Housing Industry Groups Ask HUD to Rescind 30-Day Immigration Reverification Directive in Letter that Details Concerns
Feb 23, 2026
By Renee Williams, NLIHC Senior Advisor for Public Policy
On February 13, three housing industry groups asked HUD to rescind its 30-day immigration reverification directive to public housing agencies (PHAs) (see Memo, 2/2). The groups also request that HUD meet with industry representatives.
The letter—signed by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), and the MTW Collaborative—begins by providing background and then details industry concerns about both the feasibility and legality of the directive. While the HUD press release announcing the 30-day directive referenced both PHAs and HUD-assisted owners, the industry letter focuses on the document sent to PHAs in January 2026.
HUD has directed PHAs to use the EIV-SAVE Tenant Matching Report (EIV-SAVE Report) as the basis for identifying possible immigration data inconsistencies. The EIV-SAVE Report cross-references HUD data with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data. However, PHAs already ascertain tenant program eligibility, which includes checking for eligible immigration status.
Feasibility Concerns
The industry groups discuss concerns regarding the feasibility of PHAs complying with the directive. The letter notes that “it will be impossible for some housing agencies” to meet the directive’s 30-day timeline. For example, for larger PHAs, a 30-day timeline would not even offer sufficient time to initiate reviews for all residents because these PHAs “have hundreds of thousands of program participants collectively and it takes time to review each program participant’s file.” The letter identifies other factors impacting the feasibility of a 30-day turnaround (e.g., the PHA’s need to collect newly signed verification consent forms, time needed for residents to gather documentation, and time needed for residents to save up for documentation fees).
The letter also discusses accuracy concerns with the EIV-SAVE Report, at one point stating that the data in the report “appears to have high levels of inaccuracy resulting in redundant checks.” The industry groups cite reports of U.S. citizens and other eligible immigrants being included in the EIV-SAVE Report despite having provided correct documentation. The letter notes that the EIV-SAVE Report inaccuracies are particularly prevalent for Moving to Work (MTW) Expansion PHAs, characterizing the reports MTW Expansion agencies are receiving as “highly inaccurate.” MTW Expansion PHAs are, “being forced to go through and manually check people for whom the agency has collected and reported on already.”
The industry groups state that reviewing persons “who have already submitted eligible documentation that is valid is a large administrative burden.” The letter also calls the directive a “costly endeavor,” noting that large PHAs may have to review thousands of individuals.
The industry groups also cite a need for technical assistance on using the EIV-SAVE Report.
Legality Concerns
The industry groups write that they “have several concerns about the legality” of the directive, including a concern that HUD is directing PHAs “to take several actions that are contrary to HUD’s own regulations.” As one example, the groups cite HUD regulations that state individuals are only required to show evidence of eligible immigration status once while in continuous occupancy. The letter then references an example where, under the directive, a U.S. citizen who has already provided a signed declaration regarding their citizenship status could be required to provide additional evidence of their immigration eligibility due to erroneous inclusion on the EIV-SAVE Report. The letter states that HUD regulations would “prohibit the housing agency from again asking that citizen to provide evidence of eligible status.”
The letter additionally says that in “certain instances, the guidance’s requirement that additional documentation be submitted for eligible noncitizens conflicts with the Department’s regulations,” referring to eligible noncitizens over 62 who have already provided a signed declaration regarding eligible immigration status and documentation proving age.
The industry groups also explain that the directive did not comply with the requirements for changing regulations and that it is vague. Regarding vagueness, the letter cites “unclear or contradictory timeframes” and the directive’s failure to provide follow-up steps.
Read the industry groups’ letter here.
Read NAHRO’s summary here.