying their wages are more than sufficient to assess
the sponsor’s financial position. There is no conceivable rationale
for the sponsor or household member to then provide sensitive
banking information, other than to discourage them from filing
these forms. This would make immigration harder, if not
impossible, which is clearly an overarching goal of this
Administration. CHIRLA is concerned with the banking information
requirement for two primary reasons: privacy concerns and undue
burdens: 1) A sponsor must already prove their income through the
valuation of their assets, or tax returns to prove their current
wages. Thus, it is far too invasive for USCIS to now require sponsors
to show them how they are spending their income. This is a naked
form of humiliation that serves no other plausible purpose. Worse,
it also makes the sponsor vulnerable to identity theft or fraudulent
bank account usage by requiring them to submit their bank account
and routing number through an online form. 2) CHIRLA is also
concerned with this requirement due to the undue burdens it puts
on the sponsor by compelling them to collect even more
information. A potential sponsor may not have a bank account or
may share a bank account with other members of the family.
Having to open up a bank account can be time consuming and will
delay the completion of these Forms. If any of the banking
documents given to the sponsor in order to provide this
information are in a language other than English, the sponsor will
incur additional costs to have the documents translated leading
delaying the completion of the affidavit.

“How many times have you departed the United
States”), type or print “None,” unless otherwise
directed.”
Credit reports will be used to help USCIS evaluate if
a sponsor has demonstrated the means to maintain
income as required by INA 213A and whether the
sponsor or household member will be able to meet
his or her support obligation during the period of
enforceability. This use of the credit report is for
determining the sufficiency of the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA.
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.

170

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

107.2

B. Requirement that a Notary Public Notarize all Forms USCIS is also
proposing that all three Forms (I-864, I-864A and I-864EZ) now be
notarized by a Notary Public before they are submitted. Presently, it
is only required that all three Forms be signed by the sponsor or
household member under penalty of perjury. The current
instructions to the I-864 form details what kind of signature is valid
on the Form, with the requirements being that the signature not be
from a stamp or a typewriter. The only other requirement is that
the signer be at least age of 18 or over and when warranted, that a
legal guardian may sign for a sponsor who is mentally incompetent.
This new requirement that a Notary Public notarize all forms
constitutes an additional roadblock to sponsors being able to
correctly file these forms. This constitutes an extra step that will
incur additional delays and costs. Again, the only reasonable view of
this arbitrary requirement is to view it as a way of trying to
discourage and limit immigration.
CHIRLA is concerned about the extra burden this requirement will
put on sponsors and household members. Ultimately, it may
prevent the sponsor from even being able to submit the Forms. For
example, if the sponsor has young children to take care of and
cannot find care for them or if their job does not allow for them to
take paid time off, they may be unable to sign in front of a Notary
Public. Having these forms notarized also puts another financial
burden on the sponsor or household member, as Notaries Public
charge for their services. Further, this requirement will lead to
sponsors and household members becoming victims of fraud due to
people posing as Notaries Publics. Sponsors and household
members will find a notary in their local community as that is where
they are most comfortable, and this is where they can encounter a
fraudulent Notary, also known as notarios. The Administration is
well aware of notarios, and this new requirement bears the

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS has information on its webpage concerning
notario fraud (see https://www.uscis.gov/avoidscams/commonscams).

171

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
hallmarks of a trap set in order to deny these sponsors’ loved ones
the ability to immigrate.

107.3

C. Effect of these Revisions on the Practice of Immigration Law
CHIRLA has also identified concerns regarding the future practice of
immigration law if these proposed changes go into effect. The
attorneys of CHIRLA’s legal team are very hands on with their
clients. They are able to tell them which documentation to collect,
where to collect the needed documentation and how to get it
translated if necessary. However, they cannot assist in the actual
collection of the documentation. Should USCIS, as proposed via
these revisions, add more requirements such as bank account
information, credit reports, and information from previously filed
affidavits and notarization, CHIRLA’s clients will be disparately
impacted. Our clients come from low-income working families who
would benefit from the immigration of the relatives that are the
subject of these petitions. Yet, the proposed revisions to the
affidavits will prevent just that, denying immigrant families both the
right to familial life and a chance to improve their circumstances.
CHIRLA’s legal team is dedicated to their clients by trying to help
them in any way they can. These requirements will only make their
jobs harder, as it requires their clients to complete several,
unnecessary steps delaying, and even halting, the immigration
process. As such, CHIRLA as organization will doubly affected. First,
we will be able to help less individuals as each case will require
more time and resources. Second, it is inevitable that we will also
have to dedicate precious personnel resources to dealing with the
consequences of identity theft and notario fraud.

See responses to 107.1 and 107.2.

172

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
D. Conclusion These proposed changes will have an adverse effect
on immigration by further burdening potential sponsors, resulting
in discouragement and inability to file affidavits. These form
revisions must also be seen in tandem with the recent regulations
expanding the definition of “public charge.” A dragnet is being cast
to create wealth tests to separate immigrant families. CHIRLA
rejects this.

I'm writing to voice opposition to the changes proposed to the I-864
Affidavit of Support which are onerous and unnecessary.
Requiring a notarized copy has no basis in law. It is an unnecessary
burden on the sponsor and should not be required in lieu of signing
under penalty of perjury. The change also faces challenges under
the Administrative Procedure Act, which would tie this up in
litigation, creating chaos and confusion for folks trying to complete
the right forms in the right way.

108.1

Anonymous

Applicants already show their ability to sponsor someone via their
tax returns and, if relying on the totality of their assets, their bank
statements. It serves no purpose to demand the routing number of
a sponsor's bank accounts and is an unnecessary cybersecurity risk.

173

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

No changes will be made based on this comment.

109.1

110.1

Veronica Wang

Jorge Baron,
Northwest
Immigrant Rights
Project

I do not support this action as it will only tighten restrictions for
immigrants and is blatantly discriminatory to those without
resources.
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0254&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
1. Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors
is Neither Relevant nor Necessary USCIS is proposing to add a new
requirement to the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I864EZ which would require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card to provide in-depth bank account information. Specifically,
sponsors (and household members whose income and/or assets are
being used by a sponsor to qualify) would be required to provide
the name of the banking institution, the number of the bank
account, the routing number of the account, the account holder’s
name, and the name of any joint account holders. There is no legal
authority for USCIS to require this information from all U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card. Bank account information is not
necessary or even relevant in order to verify the sponsor or
household member’s income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.

174

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

110.2

circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements. Moreover,
this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns. In today’s
environment where cybercrime and identity theft are becoming
more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed bank
account information, particularly when it is not even relevant or
necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an identity
crime victim. We urge USCIS to remove this requirement.
2. Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A
and I-864EZ permit the sponsor (and household member, if
applicable) to sign these forms under penalty of perjury. Under its
new proposal, USCIS is proposing to require that these forms must
be notarized by a notary public in order for the forms to be properly
executed. Such a requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28
U.S.C. section 1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and
related Form I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under
penalty of perjury. Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require
that these forms must now be notarized by a notary public violates
the Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
175

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic. We urge USCIS to remove this requirement from its
proposed revisions.
For all of the reasons articulated above, NWIRP strongly objects to
the proposed changes to Forms I864, I-864A, and I-864EZ. We urge
USCIS to remove these requirements before the new editions of the
forms are released to the public.

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.

111.1

111.2

Kevin Schmidt,
Americans for
Prosperity
Foundation and The
LIBRE Institute

On behalf of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and The LIBRE
Institute, I write in response to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services’ (“USCIS”) proposed changes to Form I-864, Form I-864EZ,
and Form I-864A, which are used to verify that U.S. citizens and
permanent residents have the means necessary to support the
spouses and family members they seek to sponsor at 125 percent
of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. The proposed changes to these
forms unnecessarily burden sponsors without adequate explanation
and potentially violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
I. The New Form Requirements Add Unnecessary Barriers to
Sponsorship The new requirements needlessly complicate the
sponsorship process, making it more onerous for American citizens
and permanent residents to petition for their family members to
legally immigrate to the country. Specifically, the changes would
require sponsors to submit various information pertaining to their
bank accounts and have their forms signed by a notary public.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
USCIS argues these changes are needed to “better inform sponsors
and household members of their support obligations and better
ensure the support obligations,”4 but makes no substantive
argument that requiring bank account information and signature by
a notary public would accomplish this goal.
To fulfill the notary requirement sponsors would likely need to
leave their homes and travel to a location where a notary public is
present. This unnecessary cost comes at a time when U.S.
immigration agencies have suspended certain in-person
interviews,5 document checks-ins,6 and other requirements that
would entail violating social-distancing practices and the stay-athome guidelines issued by federal, state, and local governments.7
USCIS should reconsider the necessity of this new requirement,
both in the short- and long-term, since U.S. law already permits for
these forms to be signed and completed under penalty of perjury.
While USCIS states that requiring sponsors to submit bank
information will help ensure they meet the financial obligations
specified in their affidavits of support, petitioners are already
required to submit copies of their federal income tax returns.8
USCIS must explain why requiring additional information is
necessary, especially given that the agency is already experiencing
crisis level processing backlogs, and that adding additional
documents for agents to verify would further overwhelm our
immigration system by needlessly contributing to an already evergrowing average processing time that all application types have
experienced. 9 It’s unclear what USCIS will do with this information
considering that it does not have permission to directly access the
bank account. USCIS must also ensure the information collection is
consistent with the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements
program, which limits the purposes for which the information may
be used.10 Requiring detailed bank account information in these

the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
INA 213A(a) and (b) and 8 CFR 213a explain
sponsor obligations and responsibilities when
executing the Affidavit, including reimbursement of
177

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
forms, by definition, puts sponsors at increased risk of fraud and
financial harm. This concern is not speculative, as shown by the
massive OPM data breach in 2015. 11 Given this risk, USCIS must
provide adequate explanation as to why the requirement is
necessary.

public benefits. The sponsor certification ensures
the sponsor is aware and agrees to these
obligations. The current I-864 already has language
authorizing the release of the information for the
administration and enforcement of immigration
laws as is permitted by INA 213A. The added
consent language clarifies that this includes release
of information to DHS from the means-tested
public benefit agencies for the purpose of
administering and enforcement of immigration
laws under the same authority.
USCIS notes that the new consent language
specifically concludes with “and only as permitted
by law.” Therefore, the consent language does not
permit disclosure for an unlawful purpose.
Finally, sharing the information at issue with DHS is
consistent with the referenced statutes because it
permits an administering Federal or State agency,
working with DHS in support of the efficient
administration of its program, to better administer
sponsorship requirements, including pursuit of
recoupment when warranted from a sponsor who
is a liable third party. This information collection
supports the purposes of Federal means-tested
public benefit programs in assisting the valid
administrative needs of the respective programs as
they relate to the sponsorship obligations found at
section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1631, in DHS

178

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
regulations at 8 C.F.R. Part 213a, and in applicable
guidance.

111.3

112.1

Brandi Skipalis

II. USCIS Cannot Legally Implement These Requirements Without
Further Explanation To the extent USCIS is implementing
substantive policy changes “in furtherance of the Presidential
Memo”12 rather than supported by existing law, it is required to
provide a reasonable explanation of the changes under the APA.
But USCIS has not yet identified any deficiencies with the current
forms that would necessitate the collection of bank account
information and signature before a notary. These notary and bank
account information requirements are included in cursory fashion
without explanation: “Changes to the Form I-864 and Form I-864EZ
include collection of bank account information from sponsors . . .
USCIS will now also require that Form I-864, Form I-864EZ, and
Form I-864A be notarized prior to submission to the agency.”13 As
currently constructed, these changes do not comply with the
standards required under the APA and impose substantive costs on
American citizens, permanent residents, and their families. For
these reasons, USCIS must provide sufficient justification for these
new requirements or delete them from the information collection.
I am writing to oppose the proposed increased amount of
documentation required and the proposed requirement of
notarization for this documentation for US sponsors of immigrants.
US sponsors of immigrants are already required to submit their tax
returns showing their ability to support the people they are
sponsoring. Increasing the amount of and types of documentation
required to be submitted will create an additional burden not only

USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes are a
violation of the APA.

USCIS posted a Federal Register Notice requesting
comment on a revision to an information
collection, not a proposed regulation.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
179

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
on the US sponsor of an immigrant, but also on the federal
government staff who will be responsible for collecting and
reviewing this document. This additional burden of supplying more
income documentation than that which is already required does
not substantially advance the purposes of federal immigration law,
since we already collect income information for these sponsors, and
it is not necessary for the enforcement of current immigration laws
regarding sponsorship. It serves as nothing more than a punitive
deterrent to the sponsoring of immigrants, regardless of the
purpose of that sponsorship. This does not advance the interests of
the United States of America, and it does not make the processing
of immigration paperwork more efficient or effective. If anything, it
does the opposite, which is likely the intended consequence of
these increased requirements. This proposed rule creates an
excessive burden without that burden adding any value to our
current immigration processes. The total estimated annual hour
burden associated with this collection is 3,342,122 hours. The
estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection
of information is $137,487,385. This is too high of a burden for this
proposed rule, which does not add any value to current United
States immigration processes, to be worth enacting. This rule
should not be put into place. Thank you.

113.1

Merry Wang

I am writing to oppose the changes to the I-864 (and all variations
thereof). The addition of requiring bank account details and notary
signatures will place an undue burden on sponsors, and therefore
people seeking sponsors, and is also unnecessary when tax
information is already required (in addition to the new I-944 form
now also required for those who are seeking to adjust status).

Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

180

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Rather than creating a better immigration process, this is inefficient
“vetting” and would create more paperwork and confusion for
everyone involved in the process. As someone who has been
working with petitioners and people seeking to migrate or adjust,
the paperwork involved is already burdensome even for those who
have resources, and would be a serious hardship for those who
have less resources.

114.1

Kristen Tully,
Massachusetts Law
Reform Institute

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0260&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
The Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI) and the
undersigned legal service organizations and programs, members of
the MLRI Immigration Coalition, respectfully submit this comment
opposing the Department of Homeland Security’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking regarding the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services’ (USCIS) proposed changes to Forms I-864, I864A, and I-864EZ, and the respective Instructions to Form I-864
and I-864EZ. For 50 years, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
(MLRI) has provided statewide advocacy and leadership in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, advancing laws, policies, and
practices that secure economic, racial, and social justice for low-

181

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

114.2

income people and communities. As the poverty law support center
for the Massachusetts civil legal aid delivery system and advocacy
community, we and our coalition members are concerned about
the increased burdens these revised forms will place on low-income
families. We are concerned in particular with the onerous burden
on the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident sponsors of such
families to provide in-depth bank account information and other
financial information that was not previously required, as well as
the needless requirement that the forms be notarized by a notary
public, and other concerns listed below. These two requirements
alone will have profound negative impacts on low-income families
in Massachusetts and throughout the U.S. Moreover, the forms and
instructions are vastly more complicated than prior versions and do
not conform with the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111274) and OMB Guidance Implementing the Act advising that
vagueness and unnecessary complexity should be avoided. MLRI’s
advocates provide expertise, training, and support to local legal aid
programs, social service, health care and human service providers,
and community organizations that serve low-income people, and
thousands of lawyers and advocates working with immigrants.
These forms and instructions will raise numerous questions as to
what will be required under these new forms, thus compromising
our ability to provide adequate training and technical assistance, in
addition to violating the Plain Writing Act of 2010.
I. The Proposed Revisions to the Forms and instructions are not
written in plain language The language in the revised instructions
and forms does not conform to the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Public
Law 111-274) and OMB Guidance Implementing the Act. That
guidance cautions that avoiding vagueness and unnecessary
complexity makes it easier for members of the public to understand
and to apply for important benefits and services for which they are

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

114.3

eligible. Plain writing can also assist the public in complying with
applicable requirements simply because people better understand
what they are supposed to do. Quite the contrary, the proposed
revisions to the instructions and forms create unnecessary
complexity. In many instances, the language is vague which will
make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the public to
understand their rights and responsibilities. The resulting confusion
will place increased burdens on the public trying to navigate the
already complex immigration process and will lead to costly and
inefficient operations of federal agencies. Such complexity and
vagueness will disproportionately affect low-income individuals
who do not have access to paid legal counsel to navigate this
immigration process and often do so pro se and who are often, in
our experience, from marginalized communities that have not had
adequate educational opportunities.
II. Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors
is Neither Relevant nor Necessary and will have an unacceptable
chilling effect on sponsors and co-sponsors USCIS proposes to add a
new requirement to the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I864EZ which would require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card to provide in-depth bank account information. Specifically,
sponsors (and household members whose income and/or assets are
being used by a sponsor to qualify) would be required to provide
the name of the banking institution, the number of the bank
account, the routing number of the account, the account holder's
name, and the name of any joint account holders.
This change is proposed with no basis in any legal authority for
USCIS to require this information in order to sponsor a spouse or
relative for a green card. Bank account information is not only not
necessary, but it is irrelevant to the requirement to verify the

understand the specific legal obligations to which
they are agreeing.

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
183

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In the limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, such as deposits in
a bank account, to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements. Further, the
new requirement raises significant privacy concerns. Routing
numbers in particular are vulnerable to cybercrime and identity
theft. Citizens and immigrants are broadly advised through
consumer know-your-rights trainings to not share routing numbers
as consumer fraud, cybercrime and identity theft become more
widespread and rampant. Requiring sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information exposes them to heightened risk of
becoming an identity crime victim. This is especially objectionable
when the information is not relevant or necessary to prove income.
Citizens and lawful permanent residents have every right to not
maintain bank accounts and should not be penalized or subject to
negative inferences for not maintaining such accounts. The
intimidating nature of this baseless requirement to pry into
someone’s bank account would deter many sponsors from
supplying such information, or even providing sponsorship,
especially those serving as “joint sponsors”. The foreseeable likely
effect is to discourage sponsors and joint sponsors from executing
Form I-864. Such a chilling effect, especially where lacking
foundation in law and where the information may be duplicative,
militates against this change.

protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.

184

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

114.4

III. Changes to Household size violate the regulation defining
“Household Size” and will cause confusion The proposed form
change would result in the computation of household size that
violates the regulation. That regulation, at 8 CFR § 213a.1 defines
household size. The form changes the current question #6 on Part
5, Sponsor’s Household Size, which now reads: “If you have
sponsored any other persons on Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ who
are now lawful permanent residents, enter the number here.”
(emphasis added). The proposed question #1 in Part 6 reads: “Have
you submitted Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ for any individuals other
than those named on this form?” (emphasis added). In deleting the
critical phrase “who are now lawful permanent residents,” the
agency is requiring the sponsor to include in the household size any
person for whom the sponsor “submitted” an I- 864 or I-864EZ. This
broad berth would include persons for whom the sponsor
submitted an I-864, even if they subsequently withdrew it, and
persons for whom the sponsor submitted an I-864 but who were
subsequently denied lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In
addition, proposed question #3 asks for the name “of each
individual for whom you previously submitted Form I-864 or Form I864EZ” without limiting it to those who obtained LPR status. The
proposed Instructions specify that the sponsor is required to “enter
the total number of individuals for whom you have submitted a
Form I-864 or From I-864EZ in the past, even if the form has not yet
been adjudicated or the individual you sponsored did not become a
Lawful Permanent Resident.” According to the proposed form, the
sponsor would “not need to include any individual for whom [the]
sponsorship has ended,” but would need to provide information
regarding individuals for whom the sponsorship never began. This is
contrary to the provision in the instructions that provides an option
for withdrawing the sponsorship “at any time until a decision is

USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes alter
the current computation of household size.
8 CFR 213a.1 defines household size to include “the
number of aliens the sponsor has sponsored under
any other affidavit of support for whom the
sponsor's support obligation has not terminated…”
When calculating household size, the form states:
“If you have sponsored any other persons on Form
I-864 or Form I-864EZ who are now lawful
permanent residents and for whom your support
obligation has not ended, enter the number here.”
(emphasis added).
The form Instructions also state, “Note: If you
executed a Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ on behalf of
an intending immigrant where the support
obligation is not yet in effect, that intending
immigrant is not counted as part of your household
size. However, if that intending immigrant
becomes a lawful permanent resident before your
support obligation on this Form I-864 becomes
effective, that sponsored immigrant is counted as
part of your household size.” (emphasis added).
An intending immigrant for whom the sponsor
executes a Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ, but is not
yet an LPR, would not be counted as part of the
sponsor’s current household size.

185

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

114.5

issued on the applicant’s application for an immigrant visa or
adjustment of status.” Despite this open window of withdrawal, the
new form would now have the sponsor itemize any withdrawn
affidavits of support and increase the household size by that
number. However, a sponsor or household member does not incur
contractual obligations under the affidavit of support until and
unless the intending immigrant obtains LPR status. Merely signing a
form I-864 or I-864EZ does not qualify as “sponsoring” someone. It
is not binding upon execution and submission. Thus, the sponsor
may withdraw an affidavit at any point up to the time the intending
immigrant is granted LPR status based on the submission of the
affidavit of support. 8 CFR §§ 213a.2(e), (f). See also 8 CFR § 213a.1
(definition of sponsored immigrant). Furthermore, the calculation
of household size is already one of the most confusing aspects of
the form, for pro se individuals and even attorneys. This additional
computation will add more difficulty in properly completing the
form, raising barriers especially for low-income individuals who do
not typically afford or retain lawyers to assist in the process. MLRI
routinely provides trainings reaching thousands of lawyers and
advocates working with immigrants and the computation of
household size is one of the most commonly discussed areas of
confusion for family sponsorship. These new forms and instructions
will unquestionably add to the confusion in this complicated area.
IV. Use of Credit Reports The addition of a credit report will unduly
prejudice low-income individuals who often are negatively
impacted by the notorious inaccuracies in credit histories. Part 7,
item #26 requesting: “Credit Report Information (Optional)...I have
attached a copy of a recent credit report” should be deleted. Credit
reports play no part in determining if the sponsor’s income is at or
above the required federal poverty income level for the household
size. Further, problematic credit reports will cast a negative pall on

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
a family sponsorship case, likely to the detriment of low-income
individuals who suffer disproportionately from misinformation on
credit reports and lack the resources to “correct” their credit
scores. Especially for new immigrants, who have had only a short
time to establish a credit history, the negative inference is
prejudicial and more likely to affect low-income individuals. Low
credit scores have no correlation to whether an immigrant would
likely receive public benefits and have in fact been negatively
viewed by federal district courts in their injunctions against the
proposed public charge rule for the inclusion of credit scores in the
newly proposed public charge rules. For example, the Federal
District Court Justice in Road, et al. vs. Cuccinelli, No. 19 Civ. 7993
(S.D.N.Y. 2019) (slip op. at p. 17) reasoned: “[I]t is unclear how the
credit score of a new immigrant -- who, for example, may have only
recently opened her first credit account and therefore has a short
credit history, which would negatively impact her credit score -- is
indicative of her likelihood to receive 12 months of public benefits.
Defendants blithely argue that a low credit score "is an indication
that someone has made financial decisions that are not necessarily
responsible" and that "those irresponsible financial decisions may
be the product of someone who doesn't have very much money to
work with." (Tr. of Oral Arg. dated Oct. 7, 2019 at 86:16-20). The
inclusion of such credit reports and credit history proposed by DHS
in its regulation amending the definition of public charge, 83 Fed.
Reg. 51,114 (Oct. 10, 2018), and in its final regulation, 84 Fed. Reg.
41,292 (Aug. 14, 2019), indicates the agency itself believes it lacks
the authority to weigh the sponsor’s credit worthiness absent
regulatory change. Thus, requesting the sponsor supply a credit
report, optional or not, in the forms proceeds upon this
questionable and highly debatable assumption that the agency is
authorized to investigate the sponsor’s credit worthiness or is

purposes of determining public charge
inadmissibility as set forth in the public charge
inadmissibility rule. Therefore, this change is
unrelated to the changes proposed in the public
charge inadmissibility rule.

187

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

114.6

relevant in the public charge evaluation in violation of the
injunctions. Like the other “optional” requests in these forms and
instructions, the negative impacts will be most pronounced upon
low-income individuals proceeding pro se through this process, or
likely disproportionally intimidate those pro se sponsors from
proceeding with this process, especially in cases where they have
no credit history or have a problematic credit history for whatever
reason.
V. Sponsor’s Contract, Statement, Contract Information,
Certification, and Signature In response to the question “What If I
Do Not Fulfill My Obligations?,” the agency proposes to add the
following sentence in Part 9: “If you fail to reimburse the benefit
granting agency, you may become ineligible to sponsor anyone in
the future.” Remarkably, there is no legal basis for this statement.
The statute sets forth the requirements for being a sponsor or joint
sponsor. INA § 213A(f)(1)(A)– (D). The regulations further define the
requirements for being a sponsor. 8 CFR §§ 213a.2(c)(1)(i)(A), (B),
and (C)(1). In neither the statute nor regulations is it written that
prior reimbursement of means-tested benefits received by a
sponsored immigrant is a requirement for being a sponsor. Where
an agency wishes to change a regulation in this way, it must follow
the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. The
proposed form changes clearly would affect substantive and
fundamental eligibility requirements and would create a profound
change in access to LPR status. Accordingly, any such proposed
changes that would effectively change the current definition set
forth in the regulations should go through notice and comment
rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, and it is
therefore not appropriate to change sponsors’ eligibility through
the venue of information collection.

188

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Also in Part 9, in the paragraph numbered M, the agency proposes
adding the following acknowledgment: “I acknowledge that if I fail
to meet the obligations of sponsorship, I may become ineligible to
sponsor anyone in the future.” This acknowledgment follows from
the above new proposed eligibility requirement, which having no
basis in the statute or regulation, is also ultra vires and should be
omitted. This addition is consistent with the type of intimidating
language used elsewhere in these proposed changes raising the
suggestion or threat that actions taken on behalf of the individual
being sponsored can have negative ramifications in the future.
These types of intimations often have chilling effects on
populations that have no access to solid legal advice to properly
advise them of the real standards which should be applied.

114.7

VI. 864A Address Change and Penalties The inclusion of a change of
address requirement in the Form 864A is wholly inapplicable. The
864A is used by household members, not sponsors. The addition to
the form of requiring completion of a Form I-865 noting a change of
address is inappropriately placed; the requirement is limited to
sponsors and is stated plainly in the statutory and regulatory
provisions cited in this section: 8 USC § 1183a(d) and 8 CFR §
213a.3. Household members are distinct from sponsors in terms of
the eligibility and liability requirements, and are not subject to
address change reporting requirements, and as such this language
is inapplicable.

The current approved instructions for Form I-864A
(edition date 10/15/19) already advise sponsors
who are not U.S. citizens that they must inform
USCIS of an address change. This information is on
the I-864A because both sponsors and household
members must sign that form.
The address change language was revised to better
align with the address change requirements in INA
213A(d)(1). The revisions clarify that all sponsors
must notify USCIS of a change of address within 30
days.
USCIS is not imposing the address change
requirement in INA 213A(d)(1) on household
members.
189

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

114.8

VII. Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is a Burdensome and Wasteful requirement and is
Contrary to U.S. Law The current Form I-864 and related Forms I864A and I-864EZ permit the sponsor (and household member, if
applicable) to sign the forms, like most forms, under penalty of
perjury. Requiring notarizations of the new forms in order to be
considered properly executed is contrary to federal law 28 U.S.C.
section 1746 which permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and
related Form I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under
penalty of perjury. The development of the law which allows
federal forms to be executed under penalty of perjury is lengthy.
The proposal herein runs contrary to and is in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision. Further, the notary
requirement will disproportionately impact low-income individuals
who have more limited access to notaries and higher costs in
accessing notary services. The notary requirement adds undue
burdens on sponsors and the household members whose income
and/or assets are being used by the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a
foreign national for a green card and will add additional costs such
as travel and payment for notarization, as well as logistical
challenges of finding and securing the services of a trustworthy
notary. These requirements are unnecessary and will add a chilling
effect to persons trying to navigate this process. Of further concern
is that this notary burden is even more objectionable given the

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
190

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

115.1

Emily Leung, Justice
Center of Southeast
Massachusetts

newly developed social distancing orders and protocols and stay-athome orders in effect by local and state authorities, as a result of
the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic. In fact, most
states have implemented reduced notary requirements due to the
pandemic, and USCIS should take note of those important
considerations. We appreciate the opportunity to submit
comments on this matter and are available for any questions.

petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0248&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
I. Requiring sponsor’s bank account information is unnecessary, a
violation of privacy, and at odds 8 USC 1183a(g)(6) (Form I-864, Part
4) The proposed changes would add a requirement that sponsors
and household members provide their banking information (bank
account number, routing number, bank account type, etc.). USCIS
has no legal authority to require this. If a sponsor is attempting to
demonstrate ability to support through assets or income, it seems
reasonable that a confirmation of those assets or income would be
sufficient. USCIS provides no information or justification as to why a
bank account number and additional information would be
required. A sponsor already has to provide their federal income tax
returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and letter of employment to
demonstrate evidence of income, or bank statements to
demonstrate evidence of assets. If the sponsor is already meeting
the income or assets threshold through those means, requiring
them to provide more detailed personal bank account information
serves merely to obfuscate the process and burden an otherwisequalified sponsor. Additionally, the proposed changes are explicitly
at odds with 8 USC 1183a(g)(6). The statute discusses how a
sponsor can demonstrate ability to maintain income and states “For
purposes of this section, a demonstration of the means to maintain

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.

191

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
income shall include provision of a certified copy of the individual’s
Federal income tax return for the individual’s 3 most recent taxable
years and a written statement, executed under oath or as
permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title 28,
that the copies are certified copies of such returns.”1 The statute
further defines “flexibility” in demonstrating maintenance of
income by stating, “For purposes of this section, aliens may
demonstrate the means to maintain income through demonstration
of significant assets of the sponsored alien or of the sponsor, if such
assets are available for the support of the sponsored alien.” 2 The
statute makes no mention of additional personal bank account
information being needed in order to demonstrate a means to
maintain income. Requiring this information arguably removes the
intended purpose of flexibility and creates a new provision not
authorized by statute.
Additionally, cybercrime and identity theft are common
occurrences in our increasingly digital society. According to the
2019 Identity Fraud Study from Javelin Strategy & Research, the
number of consumers who were victims of identity fraud was 14.4
million in 2018. While the total number of cyber attacks decreased
from 2016 to 2018, the victims’ out-of-pocket fraud costs more
than doubled from 2016 to 2018 to $1.7 billion.3 With the
increasing sophistication of cyber crime, we are concerned that
sponsors will be at increased risk when being required to provide all
of their bank account information. Causing further concern is the
fact that USCIS does not explain nor provide detail about how the
bank account information is relevant, how the information will be
utilized, nor what mechanisms they will undertake to protect it.
DHS and USCIS are under their own obligations to safeguard
personally identifiable information (PII), particularly sensitive
information that can result in harm to individuals. In the proposed
192

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
changes, USCIS requires the submission of additional sensitive PPI,
without providing any reasonable justification, which is
unnecessary. For the reasons discussed, USCIS and DHS should
remove the requirement for sponsors to provide detailed bank
account information.

115.2

II. Requiring sponsors to provide blanket authorization of personal
information disclosure to “any Federal, State, or local agency that
may receive an application for a means-tested benefit for the
intending immigrant” as well as DHS and DOS, is a violation of their
privacy and at odds with statute. (Part 9, Revised Form I-864) In the
revised form Part 9, section D, the added language states “I
understand that Form I-864 may be made available to any Federal,
State, or local agency that may receive an application from the
individuals named in Part 3. for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) benefits (formerly called Food Stamps), Medicaid
(other than Emergency Medicaid), Supplemental Security Income,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or other means-tested
benefits.” This blanket authorization is at odds with protecting the
privacy of the sponsors. Because this proposed rule now requires
sponsors to provide much more sensitive personal information,
specifically their bank account information, it is incredibly
concerning that this information will be made available to any
Federal, State or local agency that may be providing benefits for the
intending immigrant. There is no reason or justification provided to
explain why it is necessary for the benefits granting agency to have
access to this financial and personal identifying information of the
sponsor. Furthermore the language of this section is overly broad
since it does not limit the transmission of information only to
agencies that are providing means-tested benefits that would be
considered under the public charge provision – the supposed

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
underlying purpose of the affidavit of support provisions. While the
I-864 form does provide some specific carve-outs regarding certain
benefits which are not considered “public benefits,” it does not
apply those carve-outs to the information sharing provisions of the
form. The proposed changes in the forms create gaps in the
protection of the sponsor’s sensitive personal information that
raises serious privacy concerns.
In the revised form Part 9 sections L and M, the added language
states, “I authorize agencies and entities that administer or oversee
means-tested public benefits, and any agency or entity that is
authorized to act on its behalf, to disclose information to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State
(DOS), for the purpose of administration of federal laws regarding
my obligations as a sponsor, as agreed to in this affidavit and only
as permitted by law….I specifically authorize the agencies and
entities that administer or oversee means-tested public benefits,
and any agency or entity that is authorized to act on its behalf, to
disclose my name, Social Security number, date of birth,
information about the agency’s deeming of my income and/or
assets/resources, and any reimbursement obligations to DHS and
DOS.” It is unclear what DHS’s authority is to require this of
sponsors. The agencies that provide the means-tested benefit have
the authority to enforce the affidavit of support, but nowhere in
the law does DHS play a role in the enforcement other than
providing the affidavit of support to the agency. DHS has not
provided any authority for requiring benefit-giving agencies to
providing the required information and is creating a burden on an
innumerable number of federal, state, and local agencies without
their consultation or agreement. Advising DHS and DOS of a
sponsor’s need to reimburse for benefits does not serve any
identifiable purpose, since the agencies have the authority and

194

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
ability to pursue reimbursement without the involvement of those
agencies.

115.3

Furthermore, there are already long-standing systems in place that See response to 115.2.
allow for necessary information exchange related to benefits
eligibility. The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE)
program is a verification program allowing benefits agencies to
confirm the eligibility status of non-citizens applying for benefits. It
allows for information sharing for the purpose of program
administration, but also requires states to have safeguards in place
to ensure that any information exchanged is protected and
available only for valid administrative needs of the program. The
federal statute under which SAVE was established,42 USC
1320b7(a)(5), says that states must have “adequate safeguards are
in effect so as to assure that— (a) the information exchanged by the
State agencies is made available only to the extent necessary to
assist in the valid administrative needs of the program receiving
such information, and the information released pursuant to section
6103(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is only exchanged
with agencies authorized to receive such information under such
section 6103(l); and (b) the information is adequately protected
against unauthorized disclosure for other purposes, as provided in
regulations established by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, or, in the case of the unemployment compensation
program, the Secretary of Labor, or, in the case of the supplemental
nutrition assistance program, the Secretary of Agriculture, or [1] in
the case of information released pursuant to section 6103(l) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Secretary of the Treasury.”4
195

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

115.4

(emphasis added). The broad authorization of disclosure of the
sponsor’s information falls outside of this parameter as it is not
necessary for the valid administrative needs of the program and
additionally. Neither the affidavit of support statute (8 USC 1183a),
the SAVE statute, nor any other statute authorizes DHS to require
sponsors to consent to allow any federal, state, or local agency to
share their personal information as a prerequisite for sponsorship.
This information sharing will add confusion and fear to the
sponsorship process, and will prevent eligible immigrants from
securing services. DHS is attempting to bypass these benefits
programs’ privacy protections in this proposed rule.
III. The provision barring sponsors from sponsoring again if they fail
to meet obligations is vague and has no basis in law (Part 9, Form I864) On Form I-864, Part 9, under the question “What If I Do Not
Fulfill My Obligations?” the agency proposes adding, “If you fail to
reimburse the benefit granting agency, you may become ineligible
to sponsor anyone in the future.” This addition has no basis in law.
The statute laying out the requirements of sponsorship in INA §
213A(f)(1)(A)-(D) has no requirement that a sponsor have
previously reimbursed a benefit granting agency for a means-tested
benefit received by a sponsored immigrant. This addition to
sponsoring process cannot be created utilizing an information
collection method. If USCIS wants to substantively change
sponsorship requirements they must go through the rulemaking
process under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the
proposal is also generally inadvisable since it will be difficult to
implement and create significant agency burden.

196

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

115.5

IV. This proposed rule is part of a larger, concerted effort by the
Trump administration to discourage legal immigration. This
proposed form changes will have a strong chilling effect on
otherwise eligible sponsors and will deter those looking to legally
immigrate to the United States. Adding additional impediments,
financial or legal in nature, for sponsors is part of the sustained
scheme of regulatory changes the administration has put forth to
add barriers to most existing pathways to legal immigration. The
administration put forth policies and regulations like the Third
Country Transit Asylum Ban, the Migrant Protection Protocols,
travel bans, public charge, increases in immigration fees and the
removal of some fee waivers, increases in Employment
Authorization Processing times, criminal bars to asylum, attacks on
DACA and TPS, and the creation of a denaturalization task force,
that have had detrimental effects on legal immigration to the
United States.5 The proposed changes to the affidavit of support
process seek to scare sponsors by adding language to the forms and
instructions that assumes that the intending immigrants will utilize
public benefits. This is simply not the reality. USCIS has vastly
expanded what is considered a means-tested benefit with the
public charge rule that went into effect on February 24. 2020. The
public charge rule added federal housing, SNAP, and nonemergency Medicaid among others to the list, creating a lot of fear
and confusion in immigrant communities about the receipt of
public benefits.6 However, even before the implementation of the
expanded public charge rules, low-income non-citizen families
utilized Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance, and other means-tested
benefits at lower rates than native-born citizens. The average value
of the benefits received per person is also lower for immigrants
than for citizens.7 The majority of immigrants with LPR status aren’t
even eligible for public benefits for 5 years, after which many

As stated in the 30-day Federal Register Notice:
“On May 23, 2019, President Trump
issued the Memorandum on Enforcing
the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens
(Presidential Memo)… The Presidential Memo
states that a “key priority of [the] Administration is
restoring the rule of law by ensuring that existing
immigration laws are enforced” and emphasized
that sponsors who pledge to financially support
sponsored aliens are expected to fulfill their
commitment under the law. As part of this
revision, and in furtherance of the Presidential
Memo, USCIS has made changes to better inform
sponsors and household members of their support
obligations and better ensure the support
obligations, as agreed to by completing and signing
the Form I–864, Form I–864EZ, or Form I–864A, will
be met.”

197

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

115.6

choose to naturalize,8 demonstrating that the proposed language is
not being implemented for the stated purpose of safeguarding
benefits agencies but to create fear and confusion for sponsors and
intending immigrants. Families should be able to access and use the
benefits they are eligible for, focus on remaining healthy and
productive, without compromising their immigration status or the
financial wellbeing of their sponsor. Congress has clearly
understood this over time, intentionally maintaining immigrant
access to programs like SNAP, CHIP and Medicaid.9 Punishing a
sponsor because a lawful permanent resident utilizes a benefit to
which they are entitled goes against congressional intent of
permitting access to benefits for immigrants who need them.
The proposed changes do not serve the articulated purpose of
“better inform[ing] sponsors and members of their support
obligations and better ensur[ing] the support obligations…will be
met.” DHS and USCIS do not provide any evidence that the
requested changes to the forms and instructions will meet the goal
of informing and ensuring support obligations are met. The new
requirements, however, create privacy risks, administrative burden,
and will have a chilling effect on legal immigration – meeting a very
different goal than stat
ed.
Conclusion In conclusion, the proposed changes to Forms I-864, I864A, and I-864EZ, their instructions, and the new notary
requirement create additional, unnecessary roadblocks to an
already difficult pathway to legal immigration. These changes
violate a sponsor’s privacy, result in information sharing that is both
unnecessary and contrary to statutory authority, and intends to
fundamentally change sponsorship requirements through an
information collection process, violating the Administrative
Procedures Act. We urge USCIS and DHS to consider the negative

See response to 115.5.

198

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
implications of these proposed changes and remove the language
discussed in this comment.

I respectfully submit this comment opposing changes for Form I864, Affidavit of Support, & related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB
Control Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require, among
other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card provide
in-depth bank account information and have the forms notarized by
a notary public. For the reasons outlined below, I oppose these
proposed changes to Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and
Form I-864EZ. I urge the agency to remove these requirements
before the new editions of these forms are released to the public.
I am an attorney & my spouse is an immigrant to the US. Through
his contributions to his semiconductor company, he has created
thousands of US based jobs & has generated significant revenue
impacting his company's many employees and the communities of
the New England region. I practice employment based immigration
law and family based immigration law.

116.1

Sarah Coleman

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
income and/or assets are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would
be required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders.
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card. Bank account
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.

200

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Requiring information including bank account numbers from
prospective petitioners who are also signatories of I-864 contracts
with the US government goes over and beyond the facts required
for a US officer to determine whether the petitioner meets the
burden of providing documentation to evidence income greater
than 125% of the annual federal poverty guidelines. Bank account
balances change drastically over time. The stronger objective
evidence that is already required is current employment and
related compensation and related tax documentation. Also,
requesting bank account numbers quickly exposes the USCIS to
great liability of holding such sensitive information that too easily
could become the victim of a purposeful or accidental data breach.
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic.

116.2

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

In closing, a signature required in the presence of a notary public is
repetitive -- all immigration forms are already signed under the
pains and penalties of perjury. Such a requirement places an undue
201

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
burden and an unnecessary step to filing an immigration petition or
application.
Sarah M Coleman
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
A problem with collecting private financial information is hacking
into agency computers and stealing information.
A problem with the notarization requirement is rural America and
those who reside abroad.

117.1

Allan Lolly

The proposed regulatory changes do not included reasons why
these changes are important. What problem is trying to be fixed?

202

118.1

Suzanne Sorkin

These form revisions would collect extensive personal information
including financial information without an adequate rationale for
doing so. Please do not adopt these form revisions; there is no
reason this information needs to be gathered and potentially
shared with many others including Medicaid, SNAP, SSI, etc.

No change will be made based on this comment.
No change will be made based on this comment.

203

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

USCIS is proposing significant changes to Form I-864, Affidavit of
Support, and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ. The proposed
changes would require, among other things, that U.S. citizens, and
lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank account
information, including the name of the banking institution, account
number, routing number, and the names of all account holders.
This information is unnecessary and irrelevant given that sponsors
are already required to show that they have enough income and/or
assets to support their foreign spouse or relative at 125% of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines by submitting Federal income tax
returns and other relevant documentation.
Additionally, USCIS is proposing to require that sponsors must have
the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ notarized by a
notary public. The notary requirement is an inconvenient and
needless burden which has no basis in the law. U.S. law permits
these forms be executed under penalty of perjury.

119.1

Jonathan Weinstock

I am a concerned United States citizen and I respectfully submit this
comment opposing changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of Support,
and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control Number 16150075, for the aforementioned reasons. I urge the agency to remove
these requirements before the new editions of these forms are
released to the public.

Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
204

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary

No change will be made based on this comment.
See response to 119.1.

119.2

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.
I oppose the proposed changes to Form I-864, Affidavit of Support,
and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control Number 16150075, and propose that the Form I-944 should add a crucial missing
item, allowing space on page 1 or 2 of the I-944 Declaration of Self
Sufficiency where intending immigrants should have the
opportunity to state clearly and succinctly up front that they have
worked 40 qualifying quarters in the United States for Social
Security purposes, and are therefore statutorily exempt from
enforcement of the Public Charge ground of inadmissibility, per INA
213A(a)(3)(B), and thus need not comply with the forms's additional
disclosure requirements. USCIS proposes to require U.S. sponsors of
a spouse or relative for a green card to provide personal bank
account & routing information. Such data is not needed by USCIS,
there is no statutory support for such a requirement, which would
be burdensome & invasive for US citizens and LPRs who sponsor a
foreign relative, and it would create vast potential for data
breaches & identity theft which could be financially ruinous for US
petitioners and create enormous financial liabilities for USCIS.
120.1

In this 30-day Federal Register Notice, USCIS is only
requesting public comments on OMB Control
Number 1615-0075.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).

Karin Wolman
206

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
I am a practicing immigration attorney with over 20 years of
experience. The proposed changes are unsupported by law or
common sense.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Irrelevant and Unnecessary

The commenter’s suggestion about revising the
Form I-944 is outside the scope of this form
revision.
No change will be made based on this comment.

USCIS has proposed amending Forms I-864, I-864A and I-864EZ to
require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring a
foreign spouse or relative for a green card to provide the name of
their banking institution, the institution's routing number, the
sponsor's or household member's personal bank account number,
account holder's full name & SSN, and names of any joint account
holders.
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require bank account
information, and it is neither necessary nor relevant to verify the
sponsor's income, which is done by providing Federal income tax
returns, W-2 or 1099 wage & earnings statements, and letters of
employment. Where the sponsor is using cash assets in a bank
account to satisfy 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, the
I-864 already requires sponsors to provide copies of bank
statements. The risk of large-scale identity theft causing irreparable
financial harm to US citizens and lawful permanent residents as a
result of disclosure of personal bank account information also poses
enormous financial & reputational risk to USCIS.

207

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Requiring Form I-864, I-864EZ & I-864A to be Notarized by a Notary
Public is a Substantial Needless Burden Inconsistent with U.S. Law
Currently, the Forms I-864, I-864A & I-864EZ allow the sponsor (and
sponsor's household member) to sign these forms under penalty of
perjury. USCIS proposes to require that these forms must be
notarized by a notary public in order to be properly executed. Such
a requirement is inconsistent with federal law: 28 U.S.C. section
1746 permits all federal forms, including Form I-864 and related
Form I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of
perjury. The agency's proposal to require that these forms must
now be notarized by a notary public violates the Administrative
Procedure Act by attempting to impose a burdensome new
procedural requirement through a form revision.
Such a requirement would impose unnecessary added costs, travel
burdens, and logistical challenges on the sponsor/household
member to have their forms notarized by a notary public. While
particularly burdensome at present, in light of social distancing
protocols and stay-at-home orders imposed by local and state
authorities, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a notarization
requirement would impose substantial unnecessary burdens even
under normal business conditions, and it is unsupported by federal
law.
Karin Wolman

120.2

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

In conclusion, I oppose the agency's proposal that would require
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring a foreign
208

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
spouse or relative for a green card to provide detailed personal
bank account information on Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ, and
to have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.
Furthermore, to save time and resources for USCIS Immigration
Services Officers and to provide clarity for applicants, Form I-944
should have a section near the beginning of the form to clearly
indicate when an intending immigrant has already worked 40
qualifying quarters for Social Security purposes in the US, and is
thus exempt from the Public Charge ground of inadmissibility per
INA 213A(a)(3)(B), and should be exempted from completing
subsequent portions of the form.

121.1

Vanessa Meraz,
Center for Law and
Social Policy (CLASP)

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
The commenter’s suggestion about revising the
Form I-944 is outside the scope of this form
revision.
No change will be made based on this comment.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0229&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes made in
Proposed Revision is Improper Attempt to Bypass Rulemaking and
Deter Sponsors The notice of proposed changes to these forms was the form revision is a violation of the APA.
first published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2019, the date Also see responses below.
that the "public charge" rule, a rule with drastic implications for
family-based immigration, was originally scheduled to take effect.
As a result, most immigrants and their advocates were focused
elsewhere, and this notice received relatively little attention. USCIS
re-opened these for only an additional 30 day comment period on
April 10, 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, with nearly 90
percent of the United States under stay at home orders.6 Two
weeks later, on April 21, 2020, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the U.S Office of Management and
Budget, reported on its website that it had received a proposed rule
on the Affidavit of Support on Behalf of Immigrants for review
209

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
under Executive Order 12866.7 This rule is classified as an
economically significant rule. In the semi-annual regulatory agenda,
OMB reported that "DHS intends to update regulations at 8 CFR
213a to enhance the integrity of the affidavit of support contract
between sponsors and the U.S. Government."8 Updating the form
in advance of this rulemaking process makes no sense, and appears
to be an attempt to bypass the legally required rulemaking process
under the Administrative Procedures Act to change the
requirements of the affidavit of support with minimal public input,
as updates to forms receive far less scrutiny than rulemaking
processes.
USCIS is proposing to require, among other things, that U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card provide in-depth bank account
information and have the forms notarized by a notary public. USCIS
provides no evidence that these changes would make it more likely
that sponsors would provide accurate information on the affidavits
of support, which they already must sign on penalty of perjury.
These changes do add to the paperwork burden and cost involved
in completing the forms. In addition, immigrants who have
experience with corrupt governments or have experienced identity
theft may be particularly reluctant to share their full bank routing
information with the government. Finally, we are deeply concerned
that the vagueness and lack of clarity of the section on when
sponsors may be required to repay the government for benefits
received by the sponsored immigrant will create confusion and
fear, discouraging people from serving as sponsors. These negative
consequences do not appear to be accidental. We believe them to
be the intended result of, and the motivation for, these changes to
the form. In other words, these changes are an attempt to use
administrative burden as a means to achieve the Trump
210

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Administration's long-standing objective of limiting family based
immigration to the United States, particularly from certain
countries. Donald Trump has expressed his support for dramatic
changes to family-based immigration, particularly when the
immigrants come from certain countries. Since the start of his
Presidential bid, Trump has made numerous and frequent
statements that explicitly express hostility to immigrants from Latin
America, Africa, and Middle Eastern countries where the majority
of people are not white and have low incomes, which are directly
relevant to understanding the administration's motivations.
Examples include: • During his first campaign speech, Trump said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.
They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing
drugs. They're bringing crime. They’re rapists.”9 • On January 26,
2017, less than a week after taking office, President Trump issued
the first of three executive orders banning people from
predominantly Muslim countries from entering or reentering the
United States. The ban currently affects millions of people,
including hundreds of thousands of U.S citizens and permanent
residents, who are prevented from reuniting with family members
who live in the designated countries. • In June 2017, Trump said
15,000 recent immigrants from Haiti “all have AIDS” and that
40,000 Nigerians, once seeing the United States, would never “go
back to their huts” in Africa.10 • On July 26, 2017, President Trump
expressed his support for the RAISE Act and promised "to create a
new immigration system for America. Instead of today’s low-skill
system, just a terrible system where anybody comes in.”11
However, this bill only received support from three Senators, and
was never even heard in committee.12 • On January 11, 2018
President Trump complained about “these people from shithole
countries” coming to the United States and added that the United
211

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

121.2

States should accept more immigrants from countries like
Norway.13
In August 2019, Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, twisted the words of the
famous Emma Lazarus poem and said "give me your tired and your
poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become
a public charge.”14 In a subsequent interview, Cuccinelli went a
step further, saying the poem referred to "people coming from
Europe.”15 • Steven Miller, a lead advisor on immigration affairs,
has called said that the temporary suspension of most immigration,
purportedly in response to the COVID-19 crisis, is actually the first
step in a longer term vision of cutting off immigration, and
particularly family-based visas.16 Miller has been seeking
justifications for such restrictions, and for other ways to limit
immigration, since the start of the administration.17 We therefore
call upon USCIS to suspend any attempts to change these forms
until both the national health emergency caused by COVID-19 has
ended, and the proposed rules changing the requirements for the
affidavit of support have been published, commented upon,
reviewed, and finalized.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary USCIS is proposing to add a new
requirement to the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I864EZ which would require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card to provide in-depth bank account information. Specifically,
sponsors (and household members whose income and/or assets are
being used by a sponsor to qualify) would be required to provide
the name of the banking institution, the number of the bank
account, the routing number of the account, the account holder's
name, and the name of any joint account holders. There is no legal

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
212

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

121.3

authority for USCIS to require this information from all U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card. Bank account information is not
necessary or even relevant in order to verify the sponsor or
household member's income, which is done through the submission
of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and
letters of employment. In some limited circumstances where the
sponsor is using assets, specifically money in a bank account to
satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, sponsors
are already required to provide evidence of those assets by
submitting copies of bank statements. Moreover, this new
requirement raises significant privacy concerns. In today's
environment where cybercrime and identity theft are becoming
more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed bank
account information, particularly when it is not even relevant or
necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an identity
crime victim. Individuals with close connections to countries with
high levels of government corruption may be particularly concerned
about sharing this information with a government agency.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law 28 U.S.C. section 1746 permits federal forms,
including Form I-864 and related Form I-864A and Form I864EZ, to
be executed under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal,
USCIS is illegally proposing to add an additional requirement that
these forms must be notarized by a notary public in order for the
forms to be properly executed. This proposal is also inconsistent
with 8 CFR § 213a.2(a)(ii), and the February 15, 2018 USCIS Policy
Memo (PM-602-0134.1) entitled “Signatures on Paper Applications,
Petitions, Requests, and Other Documents Filed with U. S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services.” USCIS is therefore

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary; neither does 8 CFR 213a.2 nor the
current USCIS signature policy. The Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA is a unique
contract between a sponsor and the Federal
Government, and the Contract Between Sponsor
and Household Member has a related support
obligation. A notarized signature will better ensure
that the person executing the Affidavit of Support
Under Section 213A of the INA or signing the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
is actually the sponsor or household member
213

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
attempting through this form amendment to reinstate an
requirement that it expressly eliminated 13 years ago through the
promulgation of a final regulation written to comply with a federal
statute. The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary
public adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also
unclear whether a non-U.S. notary would count for this
requirement.

121.4

Confusing and Incomplete Description of Requirements May Deter
Sponsors As noted by the National Immigration Law Center in their
comments on this form, the proposed revisions are confusing and
incomplete, which makes it more difficult for the public to
understand their rights and responsibilities.18 We concur with the
entirety of their detailed recommendations for revising the form,
but note in particular the significance of a few particular issues: •
We share their concern with the replacement of the modifier,
“designated”, with “any” Federal, state, or local means-tested
public benefits. Federal law only requires sponsor deeming and
liability for certain designated benefits. It is inconsistent with the
law to suggest to sponsors that the affidavit of supports would
make them liable for other benefits received by the sponsored

agreeing to the support obligation. In addition,
since this requirement helps ensure that the
individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form
I-864A is the actual sponsor or household member
that intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
INA 213A(a) and (b) and 8 CFR 213a explain
sponsor obligations and responsibilities when
executing the Affidavit, including reimbursement of
public benefits. The sponsor certification ensures
the sponsor is aware and agrees to these
obligations. The current I-864 already has language
authorizing the release of the information for the
administration and enforcement of immigration
laws as is permitted by INA 213A. The added
consent language clarifies that this includes release
of information to DHS from the means-tested
public benefit agencies for the purpose of
214

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
immigrant. • Similarly, the description of when a sponsor can be
sued for failure to reimburse the benefit granting agency for
benefits omits critical information, namely that the sponsored
immigrant must receive those benefits after having become a
lawful permanent resident and while the affidavit of support is in
effect, and that the agency must have requested repayment of the
benefits.

administering and enforcement of immigration
laws under the same authority.
USCIS notes that the new consent language
specifically concludes with “and only as permitted
by law.” Therefore, the consent language does not
permit disclosure for an unlawful purpose.
Finally, sharing the information at issue with DHS is
consistent with the referenced statutes because it
permits an administering Federal or State agency,
working with DHS in support of the efficient
administration of its program, to better administer
sponsorship requirements, including pursuit of
recoupment when warranted from a sponsor who
is a liable third party. This information collection
supports the purposes of Federal means-tested
public benefit programs in assisting the valid
administrative needs of the respective programs as
they relate to the sponsorship obligations found at
section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1631, in DHS
regulations at 8 C.F.R. Part 213a, and in applicable
guidance.
USCIS is editing the Sponsor’s Certification
statement in response to this comment. The
language will be changed from “If you fail to
reimburse the benefit granting agency, you may
become ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future”
to “If you fail to reimburse the benefit granting

215

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
agency upon request, you may be found ineligible
to be a sponsor in the future” (edits in italics).

121.5

Conclusion OMB asks those commenting on the proposed revisions
to address these issues: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including whether the information
will have practical utility; USCIS provides no evidence that the
requirements newly added to the form are needed to ensure the
functions of the agency. In fact, as discussed above, they are
contradictory to regulatory and statutory requirements. The only
justification offered for this form revision is the Presidential
Memorandum of May 23, 2019 which emphasizes that "sponsors
who pledge to financially support sponsored aliens are expected to
fulfill their commitment under the law." However, USCIS offers no
evidence to support the implicit claim that the additional
requirements will make it more likely that sponsors will support the
immigrants they have sponsored. Moreover, even if they did have
such evidence, a Presidential Memorandum does not overturn
statutory requirements or the Administrative Procedures Act. (2)
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; USCIS provides little detail on
how it generated its estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information. However, we note that between the
version of this information collection posted in October 2019 and
the one posted in April 2020, the USCIS estimate of the number of
people who would need to fill out the form I-864A was reduced

USCIS provides the estimated cost to respondents
for completing an information collection in
Question 13 of the Supporting Statement. USCIS
provides an estimated cost to respondents based
on a percentage of an estimated high cost that
respondents may incur, as not all respondents will
incur every possible cost associated with this
collection of information.
USCIS will increase the estimated time burden per
response for Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ by an
additional 30 minutes.

216

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
dramatically to be identical to the number listed in the 2017
revision. No explanation of the change is provided. In addition,
there is no evidence that USCIS has taken into consideration the
cost of getting documents notarized, or of additional legal fees that
sponsors are likely to incur. (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; As noted above, in several
cases the changes reduce the clarify of the instructions.
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The changes
have the opposite effect of minimizing the burden of collection of
information, in particular through the requirement to get
documents notarized. (Only a few states generally permit remote
notarization through webcameras, although more have temporarily
allowed it during the emergency.)
Therefore, we call upon OMB and USCIS to suspend any attempts to
change these forms until both the national health emergency
caused by COVID-19 has ended, and the proposed rules changing
the requirements for the affidavit of support have been published,
commented upon, reviewed, and finalized. If USCIS persists in going
forward with revised forms, we urge it to remove the requirements
that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their
foreign spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth
bank account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I864EZ, and have these forms notarized by a notary public. In
addition, we urge changes to language on the forms to clarify the
circumstances under which sponsors may be required to repay the
government for benefits received by the sponsored immigrant. Our
comments include citations to supporting research and documents
217

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
for the benefit of USCIS in reviewing our comments. We direct
USCIS to each of the items cited and made available to the agency
through active hyperlinks, and we request that these, along with
the full text of our comments, be considered part of the formal
administrative record on this proposed information collection.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

122.1

Anonymous
Anonymous

123.1

Azadeh Erfani,
National Immigrant
Justice Center

I do not support the proposed changes, which will needlessly
further burden immigrants and those who try to support them.
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0250&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) submits this comment See response to 123.2 regarding bank account
information.
opposing changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, and related
forms. As a legal service organization that serves low-income
families, we are deeply concerned about the proposed revisions
and urge that USCIS rescind these proposals that may create
insurmountable barriers for low-income immigrants eligible for
adjustment of status.
Headquartered in Chicago, with additional offices in Indiana,
Washington D.C., and San Diego, NIJC is a legal service provider and
advocacy organization. Each year, NIJC provides legal services to
more than 11,000 immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers
applying for lawful status or facing removal. NIJC has provided
these services for more than 30 years. All NIJC clients live at or
below 200% of the federal poverty line. NIJC provides legal services
to many of them on a completely pro bono basis. As a DOJrecognized organization, our services are either pro bono or
provided at substantially reduced rates.1 Finally, NIJC has
represented countless U.S. citizen or lawful permanent residents
218

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

123.2

(LPR) who are petitioning for lawful status for their loved ones but
are further impoverished due to a disability or their fear of seeking
public benefits due to the administration’s public charge rules.2
These clients must rely on relatives or friends to serve as joint
sponsors because of their limited means. The proposed rule would
incapacitate or deter most NIJC clients from reaching the final step
in an already long, often cost-prohibitive, and burdensome journey
to become LPRs. We object to the proposed revisions as a senseless
and arbitrary imposition of additional barriers that will
deprive clients, families, and communities from the meaningful
contributions of countless future LPRs. Consequently, NIJC urges
USCIS to rescind the proposed revisions. Specifically, USCIS is
proposing to require, among other things, that U.S. citizens and
LPRs sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for adjustment of
status provide in-depth bank account information and have the
forms notarized by a notary public. For the reasons outlined below,
NIJC opposes these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related
Forms I-864A and Form I-864EZ. We urge the agency to remove
these requirements before the new editions of these forms are
released to the public.
1) Requiring Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is Invasive
and Unnecessary. USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to
the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I864EZ which would
require sponsors to provide in-depth bank account information.
Specifically, sponsors (and household members whose income
and/or assets are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would be
required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders. There is no basis for this invasive and unnecessary
requirement, which is sure to deter many sponsors and household

219

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
members who are otherwise prepared to support future LPRs. It is
unclear where USCIS derives statutory authority to seek disclosure
of bank records, for which individuals have a legitimate privacy
interest. 3 Furthermore, bank account information is unnecessary
since sponsors already must submit federal income tax returns and
W-2s, which provide a comprehensive review of a sponsor and their
household’s financial capacity. Where the sponsor is also relying on
their assets to satisfy the 125 percent threshold of the federal
poverty guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide
evidence of those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.
Imposing this requirement on all sponsors and household members
is unnecessarily intrusive. The demanding nature of Form I-864 and
its iterations already confound and deter many families—making
this proposed revision a last straw for countless future LPRs. NIJC
recently represented Sofia,4 a woman who sought adjustment of
status through her U.S. citizen husband. Due to their limited means,
her husband overcame great discomfort to ask for a friend to serve
as a joint sponsor and provide the personal and tax information
already required under the current forms. Despite his deep desire
to complete the immigration process to regularize the status of his
wife, Sofia’s husband frequently was distraught at the level of detail
currently required and ashamed of needing so much information
from the joint sponsor. In a case like Sofia’s requiring in-depth bank
account information would certainly decrease the likelihood of a
joint sponsorship agreement moving forward and jeopardize the
ability of many to obtain the legal status and family stability
provided by law.

220

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

123.3

2) Requiring Notarizing Is a Needless Burden that Will Further
Incentivize Fraudulent Parties Who Exploit Vulnerable Families.
Currently, the Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ
permit the sponsor (and household member, if applicable) to sign
these forms under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal,
USCIS is proposing to require that these forms be notarized by a
notary public in order for the forms to be properly executed. Such a
requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1746
permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form I864A and Form I864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, USCIS's proposal to require that these forms must
now be notarized by a notary public inappropriately attempts to
impose a substantive new requirement through a form revision.
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic. NIJC represents petitioners who already struggle
with obtaining the information required simply because of the joint
sponsor’s demanding work schedule. In one case, for example, NIJC
client Diana was forced to rely on a joint sponsor for additional
support in her case because her family member petitioning hear
was near the threshold 125%. Diana and her family spent
tremendous time and effort to seek the joint sponsor’s information

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

221

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

124.1

Susan Welber, The
Legal Aid Society

because of the joint sponsor’s busy schedule. Had the joint sponsor
been forced to take time off of work to seek notarization it is
unlikely that Diana would have been able to move forward with her
immigrant visa petition. Her case would have remained in limbo, as
would their prospect to reunite as a family.
Finally, notary publics have a rife history of exploiting and
defrauding immigrant families. NIJC has issued guidance to families
after witnessing case after case where notarization became a
gateway for exorbitant fees and unlawful practice of law.5 By
requiring sponsors to visit notaries, USCIS would further expose
families to fraudsters who prey on their desperate need to reunite
with their families. In addition to being a needless requirement,
notarizing would thus potentially create more crime victims and
either delay or obstruct family reunification.
Families already overcome significant hurdles to sponsor their loved
ones. Requiring invasive bank information would deter and chill
many sponsors, who are otherwise willing to comply with existing
requirements. Imposing notarization is further duplicative and
unnecessary, and may contribute to the victimization of families
who fall prey to fraudsters. Altogether, these proposed revisions
would compromise already frail prospects of family unity for
countless U.S. citizens and LPRs. That is why NIJC urges USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0228&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
B. Sponsor Deeming and Sponsor Liability In addition to our
experience in helping family-based adjusters find sponsors, some
background on the current administration’s efforts to reform the
deeming of sponsor income (“sponsor deeming”) and holding
sponsors liable for certain benefits used by sponsored immigrants

USCIS has information on its webpage concerning
fraud (see https://www.uscis.gov/avoidscams/commonscams).

See responses below.

222

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
(“sponsor liability”) is also relevant to these comments. Following
the passage of welfare and immigration reform legislation in 1996,
sponsors of family-based immigrants have been required to execute
Form I-864, which is an enforceable affidavit of support. Among
other things, the affidavit of support is used to determine if the
sponsor is financially eligible to serve as a sponsor, who is generally
required to have income of at least 125 percent of FPG. The
existence of a properly-executed affidavit of support is also
considered, among other factors, in determining whether an
intending immigrant may be a public charge. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4).
Federal law provides that under certain circumstances, where an
immigrant who is approved for an immigrant visa uses certain
government benefits, the benefits granting agency can seek
reimbursement from the sponsor. There are also provisions of law
that permit benefits granting agencies to deem the sponsor’s
income available to the immigrant when determining whether they
meet financial qualifications for benefits. Sponsor deeming for state
benefits was struck down by the New York State Court of Appeals
as unconstitutional with respect to state-funded benefits. Minino v.
Perales, 79 N.Y.2d 883 (1992). In New York City, sponsor liability
was enforced only briefly , starting in 2012. The Legal Aid Society
challenged the policy in a putative class action in April 2013, which
was settled in May 2014, resulting in the City ceasing to enforce its
sponsor liability policy. Starting with a January 2017 leaked, draft
executive order that also contained an early iteration of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) new public charge rule
(84 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Aug.14, 2019)), the President announced his
intention to start implementing sponsor deeming and sponsor
liability at the very outset of his nascent administration. Two years
later, on May 23, 2019, the President issued an executive order
calling for federal agencies to take action to enforce deeming and
223

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
liability rules. See
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/memorandumenforcing-legal-responsibilities-sponsors-aliens/ (“the Order”). The
Order directs federal agencies to review policies and take actions
with respect to both deeming and liability. In addition to so
directing both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which cover
benefits that are historically subject to deeming and liability, the
Order contains some new directives:
The Order purports to direct the U.S. Departments of Treasury,
Commerce, Labor, Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, and Education to consider whether any benefits
they administer should be considered means-tested benefits that
should be subject to sponsor deeming and liability. • The Order may
have implications for how information about sponsors and
sponsored immigrants is shared, as it states that procedures and
guidance should include “procedures for data sharing with Federal
agencies, as appropriate and consistent with law.” There is also
reference to USDA and HHS needing to coordinate with DHS
regarding the management of records for the purpose of
administering and enforcing immigration laws consistently with all
other applicable laws. • The Order also directs the U.S.
Departments of State (DOS) and DHS to issue guidance on whether
sponsors who do not reimburse the government for benefits used
by their sponsored immigrants should be eligible to continue to
serve as a sponsor for the existing immigrant or other family
members. • The Order also directs USDA, HHS, and the Social
Security Administration to establish information-sharing procedures
with the “Treasury Offset Program,” which collects nontax federal
debts through withholding of federal payments that include tax

224

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
refunds and benefits payments. This directive suggests an intent to
use the program to collect benefit repayments.
Although certain agencies have responded to the Order, including
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which issued
guidance to state health departments on August 23, 2019, see
https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policyguidance/downloads/sho19004.pdf.; Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), which issued guidance on August 23, 2019, see
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/resource/state-enforcement-legalresponsibilities-sponsors-noncitizens; and HHS, which issued
guidance on September 13, 2019, see
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-acf-pi-2019-01, none of
these actions change current law, which permits the federal
government to enforce liability rules only with respect to Family
Assistance/TANF, SNAP, SSI, and federal Medicaid. Upon
information and belief, the other agencies directed to respond to
the Order have not yet done so. Perhaps most significantly, neither
DOS nor DHS have issued guidance on whether sponsors who do
not reimburse the government for benefits used by their sponsored
immigrants should be eligible to continue serving as a sponsor for
the primary immigrant or other family members. Despite the work
of the agencies required by the Order being unfinished, USCIS has
rushed ahead with the Proposed Changes which implicate unsettled
aspects of sponsor liability and sponsor deeming that have not
been the subject of rule-making, nor even to the agency guidance
required under the Order.

225

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

124.2

1. Requirement of Including Detailed Bank Account Information As
indicated above, each of the forms contain Proposed Changes that
would require detailed bank information from sponsors and/or
household members. Specifically, sponsors (and household
members) would be required to provide the name of the banking
institution, the number of the bank account, the routing number of
the account, the account holder’s name, and the name of any joint
account holders. The sponsor completing a Form I-864 or I-864EZ
also is required to certify acknowledgement that the form may be
provided to Federal, state, or local agencies in connection with any
benefits applications made by the intending immigrant. See
Proposed Form I-864, Part 9, D. Disclosure and permission to share
such detailed bank information is not authorized under any relevant
law. Nor is it necessary to verify income, which is done using tax
information, letters of employment, or – where asset information is
needed – evidence in the form of bank statements. On its own, and
especially combined with the prospect of the forms being shared
with unspecified government agencies for an unspecified list of
benefits which may or may not implicate the public charge ground
of inadmissibility, the new requirements also raise significant
privacy concerns. Based on our experience counseling sponsors,
many would be extremely wary of serving as a sponsor if they were
required to share detailed bank account information in a form,
especially a form that they are required to acknowledge may need
to be shared with unnamed third parties. The bank information
requirements would serve as a deterrent to serving as a sponsor,
and make it more difficult for our clients seeking to attain LPR
status through a family member to do so.

With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
have demonstrated the means to maintain income
as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
INA 213A(a) and (b) and 8 CFR 213a explain
sponsor obligations and responsibilities when
executing the Affidavit, including reimbursement of
public benefits. The sponsor certification ensures
the sponsor is aware and agrees to these
obligations. The current I-864 already has language
authorizing the release of the information for the
administration and enforcement of immigration
laws as is permitted by INA 213A. The added
consent language clarifies that this includes release
of information to DHS from the means-tested
public benefit agencies for the purpose of
administering and enforcement of immigration
laws under the same authority.

226

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
USCIS notes that the new consent language
specifically concludes with “and only as permitted
by law.” Therefore the consent language does not
permit disclosure for an unlawful purpose.

124.3

2. Requirement to declare other persons sponsored. Under the
public charge rules that went into effect on February 24, 2020, the
rules governing household size for the purposes of determining
adequate sponsor and intending immigrant income have changed.
See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 213a.1. The new household definition includes
persons for whom the sponsor has a legal obligation as sponsor. It
does not include persons for whom there is a pending or denied
application for an immigrant visa to whom the signatory to the
Form I-864 has no legal obligation. Nevertheless, the Proposed
Changes to the Form I-864 and Form I-864EZ both ask whether the
sponsor has ever submitted either form for any other intending

Finally, sharing the information at issue with DHS is
consistent with the referenced statutes because it
permits an administering Federal or State agency,
working with DHS in support of the efficient
administration of its program, to better administer
sponsorship requirements, including pursuit of
recoupment when warranted from a sponsor who
is a liable third party. This information collection
supports the purposes of Federal means-tested
public benefit programs in assisting the valid
administrative needs of the respective programs as
they relate to the sponsorship obligations found at
section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1631, in DHS
regulations at 8 C.F.R. Part 213a, and in applicable
guidance.
USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes alter
the current computation of household size.
8 CFR 213a.1 defines household size to include “the
number of aliens the sponsor has sponsored under
any other affidavit of support for whom the
sponsor's support obligation has not terminated…”
When calculating household size, the form states:

227

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
immigrants, regardless of the outcome of their application. This is a
material change from the current version, which only asks about
sponsoring immigrants who are now LPRs. Accordingly, by deleting
the critical phrase “who are now lawful permanent residents,” the
agency is requiring the sponsor to include in the household size any
person for whom the sponsor submitted an I-864 or I-864EZ,
regardless of whether it was withdrawn or the person was denied.
This change is inequitable and unlawful and should be rejected.

124.4

3. Optional Submission of Credit Report. The Proposed Changes
include the option of attaching a recent credit report. This is
another unnecessary, unauthorized change that may deter
sponsors from serving in this critical role. First, credit reports are
notoriously inaccurate. They shed little if any light on the economic
health of the sponsor. Second, credit reports are explicitly
influenced by factors that have nothing to do with the soundness of
a sponsor’s ability to meet their financial obligations to the
intending immigrant. For example, if the sponsor is a relatively
young person or a new LPR or citizen, then their shorter length of

“If you have sponsored any other persons on Form
I-864 or Form I-864EZ who are now lawful
permanent residents and for whom your support
obligation has not ended, enter the number here.”
(emphasis added).
The form Instructions also state, “Note: If you
executed a Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ on behalf of
an intending immigrant where the support
obligation is not yet in effect, that intending
immigrant is not counted as part of your household
size. However, if that intending immigrant
becomes a lawful permanent resident before your
support obligation on this Form I-864 becomes
effective, that sponsored immigrant is counted as
part of your household size.” (emphasis added).
An intending immigrant for whom the sponsor
executes a Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ, but is not
yet an LPR, would not be counted as part of the
sponsor’s current household size.
USCIS disagrees with commenter’s assessment of
the utility of the credit reports.
Credit reports will be used to help USCIS evaluate if
a sponsor has demonstrated the means to maintain
income as required by INA 213A and whether the
sponsor or household member will be able to meet
his or her support obligation during the period of
enforceability. This use of the credit report is for
228

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
time residing in the U.S. would artificially depress their credit score
regardless of their financial health. Finally, even though submitting
a credit report is optional, many of our clients will want to do so
anyway, feeling that they should submit the strongest application
they can, given what is at stake. If their score is low, they may be
convinced that they cannot serve as a sponsor, or that there is a risk
that they will be denied and that such denial will hurt their family
member, the intending immigrant. Given these problems, the
Proposed Change regarding credit scores should be rejected.
B. Arbitrary and Unauthorized Certifications Both Form I-864 and I864EZ contain a series of new certifications. See, e.g., Form I-864,
Part 9, C (requiring certification that the sponsor “may be sued if . .
. [the beneficiaries] receive means-tested benefits after admission
to the U.S. . . .”); D (requiring certification that the I-864 “may” be
shared with “any” federal, state, or local agency that receives an
application from the beneficiary for certain benefits, without
specifying under what circumstances such sharing would be
triggered); F (requiring certification that the sponsor has read the
“Sponsor and Beneficiary Liability” section in the instructions and
knows their obligations under the Social Security Act and Food
Stamp Act).

124.5

determining the sufficiency of the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

USCIS is editing the Sponsor’s Certification
statement. The language will be changed from “If
you fail to reimburse the benefit granting agency,
you may become ineligible to sponsor anyone in
the future” to “If you fail to reimburse the benefit
granting agency upon request, you may be found
ineligible to be a sponsor in the future” (edit in
italics).

Certification F is particularly egregious. The instructions begin with
the misleadingly statement that “any federal, state or local meanstested benefit” needs to be reimbursed (emphasis added) and that
the sponsor can be sued for failing to reimburse the relevant
agency for the cost of those benefits, but then refers to the reader
to a different document, Part 9 of the I-864 itself, where it purports
to explain that only certain benefits are considered means-tested
benefits subject to reimbursement and collection. The certifications
in Part 9, however, are far from clear on this point. The specific
229

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

124.6

section of the instructions referenced in the certification does not
offer any clarity. It does not specify the benefits that count. The
truth is that, as indicated in the Order, the President wants to
greatly expand the benefits that would be reimbursable, but at this
time has no authority to do so. That the instructions nevertheless
indicate that “any” benefit may need to be reimbursed is utterly
misleading.
Another certification, M, requires the sponsor to certify that if they
fail to meet obligations of sponsorship they may become ineligible
to sponsor anyone in the future, and is also unauthorized. The
requirements of sponsorship set forth in the INA and relevant
regulations contain no such requirement. In neither the statute nor
regulations is it written that prior reimbursement of means-tested
benefits received by a sponsored immigrant is a requirement for
being a sponsor. If the agency would like to change the respective
regulations to this effect, it must first satisfy the procedures set
forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. USCIS cannot require a
potential sponsor to certify, under penalty of perjury no less, any of
these exceedingly unfair, arbitrary, and confusing certifications.
Even if the agencies follow procedures and issue rules under which
these certifications would make more sense, allowing them to go
into current forms would be extremely premature at this time. Like
the bank account requirement, these certifications appear to be
designed to scare potential sponsors away from serving in that role
by raising the specter of lawsuits and disqualification from serving
as sponsors for future relatives, all without any regard to whether
the sponsor is financially qualified to serve in the role of sponsor
under existing law and regulation.

230

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

124.7

124.8

C. Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized. All
three forms containing Proposed Changes are now required to be
notarized, a sharp departure from the current versions of the
forms, which permit the sponsor (and household member, for the
Form I-864A) to sign these forms under penalty of perjury. Not only
is finding and paying a notary an inconvenience and unnecessary
expense, requiring notarization conflicts with federal law. See 28
U.S.C. 1746. Section 1746 explicitly permits federal forms, including
Form I-864 and related Form I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be
executed under penalty of perjury. Moreover, there is no regulatory
authority for this change, which means it is made in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act.
D. Requirement that household members notify USCIS of a new
address within ten days of moving. Form I-864A also includes new
language regarding the obligation that a sponsor who is not a U.S.
citizen must inform USCIS of his or her new address within 10 days
of moving, but the I-864A is used by household members, not
sponsors. Subjecting non-sponsor household members to this
requirement is contrary governing law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(d); 8

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA
The current approved instructions for Form I-864A
(edition date 10/15/19) already advise sponsors
who are not U.S. citizens that they must inform
USCIS of an address change. This information is on
the I-864A because both sponsors and household
members must sign that form.
231

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
C.F.R. § 213a.3. Household members are very distinct from
sponsors in terms of the eligibility and liability requirements. They
are not subject to address change reporting requirements, and this
Proposed Change should be rejected.
III. Conclusion: USCIS Should Withdraw All of the Proposed Changes
and Associated Forms and Instructions For each of the foregoing
reasons, USICIS should not move forward with the issuance of the
forms containing any of the Proposed Changes at this time. Many of
the Proposed Changes are not lawful, and appear to be part of an
effort to expand sponsor deeming and sponsor liability in response
to the President’s Order, with the aim of further diminishing
immigration by the family members of U.S. citizens and LPRs. The
Proposed Changes are not only harmful to immigrants and their
sponsors, but they are unauthorized under existing law. They
should be withdrawn.

125.1

126.1

Rachael Hill

Louis Horn

The address change language was revised to better
align with the address change requirements in INA
213A(d)(1). The revisions clarify that all sponsors
must notify USCIS of a change of address within 30
days.
USCIS is not imposing the address change
requirement in INA 213A(d)(1) on household
members.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

This is clearly unfair and I do not support this.
I am commenting to oppose the proposed revisions to the affidavit
of support forms.
The proposed revision to I-864 contains no information on why
these changes will be useful or any explanation on what problems
currently exist, if any, in the existing affidavit of support process.

The proposal would require bank account information to be
submitted by sponsors and household members. The proposal
makes no explanation for how this information will be used or how

Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
232

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
it will be useful in the affidavit of support process. To me it seems
like a case of purposeful government overreach designed to create
a chilling effect since the administration is upfront about its efforts
to limit immigration in whatever way possible. Any American would
be suspicious of government attempts to acquire their bank
account information and this attempt seems like an effort to scare
more Americans away from the process of sponsoring immigrants.
No explanation is given for how this information will improve the
affidavit of support process and the relevant statute INA 213A
contain no reference to or mention of bank account information.
The current affidavit of support requires a declaration under
penalty of perjury. The proposed revision would change this to
requiring a notarized signature. Very few USCIS forms require a
notarized signature and no explanation is given for why it should be
appropriate for this form. One USCIS form, the G-639 used for FOIA
requests, gives the option to the requestor to use a Declaration
under Penalty of Perjury OR a Notarized Signature. To me, this
would be an elegant solution if USCIS would like to use more
notarized signatures, the agency could give the sponsor or
household member an option for whether to use a declaration
under penalty of perjury OR a notarized signature. I believe it is
fairly obvious that the notarial requirement is an unnecessary step
puts an undue burden upon the sponsor. I recommend either
abandoning this part of the proposal or to give the
sponsor/household member an option to use a notarized signature
or declaration under penalty of perjury.

requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.

Many other changes to the affidavit of support forms are also
233

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
unnecessary. I recommend USCIS continue using the current
affidavit of support forms and abandon these changes. If USCIS is
intent on revising these forms, the agency should go into more
detail in explaining what these revisions are meant to accomplish or
what problems with the current affidavit of support process that
they are designed to fix. USCIS also does not tie any of these
changes back to the original statute INA 213A that governs the
affidavit of support process, how do these changes improve the
process in reference to the statute?

127.1

Doug Rand,
Boundless
Immigration, Inc.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0268&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
1. Requiring sponsors to provide a bank account number and
routing number Neither the governing statute (8 U.S.C. 1183a) nor
regulation (8 CFR 213a) authorizes USCIS to collect bank account
and routing numbers. • By regulation, the sponsor must include a
tax transcript or return, along with all relevant schedules, W-2s, and
1099s. • By regulation, the sponsor may include letters evidencing
current employment and income, paycheck stubs, financial
statements, or “other evidence of the sponsor's anticipated
household income for the year in which the intending immigrant
files the application.” • If using assets in lieu of income, the sponsor
may include “evidence of the sponsor’s ownership of significant
assets, such as savings accounts, stocks, bonds, certificates of
deposit, real estate, or other assets.” USCIS responded to prior
commenters: “Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet their support
obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors have demonstrated the
means to maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).”
This information collection, however, is unauthorized and
nonsensical: • Bank account and routing number information is

INA 213A(f)and 8 CFR 213a.2(c)(2) require sponsors
to demonstrate the means to maintain income at
the required income level and the bank account
information is related to demonstrating the means
to maintain income. USCIS believes the collection
of this information is relevant to the evaluation of a
sponsor demonstrating the means to maintain
income. USCIS also believes it is consistent with
Presidential Memorandum on Enforcing the Legal
Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens (May 26,
2019) to better ensure sponsors fulfill their
commitment under the law.

234

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

127.2

entirely irrelevant as evidence of the sponsor’s income, and the
only evidence that all sponsors must provide under the agency’s
own regulation is a tax transcript or return, along with all relevant
schedules, W-2s, and 1099s. • Even if a sponsor chooses to provide
evidence of assets in a checking or savings account, the only
probative evidence would be a copy of a bank statement showing
the current balance, not the bank account number. • USCIS is not
receiving permission from the sponsor to directly access their bank
account balance, and for that reason alone, USCIS cannot possibly
obtain any relevant evidence from the collection of bank account
and routing number information. The collection of this needless,
unauthorized information will serve only to confuse and intimidate
those filling out the form. At worst, this information collection
could fall into the hands of someone who sells banking and routing
numbers on the black market—again, with no discernable benefit
to the agency or the public
2. Effectively requiring sponsors to provide a credit report Neither
the governing statute (8 U.S.C. 1183a) nor regulation (8 CFR 213a)
authorizes USCIS to collect credit reports. • By regulation, the
sponsor must include a tax transcript or return, along with all
relevant schedules, W-2s, and 1099s. • By regulation, the sponsor
may include letters evidencing current employment and income,
paycheck stubs, financial statements, or “other evidence of the
sponsor's anticipated household income for the year in which the
intending immigrant files the application.” • If using assets in lieu of
income, the sponsor may include “evidence of the sponsor’s
ownership of significant assets, such as savings accounts, stocks,
bonds, certificates of deposit, real estate, or other assets.” USCIS
responded to commenters: “Credit reports will be used to help
USCIS evaluate if a sponsor has demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A and whether the sponsor

INA 213A(f) and 8 CFR 213a.2(c)(2) require
sponsors to demonstrate the means to maintain
income at the required income level and the credit
report is related to demonstrating the means to
maintain income. Nothing in the statute or
regulations precludes USCIS from considering credit
reports as evidence of a sponsor’s means to
maintain income under INA 213A(f)(6). USCIS also
notes that the revision of the I-864 information
collection gives sponsors the option to provide a
credit report.

235

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

127.3

or household member will be able to meet his or her support
obligation during the period of enforceability. This use of the credit
report is for determining the sufficiency of the Affidavit of Support
Under Section 213A of the INA, not for purposes of determining
public charge inadmissibility as set forth in the public charge
inadmissibility rule.”
This information collection is also unauthorized and nonsensical: •
Nowhere in the statute or regulation is USCIS authorized to demand
a credit report, as evidence of either income or assets. • Even
making the credit report “optional” is a de facto demand, since
sponsors will inevitably fear—and USCIS is overtly suggesting in its
proposed form instructions—that failure to include a credit report
will adversely affect the outcome of the adjudication. • Credit
report information is entirely irrelevant as evidence of the
sponsor’s income. • Credit report information is not among the
evidence USCIS is authorized to collect in considering a sponsor’s
assets. The collection of this unauthorized information will serve
only to impose a needless cost on sponsors with no benefit to the
agency or the public.
3. Requiring all signatures to be notarized by a notary public
Neither the governing statute (8 U.S.C. 1183a) nor regulation (8 CFR
213a) authorizes USCIS to require notarized signatures. • 28 U.S.C.
1746 permits federal forms, including Forms I-864, I-864A, and I864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury. • The regulation
includes multiple references to the requirement that an individual
must “sign” an affidavit of support, as with similar regulations
governing many other USCIS forms. • The regulation includes zero
mention of any notarization requirement. For the foreseeable
future, it would be outrageous and dangerous to require individuals
to seek out a notary public when all parties should be practicing
social distancing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. Neither INA 213A nor 8 CFR 213a
precludes USCIS from requiring notarized
signatures. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
236

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

127.4

setting aside these immediate public health concerns, the notarized
signature requirement cannot be justified as a legitimate
information collection. USCIS responded to commenters: “The
Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA is a unique
contract between a sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better ensure that the
person executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of
the INA or signing the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household member agreeing to
the support obligation…it benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals that may not
wish to assume the significant financial responsibility of
sponsorship.” This response is entirely inadequate: • USCIS
provides absolutely no evidence of fraud on the part of signatories.
• USCIS provides absolutely no evidence that notarized signatures
are an efficient and effective way to combat such fraud, in any
event. • USCIS clearly admits its goal to deter individuals from
“assum[ing] the significant financial responsibility of sponsorship,”
which is not an authorized purpose of this information collection. •
In any event, a sponsor’s decision to take on financial responsibility
has no relationship to the verification of the sponsor’s identity.
4. Requiring sponsors to make a certification that is logically false
USCIS proposes to require sponsors to make this certification: “I
acknowledge that if I fail to meet the obligations of sponsorship, I
may become ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future.” USCIS
explains the above certification in the form itself as follows: “If you
fail to reimburse the benefit granting agency, you may become
ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future.” As commenters have
noted, there is no statutory or regulatory basis for these
statements. An individual who fails to reimburse a benefit-granting

sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

127.5

agency may be less likely to be found eligible to sponsor someone
in the future, due to inadequate finances, but it is simply incorrect
to state that such a person “may become ineligible” categorically.
USCIS responded to commenters: “Under INA 213A(a)(1), a sponsor
must agree to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at a
certain income and must demonstrate the means to maintain
income as required under INA 213A(f)(6). Failure to reimburse
means-tested public benefits and live up to a support obligation
could be indicative of the inability to maintain income at the
minimum threshold level and/or carry out support obligations
during the period of enforceability. And this certification puts the
sponsor on notice that USCIS may consider this when evaluating the
sponsor’s ability to meet the requirements of INA 213A in the
future. This is also consistent with the Presidential Memorandum’s
goal to better enforce sponsorship obligation.” This response is
entirely inadequate. Neither “put[ting] the sponsor on notice” nor
“better enforc[ing] sponsorship obligation” is a sufficient
justification for forcing individuals to certify, under penalty of
perjury, a statement that is inherently false.
5. Requiring a sponsor’s joint tax filer to provide an irrelevant Form
W-2 and/or Form 1099 Neither the governing statute (8 U.S.C.
1183a) nor regulation (8 CFR 213a) authorizes USCIS to require tax
information that is irrelevant to income or asset determination.
USCIS proposes to require a sponsor’s joint tax filer to submit their
W-2 and/or 1099 “even if the joint tax filer does not submit Form I864A and his or her income will not be used to help meet the
sponsor’s income requirement.” USCIS responded to commenters:
“In general, a joint filer’s income cannot be used to meet the
sponsor’s income threshold unless the joint filer files a Form I-864A.
Therefore, the joint tax filer’s information is needed to determine
whether the sponsor can meet the income threshold by him or

The joint filer’s tax returns may be necessary to
demonstrate that the income the sponsor is relying
on is the sponsor’s and not the joint tax filer’s
income. As stated in the original comment
response, a joint filer’s income cannot be used to
meet the sponsor’s income threshold unless the
joint filer files a Form I-864A.

238

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

127.6

herself or needs the joint filer to file Form I-864A as a household
member, or otherwise needs a joint sponsor. No changes will be
made based on this comment.” This is logically false. Clearly, the
joint tax filer’s information is not needed to determine whether the
sponsor alone is above or below the required income threshold.
There is simply no reason for the agency to impose this burden on
such joint tax filers.
1. Responses to questions posed in the information collection
notice The information collection notice states that “[w]ritten
comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies
should address one or more of the following four points”: (a)
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
None of the proposed changes to the collection of information are
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency, as the status quo Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ already
allow the agency to obtain more than enough information to
comply with its regulatory and statutory obligations. Likewise, the
proposed collection of information will have no practical utility for
the agency in the performance of its statutorily authorized duties. If
the agency believes otherwise, it has provided no basis for this
belief in the information collection request or its response to prior
commenters, which were made available as the sole basis for public
comments during the current 30-day comment period.
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used. The agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed information collection is both inaccurate
and inconsistent. We evaluated three of the agency’s publicly
available estimates: § 2019/2020 (DHS response to OIRA) §

USCIS provides the estimated cost to respondents
for completing an information collection in
Question 13 of the Supporting Statement. The cost
per hour may fluctuate based on the estimated
cost to respondents and any estimated change in
the hour burden per response.
USCIS will increase the estimated time burden per
response for Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ by an
additional 30 minutes.
Consistency in respondent estimates can be
expected when they are being provided in such a
manner as to cover the 2-3-year information
collection approval period provided when OMB
concludes on an information collection request.

239

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

127.7

2019/2020 (public notice) § 2017 (public notice) As highlighted in
the spreadsheet below, we found unexplained issues in comparing
these three estimates: 9 1. Why did the agency use an average cost
per hour of $51.47 in 2017, $41.41 in the current public notice, and
$36.47 in its subsequent response to OIRA? If anything, this number
should increase over time with inflation. 2. Why did the agency’s
projected volume for Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ remain
unchanged between 2017 and 2020? Surely the agency’s
methodology should account for the latest data on recent filing
volume, which must have changed since 2017.
Most importantly, it is entirely unreasonable for the agency to
assume that the imposition of a notarized signature requirement,
together with other changes, will add only 30 minutes of extra
effort. The total extra effort will require an additional 1.5 hours at
the very least—for locating a notary public, travel time, signature
time, etc. Using a standard cost per hour of $41.14 and an
additional 1.5 hours of time burden above the agency’s current
assumption, we found that the total expected cost of this
information collection ($174,762,205) is 43% higher than the
estimate that the agency most recently provided to OIRA
($121,887,171). This is a discrepancy of nearly $53 million.
Compared with the agency’s data from 2017, we found that the
total expected cost of this information collection ($174,762,205) is
40% higher than the apparent status quo ($125,062,445). This is a
discrepancy of nearly $50 million. These additional burdens are
non-trivial and must be addressed by the agency.

USCIS increased the estimated time burden per
response by an additional 30 minutes as a result of
this comment.

240

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

127.8

127.9

(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected. As described above, the proposed information collection
does nothing to enhance the quality, utility, or clarity of the
information to be collected. On the contrary, each of the proposed
changes would substantially impair the clarity of the information to
be collected, as they are unnecessary and will create confusion. In
addition, the agency provides absolutely no justification for its
proposal to delete the helpful step-by-step checklists that currently
appear on the relevant form instructions. (See below for an
example from the current Form I-864.) As a general matter,
checklists in USCIS form instructions are extremely helpful to users,
especially those who lack legal representation or other
sophisticated assistance. Cutting these checklists from the I-864 and
related forms makes no sense under the basic goals of both the
Paperwork Reduction Act and the Plain Writing Act, and can only be
understood as a deliberate attempt to make these forms more
difficult to successfully complete.
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Nothing in the
proposed changes would reduce, let alone minimize, the burden of
the collection of information on those who are to respond. In fact,
as explained in detail above, the proposed changes would likely
burden respondents with an extra cost of some $50 million each
year. The proposed changes would be comparably onerous whether
the information is collected via traditional or electronic means,
because the burden stems from the nature of the information
demanded, not the relative difficulty of transmitting this
information in paper format. Finally, contrary to the agency’s most

USCIS reviewed Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ
and made revisions that are necessary to ensure
USCIS collects adequate information about a
sponsor’s and/or household members’ financial
situation to determine that sponsors and
household members can meet their support
obligations. The questions and information added
are necessary and have practical utility, and
therefore in compliance with the PRA.

241

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
recent assertions to OIRA, this information collection would
certainly increase burdens on small entities (e.g. nonprofit
organizations and law firms assisting sponsors with their
paperwork).

127.10

127.11

2. Additional PRA Concerns The proposed changes implicate a
number of additional concerns under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
above and beyond the questions asked in the information collection
notice. a. Absence of the required description of agency’s need and
use DHS Management Directive 142-01 establishes the
department’s policy implementing the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act concerning collections of information. This
management directive (referred to here as “DHS policy”) prohibits
an information collection unless the Federal Register notice
includes “a brief description of the need for the information and
proposed use of the information” (§ 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)(B)(3)). In fact,
the agency’s notice provides no such description, and does not
provide the public with any way to adequately ascertain the
agency’s need for, or proposed use of, the additional information
under the proposed changes.
b. Failure to comply with the “least burdensome” standard DHS
policy requires that, “[t]o obtain OMB approval of a collection of
information, an agency shall demonstrate that it has taken every
reasonable step to ensure that the proposed collection of
information … is the least burdensome necessary for the proper
performance of the agency's functions to comply with legal
requirements and achieve program objectives” (§ 1320.5(d)(1)). As
described in detail above, the proposed changes would create
significant new burdens and are wholly unnecessary for the proper
performance of the agency’s functions. The agency has not

USCIS provides a description of the need for and
proposed use of the information in the Supporting
Statement submitted to OMB. The DHS
Management Directive requires preparation of a
Federal Register Notice “announcing the
Department’s intention to collect information…,” a
requirement with which USCIS complied by
publishing both a 60-day and a 30-day Federal
Register Notice.

USCIS reviewed Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ
and made revisions that are necessary to ensure
USCIS collects adequate information about a
sponsor’s and/or household members’ financial
situation can meet their support obligations. The
questions and information added are necessary
and have practical utility, and therefore in
compliance with the PRA.

242

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
demonstrated otherwise to the public, and it is difficult to conceive
of how it has demonstrated otherwise to the DHS Chief Information
Officer or to OMB.

127.12

c. Inadequate agency review DHS policy provides that the agency
designate a “Senior Official” to carry out its responsibilities under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, that such official shall “review each
collection of information before submission to OMB for review,”
and that such review shall include, among other things: ● an
evaluation of the need for the collection of information, which shall
include, in the case of an existing collection of information, an
evaluation of the continued need for such collection; ● a functional
description of the information to be collected; ● a plan for the
collection of information; and ● a specific, objectively supported
estimate of burden, which shall include, in the case of an existing
collection of information, an evaluation of the burden that has been
imposed by such collection (§ 1320.8(a)). Based on the flawed
assumptions and scant justifications provided in the information
collection notice, there is no evidence that the agency’s Senior
Official adequately conducted these elements of the required
review.

127.13

d. Inadequate disclosure of agency plans DHS policy requires that
the Senior Official “shall ensure that each collection of information
… informs and provides reasonable notice of the potential persons
to whom the collection of information is addressed of,” among
other things: ● the reason the information is planned to be and/or
has been collected; and ● the way such information is planned to
be and/or has been used to further the proper performance of the

Multiple officials at USCIS have reviewed and
approved the revised Forms I-864, I-864A, and I864EZ, up through the Director’s Office. In
addition, as part of the 30-day notice, there is a
section entitled “Reasons for Changes” which
summarizes the major changes to the Form I-864,
Form I-864EZ, and Form I-864A. In that same
section, the 30-day FRN also explains the purpose
of the changes. USCIS has fully complied with the
Paperwork Reduction Act.

USCIS published a 60-day and a 30-day notice in the
Federal Register notifying the public that Forms I864, I-864A, and I-864EZ were being revised.
Although not required, USCIS created a docket for
Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ at
www.regulations.gov and posted the revised forms
for interested parties to download, review and
provide comments on. In addition, a telephone
243

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
functions of the agency (§ 1320.8(b)). The information collection
notice does not adequately include such disclosures.

IV. Conclusion Section 1320.5(f) of the DHS Management Directive
states that, “to the extent that OMB determines that all or any
portion of a collection of information is unnecessary, for any
reason, the agency shall not engage in such collection or portion
thereof. OMB will reconsider its disapproval of a collection of
information upon the request of the agency head or Senior Official
only if the sponsoring agency is able to provide significant new or
additional information relevant to the original decision.” Moreover,
DHS may not use an information collection notice to circumvent the
notice-and-comment regulatory requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).

127.14

In light of the discussion above, the agency has only three options
that are fully consistent with this DHS policy, along with relevant
OMB policies, Executive Orders, agency regulations, and statutes:
(1) Rescind this information collection notice and retain the status
quo forms. (2) Rescind this information collection notice and
publish a new information collection notice that actually reduces
the paperwork burden of the status quo Form I-864, Form I-864A,
and Form I-864EZ. (3) Rescind this information collection notice and
publish a proposed rule under the Administrative Procedure Act
that provides a full explanation for public comment as to why the
proposed changes are consistent with relevant regulations and
statutes.

number and email address were provided in the
notice to be used by the public to request the form
and instructions be sent to them for review.
Therefore, adequate notice of the proposed
changes was provided.
As required by the PRA, USCIS published a 60-day
notice in the Federal Register and responded to
public comments received based on the 60-day
Federal Register Notice. USCIS also published a 30day notice in the Federal Register and provided
responses to the public comments received on that
Notice. In response to the 60-day comment period,
USCIS explained the reasons why revisions were
made to the form and the authorities that
permitted those changes. Based on the 30-day
comments and in response to the issues raised in
this presentation, USCIS is expanding on those
responses and clarifying the reasoning for the
changes.
In terms of substantive changes DHS intends to
make, DHS has communicated its intention in the
Fall 2019 Unified Agenda to publish a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to enhance the integrity of
the Affidavit of Support. USCIS is not using this
information collection notice to circumvent the
notice-and-comment regulatory requirements of
the APA. Any changes to the I-864 information
collection that USCIS believes requires notice-and244

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
comment rulemaking under the APA are being
done as part of the NPRM initiative.

128.1

Jaime Langton

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

245

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
be required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder’s name, and the name of any joint account
holders.
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card. Further, USCIS
already requires all sponsors to provide tax returns, W-2s, and
proof of income. Requiring bank statements in addition to this
seems designed to discourage qualified persons from serving as
sponsors.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
Bank account numbers should never be easily accessible to cyber
criminals.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law

128.2

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
246

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Furthermore, the agency’s proposal to require that these forms
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.
It is also completely unnecessary. USCIS already requires proof of
lawful status as a part of the application as well as documents only
the sponsor would be able to provide. The forms and required
supporting documents, as they exist now, provide ample proof of
consent, accuracy, and identity.

signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA
No changes will be made based on this comment.

In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency’s proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

129.1

Anonymous

I do not support this proposal. It is blatantly unfair towards
immigrants, the majority of which are poor and do not have access
to the resources, time, and money that this proposal burdens them
with. The current paperwork requirements are more than
sufficient; these additions are not necessary.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

247

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
On behalf of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy
Coalition we submit the attached comments in response to the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services’ proposed changes to Forms I864, I-864A, and I-864EZ and the respective Instructions to Form I864 and I-864EZ. See attached file.

130.1

Jessica Chicco,
Massachusetts
Immigrant and
Refugee Advocacy
Coalition

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS- Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
2007-0029-0255&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
I. Requiring Detailed Bank Account Information for All Sponsors is
identifiable information. Bank account information
Not Relevant and is an Unnecessary Invasion of Privacy
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
USCIS is proposing to amend the Affidavit of Support forms to
possessed by USCIS.
require U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident sponsors to
provide detailed bank account information, including the name of
No changes will be made based on this comment.
the banking institution, the name of any joint account holders, the
bank account number, and the routing number. This requirement
would also extend to joint sponsors and household members of
sponsors whose income is taken into consideration. There is no
legal authority for USCIS to require this level of detailed and
personal information from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents who sponsor a relative. Bank account information is not
necessary or even relevant in order to verify the sponsor or
household member's income. Verification of income is done
through submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
statements, and letters of employment. Requiring that such
detailed bank account information be provided raises significant
privacy concerns. In today's environment where cybercrime and
identity theft are becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to
disclose detailed bank account information, particularly when it is
248

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
not even relevant or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of
becoming an identity crime victim. Reviewing bank account
information is only relevant in the context of a sponsor relying on
one’s assets, rather than income, to satisfy the requirements of an
affidavit of support. In those instances, sponsors are already
required to provide evidence of those assets by submitting copies
of bank statements.

130.2

II. The Proposed Form Misstates the Sponsor’s Liability and
Eligibility The proposed form states that a sponsor is “responsible
for reimbursing the [benefits] agency for the amount of benefits
they provided” to the sponsored individual. However, this
information is misleading, as it omits to inform the sponsor that the
benefits granting agency must first demand reimbursement before
the sponsor is required to repay. The form should be amended to
reflect this clarification. Further, the form states that a sponsor may
become ineligible for future sponsorships if they fail to reimburse
the benefit granting agency. This effectively adds an eligibility
requirement for sponsors that is not authorized in the current
statute and regulations. 8 USC 1183a(f) and 8 CFR 213.a2. The
agency cannot create new requirements through amending a form,
and USCIS acknowledges as much by stating: “The regulations
governing the Affidavit are provided in 8 CFR 213a and will not be
changed by this form change.” This unauthorized language should
be stricken.

249

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
III. Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Unnecessary Burden on Sponsors Currently, the
Form I-864 and related forms permit the sponsor to sign these
forms under penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal, USCIS is
proposing to require that these forms must be notarized by a
notary public in order for the forms to be properly executed. Such a
requirement is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1746
permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form I864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Other immigration forms, including applications for status, are
signed under penalty of perjury. The agency's proposal to require
that these forms must now be notarized by a notary public violates
the Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision. The requirement to have the
form notarized by a notary public also adds undue and unnecessary
burdens - in terms of time, costs and logistical challenges - on
sponsors and the household members whose income or assets are
being used by the sponsor to qualify. This requirement is
particularly burdensome in light of social distancing protocols and
stay-at-home orders that are currently being imposed by local and
state authorities, as well as countries around the globe, as a result
of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic.

130.3

IV. Conclusion In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above,
MIRA opposes the agency's proposed changes that would require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouses, children, or other
relatives for a green card to provide detailed bank account
information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ, and

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.

250

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
have these forms notarized by a notary public. We urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA

I have been an immigration attorney for 25 years. The proposed
changes will result in increased document submissions and
encourage frivolous filings bogging down USCIS adjudications and
backlogging the courts.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary

131.1

Vilma Guerrero

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require bank name, account
number, routing number, the account holder's name, and the name
of any joint account holders from all sponsors. Bank account
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the

No changes will be made based on this comment.

251

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment, where the sponsor is not
relying on assets. Requiring such documentation in every case only
adds the the mountains of information that adjudicators are
already required to review.
Moreover, this new requirement raises significant privacy concerns.
In today's environment where cybercrime and identity theft are
becoming more rampant, requiring all sponsors to disclose detailed
bank account information, particularly when it is not even relevant
or necessary, exposes them to heightened risk of becoming an
identity crime victim.

131.2

Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is inconsistent with U.S. Law and pushes individuals to
seek advice from unscrupulous notarios.
Currently, the I-864 Forms permit the sponsor (and household
member) to sign these forms under penalty of perjury. USCIS is
proposing to require that these forms must be notarized by a
notary public. Such a requirement is inconsistent with federal law.
Section 28 U.S.C.1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864
and related forms to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require that these forms be
notarized by a notary public violates the Administrative Procedure
Act by attempting to impose this new requirement through a form
revision.
Notario Fraud is a recognized across the country as a serious
problem. I work with individuals who live on the California Central
Coast where notario-based immigration fraud is a constant

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
252

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
problem. Forcing prospective immigrants to have documents
notarized only pushes them towards the very same unscrupulous
notaries that prey on immigrant communities.
In many Latin American countries, the term "notario publico" refers
to an individual who has extensive legal training, while in the U.S., a
notary's function is simple: to provide impartial witness to the
signing of official documents. But in many cases, these individuals
often refer to themselves as immigration consultants or experts.
They are known to encourage the filing of frivolous, and many
times, fraudulent applications with USCIS. The American Bar
Association (https://stopnotariofraud.org/), the U.S. Trade
Commission (https://www.consumer.gov/content/notario-fraud;
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2019/09/notarios-are-nohelp-immigration), and even USCIS itself
(https://www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams/common-scams) all warn of
the dangers of notario fraud. Requiring individuals to have
documents notarized gives these notarios a government legitimacy
that they should not have. It will lead to more fraud, not less.
I have practiced immigration law long enough to remember the
notarization requirement on the Form I-134, a precursor to the I864. Even though the I-134 was notarized, it was no better at
enforcing the financial sponsorship obligation. In practice, the
notary checks identification, witnesses a signature and places a
stamp on the form. The notary does not administer and oath or
verify that the signer is truly willing to accept the support
obligation. How is this more secure than a signature signed under
penalty of perjury? With the current form, the government already
has the signer's identity document, employment information and
tax records as part of the I-864 requirements and could easily locate

benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.

USCIS is aware that a notary public in the United
States is not authorized provide legal advice. But
they are authorized to witness the signing of
important documents such as the Form I-864, Form
I-864EZ, and Form I-864A. As commenter noted,
USCIS has information on its webpage concerning
notarios (see https://www.uscis.gov/avoidscams/commonscams).

USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA

No changes will be made based on this comment.

253

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
the sponsor should it need to. The signature under penalty of
perjury creates the legally binding contract. That is enough to
enforce the I-864 financial obligation, and many courts have
agreed. (Erler v. Erler, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10361 (9th Cir. June 8,
2016) The government already has the tools it needs to enforce
these contracts, it only needs to decide to do so.
I urge USCIS to remove these requirements.
Hello I have been an immigration attorney for 40 years. While I
understand the aim of this administration in enforcing public charge
provisions, your changes fail to accomplish your goal and in fact will
negatively impact our economy. Immigrants are important to
support our economy and their families. Further your regulations
fail to consider that extended immigrant families often live together
and their income should be considered in the household family size.
Further, since you are reverting to focusing on age, health
education and experience as was previously relevant in the I-134,
you should focus more on the intending immigrant and allow them
to submit proof of previous work, training experience as a way to
overcome a potential public charge determination even where a
sponsor does not meet the public charge guidelines
Further, if a sponsor's tax return and job letter are more than
sufficient, bank statements ought not be required.
Respectfully submitted
132.1

Barbara Brandes

Barbara J. Brandes, Esq

INA 212(a)(4) requires certain intending immigrants
to submit an Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A (Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ).
But INA 213A and 8 CFR 213a control what is
necessary for the Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ to be
found sufficient and for the support obligation to
take effect.
The proposed changes concern the requirements
under INA 213A and 8 CFR 213a. It does not alter
the public charge inadmissibility determination.
USCIS intends to collect bank account information
on the revised forms. USCIS is not requiring bank
statements.
With regards to the collection of bank account
information, it will be used to evaluate that
sponsors and household members can meet their
support obligations under INA 213A, and sponsors
254

I am writing to vehemently oppose the changes to Form I-864,
Affidavit of Support, and related forms, in USCIS-2007-0029; OMB
Control Number 1615-0075. This rule, if promulgated, would
require that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card provide
bank account information and have the forms notarized. I urge the
agency to remove these requirements before the new editions of
these forms are released to the public. The "form revision" actually
creates additional substantive burdens on petitioners, and such
additional regulatory requirements -- even if authorized under the
applicable statute which these aren't -- can only be promulgated
after a full APA Notice and Comment period on the new
requirements. Substantive changes to regulations cannot be
implemented through a supposed "form revision".

133.1

Palma Yanni

There is simply no legal authority for USCIS to require sponsors (and
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by

No changes will be made in response to this
comment.
USCIS posted a Federal Register Notice requesting
comment on a revision to an information
collection, not a notice of proposed rulemaking.
USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes are a
violation of the APA.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
255

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
a sponsor to qualify) to provide not only the name of their bank,
but also the routing and account numbers. This is simply
outrageous! The issue is whether sponsors can show enough
income, or income and assets, to satisfy the requirement that they
have 125% of the federal poverty guidelines for their family size,
including the new immigrants. Sponsors are required to submit
Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and
letters of employment, and evidence of assets if their income alone
does not meet that threshold. This USCIS proposed fishing
expedition through sponsor's personal financial information is
completely unwarranted, and unlawful. It is a naked effort to
discourage individuals from sponsoring their relatives, or becoming
a third party sponsor, and therefore to reduce legal immigration.
The proposed requirement that the forms be notarized is another
utterly unnecessarily burden. The forms make it clear that the
obligation of the sponsor is a legal contract to provide support, and
the forms are signed under penalty of perjury, consistent with 28
U.S.C. sec. 1746. Nothing more is needed, and there is no reason to
impose an additional burden. It certainly can't be done without
formal notice and comment outside of a supposed form revision.
I would also note that it is particularly galling for USCIS to add this
unlawful burden at the time of a pandemic. How is someone
supposed to have the forms notarized, which requires physical
presence with the notary, in the indefinite period of social
distancing as a result of the COVID- 19 pandemic?

same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,

USCIS must abandon this burdensome rule entirely, or at least
256

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
remove the unlawful additional requirements, and make the rule a
simple revision to Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ.

State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

I am an immigration attorney with more than 10 years of
experience in immigration law and policy. After reviewing carefully
the agency's proposed changes to the Form I-864 and related Forms
I-864A and I-864EZ, I am writing to express my opposition to the
proposed changes, in particularly USCIS' proposal to collect bank
account information and impose a notary requirement. USCIS'
proposed changes are yet another attempt by USCIS to impose new
requirements on the public, disguised as a form change, for which
the agency lacks statutory and regulatory authority.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is currently
proposing significant changes to the Affidavit of Support (Form I864), and related forms I-864A and I-864EZ. One of the major
changes to the Affidavit of Support that USCIS is proposing is to
require that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
sponsoring a foreign spouse or relative for a green card must
disclose detailed bank account information to the federal
government on the Affidavit of Support, including the name of the
banking institution, account number, routing number, and the
names of all account holders.

134.1

Diane Rish

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

What is most troubling about this proposal is that neither the
governing statute nor the regulations authorizes USCIS to collect
257

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
such bank account information. The statute and regulations spell
out what information and evidence is required to be provided by
the sponsor for purposes of sponsoring an immigrant to reside
permanently in the United States. By regulation, the sponsor must
provide evidence of their income by submitting a copy of their most
recent Federal income tax return. By regulation, the sponsor may
include letters evidencing current employment and income,
paycheck stubs, financial statements, or "other evidence of the
sponsor's anticipated household income for the year in which the
intending immigrant files the application." If using assets in lieu of
income, such as money in a bank account, the sponsor may include
evidence of the sponsor's assets, such as savings accounts, stocks,
bonds, certificates of deposit, real estate, or other assets. As such,
the agency's blanket proposal to require the collection of detailed
bank account information from all U.S. citizen and lawful
permanent resident sponsoring their foreign spouse or relative for
a green card is an unauthorized information collection.

134.2

Additionally, USCIS is proposing to require that sponsors must have
the Form I-864, and related forms I-864A and I-864EZ, notarized by
a notary public. This new notary requirement is an inconvenient
and needless burden which has no basis in the law. U.S. law permits
these forms to be executed under penalty of perjury. Furthermore,
neither the governing statute nor regulations authorizes USCIS to
require notarized signatures on the Affidavit of Support and related
forms. In fact, the governing regulations include multiple references
to the requirement that an individual must sign the affidavit of
support, as with similar regulations governing many other USCIS
forms. The regulation includes no mention of any notarization

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
requirement.
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors by imposing
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges to have
these forms notarized by a notary public. This requirement is
particularly burdensome and potentially dangerous in light of social
distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are currently
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, in response to the 2019 novel coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic. For the foreseeable future, it would be
nonsensical and potentially dangerous for the federal government
to require individuals to seek out a notary public when all parties
should be practicing social distancing in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.

Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

In light of the foregoing, I respectfully request that USCIS eliminate
these proposals before releasing the new editions of these form to
the public.

135.1

Brooklyn Defender
Services ("BDS")
Submitter's
Representative:
Tracy J. Lawson

Brooklyn Defender Services ("BDS") submits the attached comment
in opposition to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
("USCIS" or the "agency") Proposed Rule on Agency Information
Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection:
Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, USCIS-20070029, OMB Control Number 1615-0075. See 85 Fed. Reg. 20292.
See attachment for full comment.

259

135.1

The Proposal to Require Detailed Bank Account Information Is
Unnecessary and Unduly Invasive of the Sponsors Privacy USCIS’s
proposal to require detailed bank account information from the
sponsor or household member is not necessary or relevant to
demonstrate the proof of income requirements that the forms are
intended to screen for. Requiring the sponsor’s bank account name,
routing number, account number, account holder’s name, and
other sensitive financial information casts a much wider net than
what is necessary to show proof of income and is not even relevant
to verifying income. The evidence that USCIS currently requires of a
sponsor more precisely proves income, such as W-2 forms, tax
returns and transcripts, paystubs, and letters of employment.
Furthermore, this proposal is in tension with federal statute.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(g)(6), certified copies of tax returns is
the primary manner to show the ability to maintain a required
income level. The statute allows for providing asset-related
information for the intended purpose of being “flexible;” not as an
additional burden where the sponsor’s tax returns would suffice
under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(g)(6). In addition to being unnecessary and
inconsistent with the statutory structure, requiring detailed bank
information puts the sponsor’s information at risk for cybersecurity
attacks and identity theft. As with all risk of harm, an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure: The burden of addressing
identity and information stealing is great, and sponsors—who are
both U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents—deserve our

260

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

135.2

government’s respect in not putting their identities and sensitive
information at risk unnecessarily. Lastly, adding voluminous bank
records will cost the agency additional time to review. Specifically,
it will require the USCIS officers reviewing adjustment of status
applications to pore over a higher quantity of complex evidence,
while not enhancing the quality of the information submitted. As
stated above, income is easily and clearly demonstrated by W-2
forms, tax returns and transcripts, paystubs, and employer letters.
Requiring additional, tangential information will further hamper an
already overburdened and backlogged USCIS, and delay approval
for those eligible for green cards. Thus, the collection of this
sensitive information poses additional burdens on sponsors without
any added efficiency or efficacy in meeting the legal requirements,
and USCIS has no legal authority to require this information from all
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their
foreign spouse or relatives for a green card.
The Proposed Notarization Requirement Is In Tension with Federal
Law and Places Unnecessary Burdens on the Sponsor The proposal
to require the I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ forms to contain a
notarized signature is inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C.
section 1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and
related Form I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed under
penalty of perjury as an alternative to notarization. If USCIS does
not modify the instructions for these forms to allow for the
possibility of an unsworn declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746,
rather than a notary, the proposed change would be in violation of
the law. Congress has already determined that in federal and
regulatory matters requiring a notary public, an unsworn
declaration under penalty of perjury is an appropriate substitute.
USCIS does not have the authority to require otherwise. The notary
requirement also imposes additional, unnecessary related costs,

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
261

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
such as travel burdens, added fees, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
notary public. In particular, this requirement presents a public
health risk in light of the stay-at-home orders imposed by local and
state authorities, and social distancing protocols set forth by the
Centers for Disease Control as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic
severely impacting the United States and the world. Instituting this
requirement would unnecessarily force sponsors and household
members to put their health at risk, and ignores the limitations in
accessing notaries at this time.

135.3

USCIS Is Not Properly Making the Proposed Changes Under the APA
The agency’s attempts to make the abovementioned proposed
changes through the instant process of a form revision would
violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)’s requirement
that agencies like USCIS use appropriate procedures for rulemaking.
See 5 U.S.C. § 553. Although USCIS states in the Notice that it is not
changing the regulation governing the Affidavit of Support, see 85
Fed. Reg. at 20293, in fact, some or all of the proposed changes
constitute new requirements for sponsorship. Should USCIS impose
these new requirements without acknowledging the substantive
nature of these changes or providing adequate reasons for them,
USCIS would be violating the APA. * * * Accordingly, BDS opposes
the proposed changes and urges the agency to reject them. None
are statutorily required, some are ultra vires, and each imposes

intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
USCIS disagrees that the proposed changes are a
violation of the APA.

262

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizen and permanent resident
sponsors and householder members.

Requiring documentary evidence and a notary signature suggests
that the goal is to prevent fraud. What existing fraud in affidavits of
support has been found? What is the full cost of not catching
existing fraudulent affidavits of support (if any)? Has this cost been
evaluated against the cost of this new obligation? Has the cost and
effectiveness of this new step been evaluated against other
possible methods of catching any such existing fraud?
Has any work been done to assess the availability of public notaries
to the population that submits these affidavits, and the likely time
or expense that will be required for applicants to have them
notarize the documents?
Has any work been done to identify valid affidavits of support that
may be prevented from submission by meeting the burden of these
new requirements, and has that been included in the calculation of
the entire public cost?

136.1

Jac Fitzgerald

If the affidavit is relying on assets in a bank account, then bank
statements are reasonable. If the affidavit is not doing so, then
bank statements are unnecessary. And the requirement for a
notary public to sign the application is nothing but an attempt to
push the cost of enforcing department rules down to the applicants
and their communities, and greatly increases the complexity of the

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS increased the estimated time burden per
response for Forms I-864, I-864EZ, and I-864A as a
result of the addition of a notary requirement to
these forms. USCIS provides an estimated cost to
respondents based on a percentage of an
estimated high cost that respondents may incur, as
263

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
process. The department should not be outsourcing their work this
way.

not all respondents will incur every possible cost
associated with this collection of information.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

137.1

Katherine O' Kester,
Washington Ethical
Society

I submit these comments to the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) regarding its most recent proposed
changes to the Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-864EZ and the
accompanying Instructions, OMB Control Number 1615-0075,
Docket ID USCIS-2007-0029.
I owe my life and U.S. citizenship to the legal immigration of my
family. My late father was a career U.S. Marine officer from
generations of immigrants from Ireland. My late mother came to
this country as a "war bride." She was welcomed to live in this
country after their marriage during World War II. She married a
heroic U.S. Marine officer who was on leave during combat in the
South Pacific against the Japanese enemy who were then attacking

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
and threatening invasion of her home country, Australia. Due to my
parentage, I am very opposed to any USCIS regulations that are
formulated to discourage legal immigration, especially family
members and those sponsored by families.
As a citizen, taxpayer, and voter, with strong ethical religious
concerns, I oppose the proposed revisions to the process that
would require the U.S. citizen and resident sponsors to submit
extensive in-depth bank account information in addition to the
extensive tax documentation requirements, and the additional
requirement of obtaining a notary signature. These are both
onerous requirements. Due to rampant cybercrime, it is unwise to
force applicants to disclose in-depth bank account details in
citizenship documents that will be accessible to public review on
request. The document affidavits and tax information that are
already required adequately cover this verification process. During
this worldwide pandemic of COVID-19, with necessary seclusion to
mitigate its lethal spread, newly requiring notary signatures is
adding a serious public health risk to applicants who must locate a
notary for in-person signatures. The notary will be at this
unnecessarily increased risk to personal health also.
I wholeheartedly endorse the learned comments submitted by
Gabrielle Lessard of the National Immigration Law Center, Tracking
No.: 1k4-9ge0-259t. In particular, I concur with the opposition to
the USCIS use of language that is overly broad, as Ms. Lessard
points out, with the revision that adds "any" to replace
"designated" Federal, state, or local means-tested public benefits.
USCIS does not have jurisdiction over "any" state or "any" local
means-tested public benefits. The revision using "any" instead of
"designated" is an obvious instance of language that would result in

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. It benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

265

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
unnecessary and immoral intimidation of legal immigrants. During
the worldwide pandemic, discouraging legal immigrants from
utilizing "any" benefits authorized by their state and local
authorities poses unacceptable public health risk to everyone. Every
resident, along with every legal immigrant, must avail themselves of
any opportunity to participate in state and local public health
benefits such as COVID-19 testing in order to mitigate the spread of
this deadly disease to any and all members of the public in this
country. If USCIS aims to discourage legal immigration by using
shortsighted threats of financial reprisal against sponsors of legal
immigrants and their families who use "any" public benefits, the
outcome could thus be lethal to all parties concerned and to the
American public at large.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please do not
hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns about my
recommendations.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

138.1

Anonymous

139.1

Alexandra Blodget

I don't approve of these changes. It is an unnecessary burden.
I have been a DOJ accredited representative at a nonprofit
immigration legal services organizations for over seven years. I have
assisted hundreds of families with affidavits of support. The
requirements are already very stringent. Sponsors must provide
their tax returns and other proof of income. Requiring bank account
routing information will make the process even more difficult.
Many, if not most, sponsors will be reluctant to share this very

266

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
private information given the high level of identity theft in the
United States (including by former ICE Chief Counsel in Seattle,
Raphael Sanchez). In addition, most people do not have easy access
to a notary, which adds one more barrier to an already complicated
and time-consuming process. Notarization should not be necessary
given that sponsors already sign under penalty of perjury and must
provide identity documents. The affidavit of support is a major
barrier to many immigrants. Adding unnecessary and intrusive steps
will effectively prevent more people from making it to the end - the
ultimate result of which is more families separated from their loved
ones.

267

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

Requiring detailed bank account information from all sponsors is
not relevant or necessary and is intrusive without any
corresponding public benefit.

140.1

Mary Waltermire

The proposed requirement to the Form I-864 and related forms
would require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
sponsoring their foreign family members for a green card to provide
in-depth bank account information. For a sponsor to be required to
provide such information (name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders) is unnecessary and without legal authority. There is no
legal authority for USCIS to require this information from all U.S.
268

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring family
members. This has nothing to do with verifying income, which is
provided by tax transcript or tax return, W-2s, and paycheck stubs.
In the cases where a sponsor is using assets, specifically money in a
bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements. No other
documentation should be required.
Moreover, this new requirement raises very significant privacy
concerns. Cybercrime and identity theft are becoming more
common. Requiring sponsors to disclose detailed bank account
information, particularly when it is not even relevant or necessary,
exposes them to greater risk of becoming a victim of identity theft.
I can discern no public benefit from requiring such extensive bank
account information from sponsors. Instead, it appears to be an
unnecessary burden without any corresponding benefit. This
proposed requirement should be rescinded before the forms are
published.
Requiring that I-864s and related forms be notarized is inconsistent
with U.S. law and an unnecessary burden. In the past, the I-864
required notarization. USCIS wisely discontinued this requirement
as unnecessary because a signature under penalty of perjury was
insufficient. I am therefore mystified as to why notarization should
now be required again. This is particularly concerning in light of the
coronavirus pandemic and social distancing requirements.
140.2

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
269

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Currently, the I-864 and related forms permit the sponsor (and
household member, if applicable) to sign these forms under penalty
of perjury. This is authorized under federal law. 28 U.S.C. section
1746 permits federal forms, including Form I-864 and related forms
to be executed under penalty of perjury. This proposed
requirement violates the Administrative Procedure Act by
attempting to impose this new requirement through a form revision
rather than through the normal Notice and Comment requirement.
This new requirement would impose unnecessary costs, travel
burdens, and logistical challenges on the sponsor/household
member to have these forms notarized by a notary public. This
requirement is particularly burdensome in light of social distancing
protocols and stay-at-home orders that are being imposed by local
and state authorities, as well as countries around the globe, as a
result of the coronavirus pandemic. Notarization must be done in
person. This new requirement would require every sponsor, joint
sponsor, and household member to have a face-to-face meeting to
complete the form. Requiring this now is egregious and
unnecessary. The notarization requirement for the I-864 and
related forms was wisely eliminated many years ago. Why go
backwards now?

intends to undertake the support obligation. it
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS disagrees that adding the requirement of a
notarized signature is a violation of the APA.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

For all the reasons listed above, I strongly oppose the agency's
proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their family members
for a green card must provide in-depth bank account information
on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ, and have these
forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to remove these
270

141.1

142.1

Thomas Robbin

Joanne Kim

This modification is an unnecessary burden upon the proposed
sponsor. As it stands the Affidavit of Support is a legally binding
contractual agreement. No further documentation beyond that
which is referenced by the current form and its instructions is
necessary.

Hi,
The new changes requiring sponsors to provide notarized account
information are an unneeded and unnecessary burden that
prevents people from sponsoring immigrants. The process is
already so complicated and makes it almost impossible for people
to see their loved ones.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

271

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

143.1

144.1

145.1

146.1

Sophia O

Anonymous

Robin Chen

Emily Willoughby

Research has consistently shown that immigrants contribute to the
economy and generate more jobs for the American people. The
CDC taskforce working on vaccines is comprised of scientists on the
H1B visa. We have nurses and doctors, sanitation engineers and
grocery store workers, factory workers and farm workers who are
all here as immigrants. It makes no sense that we are ridding
America of the very people fighting to make it a better place for all
of us. Let's not forget that our country was founded by immigrants
fighting for a better place as well.

No changes will be made based on this comment.

No changes will be made based on this comment.
I do not support this revision. It will further burden sponsors and
make it more difficult for immigrants to apply for permanent
residency.
No changes will be made based on this comment.
I do not approve because it adds unnecessary steps for
sponsorships.
I submit this comment opposing changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of
Support, and related forms, USCIS-2007-0029; OMB Control
Number 1615-0075. USCIS is proposing to require that U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card provide in-depth bank account
information and have the forms notarized by a notary public. I
oppose these changes and urge the agency to remove these
requirements before the new editions of these forms are released
to the public.

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
272

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS wants to add a requirement to Form I-864 and related Forms
I-864A and I-864EZ to require U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign relatives for a green card to
provide in-depth bank account information. Sponsors (and
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
a sponsor to qualify) would be required to provide the name of the
banking institution, the number of the bank account, the routing
number of the account, the account holder's name, and the name
of any joint account holders.

identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information.
Bank account information is not necessary to verify the sponsor or
household member's income. That is done through the submission
of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax statements, and
letters of employment.
This is just one more way to impose unnecessary hurdles in the
process, and discourage applicants.
Requiring Form I-864 and related forms to be notarized by a Notary
Public is an inconvenient and needless burden, inconsistent with
U.S. Law and therefore should not be required

146.2

Currently, Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ permit
the sponsor to sign these forms under penalty of perjury. USCIS is

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
273

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
proposing to require that these forms be notarized by a Notary
Public. 28 U.S.C. section 1746 permits federal forms, including Form
I-864 and related Form I-864A and Form I-864EZ, to be executed
under penalty of perjury, without requiring notarization.
This proposal adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors
and household members by imposing unnecessary costs, travel
burdens, and logistical challenges. This requirement is particularly
burdensome in light of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home
orders as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID- 19)
pandemic.
I strongly urge USCIS to remove these requirements before the new
editions of Form I-864, Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are
released to the public.

147.1

Andrea Kovach,
Shriver Center on
Poverty Law

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS2007-0029-0269&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
The Proposed Revisions to the Instructions and Forms are Not
Written in Plain Language As a general comment, the additional
language proposed in these revised instructions and forms do not
conform to the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-274) and
OMB Guidance Implementing the Act. 1 Specifically, the Guidance

executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS has reviewed the forms and instructions for
plain language and legal accuracy. Where possible,
USCIS has employed plain language to improve
readability and avoid unnecessary complexity.
However, USCIS must also ensure that sponsors
and household members have all the information
274

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

147.2

states that “avoiding vagueness and unnecessary complexity makes
it easier for members of the public to understand and to apply for
important benefits and services for which they are eligible. Plain
writing can also assist the public in complying with applicable
requirements simply because people better understand what they
are supposed to do.” We note below the many ways the proposed
revisions to the instructions and forms create more complexity, and
in some instances, are vague, which makes it more difficult for the
public to understand their rights and responsibilities. The resulting
confusion will lead to costly and inefficient operations of federal
agencies and create more burden on the public using the forms as
they try to understand and navigate the additional information.
I. Comments on Proposed Revisions to Instructions to Form I-864
[this issue also applies to the I-864EZ] Means-tested benefits, page
1 In the second paragraph, we are concerned with the replacement
of the modifier, “designated”, with “any” Federal, state, or local
means-tested public benefits. The instruction then references Part
9 of the contract. Part 9 only refers to the section of federal law
that specifies federal programs that are not considered federal
means- tested public benefits for purposes of deeming and sponsor
liability. Federal benefits determined to be means-tested for
purposes of sponsor deeming and sponsor liability are
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps (Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid (non- emergency), and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services outlined the very specific criteria to
determine which federal public benefits meet the definition of
federal means-tested public benefits under the 1996 welfare law.2
Furthermore, the regulations require that federal, state, local
government agencies issue a public notice of their determinations

they need to properly complete the forms and
understand the specific legal obligations to which
they are agreeing.

275

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

147.3

of which benefits, if any, under their jurisdiction would be
considered federal, state or local means-tested public benefits for
purposes of these laws. The regulations expressly state that
sponsors are not liable for reimbursing government agencies for
any benefits received by the sponsored immigrant prior to the time
that this public notice is provided. See 8 CFR 213a.4(b).
Recommendation: Use of the word “any” is overinclusive and will
cause confusion for sponsors as well as sponsored immigrants
regarding which benefits are potentially subject to reimbursement
under the contract. We ask that the language regarding which
benefits are included remain limited to the means-tested benefits
that have been designated specifically as such by the federal, state
or local entity administering the benefits per regulation.
[This issue applies to 864 and 864EZ] Sponsor and Beneficiary
Liability, page 3 We are concerned with the addition of the
sentence: “Under section 213A of the Act, if the individual you are
sponsoring receives means-tested public benefits, you must
reimburse the agency that provides the benefits, and the agency
that provides the benefits may be able to sue you to recover the
cost of the benefits provided if you do not reimburse the agency.”
The sentence omits an important step in the process, among
others, that the agency providing the benefits must make a request
to the sponsor for repayment of the benefits. If this step is omitted,
one could read the sentence as requiring the sponsor to repay the
agency whenever the sponsored immigrant receives the benefit
regardless of whether the agency has taken any action to notify the
sponsor, seek reimbursement or determine whether liability
applies. See 8 USC 1183a(b)(1). Recommendation: The language
should mirror the language in the second paragraph under the
Section, Means-tested Public Benefits, with the modification above
limiting it to designated benefits and adding the italicized additional

276

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

147.4

147.5

helpful language: “If an immigrant sponsored in this affidavit
receives designated Federal, state or local means- tested public
benefits after having become a lawful permanent resident and
while the affidavit of support is in effect, the agency providing the
benefit may request that you reimburse the agency for the cost of
those benefits. That agency can sue you if you do not reimburse the
benefit granting agency for the cost of the means-tested public
benefits provided.”
Liability Due to Misinformation Similar to the section above, it is
unclear why USCIS is including information about liability stemming
from other federal agencies’ programs and statutory authorities.
Again, it is unclear how this is related to the3affidavit of support
and could cause confusion and concern that it is related to the
immigration process. It is also unnecessary and confusing to include
the last paragraph regarding its inapplicability to refugees and other
categories of individuals who are not required to file an I-864.
Recommendation: Strike this section in its entirety.
II. Comments on Proposed Revised Form I-864 Part 9. Sponsor’s
Contract, Statement, Contact Information, Certification, and
Signature
What If I Do Not Fulfill My Obligations? We are concerned about
the paragraph: “If a Federal, state, local, or private agency provided
any covered means-tested public benefit to the person who
becomes a lawful permanent resident based on this Form I- 864
that you signed, you are responsible for reimbursing the agency for
the amount of the benefits they provided. If you do not make the
reimbursement, the agency may sue you for the amount that the
agency believes you owe. If you fail to reimburse the benefit
granting agency, you may become ineligible to sponsor anyone in
the future.” The proposed revised language omits the required
step, among others, that the benefits granting agency request

277

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
reimbursement before the sponsor is required to repay the
benefits. This may lead the sponsor to believe that they must
reimburse the benefits agency upon the sponsored immigrant’s
receipt of the benefits regardless of whether the agency has taken
any action to notify the sponsor, seek reimbursement or determine
whether liability applies. See 8 USC 1183a(b)(1). The proposed
addition of the last sentence regarding the possible disqualification
of the sponsor to sponsor anyone in the future is not authorized by
statute. There is no legal basis for this statement. The statute sets
forth the requirements for being a sponsor or joint sponsor. 8 USC
1183a(f). The regulations further define the requirements for being
a sponsor. 8 CFR §§ 213a.2(c)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (C)(1). Nowhere in
the statute or regulations is it written that reimbursement of
means-tested benefits for other sponsored immigrants is a
requirement for being a sponsor. The agency cannot create new
law through amending a form. The 30-day notice acknowledges this
by stating: “The regulations governing the Affidavit are provided in
8 CFR 213a and will not be changed by this form change.” However,
adding the above sentence would have the effect of changing the
regulations. Moreover, the proposed additional language implies
that the sponsor’s obligations continue without exception and in
perpetuity.” Recommendation: Replace the above paragraph with
the following:
“If a Federal, state, local, or private agency provided designated
means-tested public benefits to the person who has become a
lawful permanent resident based on a Form I- 864 that you signed,
while the I-864 is in effect, the agency may ask you to reimburse
them for the amount of the benefits they provided. If you do not
make the reimbursement, the agency may sue you for the amount
that the agency believes you owe.”

278

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Sponsor Certification, page 8. We are very concerned about the
expansion of the certification section that includes authorizations
for release of information, including personal identifying
information that sponsors are asked to agree to as part of executing
the affidavit of support, and that are not related to law
enforcement or administration of the programs. Section F, which
refers to the Sponsor and Beneficiary Liability section in the
instructions, does not include any reference to a sponsor’s
responsibilities under the Social Security Act or the Food Stamp Act.
It is therefore unclear of what specific responsibilities the sponsor is
certifying to being aware. Furthermore, it is outside the scope of
USCIS’ authority to require certification of awareness of other
federal agency statutory authorities. Recommendation: Strike the
second part of the sentence, “and am aware of my responsibilities
as a sponsor under the Social Security Act, as amended, and the
Food Stamp Act, as amended.”

147.6

INA 213A(a) and (b) and 8 CFR 213a explain
sponsor obligations and responsibilities when
executing the Affidavit, including reimbursement of
public benefits. The sponsor certification ensures
the sponsor is aware and agrees to these
obligations. The current I-864 already has language
authorizing the release of the information for the
administration and enforcement of immigration
laws as is permitted by INA 213A. The added
consent language clarifies that this includes release
of information to DHS from the means-tested
public benefit agencies for the purpose of
administering and enforcement of immigration
laws under the same authority.
USCIS notes that the new consent language
specifically concludes with “and only as permitted
by law.” Therefore the consent language does not
permit disclosure for an unlawful purpose.
Finally, sharing the information at issue with DHS is
consistent with the referenced statutes because it
permits an administering Federal or State agency,
working with DHS in support of the efficient
administration of its program, to better administer
sponsorship requirements, including pursuit of
recoupment when warranted from a sponsor who
is a liable third party. This information collection
supports the purposes of Federal means-tested
public benefit programs in assisting the valid
administrative needs of the respective programs as
279

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
the confidentiality of individuals who apply for or receive public
benefits. The federal statute under which the Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program was established
permits information sharing for the purpose of program
administration, and the limited purpose of enforcing child support
obligations. However, the statute also requires states to have
adequate safeguards to ensure that any program (42 USC 1320b7(a)(5)). The authorizations requested in the proposed revised I-864
fall outside the parameters authorized by the SAVE and benefits
statutes and regulations. In establishing the SAVE system, Congress
granted specific authorization to HHS to receive information for
child support purposes. 42 USC 1320b-7(a)(4)(B). See also 42 CFR
435.945(c). There is no similar grant of authority to DHS or USCIS.
The absence of a similarly specific authorization for sharing
information with USCIS for use by USCIS suggests that it is barred by
the more general protections against sharing information.
Notably, the statute governing the enforcement of the affidavit of
support grants authority to the Attorney General to provide
information that can be retrieved through the SAVE system, about
whether a person has an enforceable affidavit. 8 USC
1183a(a)(3)(C). There is no similar authorization for states to report
on their own activities with respect to sponsor reimbursement. And
the regulations implementing that provision address only USCIS’
provision of information to the states, upon request from the state.
8 CFR 213a.4(a)(v)(3).
Neither 8 USC 1183a (the affidavit of support statute), the SAVE
statute, nor any other statute, authorizes USCIS to require sponsors
to consent to allow other federal and state and local agencies to
share information about them as a prerequisite for becoming a
sponsor. 42 USC 1320b-7(a)(5)(B) grants various federal agencies
the authority to determine the purposes that fall within the scope

they relate to the sponsorship obligations found at
section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1631, in DHS
regulations at 8 C.F.R. Part 213a, and in applicable
guidance.

280

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
of administering the program, versus the “other purposes” for
which unauthorized disclosure must be protected (e.g. Secretary of
Labor for unemployment compensation). The section below it, 42
USC 1320b-7(d) does not grant DHS/USCIS any similar authority.
States that operate health care, nutrition or economic support
programs agree to protect the information, and to use and disclose
it only for the purposes of determining eligibility or administering
the program, with few, very limited exceptions. For example, the
Medicaid program requires states to safeguard information
concerning applicants and recipients by restricting the use or
disclosure of such information to purposes directly connected to
the administration of the plan, with very limited exceptions. See 42
USC 1396a(a)(7). Similarly, state agencies that administer SNAP
must include in their state plans safeguards that prohibit the use or
disclosure of information obtained from applicant households
except for the administration of the program or enforcement
pursuant to the SNAP statute or other federal assistance programs.
See 7 USC 2020(e)(8). The expectation of privacy is critical for all
consumers. The proposed information exchanged is protected
against unauthorized disclosure and is made available only to the
extent necessary to assist in the valid administrative needs of the
information sharing here falls outside of these permissible uses,
and adds to the fear and confusion that prevents eligible
immigrants and their family members from securing critical
services. By compelling a sponsor to pre-authorize this otherwise
impermissible information sharing, DHS is attempting to circumvent
these program privacy and confidentiality protections. This is
unnecessary, potentially unlawful, and will create additional
burdens for benefits agencies. Recommendation: Strike Sections L
and M from Part 9.

281

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
USCIS is editing the Sponsor’s Certification
statement in response to this comment. The
language will be changed from “If you fail to
Section N of the proposed revised form requires sponsors to
reimburse the benefit granting agency, you may
“acknowledge” that failing to meet the obligations of sponsorship,
could render them ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future. There become ineligible to sponsor anyone in the future”
to “If you fail to reimburse the benefit granting
is no statutory or regulatory authority for this exclusion from
agency upon request, you may be found ineligible
sponsorship. See above discussion. Recommendation: Strike
Section N.
to be a sponsor in the future” (edit in italics).
I submit this comment opposing changes for Form I-864, Affidavit of Bank account information will be used to evaluate
Support, and related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ. USCIS is proposing
that sponsors and household members can meet
to require, among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
for a green card provide in-depth bank account information & have maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
the forms notarized by a notary public. For the below reasons, I
With regards to the possibility of not having a bank
oppose these proposed changes to Form I-864 and related forms. I
account, as indicated in the form Instructions,
urge the agency to remove these requirements before the new
sponsors should “Answer all questions fully and
editions of these forms are released to the public.
accurately. If a question does not apply to you (for
example, if you have never been married and the
I oppose these proposed changes both as a practicing immigration
question asks, “Provide the name of your current
attorney and as a sponsoring US citizen spouse of an immigrant.
spouse”), type or print “N/A,” unless otherwise
The proposed changes are unreasonably burdensome and fail to
directed. If your answer to a question which
address any legitimate public interest concern. Implementing these
requires a numeric response is zero or none (for
changes will have extremely negative impacts on American families
example, “How many children do you have” or
by forcing them to jump through unnecessary and invasive hoops in
“How many times have you departed the United
order to obtain lawful permanent resident status for their loved
States”), type or print “None,” unless otherwise
ones.
directed.”

147.7

148.1

Ashley Moore

Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary

Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
282

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information.
Bank account information is not necessary or even relevant in order
to verify the sponsor or household member's income, which is done
through the submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage
and tax statements, and letters of employment.
Additionally, this requirement will severely and negatively impact
the many individuals who are paid their wages in cash. These
individuals are more likely to maintain lower balances in their bank
accounts, and requiring detailed banking information will place
these individuals at a significant disadvantage. Further, many
individuals choose not to have a bank account. This requirement
will also have a significant negative impact on those individuals. For
many, bank account information is NOT an accurate reflection of
their financial circumstances. Therefore, requiring banking
information represents a completely unnecessary and unhelpful
burden for US citizens and their foreign relatives, while failing to
283

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
provide USCIS with a meaningful snapshot of individuals' or
families' financial situations.

Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law
Currently, the Form I-864 and related forms permit the sponsor
(and household member, if applicable) to sign these forms under
penalty of perjury. Under its new proposal, USCIS is proposing to
require that these forms must be notarized by a notary public in
order for the forms to be properly executed. Such a requirement is
inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section 1746 permits
federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form I-864A and
Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, the proposal to require that these forms must now be
notarized by a notary public violates the Administrative Procedure
Act by attempting to impose this new requirement through a form
revision.

148.2

This requirement adds undue and unnecessary burdens on
sponsors and the household members whose income and/or assets
are being used by the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign
national for a green card. In particular, this new requirement would
impose unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges
on the sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
284

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
by a notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in
light of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders as a
result of the COVID- 19 pandemic.
This requirement has zero benefits, offering absolutely nothing that
is not already covered by the attestation on the form and /or the
USCIS interview. This requirement is purely designed to add an
additional roadblock to US citizens sponsoring a family member.

In conclusion, I oppose the agency's proposal that would require,
among other things, that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or relatives for a green
card must provide in-depth bank account information on Form I864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ, and have these forms
notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to remove these
requirements before the new editions of Form I-864, Forms I-864A,
and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.
I am commenting to respectfully oppose the proposed changes for
Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, and related forms, USCIS-20070029; OMB Control Number 1615-0075. Among other changes,
USCIS proposes requiring that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents who are sponsoring their foreign relatives for a green card
provide in-depth bank account information and have the forms
notarized by a notary public. I oppose these proposed changes to
Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and Form I-864EZ, as I explain
below. I urge the agency to remove these proposed requirements
from the new editions of the forms..
149.1

Shara Svendsen

Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
With regards to the possibility of not having a bank
account, as indicated in the form Instructions,
sponsors should “Answer all questions fully and
accurately. If a question does not apply to you (for
example, if you have never been married and the
question asks, “Provide the name of your current
285

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
I am an immigration attorney with over ten years of experience
representing families with their immigration process.
Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary
USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to the Form I-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ which would require U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents to provide their bank account
information in order to sponsor their foreign spouse or relatives for
a green card . The information requested includes the name of the
banking institution, the number of the bank account, the routing
number of the account, the account holder's name, and the name
of any joint account holders.
USCIS cites no legal authority to require this information from all
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who wish to sponsor
their foreign-born relatives for permanent residence. There is no
such legal authority. In order to verify the sponsor or household
member's income, USCIS does not need access to account
information. Furthermore, such information is not even relevant to
the determination of income, which is accomplished through the
provision of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In very limited
circumstances, where the sponsor is using assets, sponsors are
already required to provide evidence of those assets by submitting
copies of bank statements.

spouse”), type or print “N/A,” unless otherwise
directed. If your answer to a question which
requires a numeric response is zero or none (for
example, “How many children do you have” or
“How many times have you departed the United
States”), type or print “None,” unless otherwise
directed.”
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.
No changes will be made based on this comment.

This unnecessary and irrelevant new requirement raises significant
286

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
privacy concerns. As cyber crime and identity theft are more
rampant, and government agencies have been victims of hacking,
the proposed new requirements would expose U.S. citizen and
lawful permanent resident sponsors to significant risk. When this
information is neither relevant nor necessary, the heightened risk
of identity theft faced by sponsors is unjustified.
Requiring personal bank account information also cuts out U.S.
citizen and lawful permanent residents who are gainfully employed
but do not rely on checking and savings accounts.
Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law
The current versions of Form I-864 and related Forms I-864A and I864EZ permit the sponsor (and household member, if applicable) to
sign these forms under penalty of perjury. Under the new proposal,
USCIS would require that these forms be notarized by a notary
public in order to be properly executed. Such a requirement is
inconsistent with federal law. 28 U.S.C. section 1746 permits
federal forms, including Form I-864 and related Form I-864A and
Form I-864EZ, to be executed under penalty of perjury.
Furthermore, the agency's proposal to require that these forms
must now be notarized by a notary public violates the
Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to impose this new
requirement through a form revision.

149.2

The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the

28 U.S.C. 1746 doesn’t necessarily preclude the use
of a notary. The Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA is a unique contract between a
sponsor and the Federal Government, and the
Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
has a related support obligation. A notarized
signature will better ensure that the person
executing the Affidavit of Support Under Section
213A of the INA or signing the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member is actually the
sponsor or household member agreeing to the
support obligation. In addition, since this
requirement helps ensure that the individual
signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or Form I-864A is
the actual sponsor or household member that
intends to undertake the support obligation. It
benefits both USCIS in protecting the integrity of
the immigration system and individuals that may
not wish to assume the significant financial
responsibility of sponsorship.
287

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic.
In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

150.1

Jeanne Funk, World
Relief

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=USCIS- USCIS posted a Federal Register Notice requesting
2007-0029-0274&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=msw12
comment on a revision to an information
collection, not a notice of proposed rulemaking.
I am writing on behalf of World Relief in opposition to USCISs
proposed revision of Form I-864 Affidavit of Support and its
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
associated forms, Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision that sponsors and household members can meet
of a Currently Approved Collection: Affidavit of Support Under
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
Section 213A of the Act (OMB Control # 1615-0075, USCIS Docket
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
ID, USCIS-2007-0029). These forms were reopened for comment as maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
published in the Federal Register by U.S. Citizenship and
288

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
Immigration Services on April 10, 2020. World Relief appreciates
the opportunity to participate and to submit comments and we are
filing these comments by the deadline of May 11, 2020.
This proposed rule seeks to add to the information collection on
Form I-864 Affidavit of Support, and related forms I-864A, I-864EZ,
of additional personally identifiable information (PII), namely a
sponsors banking information: institution name, bank account
number, routing number and names of joint holders of the account.
It also seeks to add collecting a sponsors credit report as optional
information. Neither form is required to demonstrate what the
sponsors annual household income, which is the factor that makes
an I-864 Affidavit of Support sufficient or insufficient. The rule also
would reinstitute a needless requirement that the I-864 Affidavit of
Support and related forms be notarized. USCIS offers these changes
with no legitimate justification. They are needless and serve no
purpose to the efficient adjudication of Form I-864.
USCIS provides no rational for the changes. It states that it has
made changes to more thoroughly explain the purpose of the
forms, the sponsors and household members obligations as a result
of the forms being accepted by USCIS as sufficient and the support
obligations taking effect, and the consequences if the support
obligations are not met. Neither the extremely detailed banking
information, credit report, nor requiring that these forms be
notarized prior to submission serve this stated purpose.
World Relief therefore oppose USCISs proposal requiring things,
that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their

Credit reports will be used to help USCIS evaluate if
a sponsor has demonstrated the means to maintain
income as required by INA 213A and whether the
sponsor or household member will be able to meet
his or her support obligation during the period of
enforceability. This use of the credit report is for
determining the sufficiency of the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA.
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
289

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
foreign spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth
bank account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I864EZ, and have these forms notarized by a notary public. We urge
USCIS to remove these requirements before the new editions of
Form I-864, Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the
public. Please see our complete comment attached.

151.1

Cole Enabnit

member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. it benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.

As an immigration lawyer, I see firsthand how this would negatively
and unnecessarily impact my clients. Personally, I completed an I864 for my wife when she emigrated to the United States. These
additional requirements would have been daunting and extremely
burdensome to us at the time.

With regards to privacy concerns, USCIS follows all
government standards and requirements for
protection of its IT systems and appropriately
handles all PII in its possession.

Requiring In-Depth Bank Account Information from All Sponsors is
Neither Relevant nor Necessary

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
290

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20

USCIS is proposing to add a new requirement to the Form I-864 and
related Forms I-864A and I-864EZ which would require U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign spouse or
relatives for a green card to provide in-depth bank account
information. Specifically, sponsors (and household members whose
income and/or assets are being used by a sponsor to qualify) would
be required to provide the name of the banking institution, the
number of the bank account, the routing number of the account,
the account holder's name, and the name of any joint account
holders.
There is no legal authority for USCIS to require this information
from all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring
their foreign spouse or relatives for a green card. Bank account
information is not necessary or even relevant in order to verify the
sponsor or household member's income, which is done through the
submission of Federal income tax returns, W-2 wage and tax
statements, and letters of employment. In some limited
circumstances where the sponsor is using assets, specifically money
in a bank account to satisfy the 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, sponsors are already required to provide evidence of
those assets by submitting copies of bank statements.

Requiring Form I-864 and Related Forms to be Notarized by a
Notary Public is an Inconvenient and Needless Burden Inconsistent
with U.S. Law
The requirement to have the form notarized by a notary public also
adds undue and unnecessary burdens on sponsors and the
household members whose income and/or assets are being used by
the sponsor to qualify to sponsor a foreign national for a green
card. In particular, this new requirement would impose
unnecessary costs, travel burdens, and logistical challenges on the
sponsor/household member to have these forms notarized by a
notary public. This requirement is particularly burdensome in light
of social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders that are
being imposed by local and state authorities, as well as countries
around the globe, as a result of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic.
Public "notaries" are often cover operations for unlawful
immigration offices. Driving already vulnerable individuals to this
notaries will have the unintended consequence of enabling those
that would defraud the public.
151.2

In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined above, I oppose the

The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. it benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.
USCIS is aware of the challenges resulting from
COVID-19 and will continue to explore ways to
make processing more efficient during the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic. USCIS notes that applicants,
petitioner, requestors, and other individuals
submitting requests to USCIS should follow Federal,
292

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
agency's proposal that would require, among other things, that U.S.
citizens and lawful permanent residents sponsoring their foreign
spouse or relatives for a green card must provide in-depth bank
account information on Form I-864, Form I-864A, and Form I-864EZ,
and have these forms notarized by a notary public. I urge USCIS to
remove these requirements before the new editions of Form I-864,
Forms I-864A, and Form I-864EZ are released to the public.

I respecfully desagree with imposing the proposed changes on OMB
Control Number 1615-0075 from the United States Citizen and
Immigration Services, Docket ID USCIS-2007-0029.
I believe those changes to be unnecesary and only more
cumbersome to the applicants. Requiring bank account information
does not seem relevant if the agency already requires tax records.
Not everybody likes putting money in banks for them to charge fees
on many transactions. Also, these applications clearly state that by
signing it you enter a contract (added language). Notarizing such a
document becomes an extra step for all parties envolved.
Nonetheless, the application remains a contract, notarized or not.

152.1

Anonymous

I think it is a good idea to make clarifications on the language of the
forms, thus all people signing understand the great reponsability
this envolves. However, there is no need for all these extra
parameters.

State, and local guidelines regarding minimizing
exposure and spread of COVID-19.
USCIS has information on its webpage concerning
notario fraud (see https://www.uscis.gov/avoidscams/commonscams).
Bank account information will be used to evaluate
that sponsors and household members can meet
their support obligations under INA 213A, and
sponsors have demonstrated the means to
maintain income as required by INA 213A(f)(6).
Information provided to USCIS via mail or
electronically for purposes of adjudicating a
requested benefit is often sensitive personally
identifiable information. Bank account information
will be appropriately protected and handled in the
same manner as other sensitive information
possessed by USCIS.
The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the
INA is a unique contract between a sponsor and the
Federal Government, and the Contract Between
Sponsor and Household Member has a related
support obligation. A notarized signature will better
ensure that the person executing the Affidavit of
Support Under Section 213A of the INA or signing
the Contract Between Sponsor and Household
Member is actually the sponsor or household
293

Project Title: I-864-005 REV
30 day FRN (regulations.gov link): 30-day FRN
FRN Citation (federalregister.gov link): 85 FR 20292
Publish Dates: 4/10/20 – 5/11/20
member agreeing to the support obligation. In
addition, since this requirement helps ensure that
the individual signing the Form I-864, I-864EZ, or
Form I-864A is the actual sponsor or household
member that intends to undertake the support
obligation. it benefits both USCIS in protecting the
integrity of the immigration system and individuals
that may not wish to assume the significant
financial responsibility of sponsorship.

294

File Type	application/pdf
Author	Jager, Kerstin A
File Modified	2020-07-21
File Created	2020-07-21