08/07/2026
USCIS’s New “No RFE” Policy: What Happens When the Government Gets It Wrong?
USCIS has announced that officers will have greater latitude to deny immigration benefit requests without first issuing an RFE or NOID, framing the change as an effort to combat “frivolous” filings.
Here is my problem with that.
In my practice, RFEs generally raise one of two issues: USCIS claims evidence is missing, or USCIS claims the evidence does not legally satisfy the applicable standard.
In 99% of the RFEs I receive alleging missing evidence, the evidence is already in the record. My response is often simply: please see Exhibit X.
Legal-deficiency RFEs present a different problem. I routinely see USCIS cite cases that do not stand for the proposition asserted, disregard its own Policy Manual, apply standards inconsistent with the statute or regulations, or ignore legal authority.
Again, my response is generally not about fixing a deficient filing. It is about pointing USCIS back to the evidence and law already before it.
To be clear, poorly prepared filings exist. They are particularly common when prepared by some who isn’t a licensed attorney. Some omit required documents or are legally deficient. But many experienced immigration attorneys, particularly those specializing in complex areas like extraordinary ability immigration, submit comprehensive filings from the outset.
For those cases, an RFE or NOID serves an important purpose:
It gives counsel an opportunity to correct USCIS before that mistake becomes the applicant’s denial.
Take that away, and an officer can overlook evidence, misread precedent, apply a nonexistent legal standard, or ignore authority and simply deny.
The applicant is then left to refile, appeal, or file a motion, bearing the expense and consequences of correcting the government’s error. And sometimes those remedies are meaningless because the applicant’s status has expired in the meantime.
That is why I do not accept that this policy is simply about stopping “frivolous” filings.
I see it as part of a broader effort to reduce immigration approvals through procedural mechanisms. If the objective is fewer approvals, eliminating an applicant’s opportunity to correct an erroneous adjudication certainly helps accomplish it.
But reducing approvals and improving the integrity of adjudications are not the same thing.
Sometimes lawyers get it wrong. And sometimes USCIS gets it wrong. In my experience, the latter is more common.
The RFE and NOID process gives us an opportunity to figure out which happened before the consequences fall entirely on the applicant.
Removing that safeguard doesn’t just make frivolous cases easier to deny.
It makes meritorious cases easier to deny, too.
I will keep fighting for my clients. Throughout my 18 years of practice, when USCIS has pivoted, we have always adapted. And we will adapt this time. But many unrepresented individuals will suffer unfair denials and that isn’t justice!
