Introduction

On April 27, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) activated a substantially expanded fingerprint-based background screening protocol that draws on enhanced criminal history record information (“CHRI”) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Next Generation Identification (“NGI”) system. The change was first reported publicly through internal USCIS guidance distributed to the agency’s Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate, which directed adjudicating officers to refrain from approving any case—including cases pending final action—until the new enhanced check is completed. For pending cases in which the FBI background data was received before April 27, 2026, officers must affirmatively resubmit fingerprints already on file under the new protocol before any approval may issue.

The practical effect is significant. Although USCIS has publicly characterized any resulting delay as brief, the agency has not committed to a specific timeline, and the new protocol applies to virtually every benefit category that requires biometrics. This article reviews the legal and policy framework underlying the change, identifies the application categories most directly affected, and outlines practical considerations for applicants and counsel as the new screening regime takes hold.

The Underlying Executive Order and Policy Framework

The April 27 protocol traces directly to Executive Order 14385, signed by President Donald J. Trump on February 6, 2026, and published at 91 Fed. Reg. 6505 (Feb. 11, 2026). The order, captioned “Protecting the National Security and Welfare of the United States and Its Citizens From Criminal Actors and Other Public Safety Threats,” sets a categorical policy that DHS immigration authorities must access CHRI in the custody of federal criminal justice agencies to the maximum extent permitted by law. Section 2 of EO 14385 directs the Attorney General to provide DHS with access to CHRI maintained by the Department of Justice for purposes related to DHS’s screening and vetting missions. Section 3 separately authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to exchange CHRI with the immigration and border-security authorities of Visa Waiver Program countries, countries party to a Preventing and Combating Serious Crime (“PCSC”) agreement, and other trusted allies, on a reciprocal basis and limited to screening of travelers and immigrants seeking entry or continued stay.

EO 14385 sits atop a broader architecture of executive action issued during the present administration. Earlier directives—Executive Order 14161 (“Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorist and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats”), Presidential Proclamation 10949, and Presidential Proclamation 10998—directed agencies to vet noncitizens to the maximum degree possible and restricted entry from countries identified as having inadequate screening cooperation with the United States. EO 14385 operationalizes those directives within the criminal-records space specifically by removing prior data-sharing limits between the FBI and DHS.

USCIS itself has issued a public alert summarizing the resulting program of enhanced vetting practices. According to that alert, the agency has, in addition to the new fingerprint protocol: shortened the validity periods for certain Employment Authorization Documents to require more frequent screening; updated photograph-reuse policies to strengthen identity verification; expanded social-media and financial vetting; introduced community interviews; required final arrest-encounter reviews and Department of State Consular Consolidated Database checks before adjudication; and launched Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening) under the auspices of the newly established USCIS Vetting Center. The agency has stated that prior screening and vetting measures were wholly inadequate and that the new architecture is intended to remedy those gaps.

How the New FBI Protocol Works

The FBI’s Next Generation Identification system is the bureau’s biometric and criminal-history database, which maintains fingerprint records, mug shots, and associated CHRI generated by federal, state, local, tribal, and certain international law-enforcement contributors. CHRI typically encompasses arrest data, charging information, dispositions, and conviction records, including offenses that may not have been reported under prior data-sharing protocols.

Under the regime that took effect on April 27, 2026, USCIS receives an expanded CHRI return for every fingerprint-based background check submitted to NGI. As reported through internal guidance, USCIS officers have been directed that pending cases for which the FBI return was received prior to April 27 are to be re-screened by pulling the existing fingerprints already on file and resubmitting them so that the case may benefit from the broader CHRI dataset before any adjudication. The applicant typically takes no action: USCIS retains the prints on file and resubmits them administratively. The agency has indicated that any delay associated with implementation should be brief, but no service-level commitment has been published, and field reports suggest that approval-ready cases at the back end of adjudication are now being held while the new check runs.

Application Categories Affected

The enhanced check applies, by its terms, to any application or petition for which fingerprint-based background screening is required. That covers a wide swath of USCIS workload, including:

  • Adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence under Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (Form I-485), regardless of the underlying basis (family-based, employment-based, asylee or refugee adjustment under INA § 209, etc.).
  • Naturalization under INA §§ 316 and 319, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427, 1430 (Form N-400), including cases at the post-interview stage awaiting only the oath of allegiance.
  • Asylum under INA § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (Form I-589), and refugee status under INA § 207, 8 U.S.C. § 1157.
  • Employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13 (Form I-765), particularly EADs tied to pending adjustment, asylum, and other benefits requiring biometrics.
  • Refugee/asylee relative petitions (Form I-730).
  • Removal of conditions on residence (Form I-751 and Form I-829).
  • Other petitions and applications conditioned on biometric submission.

USCIS has separately confirmed that holds have been lifted for certain narrow categories—including aliens already vetted through Operation PARRIS, certain U.S. citizen-filed petitions, intercountry adoption forms, certain rescheduled oath ceremonies, statutory and regulatory decision issuances, refugee registrations for South African nationals, certain special-immigrant-visa petitions, certain EADs, and asylum applications from countries the agency does not designate high-risk. Counsel should not assume, however, that any of these carve-outs apply to a specific client without confirmation from the receipt notice or from the local field office.

Practical Impact on Pending Cases

The most immediate consequence is delay at the very end of the adjudication process. Cases in which the substantive eligibility determination is complete—and that historically would have proceeded to approval—now sit pending re-vetting if the prior FBI return predated April 27. Several practical implications follow:

  • Adjustment of status (I-485): Applicants with approval-ready I-485s, including employment-based applicants whose priority dates are current and whose underlying I-140 has been approved, may now experience further delay. Combo cards (concurrent EAD and Advance Parole) issued during the pendency of the I-485 remain effective per their stated validity, but renewals should be filed at the earliest permissible date.
  • Naturalization (N-400): Applicants who have completed the naturalization examination and are awaiting only the scheduling of an oath ceremony may face delays. Where the statutory 120-day post-examination period under INA § 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), has elapsed, judicial relief in U.S. district court remains available; counsel should evaluate that option on a case-specific basis.
  • Asylum (I-589): The new protocol arrives against the backdrop of the broader USCIS asylum-interview pause and policy turbulence affecting affirmative asylum adjudication. Applicants with pending I-589 cases should expect compounding delay and should ensure that biometrics appointments and any rescheduling notices are timely satisfied.
  • Refugee adjustment under INA § 209: Refugees applying for adjustment after one year of physical presence are subject not only to the new FBI protocol but, in many cases, to the expanded post-admission scrutiny implemented through Operation PARRIS.
  • Employment authorization: Currently valid EADs and Advance Parole documents are not, by themselves, invalidated. However, applicants should file renewals as early as the regulations permit. Employers that rely on time-limited work authorization should review I-9 expirations and prepare contingency plans for any gap in employment eligibility.

Operation PARRIS and the Broader Re-Vetting Initiative

The April 27 protocol is best understood as one component of a larger USCIS re-vetting agenda. On January 9, 2026, DHS publicly launched Operation PARRIS in Minnesota, focused initially on approximately 5,600 resettled refugees who had not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident status. Operation PARRIS, led by the new USCIS Vetting Center, has involved background re-checks, re-interviews, and merit reviews of refugee claims, with case referrals to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement where indicators of fraud or other criminal conduct were identified.

The early phase of Operation PARRIS produced significant litigation. In U.H.A. v. Bondi, filed January 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a temporary restraining order on January 28 halting house-to-house arrests and detentions of Minnesota refugees and ordering the release of refugees previously arrested under the operation. A separate action, Jean A. et al. v. Noem, filed February 27, 2026, challenged a related February 18 DHS memorandum on the detention of refugees pending re-vetting; the same district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of that memorandum. As of late April 2026, those rulings have largely halted arrest-and-detention components of PARRIS, while administrative re-vetting through interviews and document review continues in modified form. Counsel representing refugee clients—particularly clients who have not yet filed for adjustment of status within the one-year period following admission under INA § 209—should review individual case posture in light of these orders.

USCIS Director Joseph Edlow has separately confirmed that the agency is conducting active re-vetting of cases adjudicated under the prior administration, citing internal data suggesting that, since January 20, 2025, USCIS officers have made nearly 33,000 fraud referrals to the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate—a substantial increase over prior averages—and identified fraud indicators in a majority of completed investigations. Whether those internal metrics will withstand external scrutiny remains to be seen, but the policy direction is unambiguous: closed and pending files alike are subject to renewed review.

The new vetting protocol is procedurally administrative and is unlikely, standing alone, to be susceptible to facial legal challenge: USCIS unquestionably has authority to conduct background checks before adjudication, and the underlying executive order is grounded in statutory delegations to DHS and DOJ over CHRI exchange. As-applied challenges, however, may emerge where delay becomes unreasonable. The relevant doctrinal anchors include:

  • APA “unreasonable delay” claims under 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1), evaluated under the TRAC factors (Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). The aspirational 180-day adjudication target in 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) is not enforceable as a hard deadline, but it is relevant to the reasonableness inquiry.
  • Mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, available where the agency owes a clear, nondiscretionary duty to act.
  • District-court jurisdiction over delayed naturalization applications under INA § 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), where 120 days have elapsed since the naturalization examination.
  • Habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for detained refugees and other noncitizens whose detention is connected to re-vetting initiatives, particularly where such detention falls outside the statutory framework.
  • Procedural due-process and Refugee Act claims of the type advanced in U.H.A. v. Bondi and Jean A. v. Noem, where the agency’s interpretation of its statutory authority strays from longstanding practice or congressional design.

Whether and when to pursue any of these avenues is a case-specific judgment that turns on the length of delay, the underlying benefit category, the applicant’s status posture, and the practical risks of provoking further agency scrutiny. Counsel should not file mandamus prematurely, but neither should counsel allow extended delay in approval-ready cases to languish indefinitely.

Practical Guidance for Applicants

Applicants with pending USCIS matters should keep several practical points in mind:

  1. Do not submit new fingerprints unless directed. USCIS has indicated that the agency will resubmit prints already on file. Affirmative re-fingerprinting is not required absent an Application Support Center notice.
  2. File renewals early. EAD and Advance Parole renewals should be filed as early as regulations permit. For applicants with combo cards tied to a pending I-485, a gap in work authorization can disrupt employment and raise I-9 compliance issues for employers.
  3. Consult counsel before international travel. Travel during pendency of an I-485, I-589, or I-730 can carry consequences that the new screening protocol may compound. Advance Parole, where applicable, should be in hand and should not be assumed to remain valid through the entire pendency of an I-485 if delays extend.
  4. Maintain documentation. Applicants should preserve copies of biometrics receipts, prior background-check confirmations (if any), and all correspondence with USCIS. If a case is denied or queried following re-vetting, these records may be relevant in any motion to reopen, motion to reconsider, administrative appeal, or federal-court action.
  5. Disclose changes in record proactively. Where a criminal record has changed since the original biometrics submission—e.g., an arrest, charge, dismissal, expungement, or post-conviction modification—counsel should evaluate whether disclosure to USCIS, accompanied by proper documentation, is appropriate. Surprise hits in expanded CHRI returns, particularly where the underlying disposition is favorable to the applicant, are best addressed by the applicant rather than left to the agency to interpret.
  6. Re-examine social-media exposure. USCIS has separately expanded social-media vetting. Applicants should be aware that public-facing online activity may now feed into the adjudicatory record and should be discussed with counsel where relevant to the underlying claim.

Outlook

The April 27, 2026 protocol formalizes a substantially more rigorous fingerprint-based screening regime and confirms the trajectory the present administration has pursued since early 2025: deeper data integration between DOJ and DHS, broader use of CHRI, and a willingness to reopen previously adjudicated files. For applicants with strong cases and clean records, the new protocol will likely add weeks—possibly months—of processing time but will not change the ultimate outcome. For applicants with prior contact with the criminal justice system, including arrests that did not result in conviction, the expanded CHRI dataset increases the risk that records previously invisible to USCIS will surface in adjudication. Early consultation with experienced immigration counsel is, in those cases, essential.

The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC, continues to monitor implementation of EO 14385 and the corresponding USCIS guidance and is available to assist applicants whose cases have been delayed, queried, or referred for additional review under the new protocol.