Employer-sponsored I-140 immigrant visa petitions are a cornerstone of the U.S. employment-based green card process, especially for companies trying to retain global executives, managers, and specialized professionals. But as USCIS processing times have lengthened and adjudication patterns have shifted, Requests for Evidence (RFEs) have become significantly more common across the EB-1C Multinational Manager/Executive category and PERM-based EB-2 and EB-3 immigrant petitions. An I-140 RFE is not a sign of imminent denial, but it does mean USCIS could not approve the petition based solely on the initial record. Understanding the most frequent types of employer-sponsored I-140 RFEs, especially those relating to executive/managerial duties, qualifying corporate relationships, education, experience, and ability to pay, allows employers to anticipate issues, avoid delays, and build stronger filings that meet current adjudication trends.

In 2025, EB-1C petitions have seen a notable increase in USCIS RFEs questioning both the qualifying multinational relationship between the U.S. company and the foreign entity, and whether the beneficiary truly performed (and will perform) executive or managerial duties as defined by U.S. immigration law. The corporate relationship requirement, often supported through ownership documents, organizational charts, corporate filings, and financial records, must show that the U.S. petitioner and foreign employer are a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or branch. USCIS now scrutinizes this more heavily, particularly where companies file consolidated tax returns, operate through complex corporate structures, or have undergone restructurings, mergers, or name changes. A missing schedule from a consolidated return, incomplete foreign registration, or unclear ownership percentage can easily result in an I-140 RFE asking for updated documents or evidence tying the subsidiary directly to the parent. This reflects USCIS’s heightened fraud-prevention posture and a more verification-heavy approach to multinational eligibility.

The second major EB-1C RFE trend involves challenges to the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary’s role abroad and in the United States. USCIS has become more assertive in questioning job duties that appear operational, routine, or technical rather than strategic or supervisory. Petitions that rely solely on HR job descriptions or broad generalities frequently receive RFEs asking for detailed explanations of the beneficiary’s daily responsibilities, decision-making authority, subordinate structure, managerial hierarchy, budgetary control, and the nature of professional employees being supervised. USCIS officers often cite INA §101(a)(44) to emphasize the distinction between true people managers and employees whose roles blend managerial and hands-on operational work. Since January 2025, officers have also more aggressively scrutinized “functional managers” whose authority is not tied to direct personnel supervision, leading to more requests for organizational charts, reporting structures, and evidence of discretionary authority. Even executives in large multinational corporations are encountering these EB-1C RFEs when submitted duties appear too generic, too operational, or insufficiently tied to high-level corporate decision-making.

For PERM-based EB-2 and EB-3 petitions, I-140 RFEs commonly revolve around verifying whether the beneficiary met the minimum education and experience requirements outlined on the ETA-9089. USCIS does not revisit the labor certification itself but does independently examine whether the beneficiary’s qualifications satisfy the employer’s stated requirements. Education-related RFEs are relatively rare, but they typically occur when USCIS cannot locate a page of the degree evaluation, when the evaluation does not clearly state the U.S. equivalency, or when the major field of study does not obviously match the job requirements. These are usually resolved with an updated academic evaluation or missing documents.

Experience-related RFEs for EB-2 and EB-3 filings are far more common. USCIS evaluates experience using exact calendar dates, and experience letters that list only months or general time periods, such as “two years,” “2018 to 2020,” or “June 2020 to July 2022”, often lead to RFEs because the officer cannot confirm whether the beneficiary completed the full required duration. An I-140 experience RFE may ask for clarified starting and ending dates, confirmation of full-time versus part-time employment, and detailed job duties. Over the past year, USCIS has increasingly demanded experience letters that explicitly state whether the work was full-time employment (40 hours per week) or part-time, and if part-time, exactly how many hours per week. This reflects a growing agency-wide push toward standardized evaluation of foreign and domestic experience claims. Even cases with straightforward work histories can trigger an RFE when the experience documentation is silent on weekly hours.

USCIS also issues RFEs regarding substantially comparable experience, a PERM-specific issue that applies when the beneficiary gained some or all qualifying experience with the same employer offering the PERM job. If the prior role and current role share more than 50% of the same duties, the experience cannot be counted. As a result, USCIS often asks for organizational charts, granular duty breakdowns, technological distinctions, supervisory differences, or functional explanations to show that the earlier position materially differed from the PERM role. These RFEs are especially common in situations involving internal promotions, reclassifications, or evolving job responsibilities within the same employer.

Occasionally, USCIS also questions whether a bona fide job offer exists, particularly for small employers, startups, family-owned businesses, or situations where the beneficiary owns equity or has influence over hiring or corporate governance. These RFEs may request payroll records, corporate bylaws, shareholder agreements, or operational descriptions to confirm a valid employer–employee relationship. While less frequent, these inquiries can be document-intensive and require careful explanation.

Across all employer-sponsored I-140 petitions [EB-1C, and PERM-based EB-2, and EB-3], the most common and persistent RFE is the request for updated evidence of the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. Under 8 C.F.R. §204.5(g)(2), USCIS may require federal tax returns, audited financial statements, payroll records, W-2s, or pay statements, depending on the employer’s size and how the beneficiary is compensated. Lengthy USCIS processing times often mean that the documents submitted with the initial filing are more than a year old by the time an officer reviews the petition, prompting RFEs requesting the most recent tax return or year-to-date payroll. Employers who file consolidated tax returns frequently receive additional RFEs asking for schedules showing the relationship between the parent and subsidiary, explanations from accountants, or clarification of how income is allocated across related entities. Even financially robust employers may receive an ability-to-pay RFE when the officer cannot easily match the petitioner’s financial evidence to the offered wage.

While I-140 RFEs cannot always be avoided, many are preventable with targeted preparation. EB-1C filings benefit from detailed, narrative-driven descriptions of executive or managerial duties, clear organizational charts, and real-world examples of high-level decision-making. PERM-based petitions can reduce RFEs by ensuring experience letters include exact dates, weekly hours, and specific duty descriptions, while education evaluations clearly establish U.S. equivalency. For ability-to-pay issues, employers can maintain updated tax returns, payroll records, and financial schedules to streamline timely responses. By anticipating these common RFE patterns and preparing documentation accordingly, employers can strengthen their immigration strategy, reduce delays, and improve outcomes for key personnel seeking permanent residence.

If you are facing an I-140 Request for Evidence or have concerns about how to strengthen or support your documentation before filing an I-140 petition, , I invite you to schedule a consultation here.

By : Ryan A. Wilck, Partner and Attorney at Law

Ryan Wilck is a Managing Partner and attorney at Reddy & Neumann, P.C. with over a decade of US immigration law experience, enthusiastic and proactive in his approach assisting clients and their employees through the various phases of the permanent residency a/k/a Green Card process. “Concilio et labore” is not only the motto of Ryan’s favorite sports club but is also his life’s motto; all things come through wisdom and effort. Ryan is passionate about gaining the trust of his clients by utilizing a relentless and detail-oriented approach to understand their specific goals and concerns, hoping to instill a sense of confidence and stability. Whatever your immigration problem or interest, he and his team will find a solution, through wisdom and effort. Reddy & Neumann, P.C. has been serving the business community for over 20 years and is Houston’s largest immigration law firm focused solely on employment-based business immigration. We work with employers and their employees, helping navigate the complex immigration process efficiently and cost-effective.

 We are committed to assisting our clients with navigating the complex PERM Labor Certification (ETA 9089 and other challenging immigration matters as an accomplished immigration law firm in Houston, Texas. Our team is here to offer the direction and support you require, whether you’re a company trying to hire top talent or a foreign worker seeking to develop a career in the United States. To find out more about how we can help you with your immigration issues, get in touch with us right away.