The regulations are very poorly written with respect to the subject of what constitutes acceptable foreign identification documents, a problem noted by some commenters during the public comment period that followed the DOJ's revision of the relevant CFRs a couple years back.
Here's how the DOJ responded in their response to public commentary:
+++++++++
Two commenters commented that the definition of picture identification card is vague, in particular because it does not include documents issued by a foreign government but does include as an example a foreign passport.
In response to these comments, the Department has clarified that the definition includes a foreign government-issued passport or any other document issued by a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof only when both the person who is the subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required records are located outside the United States. The definition also clarifies that it includes a U.S. government-issued Permanent Resident Card (commonly known as a ??Green Card??) or other U.S. government-issued Employment Authorization Document.
+++++++++
You can see all the DOJ responses to the public comments in
this doc posted on the FSC's website.
Now.... as many lawyers (I am not one, myself) will tell you, the problem with the responses issued by the DOJ is that such comments are not deemed by the courts to be the same thing as "narrowing construction" for the given law addressed in such comments.
The same lawyers would likely explain that while the Court *can* consider the opinions, edicts and responses of governing agencies when interpreting the laws those agencies are responsible for enforcing, the Court is bound by law/precedent to give primacy to the "plain language" of the statute.
Having said that, I think it's *fairly* safe to take the DOJ at its word on this one, because if they acted otherwise with respect to a specific foreign ID situation, they would have to face their own assurances in court, having contradicted those assurances.... and I think the presiding judge would be something other than impressed by the DOJ's conduct in that hypothetical scenario.
- Q.