On May 12, 2025 The American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) submitted a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in response to requests for comments to the DHS Interim Final Rule (“IFR”) for information collection described in the Paperwork Reduction Act section with a comment submission deadline of May 12, 2025 as part of President Trump’s Executive Order requiring Alien Registration.
In its letter, AILA demanded that the IFR be withdrawn, claiming that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by adopting arbitrary and irrational requirements and avoiding the necessary notice-and-comment procedure under the APA. AILA added that the ambiguous and perplexing wording of the IFR makes compliance all but impossible while subjecting foreign nationals to harsh penalties. In addition to the APA infractions, the letter noted that the IFR violates the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) by requesting information that is either superfluous or exceeds what is permitted by 8 U.S.C. § 1304(a).
AILA also listed specific concerns about Form G-325R to collect Biographic Information.
I. Address History
Form G-325R’s five-year address history requirement is needlessly onerous and goes beyond the range of data permitted by the Immigration and Nationality Act. In addition to having little practical value, it presents difficulties for applicants who have unstable housing, are serving in the military, or move frequently, increasing the possibility that innocuous errors could be mistaken for fraud. These problems serve as an example of what happens when DHS circumvents the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment procedure, leading to rules that are unclear and unworkable and could have been rectified with public participation.
II. Arrival Date, Immigration Status, and I-94 Information
The G-325R creates confusion by offering only limited and misleading options for reporting immigration status at last arrival—specifically, listing “Entered Without Inspection (‘EWI’)” as the sole drop-down choice. There is also no clear guidance for individuals who did not enter EWI or how to handle leaving the section blank, which in past practice could result in application denials. Additionally, asking for the I-94 number is puzzling, as those with valid I-94s are generally not required to register, and DHS should already possess this data.
III. Activities in the U.S. and Expected Date of Departure
For nonimmigrants admitted under “duration of status” (“D/S”), such as holders of F-1, J-1, and M-1 visas, the G-325R presents a challenge because it requests a precise expiration date for immigration status in the format MM/DD/YYYY. There is no option to designate D/S. Additional questions are ambiguous and excessively general.
IV. Additional Biographical Information and Family Information
Form G-325R asks for much personal information without providing an explanation of how it relates to registration, such as the full names of the applicant’s parents, birth dates, birth countries, and current city or town of residence. These inquiries are intrusive, pose serious privacy issues, seem excessively general, and might be used to find undocumented relatives.
V. Criminal History Disclosure Issues
There are significant legal and constitutional issues with Form G-325R, which requires publication of all arrests, charges, and convictions, including those that are erased, sealed, or never led to a conviction. These questions directly violate the Fifth Amendment’s safeguards against self-incrimination by asking people to confess to crimes they may have done even if they were never detained or charged.
VI. Confusion about Registration for Individuals Related to Turning Age 14
The Form G-325R has unclear instructions regarding who must fill out the registration. Although the form’s initial instructions imply that everyone admitted in immigrant or nonimmigrant status is already deemed registered, it also suggests that anyone who turns 14 after arrival must register, without making a clear distinction between this and additional fingerprinting requirements.
In its letter, AILA demands Form G-325R should be removed since it infringes upon constitutional rights and the APA and PRA’s mandates until it has complete the legal and proper administrative process.
If you have questions or concerns about the Form G-235R, contact us at info@enterlinepartners.com to speak with one of our U.S. Immigration Attorneys.
ENTERLINE & PARTNERS CONSULTING
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Office
146C7 Nguyen Van Huong St, Thao Dien Ward,
District 2, Thu Duc City
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Tel: +84 933 301 488
Email: info@enterlinepartners.com
Facebook: Enterline & Partners – Dịch vụ Thị thực và Định cư Hoa Kỳ
YouTube: @EnterlineAndPartnersConsulting
Website: http://enterlinepartners.com
Manila, Philippines Office
LKG Tower 37th Floor
6801 Ayala Avenue
Makati City, Philippines 1226
Tel: +63 917 543 7926
Email: info@enterlinepartners.com
Facebook: Enterline and Partners Philippines
Website: https://enterlinepartners.com/language/en/welcome/
Copyright 2025. This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This article may be changed with or without notice. The opinions expressed in this article are those of Enterline & Partners only.
