Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Medical Examination for Visa or Immigration Benefit

A Civil Surgeon argues against significant changes to the immigration medical exam requirements, citing logistical burdens and low clinical relevance for several proposed additions. The commenter specifically opposes adding tests for tattoos, cholesterol, and HSV antibodies, while suggesting nuanced approaches for substance testing and infectious diseases like HIV and Hepatitis.

The commenter opposes the proposed updates to the DS forms, arguing that they impose significant administrative and financial burdens on panel physicians and applicants without clear public health justifications. They specifically criticize the requirement for metabolic panels and the documentation of tattoos and scars as being outside the scope of medical fitness assessments.

The commenter opposes the requirement in Form DS-3026 to photograph all tattoos, scars, and markings, arguing that these are not medical conditions and do not belong within the scope of a physician's clinical role. They suggest that if such information is needed for administrative or security purposes, it should be collected by the appropriate authorities rather than medical professionals.

A pediatric gastroenterologist/hepatologist with decades of experience in academic institutions opposes the proposed medical examination requirements. The commenter argues that excluding individuals based on tattoos, obesity, or hypertension is irrational and not data-based, and suggests focusing instead on incurable infectious diseases.

A USCIS-designated civil surgeon and physician opposes the proposed information collection because it expands data-sharing to include immigration enforcement, which they argue creates a surveillance mechanism that chills patient participation and undermines public health. The commenter also argues that the notice significantly underestimates the time burden on physicians and requests more specific privacy protections and revised burden estimates.

The commenter argues that the proposed updates to the DS forms impose unnecessary administrative burdens on panel physicians and increase costs for applicants without clear public health justifications. They specifically criticize the inclusion of metabolic panels and documentation of physical markings as being outside the scope of medical fitness assessments.