Credible Fear Interview Fee

Full Title:
Protecting Asylum Integrity Act

Summary#

This bill would require people who undergo a "credible fear" interview to pay a processing fee before the interview. A credible fear interview is the initial screening that determines whether an arriving noncitizen can try to seek asylum or other protection in the United States.

  • Main change: DHS must assess and collect a fee of at least $100 for each credible fear interview, to be collected before the interview.
  • Money split: 50% of the fee goes to the USCIS fee account for immigration processing; the other 50% goes to the federal general fund.
  • Indexing: The fee must be adjusted each year for inflation starting in fiscal year 2027.
  • Stated goal: The bill says the fee will recover processing costs, promote fiscal responsibility, deter frivolous claims, and raise federal revenue.

What it means for you#

  • Asylum seekers and people in expedited removal: You would have to pay at least $100 before your credible fear interview can take place. The bill does not explain how inability to pay will be handled.
  • DHS and USCIS staff: USCIS would collect the fee and receive half of the revenues into its fee account for use in processing and operations without further appropriation. DHS would also be responsible for implementing the payment process.
  • Federal budget / taxpayers: Half of the fee revenue would go to the general fund and count as federal revenue.
  • Legal aid organizations and advocates: If the fee affects who applies for interviews, organizations that assist asylum seekers may see changes in demand for help with payments or in requests for legal support.
  • Detention facilities or custody situations: Because the fee must be collected before the interview, people in detention or without access to funds may face practical obstacles to paying prior to the screening.

Timing: The fee is set at not less than $100 initially and is to be adjusted annually for inflation beginning in fiscal year 2027.

What is unclear: The bill text does not state whether the fee can be waived, deferred, refunded, or recovered from those who later receive protection. It also does not detail how collection will work in practice, or how inability to pay will affect access to the interview.

Expenses#

The bill would raise federal revenue by creating a new fee, but no official cost estimate or full fiscal note is included in the provided material.

  • Revenue: The bill itself says the fee will increase federal revenues.
  • Fee distribution: 50% to the USCIS Immigration Examinations Fee Account (available to USCIS without further appropriation); 50% to the Treasury general fund.
  • Administrative costs: The bill does not give an estimate, but collecting fees and enforcing pre-interview payment could create administrative and technology costs for DHS/USCIS.
  • No fiscal estimate provided: No public fiscal note or numeric cost/savings estimate is included in the bill text provided.

Proponents' View#

These points come from the bill’s own findings and stated purposes.

  • The bill appears intended to recover some processing costs for credible fear screenings, consistent with existing policy of charging fees for immigration processing.
  • It could be seen as promoting fiscal responsibility by asking users of the screening process to share in costs.
  • The bill suggests a fee may deter frivolous or meritless claims at the initial screening stage.
  • Revenue from the fee could be used to support immigration processing (through USCIS) and provide general federal revenue.

Opponents' View#

These are potential concerns that arise from the bill’s design and what the text omits.

  • One concern is that requiring payment before the interview could block or delay access to the credible fear screening for people who cannot pay. The bill does not explain waivers or exceptions for indigent individuals.
  • Charging a fee for a screening that determines eligibility to seek asylum may create a practical barrier to protection for vulnerable people.
  • It is unclear how fees would be collected in detention or remote locations, which could create delays or extra administrative burden.
  • Half of the fee goes to the general fund rather than being used entirely for asylum processing; some may see this as reducing the link between collected fees and direct program costs.
  • The bill does not describe refund rules or what happens if a person later receives protection, which raises fairness and procedural questions.