Since the beginning of 2025, we have observed a shift in the types of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) issued by USCIS in NIW petitions. While the core adjudication standards remain unchanged, several recent RFEs have raised questions that were rarely seen before. These changes are not drastic, but they reflect a potentially evolving approach by adjudicators.
Examples of Uncommon RFE Requests
One recent case involved a request for clarification regarding how the petitioner divides time between research and employment-related responsibilities. This line of inquiry, seemingly irrelevant in that particular case, had not commonly appeared in NIW petitions that already contained a clearly stated proposed endeavor.
In another case, USCIS issued an RFE requesting additional clarification regarding the petitioner’s academic credentials, despite the fact that USCIS uses the same degree evaluation system that was eventually used by the evaluating agency. Although the petition was ultimately approved, the request resulted in an unnecessary cost.
A third example involved an RFE questioning the format of the translation certification. Specifically, the officer requested that the certification explicitly list the exhibit numbers of the translated documents despite the fact there were very few translations in that petition. This level of detail had not previously been required and was never an issue.
Possible Reasons
All of the cases noted above occurred in 2025, shortly after the January 15, 2025, USCIS policy update regarding NIW adjudication. While the updated guidance did not mandate the types of RFEs described, it may have prompted adjudicators to apply more variation in their requests. Another possible factor is the increase in the number of NIW filings at the end of 2024, which may have resulted in more procedural inconsistencies across adjudicators.
Implications for Professionals Preparing NIW Petitions
These developments do not suggest that NIW petitions are becoming more difficult overall. However, they do highlight the importance of careful and proactive petition preparation. Petitioners should anticipate the possibility of heightened scrutiny on issues such as the distinction between research and job duties, the source and structure of academic evaluations, and the labeling and formatting of supporting documents.
Applicants are advised to prepare each component of the petition with greater attention to clarity, structure, and evidentiary linkage. This approach can help minimize avoidable delays and ensure that the officer reviewing the case can readily understand the petition’s merits.
Conclusion
These RFEs reflect a broader trend toward more novel types of requests. Our firm has continued to secure approvals under these updated conditions, but we encourage prospective applicants to be aware of emerging trends and prepare accordingly.
Thath Kim II
US Attorney
Licensed in Oregon
11F 1108, Seocho-daero 77gil 17, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea 06614