The economic effect of the October 24, 2016 USCIS fee rule was not limited to its price table. Payment handling also mattered. In this October 29 weekend retrospective, the rule was a prior-week decision awaiting a December 23 effective date, not an immediate change announced on Saturday. [2016-25328]
Under the final filing provision, USCIS would resubmit a check or other payment instrument once if it was returned unpayable. If it was returned unpayable a second time, the filing would be rejected and a charge imposed under the fee regulation. A rejected benefit request would not retain its filing date. That mechanism made the reliability of payment consequential, rather than treating an unsuccessful remittance as merely an unpaid invoice. [2016-25328]
The May proposal approached the schedule through cost recovery. USCIS projected an average annual $560 million shortfall between fee-account revenues and costs at existing prices. It also explained why a weighted average better described the schedule's revenue effect than a simple average. The final 21 percent weighted-average increase therefore should not be read as the price change for every transaction. [2016-25328][2016-10297]
Our market-oriented reading is that nominal price and administrative risk are separate costs to examine. The new fees applied to applications or petitions mailed, postmarked or otherwise filed on or after December 23. Neither source measured how payment behavior would respond or demonstrated faster adjudication. The proposal and final rule form one agency evidence chain, useful for understanding incentives but not independent proof of operational gains. [2016-25328][2016-10297]
Source documents
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedulehttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-10-24/html/2016-25328.htm
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedulehttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-04/html/2016-10297.htm