Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. government wants people to tell them what they think about a form used by folks from other countries who want to stay in the U.S. a bit longer. They will use this feedback to make sure the form is easy to understand and not too costly or hard to fill in.
Summary AI
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), part of the Department of Homeland Security, is seeking public comments on its information collection process for the Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. The comment period is open until February 16, 2021, and is intended to get feedback on the necessity, accuracy, and impact of the information collection. The USCIS will submit the collection request for an extension, without changes, to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. Interested individuals can submit their comments online, considering the estimated time and cost the collection imposes on respondents.
Abstract
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, provides a call for public comments on the procedures and burdens associated with the "Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status." This call for comments is open until February 16, 2021. The process involves collecting opinions regarding the necessity and accuracy of current practices, with no proposed changes being made at this juncture.
Summary of the Document
At its core, the notice seeks input on the processes followed by USCIS for managing applications from nonimmigrants seeking to extend their stay or change their nonimmigrant status in the United States. These applications are submitted through Forms I-539 and I-539A, with a third, less distinct part concerning biometrics processing. It is a formal procedure in which USCIS invites stakeholders and the interested public to weigh in on whether the current methods meet the intended goals efficiently and effectively.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One key concern that arises from the document is the lack of breakdown for the substantial estimated costs associated with this information collection; the price tag reaches over $56 million, yet there is no explanation or justification given for these expenses. Such a lack of detail can generate worry over how taxpayer money is being utilized.
Additionally, privacy concerns are evident in the notice. It warns that any personal information provided in submissions will be made publicly available. This transparency might deter participation from individuals who are reserved about sharing their personal data, given the risks to privacy.
The document also presents complex information, particularly in detailing various respondent numbers and burden hours. These figures could be difficult for the average person to digest, which highlights a need for clear and accessible communication. The complexity could result in the general public being less inclined to participate.
Furthermore, the document does not clarify how public feedback will be used in the final decision-making process. This ambiguity may discourage public participation since potential contributors might feel their input will have little real impact.
Potential Impact on the Public
The call for comments caters to those directly impacted by changes in nonimmigrant status application processes, notably nonimmigrants themselves, legal advisors, and community organizations offering support to immigrant communities. By inviting feedback, USCIS aims to collect diverse views on how the systems might be improved or streamlined, which has the potential to lead to more effective policy outcomes.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For nonimmigrants, the lack of change in the application process may relieve apprehensions about having to adapt to new rules. Knowing that there are no immediate proposed changes might provide stability, albeit temporarily. However, this demographic might also be needlessly burdened by the continued flaws or inefficiencies within the policy that remain unaddressed.
Legal professionals and advocacy groups might view this as an opportunity to voice their concerns and offer suggestions based on their experiences with clients or in the field. Despite the caveats mentioned, the invitation to contribute to policy evaluation could still be seen as an open-door policy by these stakeholders and leveraged in a constructive manner.
In conclusion, while the document offers a formal pathway for public engagement in immigration policy review, significant concerns related to cost transparency, privacy, and communication clarity suggest potential areas of improvement to encourage more robust participation and trust in this administrative process.
Financial Assessment
The document under review, published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), provides details on a specific information collection activity related to the Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. Within this context, there is a financial reference indicating an estimated total annual cost burden of $56,121,219 associated with the collection of information.
Financial Summary
The document estimates a total annual cost burden of $56,121,219 for processing the information necessary to manage applications for extensions or changes in nonimmigrant status. This sum likely represents the cumulative costs incurred by the USCIS and the applicants for processing, reviewing, and handling the requisite forms (I-539 & I-539A) and associated biometrics.
Issues Related to Financial Allocations
Despite the substantial figure quoted, the document lacks a breakdown of how this $56,121,219 is calculated or justified. This raises potential concerns over transparency and the explanation of spending. Without detailed justifications, stakeholders and members of the public may find it challenging to understand how these funds are allocated and whether they reflect efficient use of resources.
Additionally, this lack of clarity over financial allocations could contribute to issues regarding public trust and participation. When members of the public are invited to comment on documents like this, knowledge of where and how funds are being used might influence their willingness and ability to provide informed feedback. Potential privacy concerns, as noted regarding public posting of submitted personal information, may also discourage public involvement, further complicating the oversight of such financial estimations.
Conclusion
For optimal transparency and informed public dialogue, it would be beneficial for the document to include a detailed explanation of how the estimated $56,121,219 cost burden is derived. Providing this breakdown can help address potential skepticism and enhance understanding of USCIS's financial management related to this program. Clear communication on financial matters would likely increase public confidence and participation in the feedback process, informing better decision-making and oversight.
Issues
• The document does not specify how the estimated costs, particularly the $56,121,219 associated with the information collection, are broken down or justified, potentially causing concern over unexplained spending.
• The document mentions that submissions will include any personal information provided by the submitter and that such information will be posted publicly, which can raise privacy concerns.
• The complex language and the volume of numbers presented (such as the different respondent and burden estimates) could be challenging for the general public to understand, suggesting a need for clearer communication.
• There is no detailed explanation of how public comments will impact the final decision, which may discourage public participation.