{"id":387,"date":"2026-05-13T08:25:04","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T12:25:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/?p=387"},"modified":"2026-05-13T08:25:05","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T12:25:05","slug":"uscis-enhanced-security-vetting-new-fingerprint-based-background-check-process-places-many-uscis-applications-on-temporary-hold","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/2026\/05\/13\/uscis-enhanced-security-vetting-new-fingerprint-based-background-check-process-places-many-uscis-applications-on-temporary-hold\/","title":{"rendered":"USCIS Enhanced Security Vetting: New Fingerprint-Based Background Check Process Places many USCIS Applications on Temporary Hold"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS<\/a>) recently implemented a sweeping new security vetting process that has effectively paused adjudications across a wide range of immigration case types. Employers and their foreign national employees should understand what this means for pending and future applications, and how to plan accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Happened<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Beginning April 27, USCIS field and asylum offices across the country began notifying applicants and attorneys that adjudications were subject to a hold while the agency rolls out enhanced fingerprint-based background checks. The change stems from Executive Order 14385<\/a>, signed February 6, 2026, which directs federal criminal justice agencies to share criminal history record information with the Department of Homeland Security<\/a> to the full extent permitted by law. In response, the FBI<\/a> granted USCIS expanded access to its criminal history databases, triggering a requirement that pending cases undergo re-vetting under the new system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the updated protocol, USCIS must resubmit fingerprint information for most pending applications in which biometrics were collected prior to April 27, 2026. In most cases, USCIS will use fingerprints already on file rather than requiring applicants to attend new Application Support Center<\/a> appointments. Already-scheduled interviews are expected to proceed; however, the issuance of final approvals is largely paused until the new checks are completed.<\/p>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n

Which Cases Are Affected<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The enhanced vetting impacts virtually all immigration benefit applications requiring fingerprint-based background checks. The most commonly affected case types include adjustment of status (Form I-485<\/a>), naturalization (Form N-400<\/a>), asylum applications, family-based petitions, employment-based filings, DACA<\/a>, T<\/a> and U nonimmigrant status<\/a>, and VAWA self-petitions. Unofficial estimates from the American Immigration Lawyers Association<\/a> suggest millions of cases could be impacted. Notably, officers were directed that the resubmission process is not required for cases they intend to deny, indicating the enhanced screening is focused on cases otherwise eligible for approval.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional Vetting Measures Beyond Fingerprints<\/p>\n\n\n\n

USCIS’s March 30, 2026 public update <\/a>describes the possibility of a broader package of enhanced vetting measures that go beyond the fingerprint resubmission. These include increased social media and financial vetting, community interviews, updated photograph reuse policies to strengthen identity verification, the development of system connectivity for automatic notifications of biometric matches and new criminal information, and a requirement for final arrest encounter reviews and Department of State Consular Consolidated Database checks before final adjudication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exemptions and Holds Being Lifted<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

USCIS has established an internal process for lifting holds on certain categories. As of April 30, 2026, holds have been lifted for individuals vetted through Operation PARRIS, certain petitions filed by U.S. citizens, intercountry adoption forms, certain rescheduled oath ceremonies, refugee registrations for South African citizens and nationals, certain special immigrant visa petitions, certain employment authorization documents, asylum applications from non-high-risk countries, and applications associated with medical physicians. The physician exemption, in particular, reflects growing concerns about the impact of adjudication delays on U.S. healthcare staffing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expected Timeline<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

USCIS has publicly stated that delays “should be brief and resolved shortly” and that processing remains “ongoing”. Inside information suggests the agency is rerunning fingerprints in large batches and expects to complete most cases by the end of May 2026. However, given the volume of affected applications, practitioners and applicants should realistically prepare for delays that may extend weeks or even months beyond that estimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

With expanded access to detailed criminal history data, USCIS is expected to issue more Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), including for matters that previously drew limited attention\u2014such as arrests that did not result in convictions, juvenile records, and sealed records. Employers sponsoring foreign national employees should be aware that even cases nearing completion may experience unexpected delays, and employees with pending I-485<\/a> applications who lack valid Advance Parole<\/a> documents should exercise extreme caution before planning international travel. Additionally, USCIS has shortened the validity periods for certain Employment Authorization Documents<\/a> to require more frequent security checks going forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importance of Proactive Criminal History Disclosure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

With USCIS now enjoying expanded access to FBI criminal history databases<\/a> under Executive Order 14385, the agency may uncover criminal records that were not previously available to or reviewed by immigration adjudicators \u2014 including records from jurisdictions that did not previously share data with federal immigration authorities, as well as arrests that did not result in convictions, juvenile records, and sealed or expunged records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For applicants and petitioners who have any criminal history that was not previously disclosed on their immigration applications \u2014 whether due to prior inaccessibility of the records, misunderstanding of what must be disclosed, or any other reason \u2014 now is the time to consult with an immigration attorney and proactively address those records. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act<\/a>, undisclosed criminal history can trigger serious consequences, including findings of inadmissibility<\/a> under INA \u00a7 212(a)(2) for certain criminal offenses, a determination of willful misrepresentation under INA \u00a7 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for failure to disclose material facts on an immigration application, denial of the pending benefit, or even initiation of removal proceedings. Given the breadth of the new vetting process, the risks of non-disclosure are significantly heightened. Applicants and their employers should not wait for USCIS to issue an RFE or NOID \u2014 proactive engagement with qualified immigration counsel is strongly recommended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What You Should Do Now<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Employers and foreign national employees affected by these developments should monitor their USCIS case status<\/a> regularly, ensure all contact information on file with USCIS is current, and be prepared to respond promptly to any RFEs or biometric appointment notices. If you have questions about how the new vetting process impacts your pending applications or overall immigration strategy, please contact the authors of this alert or your regular Duane Morris attorney for guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For further information, or if you have any questions about this Alert, please contact any member of the Duane Morris Immigration Practice Group.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This post was prepared with the assistance of Rick Adams<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This Alert is not intended to be and should not be construed as legal advice. We make every effort to keep our readers informed of developments in the law; however, this Alert is not a comprehensive summary of the issues discussed and should not be relied upon as legal advice.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently implemented a sweeping new security vetting process that has effectively paused adjudications across a wide range of immigration case types. Employers and their foreign national employees should understand what this means for pending and future applications, and how to plan accordingly. What Happened Beginning April 27, USCIS field … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “USCIS Enhanced Security Vetting: New Fingerprint-Based Background Check Process Places many USCIS Applications on Temporary Hold”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":218,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[338,339,337,93,77,336,29,31,11,80,49,340,10,6],"ppma_author":[234],"class_list":["post-387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-background-checks","tag-biometrics","tag-consular-processing","tag-dhs","tag-duane-morris","tag-enhanced-vetting","tag-h-1b","tag-h-1b-lottery","tag-immigration","tag-non-immigrant-visa","tag-premium-processing","tag-rick-adams","tag-uscis","tag-valentine-brown"],"authors":[{"term_id":234,"user_id":218,"is_guest":0,"slug":"vbrown","display_name":"Valentine A. Brown","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0310f9dbc9098c1b1179b6537f198f013555afbd265a8ccc673c16a1809b2de1?s=96&d=blank&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/218"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=387"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/immigrationlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}