USCIS officers can now instantly deny immigration applications without issuing a RFE or NOID

  TSWEDENSKY.    Pixabay   .  New Policy allows officers with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to outright deny any visa or green card application that is missing evidence or contains an error.

TSWEDENSKY. Pixabay. New Policy allows officers with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to outright deny any visa or green card application that is missing evidence or contains an error.

Starting September 11, 2018, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will start implementing the agency’s new policy regarding the officer’s discretion to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) if initial evidence is not submitted or if the evidence in the record does not establish eligibility. This new policy rescinds and replaces the Policy Memorandum issued by the agency in 2013.

What is a Request for Evidence (RFE)?

A Request for Evidence or RFE, for short, is a notice sent by USCIS to request additional information or evidence for a particular case. The notice will specify the type of evidence required, to give the applicant or petitioner adequate notice and sufficient information to respond. The request for evidence will indicate the deadline for response, with a maximum response period of 12 weeks from the date of the notice.

What is a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID)

A Notice of Intent to Deny or NOID, for short, is a letter sent by USCIS notifying the petitioner or applicant that the agency intends to deny the application and specifying the bases for the proposed denial sufficient to give the applicant or petitioner adequate notice and sufficient information to respond. The NOID will indicate the deadline for response, not to exceed 60 days from the date of the notice. For Asylum applicants, the deadline to respond to a NOID issued after an interview is 16 days.

What is the reason for this change in policy?

According to the Policy Memorandum, the change is intended to discourage frivolous or substantially incomplete filings used as “placeholder” filings and to encourage applicants, petitioners, and requestors to be diligent in collecting and submitting required evidence. It is not intended to penalize filers for innocent mistakes or misunderstandings of evidentiary requirements. 

DACA Recipients

Due to ongoing court litigation, this policy memo does not change the RFE and NOID policies and practices that apply to the adjudication of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) requests while DHS remains enjoined from making changes to the DACA policy as a result of court-issued preliminary injunctions. This means that DACA recipients are still covered by the previous policy memorandum issued in 2013.  

I’m affected by this development. What should I do?

If you plan on filing a petition or application with USCIS, it is more important than ever to submit a complete and thorough application which showcases your claim in the best possible light. We have successfully assisted many clients with their immigration applications. Contact us to see how we can help. Follow us on InstagramTwitterFacebookLinkedIn or Tumblr for up-to-date immigration news.


Rasoulpour Torregoza is the law firm for immigrants, by immigrants. We are founded on the motto of LegalEase: we do away with the legal jargon and make law easy to understand, so you can focus on what’s important to you – going for your American Dream.
Contact us at (888) 445-7066  or info@legalease.us. We are also on social media and on Skype: @LegalEaseUS. ||
This website and blog constitute attorney advertising. Do not consider anything on this website or blog legal advice as the law is dynamic, particularly in the immigration field and nothing in this website constitutes an attorney-client relationship being formed. Set up a one-hour consultation with us before acting on anything you read here. Past results are no guarantee of future results and prior results do not imply or predict future results. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits.