Unlike most federal agencies, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not transitioned to electronic filing on a widespread basis, but still relies heavily on paper-based filings for most petitions involving work authorization, extension of legal status, and permanent residence. For these paper-based filings, USCIS does not allow electronic signatures such as DocuSign or other electronic services that allow a person to type a name or accept terms which then inserts a script font signature on the document. Instead, USCIS requires a handwritten signature, consistent with how a person signs their name. 

USCIS has long recognized that a signature on immigration petitions does not have to be legible, in English, or in cursive so long as it is handwritten¹. Also, the USCIS policy has historically recognized that the regulations do not require an “original” or “wet ink” signature on a petition, although in practice USCIS was inconsistent, often requiring original signatures for some petitions but not others². With the emergence of remote work during the Covid-era, USCIS began universally accepting reproduced copies of signatures for “all benefit petitions.” 

Recently there has been an increase in denials, preceded by USCIS issuing a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny where USCIS has requested “the original signed document…..that consists of the original wet signature³”. However, these requests are less about USCIS not accepting “scanned” copies of the signed forms and more about USCIS’ interpretation of “handwritten” signatures. Specifically, USCIS requests the “original” form signed by a party to determine whether the person wrote their signature directly on the form or instead applied their handwritten signature. 

When a petitioner cannot produce the form with the original handwritten signature directly on the form, the USCIS has denied such petitions, concluding that a handwritten signature that a petitioner digitally “affixes” to a form is not comparable to a petitioner handwriting the signature directly on the form. Even when a petitioner submits replacement pages with a newly-signed original handwritten signature, along with a sworn statement affirming that the original filing contained their signature and they agreed to the petition’s contents, USCIS has still refused to accept it as sufficient to prevent denial. 

Unfortunately, a denied case can have severe consequences. While some parties may refile a case by resubmitting a new petition and repaying the filing fees, others have no recourse because of missed deadlines. Even cases where refiling is possible, the consequences can be severe: a foreign national losing employment authorization or valid status. Although those affected by USCIS denials based solely on technical signature issues may seek legal action in court, the real solution lies with USCIS to ensure fairness to the public and avoid additional administrative burden for the agency. 

The problem behind the increase in denials based upon signatures is USCIS’s refusal to allow a party to correct alleged signature deficiencies during the adjudication process. This action contradicts long-standing USCIS policy and practice. 

In 2016 USCIS issued the “first formal written guidance on the meaning of the regulatory requirement with respect to signatures⁴”. Among other things, that guidance recognized a distinction between signatures which USCIS deemed deficient upon intake compared to signatures USCIS deemed deficient during adjudication. Thus, USCIS announced its policy that USCIS would reject a petition and return it to the person with the refunded fees; however, if the USCIS had reason to question a signature after a case is accepted for processing, USCIS may ask the person to sign the petition. This recognized that impact of a denied case: non-refundable filing fees, lost time, and personal consequences such as loss of status, employment authorization, and eligibility for certain immigration options. 

Despite the long-standing policy and practice of USCIS to allow corrections for deficient signatures, USCIS has shifted its approach. USCIS is referencing updated guidance in the USCIS policy manual which states, “USCIS does not provide an opportunity to correct (or cure) a deficient signature.⁵” Although that statement in the updated Policy Manual immediately follows the sentence about USCIS rejecting petitions at the time of filing, where fees are fully refunded, USCIS has extended that interpretation to cases where it determines a signature is deficient while adjudicating a petition that has been pending for months or even years.

The solution to the current uptick in denials for deficient signatures is simple: USCIS should reinstate its longstanding policy and practice allowing a party to correct deficient signatures. This would ensure otherwise meritorious cases are not denied solely for technical errors, subjective interpretations, or confusion about the signature requirement. 

There are multiple reasons USCIS should restore the cure to deficient signatures: 

• There is lack of clarity on the USCIS signature requirement. Beginning with Covid-19 and the transition to remote-work, USCIS began accepting reproduced copies of signatures for all petitions⁶. Some interpreted “reproduced copies of signatures” to mean that a handwritten signature could be reproduced and affixed on a form, whereas USCIS apparently intends it to mean only that a form can be reproduced after a petitioner handwrites their signature directly on the form. Assuming arguendo that USCIS is correct, it’s reasonable for the public to be confused about the meaning of reproduced copies of signatures especially since the USCIS Regulations, the binding authority on signatures, simply state the signature must be “handwritten”, not that it has to be handwritten directly on the form. 
• The USCIS stance on signatures is more stringent than courts. Courts in the U.S. generally accept electronic signatures because federal laws like the E-Sign Act and state laws based on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) give electronic signatures the same legal effect as pen-to-paper or “original” signatures⁷. In contrast, the USCIS does not allow electronic signature services such as DocuSign, which is why some petitioners who work remotely or otherwise don’t have easy access to a printer and scanner have resorted to handwriting their name and digitally affixing it to a form when needed. 
• The USCIS stance on signatures is more stringent than other federal immigration agencies. The Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) allows handwritten, digital, and electronic signatures on all documents filed with an immigration court or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), regardless of whether the filing is by mail, in person, or electronically. The EOIR Policy states that a signature can be a “reproduction of the signer’s handwritten signature."⁸ Similarly, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allows both electronic signatures and reproduced copies of a handwritten signature for Form I-20 and Form I-983, documents related to legal status and work authorization of international students. The ICE policy guidance includes “reproduced copies of a signature,” meaning “a digitally reproduced copy may be a scanned image of a physical signature.” These same forms, I-20 and I-983, are included in immigration petitions with USCIS as evidence of a foreign student’s legal status. 
• The ability to correct a deficient signature has been long-standing USCIS policy. USCIS has historically allowed a petitioner or beneficiary to correct a deficient signature when USCIS deems a signature deficient during the adjudication process. This policy was memorialized in USCIS Policy Memorandum in 2016, recognizing that an ability to cure does not apply to petitions rejected in the USCIS mailroom and returned to petitioners with a refund, but does apply when USCIS questions a signature in the course of adjudicating a pending application. 
• The ability to correct a deficient signature has been long-standing USCIS practice. For almost a decade since the USCSI written policy to allow a party to correct a signature during adjudication, USCIS followed that practice. USCIS issued countless requests for evidence and notice of intent to deny requesting the petitioner or beneficiary to “create replacement pages and submit with the original signatures.” 
• The ability to cure a deficient signature during the adjudication process is equitable. Under current USCIS practice, USCIS timely returns a petition and refunds filing fees for those who are “lucky” enough to have USCIS reject a case upon filing for a deficient signature but retains the filing fees for those deemed deficient during adjudication, not to mention the harm in the time of processing. Due to USCIS processing times, certain cases that are subject to this new USCIS opinion that deficient signatures cannot be corrected during adjudication are cases filed when USCIS was operating under the long-standing policy to allow corrections. 
•  The ability to cure a deficient signature is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. The filing fees for immigration petitions are costly, often thousands of dollars. Refiling a denied petition involves repaying the fees. Worse yet, sometimes refiling is not an option. For example, if USCIS denies an H-1b cap petition after the filing deadline, the petitioner loses the opportunity for that H-1b for the entire fiscal year. Moreover, the impact escalates if the beneficiary does not get selected in the H-1b lottery the following year. Similarly, in immigrant petitions where the priority date is based on the receipt date at USCIS, a denial results in loss of the filing date, which can delay the permanent residence process by several years. With processing times more than one year for I-140 petitions and multiple years for I-130 petitions, having to “restart” the clock by refiling is significant. A denial may also jeopardize a foreign national’s legal status, work authorization, or ability to include a dependent child nearing the age limit on permanent residence application. 
• The ability to correct a deficient signature is efficient for USCIS. The USCIS denials for alleged deficient signatures results in refiled petitions or appeals - adding work to an agency that is already understaffed and overburdened with volume of cases. Moreover, parties with cases that are not eligible to refile or appear – such as H-1b cap cases that are deadline-sensitive – may opt to sue USCIS, burdening not only USCIS but the court system. 
• The ability to correct a deficient signature recognizes substance over form. The purpose of a signature is to validate the identity of the signer and the intent/consent of the signer. For petitions with USCIS, a signature signifies the requester’s consent to three things: (1) the person knows of the content of the request and any supporting documents; (2) the person has reviewed and approves of any information contained in such request and any supporting documents; and (3) the person certifies under penalty of perjury that the request and any supporting documents are true and correct. The method of signature should not override the identity and intent of a party.⁹ Immigration law - including the right to live and work in the United States - should not hinge on a technicality involving the method of a signature when the intent of the signer is clear and verifiable.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “sign” as “to affix one’s name to a writing or instrument, for the purpose of authenticating it, or to give it effect as one’s act”.¹⁰ If USCIS deems a party’s handwritten signature unacceptable because he affixed it to the USCIS form, USCIS should, at a minimum, allow the party to correct the deficiency by re-signing the form during the adjudication process. does not recognize a person’s handwritten signature that he affixes to a petition as acceptable, USCIS should at least allow such a person to correct a deficient signature during adjudication. The real solution – addressing not only denials but also the additional workload on USCIS from re-filings and appeals– is for USCIS to allow a party to correct a deficient signature during adjudication.

Footnotes

1 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., USCIS Policy Manual, vol. 1, pt. B, Ch. 2(A)SCIS-PM B.2(A), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-2. 
2 USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Signatures on Paper Applications, Petitions, Requests, and Other Documents Filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,” PM-602-0134 (June 6, 2016). AILA Doc. No. 16060860. 
3 Practice Alert, “USCIS Rejections, RFEs, and Potential Denials for Valid Signature” (May 20, 2025), American Immigration Lawyers Association, AILA Doc. No. 25052040. 
4 USCIS Policy Memorandum, “Signatures on Paper Applications, Petitions, Requests, and Other Documents Filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,” PM-602-0134 (June 6, 2016). AILA Doc. No. 16060860. 
5 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., USCIS Policy Manual, vol. 1, pt. B, Ch. 2(A)SCIS-PM B.2(A), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-2. 
6 USCIS Alert, USCIS Announces Flexibility in Submitting Required Signatures During COVID-19 National Emergency, (March 20, 2020), archived at https://www.uscis.gov/archive/uscis-announces-flexibility-in-submitting-required-signatures-during-covid-19-national-emergency. The alert advised to “retain copies of the original documents containing the “wet” signature” as USCIS may, at any time, request the original documents, which if not produced, could negatively impact the adjudication of the 
immigration benefit.” See also USCIS Alert, USCIS Extends Covid-19 related Flexibility (July 25, 2022), archived at 
https://www.uscis.gov/ newsroom/alerts/uscis-extends-covid-19-related-flexibilities. The Covid-era requirement to retain an original was not carried forward in the updated guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual. 
7 See United States v. Bilyeu, 202 F.3d 564 (5 th Cir. 2000) [recognized handwritten signature as valid]; J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair, 232 Cal. App. 4 th 974 (2014) [upheld the validity of electronic signatures in contractual agreements]; State of Vermont v. Goss, 2017 VT 63 [recognized digital signatures as valid for legal documents] In re Estate of Reed, 672 N.E.2 nd 28 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) [recognized signature stamps as valid signature in legal documents]. 
8 Exec. Off. For Immigration Rev., Policy Memorandum PM 20-11: Filings and Signatures (Apr. 3, 2020), 
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1266411/dl?inline=. 
9 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., USCIS Policy Manual, vol. 1, pt. B, Ch. 2(A)SCIS-PM B.2(A), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-2. 
10 Sign, The Law Dictionary, https://thelawdictionary.org/sign/.

Read "Restore the Cure: How USCIS Can Prevent Denials for Deficient Signatures and Avoid Potential Lawsuits" Here.