Does CBP allow opting out of fingerprints and photos for visa holders?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Department of Homeland Security’s final rule makes biometric capture—particularly facial photographs—mandatory for non‑U.S. citizens (including visa holders and lawful permanent residents) at U.S. ports of entry and exit; the Federal Register text explicitly states aliens “may be photographed without exemption,” and CBP has moved to a nationwide facial comparison process [1] [2]. Claims that travelers can “opt out” apply consistently to U.S. citizens who may request manual passport inspection, but the rule and CBP’s guidance do not provide a general opt‑out for visa holders; fingerprints may still be collected in specific circumstances as a secondary modality [3] [1] [4].
1. What the new rule actually says about photos for non‑citizens
The Federal Register’s final rule frames the policy as a requirement that “all aliens may be photographed without exemption,” enabling DHS to biometrically verify identity on entry and departure and to enroll noncitizen photos into DHS biometric systems—language that removes prior age and pilot‑site exemptions and treats facial capture as the primary modality for most non‑U.S. travelers [1] [2]. CBP has rolled the Simplified Arrival/touchless facial comparison out nationwide and describes facial images as the means to confirm identity, with fingerprints used only “in select cases” to establish links to existing records or where a facial match fails [5] [1].
2. The “opt‑out” language: limited to U.S. citizens in agency materials
CBP and DHS press materials repeatedly say U.S. citizens can decline facial capture and instead request alternative processing—typically a manual review of travel documents by a CBP officer—and that citizen photos are discarded quickly (within 12 hours) [3] [4] [6]. Multiple CBP statements and privacy policy pages emphasize signage and announcements notifying travelers of “opt out” rights, but those descriptions are framed around eligible travelers and U.S. citizens, not as a universal opt‑out right for aliens or visa holders [7] [8].
3. Where public reporting and privacy advocates diverge
Advocacy groups and some reporting underscore a starkly different reading: organizations such as EPIC note that individuals—including U.S. citizens in certain contexts—have in practice lacked the ability to avoid facial comparisons and that agency practices and agreements with airlines complicate “opt‑out” claims [9]. Lawsuits and FOIA disclosures cited by EPIC highlight that technical implementation, third‑party boarding processes, and partner agreements can limit real alternatives to biometric screening even when policies suggest alternatives exist [9].
4. Fingerprints: secondary, but not gone
Although CBP’s expanded facial system reduces routine fingerprinting for foreign nationals who have prior records or successful facial matches, the rule and agency documents make clear fingerprints and iris scans remain authorized and will be used as necessary—for identity establishment, no‑match situations, or linking to previous biometric records—so visa holders should expect fingerprints may still be collected under certain operational conditions [1] [10] [5].
5. Bottom line and reporting limits
On the evidence from DHS/CBP’s final rule, agency releases, and contemporaneous reporting, visa holders and other non‑U.S. citizens do not have a broad legal right to opt out of facial photograph capture at entry or exit; the rule explicitly removes exemptions for aliens and makes facial capture the default, with fingerprints retained as an authorized fallback [1] [2]. The record does show CBP repeatedly states U.S. citizens can request alternative manual processing and that signage should inform travelers of opt‑out rights, but there is credible dispute from privacy groups and implementation details (airline partnerships, airport procedures) that could limit real‑world alternatives—those implementation disputes are documented in advocacy filings and reporting [9] [7]. If definitive confirmation of operational exceptions at particular airports or for specific visa categories is required, the agency guidance and local port procedures would need to be consulted directly; those granular operational practices are not exhaustively catalogued in the sources reviewed [7] [5].