USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures Required by H.R.1 Reconciliation Bill
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues this interim final rule (IFR) to codify certain immigration fees and other provisions required by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R.1). This IFR amends U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations to codify: the asylum and annual asylum fees, including the consequences of non-payment of these fees; the new Form I-94 fee requirement; the validity period for certain types of employment authorization; and the retention of the Form I-589 filing fee for every application.
What this means
- This rule has been in effect since 2026-05-29. (effectiveAt)
- The document names Asylum, Temporary Protected Status. It may identify others — read the original to be sure. (impact.stated (partial))
- The document states a requirement for the people it covers. The exact wording is quoted above — whether it applies to any particular person depends on facts this platform does not have. (impact.actionRequired)
Derived from this event’s own recorded fields — not written by a model, and not an interpretation of anyone’s case.
Who is affected
What the document says may be required
The document states a requirement for those it covers. The exact obligation, and whether it applies to a particular person, depends on the document's own terms — the relevant passage is quoted below.
“…--------------------------------------------------------------------------- The USCIS notice also provides that USCIS will issue personal, individualized notice to each asylum applicant with an application pending with USCIS from whom the AAF is required, and that the notice will include the amount of the fee, when and how the fee must be paid, and the consequences of failure to pay.\6\ For the…”
This list may be incomplete — the document may identify others. Read the original. Assembled from the source document, not from anyone's individual circumstances. Whether a change applies to a specific person depends on facts this platform does not have. This is data context, not legal advice.