What Petitioners Need to Know About USCIS Adjudication in the Current Administration

Over the past year, our firm has observed a marked and troubling shift in the nature, frequency, and quality of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). These changes have become particularly pronounced since January 2025 and are now impossible to dismiss as anecdotal or case-specific anomalies. Instead, they represent a broader adjudicatory trend that has significant implications for employers, foreign nationals, and practitioners navigating the employment-based immigration system.

This article outlines the most notable RFE trends we are seeing across employment-based immigrant petitions—particularly EB-1A Extraordinary Ability and EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) filings—and offers practical guidance on how petitioners should respond in this environment.

A Rise in RFEs Without Meaningful Requests

One of the most striking developments is the increasing number of RFEs that do not contain an actual request for additional evidence. Instead, these notices consist of disorganized, boilerplate recitations of USCIS Policy Manual provisions, field adjudicator guidance, or regulatory language, often copied verbatim and presented without analysis, explanation, or reference to the specific evidence already submitted in the petition.

In many cases, these RFEs fail to identify:

• What evidence is allegedly missing,
• Why the evidence already submitted is insufficient, or
• What specific documentation would resolve the officer’s concerns.

From a due-process standpoint, this is deeply problematic. RFEs are intended to give petitioners notice of deficiencies and a meaningful opportunity to respond. When an RFE is incoherent or non-specific, it undermines that purpose entirely.

The Role of Automation and “AI Hallucinations”

Through public reporting and agency statements, it has become increasingly apparent that USCIS is relying more heavily on automated systems and artificial intelligence tools in adjudication. While technology can enhance efficiency when used responsibly, what we are seeing instead resembles what technologists refer to as “AI hallucination.”

AI hallucination occurs when an artificial intelligence system generates output that appears authoritative but is factually incorrect, internally inconsistent, or untethered from the actual input data. In the USCIS context, this manifests as RFEs that:

• Mischaracterize evidence that is clearly present in the record,
• Apply incorrect legal standards,
• Cite irrelevant policy provisions, or
• Assert deficiencies that do not logically follow from the petition contents.

The result is an RFE that looks official but reads as though no human being meaningfully reviewed the filing.

Premium Processing: Paying for an RFE and a Denial

Perhaps the most concerning trend we have observed involves premium processing for discretionary petitions, particularly EB-1A and EB-2 NIW cases.

Historically, premium processing was a strategic option—expensive, but valuable when time was critical and the case was strong. In the current adjudicatory climate, however, premium processing has increasingly become a fast track not to approval, but to:

1. An immediate, poorly reasoned RFE, followed by
2. A swift denial that appears to ignore the RFE response entirely.

In practical terms, premium processing for EB-1A and NIW cases now often amounts to paying $2,805 for an RFE that will not be substantively considered. We have seen denials issued shortly after comprehensive RFE responses, with no engagement with the arguments or evidence provided.

As a result, unless a client is adamant or faces extraordinary timing constraints, we have begun refusing to file discretionary petitions in premium processing. Notably, we are seeing significantly better outcomes for the same categories when filed under regular processing, where officers appear more willing—or at least more able—to engage in reasoned adjudication.

Ability to Pay RFEs: A Resurgence

USCIS has also dramatically increased the issuance of Ability to Pay RFEs in employer-sponsored I-140 cases. While such RFEs are not new, the volume and scope of these requests are noteworthy.

In particular, officers are now requesting:

• Detailed accounting of an employer’s entire I-140 beneficiary roster,
• Financial documentation beyond what is required by regulation, and
• Evidence that is explicitly disfavored or unnecessary under existing USCIS policy.

The law is clear: an employer may establish ability to pay through annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements, and once the proffered wage is established for a single beneficiary, there is no statutory requirement to re-litigate the employer’s finances across unrelated petitions.

Nonetheless, we are seeing RFEs that directly contradict USCIS’s own policy guidance, suggesting either a lack of training or over-reliance on automated triggers untethered from legal authority.

Bona Fide Job Opportunity RFEs

Another emerging trend is the issuance of bona fide job opportunity RFEs, particularly in cases involving consulting firms, technology vendors, or third-party placements.

In these RFEs, USCIS is requesting:

• Job offer letters,
• Vendor agreements,
• End-client letters,
• Corporate formation documents, and
• Proof of ongoing business operations.

While USCIS has the authority to confirm that a real job exists, the breadth of these requests often exceeds what is reasonably necessary and veers into speculative adjudication. In some cases, officers appear to be re-adjudicating business viability rather than immigration eligibility.

Experience Letters and the “Full-Time vs. Part-Time” Trap

We are also seeing a particularly troubling and, frankly, illogical trend involving experience letters.

USCIS has begun issuing RFEs rejecting otherwise credible experience letters solely because they do not explicitly state whether the employment was “full-time” or “part-time”—even when the letter documents many years of experience.

For example, in a case requiring six months of qualifying experience, USCIS may reject an experience letter documenting ten years of employment on the grounds that the officer “cannot determine” whether at least six months were full-time.

This approach runs directly counter to the preponderance of the evidence standard, which governs most immigration adjudications. Under this standard, USCIS must determine whether it is more likely than not that the requirement has been met—not demand hyper-technical precision that defies common sense.

Automated I-140 Revocations and Priority Date Errors

Finally, we are seeing what appear to be automated I-140 revocations issued without factual or legal basis.

Under the law, once an immigrant visa becomes available (i.e., the priority date is current), a beneficiary must pursue visa processing within one year or risk revocation. However, USCIS has begun issuing revocation notices in cases where:

1. USCIS claims notice was sent to pursue consular processing when no such notice was ever received, and
2. The beneficiary’s priority date was never current, often due to country-specific backlogs.

In these cases, no immigrant visa was ever available, making revocation legally improper. These errors strongly suggest automation without adequate safeguards or human verification.

Lessons for Petitioners: Patience and Professionalism

For years, we have advised clients that patience is a virtue in dealing with USCIS. That advice still holds. But a new reality has emerged: petitioners and practitioners must also be prepared to confront a lack of professionalism, coherence, and accountability in adjudications.

The best defense remains:

• Meticulously documented filings,
• Clear legal framing,
• Strategic avoidance of premium processing where appropriate, and
• Experienced counsel willing to push back when USCIS departs from its own standards.

Despite current frustrations, the law has not changed—only its application has. Our role as attorneys is to continue holding the agency to the rules it is obligated to follow, even when the system makes that task more difficult than it should be.

If you are a frequient I-140 file or have begun facing an uptick in RFEs for your company and are looking for a detailed conversation how to move forward sucessfully, 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.