USCIS Updates Policy Guidance for Certain Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny Versión en español WASHINGTON - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today posted a policy memorandum (PDF, 113 KB) (PM) that provides guidance to USCIS adjudicators regarding their discretion to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when required initial evidence was not submitted or the evidence of record fails to establish eligibility.
This updated guidance is effective September 11, 2018 and applies to all applications, petitions, and requests, except for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) adjudications, received after that date. Due to preliminary injunctions issued by courts in California and New York, this new PM does not change the RFE and NOID policies and practices that apply to the adjudication of DACA requests.
“For too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with frivolous or meritless claims that slow down processing for everyone, including legitimate petitioners. Through this long overdue policy change, USCIS is restoring full discretion to our immigration officers to deny incomplete and ineligible applications and petitions submitted for immigration benefits,” said USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna. “Doing so will discourage frivolous filings and skeletal applications used to game the system, ensure our resources are not wasted, and ultimately improve our agency’s ability to efficiently and fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits in full accordance with our laws.”
The 2013 PM addressed policies for the issuance of RFEs and NOIDs when the evidence submitted at the time of filing did not establish eligibility. In practice, the 2013 PM limited denials without RFEs or NOIDs to statutory denials by providing that RFEs should be issued unless there was “no possibility” of approval. This “no possibility” policy limited the application of an adjudicator’s discretion.
The policy implemented in this guidance restores to the adjudicator full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an RFE or a NOID, when appropriate. This policy is intended to discourage frivolous or substantially incomplete filings used as “placeholder” filings and encourage applicants, petitioners, and requestors to be diligent in collecting and submitting required evidence.
USCIS will continue issuing statutory denials when appropriate without first issuing an RFE or NOID when the applicant, petitioner, or requestor has no legal basis for the benefit/request sought, or submits a request for a benefit or relief under a program that has been terminated. If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the benefit request, USCIS, in its discretion, may deny the benefit request for failure to establish eligibility based on lack of required initial evidence. Examples of filings that may be denied without sending an RFE or NOID include, but are not limited to:
Waiver applications submitted with little to no supporting evidence; or Cases where the regulations, the statute, or form instructions require the submission of an official document or other form of evidence establishing eligibility at the time of filing and there is no such submission. For example, an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864), if required, was not submitted with an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485). This PM updates Chapters 10.5(a) and 10.5(b) of the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual and contains an “additional considerations” section. The policy in this “additional considerations” section is not new, and is nearly identical to the policy contained in the superseded 2013 PM.
For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), Instagram (/uscis), YouTube (/uscis), and Facebook (/uscis).
New USCIS Policy Will Carry Harsh Consequences For Applicants
The leadership of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) seems determined to refute the notion that people in the federal government don’t work hard. To the contrary, top USCIS officials work around-the-clock to come up with creative ways to make life as difficult as possible for those who submit applications to work or live in the United States.
The most recent USCIS effort to discourage or prevent foreign nationals from joining a loved one, making a career in America, or even departing the U.S. without negative consequences is a June 28, 2018, policy memorandum on updated guidance on Notices to Appear (NTAs). As explained below, few Americans likely understand the dire consequences a foreign-born professional placed in deportation proceedings will face under the new policy – even if he or she did nothing more than have an application denied after waiting a long time for a decision.
To better understand the new policy and its implications, I interviewed Jennifer Minear, a director in the immigration practice group at McCandlish Holton. Jennifer has practiced immigration law, with an emphasis on employment-based immigration, for more than 14 years.
Stuart Anderson: How bad do you think the consequences could be from the USCIS memo on Notices to Appear?
Jennifer Minear: The potential harsh consequences as a result of this memo are staggering.
Anderson: Before we get to the consequences, let’s start with some basics. What is a Notice to Appear or NTA?
Minear: A Notice to Appear is a charging document issued by the Department of Homeland Security through any of its component agencies – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The purpose of the Notice to Appear is to place an individual into deportation proceedings.
Anderson: How is the new policy different?
Minear: In the past, USCIS has generally referred matters of potentially removable foreign nationals to ICE to determine whether removal proceedings should actually be initiated by issuing a Notice to Appear. However, under its new policy memorandum dated June 28, 2018, USCIS has greatly expanded its mandate for issuing NTAs without first consulting ICE. Now, USCIS will issue a Notice to Appear on its own initiative and thereby place individuals in removal proceedings upon denial of an application or petition for immigration benefits if the person is deemed removable at the time of the denial.
Anderson: What are the consequences of an individual receiving a Notice to Appear vs. in the past when a person may have decided to depart the United States voluntarily?
Minear: Previously, if an application or petition for immigration benefits were to be denied, the foreign national might be able to depart the U.S. relatively quickly and either remain abroad or obtain approval for another visa that would enable him or her to return to the U.S. However, once an individual is issued a Notice to Appear, he or she is legally obligated to remain in the U.S. and appear before an immigration judge.
Anderson: What happens if an individual fails to appear?
Minear: If the person fails to appear in immigration court in compliance with the Notice to Appear, then a deportation order will be issued against the person. The failure to appear for removal proceedings carries a 5-year bar on re-entry to the United States. While it would be possible to apply for a waiver of that bar, there is no guarantee that the waiver would be granted. Having been previously ordered deported from the U.S. is likely to hamper one’s chances of being approved for another visa to return.
On the other hand, if the individual does remain in the U.S. to contest the removal proceedings – a process that could take years to complete due to the backlogs in immigration courts – he or she is considered “unlawfully present” during all of that time. If the individual prevails in the removal proceedings, his or her status will be restored and the unlawful presence will be wiped away. But if the individual loses, he or she will likely be subject to a 10-year bar on re-entering the U.S., depending on how much unlawful presence accrued by the time the final deportation order was entered.
Anderson: Can this happen to an H-1B professional whose employer files for an extension?
Minear: Yes. Many H-1B professionals whose petitions for initial or extended H-1B status are ultimately denied are likely to be placed into deportation proceedings under this policy.
Anderson: What will happen to the careers of individuals placed into deportation proceedings? Are people even allowed to work and support themselves while waiting for their immigration court appearance?
Minear: The consequences could be extreme because almost all people in removal proceedings are unable to obtain legal authorization to work. While the individual would be free to appeal a denial of the visa petition or other application that resulted in them being placed into removal proceedings and that may ultimately result in their status and employment authorization being reinstated and their deportation proceedings terminated, there is no work authorization generally available to those who are awaiting the conclusion of removal proceedings.
For most people, being placed in proceedings is a legal limbo where you are not lawfully present, yet not able to leave without triggering a bar on re-entry, and not able to work legally.
Anderson: Can you walk through how the new USCIS policy memo could affect an H-1B visa holder?
Minear: For example, an H-1B professional who has been legally employed in the U.S. in H-1B status in the past is permitted by federal regulation to continue living in the U.S. and working for the sponsoring employer for up to 240 days while an extension petition is pending – as long as the extension petition is filed prior to the expiration of the prior H-1B petition.
However, due to significant processing backlogs, USCIS very often takes 6 months or longer to adjudicate H-1B extension petitions. During that time the previous H-1B petition may expire, leaving the H-1B professional solely dependent on the 240 days of work authorization permitted under the regulation – and without any underlying H-1B status unless/until the H-1B extension petition is approved.
If the petition is ultimately denied, then such a person would be deemed unlawfully present as of the date of the denial and, under this new policy, an NTA would be issued. This is a very real scenario. The number of H-1B denials is increasing. That is due at least in part to changes in adjudications policies that, for example, now do not grant any deference to prior approvals of H-1B petitions filed by the same company on behalf of the same professional doing the same job identified in the prior petition.
Anderson: How could an international student be affected by the USCIS policy memo on Notices to Appear?
Minear: A number of international students who have entered the country to attend U.S. colleges and universities may also be placed in deportation proceedings under this new policy. This is because USCIS has also recently published another new policy that will take effect on August 9, 2018. That policy redefines “unlawful presence” to include any violation of student status. [See “USCIS Policy Change Could Bar Many International Students.”]
For example, if USCIS determines in the course of adjudicating an application for an immigration benefit that a student’s employment was unauthorized, or that the student’s school failed to update or maintain the student’s records, then USCIS could deny the application for immigration benefits, make a finding that the student is unlawfully present, and issue a Notice to Appear to the student. This is particularly alarming in that the student may have no prior warning that he has done anything to violate the terms of student status before removal proceedings are initiated against him.
Anderson: What about managers and executives?
Minear: Multinational managers or executives who have been transferred to the U.S. to work for U.S. offices of foreign companies may also become deportable under this new policy. When such executives apply for a green card, their employers must file an immigrant petition for them – and the processing times can take many months. If the manager or executive’s underlying temporary work visa (called an L-1A and which can only be maintained for a maximum of 7 years) expires while the immigrant petition and green card application are pending, and then USCIS denies the immigrant petition, the manager or executive and his family members will be issued NTAs and placed into removal proceedings – even if the denial of the petition was a clear error and there is a valid basis for appeal.
Anderson: What are the likely resource impacts of this new policy?
Minear: This will be an overwhelming administrative burden for an agency that is already struggling with ever increasing processing times and backlogs across all application types. USCIS can also expect increased litigation over denied applications and petitions now that the consequences of those denials are even more severe due to the virtual certainty of being placed in deportation proceedings.
In addition, the immigration court backlog is already over 700,000 cases as of May 2018. This new Notice to Appear policy from USCIS will only further contribute to the already enormous backlogs. Right now, many cases are not calendared for merits hearings until sometimes years after the NTA is issued. Those backlogs will likely grow exponentially given the number of new cases that will be added to the docket as a result of this policy.
Anderson: What advice do you have for individuals?
Minear: Foreign nationals need to take all possible precautions to ensure that their work visa petitions are filed and adjudicated to completion before the foreign national’s existing status expires, so that if the petition is denied, the foreign national will still be in another status and can avoid a Notice to Appear.
Petitions for nonimmigrant (temporary) visas may be filed up to 6 months in advance of the anticipated work start date. Extensions may be filed up to 6 months in advance of the expiration date of the current petition. Employers should plan to file petitions at the earliest possible moment. When available, the petition should be filed with a request for “premium processing,” which requires USCIS to take action on the petition within 15 days of filing.
Anderson: What about advice for employers?
Minear: Similarly, employers should consider sponsoring their workers for green cards at the earliest possible moment in order to maximize the chances the green card may be approved before the employee’s underlying temporary work visa expires or is denied for extension.
Where premium processing is not an option to ensure expeditious decision-making from USCIS, employers and foreign nationals may need to consider filing mandamus actions against USCIS to compel the adjudication of the application or petition for immigration benefit before the foreign national’s underlying immigration status expires.
Anderson: What does this USCIS memo on Notices to Appear and its consequences say about the state of immigration policy in America today?
Minear: I think this policy memo represents another piece of a well-organized and systematic effort by the current administration to make the process of legal immigration to the United States as difficult as possible for both immigrants and the employers who sponsor them. Other recently introduced policies, procedures and adjudication trends within USCIS have injected so much uncertainty and unpredictability into the process of seeking U.S. work authorization it has become almost impossible to advise clients as to what the outcome might be of a particular petition or application for an immigration benefit.
I fear that this policy, combined with others previously announced, will discourage the best and brightest minds from around the world from wanting to come to our country and contribute to our economy and culture. Indeed, that appears to be the intent of these policies – to frustrate and frighten people enough that they will not even attempt to navigate the process of coming here legally. Even if that is not the intent, that is sure to be the result.
WASHINGTON - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today posted a policy memorandum (PDF, 113 KB) (PM) that provides guidance to USCIS adjudicators regarding their discretion to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when required initial evidence was not submitted or the evidence of record fails to establish eligibility.
“when required initial evidence was not submitted or the evidence of record fails to establish eligibility.” 意思是补件要到位，不然不给第二次机会了。哪里说了取消RFE,直接拒了？ Lynnll 发表于 7/14/2018 5:29:09 PM
New USCIS Policy Will Carry Harsh Consequences For Applicants
The leadership of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) seems determined to refute the notion that people in the federal government don’t work hard. To the contrary, top USCIS officials work around-the-clock to come up with creative ways to make life as difficult as possible for those who submit applications to work or live in the United States.
小伙伴们注意啦，美国移民局又双叒叕出新规了。
7月13日，美国移民局更新政策备忘录，9月11日起，收到的所有移民/非移民申请，以及身份转换请求，如果一开始提供的材料不符合要求，或者没有提交全部的证明文件，移民官可以直接拒绝，不用事先寄发补件(RFE)或否决意向(NOID)通知书。
为避免大家恐慌，这个新规，暂不会影响9月11日以前提交的申请，也包括2018年4月已提交申请并正在等待审核的H1B。
USCIS Updates Policy Guidance for Certain Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny
Versión en español
WASHINGTON - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today posted a policy memorandum (PDF, 113 KB) (PM) that provides guidance to USCIS adjudicators regarding their discretion to deny an application, petition, or request without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) when required initial evidence was not submitted or the evidence of record fails to establish eligibility.
This updated guidance is effective September 11, 2018 and applies to all applications, petitions, and requests, except for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) adjudications, received after that date. Due to preliminary injunctions issued by courts in California and New York, this new PM does not change the RFE and NOID policies and practices that apply to the adjudication of DACA requests.
“For too long, our immigration system has been bogged down with frivolous or meritless claims that slow down processing for everyone, including legitimate petitioners. Through this long overdue policy change, USCIS is restoring full discretion to our immigration officers to deny incomplete and ineligible applications and petitions submitted for immigration benefits,” said USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna. “Doing so will discourage frivolous filings and skeletal applications used to game the system, ensure our resources are not wasted, and ultimately improve our agency’s ability to efficiently and fairly adjudicate requests for immigration benefits in full accordance with our laws.”
The 2013 PM addressed policies for the issuance of RFEs and NOIDs when the evidence submitted at the time of filing did not establish eligibility. In practice, the 2013 PM limited denials without RFEs or NOIDs to statutory denials by providing that RFEs should be issued unless there was “no possibility” of approval. This “no possibility” policy limited the application of an adjudicator’s discretion.
The policy implemented in this guidance restores to the adjudicator full discretion to deny applications, petitions, and requests without first issuing an RFE or a NOID, when appropriate. This policy is intended to discourage frivolous or substantially incomplete filings used as “placeholder” filings and encourage applicants, petitioners, and requestors to be diligent in collecting and submitting required evidence.
USCIS will continue issuing statutory denials when appropriate without first issuing an RFE or NOID when the applicant, petitioner, or requestor has no legal basis for the benefit/request sought, or submits a request for a benefit or relief under a program that has been terminated.
If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the benefit request, USCIS, in its discretion, may deny the benefit request for failure to establish eligibility based on lack of required initial evidence. Examples of filings that may be denied without sending an RFE or NOID include, but are not limited to:
Waiver applications submitted with little to no supporting evidence; or
Cases where the regulations, the statute, or form instructions require the submission of an official document or other form of evidence establishing eligibility at the time of filing and there is no such submission. For example, an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864), if required, was not submitted with an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485).
This PM updates Chapters 10.5(a) and 10.5(b) of the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual and contains an “additional considerations” section. The policy in this “additional considerations” section is not new, and is nearly identical to the policy contained in the superseded 2013 PM.
For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), Instagram (/uscis), YouTube (/uscis), and Facebook (/uscis).
Last Reviewed/Updated: 07/13/2018
那些485提交后拿临时EAD卡就很危险了，因为提交了绿卡申请就延期的H1B不知道会不会受波及。
那是打回来重新提交，我就补交过，不叫deny，不会启动遣返程序。
造谣没成本，也别把人当傻子，那些申绿卡的人好好问问律师就知道怎么回事了。
拿485 EAD有什么危险，一点危险没有。没用一点没有关系。只有H1B 过期才不行。
New USCIS Policy Will Carry Harsh Consequences For Applicants
The leadership of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) seems determined to refute the notion that people in the federal government don’t work hard. To the contrary, top USCIS officials work around-the-clock to come up with creative ways to make life as difficult as possible for those who submit applications to work or live in the United States.
The most recent USCIS effort to discourage or prevent foreign nationals from joining a loved one, making a career in America, or even departing the U.S. without negative consequences is a June 28, 2018, policy memorandum on updated guidance on Notices to Appear (NTAs). As explained below, few Americans likely understand the dire consequences a foreign-born professional placed in deportation proceedings will face under the new policy – even if he or she did nothing more than have an application denied after waiting a long time for a decision.
To better understand the new policy and its implications, I interviewed Jennifer Minear, a director in the immigration practice group at McCandlish Holton. Jennifer has practiced immigration law, with an emphasis on employment-based immigration, for more than 14 years.
Stuart Anderson: How bad do you think the consequences could be from the USCIS memo on Notices to Appear?
Jennifer Minear: The potential harsh consequences as a result of this memo are staggering.
Anderson: Before we get to the consequences, let’s start with some basics. What is a Notice to Appear or NTA?
Minear: A Notice to Appear is a charging document issued by the Department of Homeland Security through any of its component agencies – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The purpose of the Notice to Appear is to place an individual into deportation proceedings.
Anderson: How is the new policy different?
Minear: In the past, USCIS has generally referred matters of potentially removable foreign nationals to ICE to determine whether removal proceedings should actually be initiated by issuing a Notice to Appear. However, under its new policy memorandum dated June 28, 2018, USCIS has greatly expanded its mandate for issuing NTAs without first consulting ICE. Now, USCIS will issue a Notice to Appear on its own initiative and thereby place individuals in removal proceedings upon denial of an application or petition for immigration benefits if the person is deemed removable at the time of the denial.
Anderson: What are the consequences of an individual receiving a Notice to Appear vs. in the past when a person may have decided to depart the United States voluntarily?
Minear: Previously, if an application or petition for immigration benefits were to be denied, the foreign national might be able to depart the U.S. relatively quickly and either remain abroad or obtain approval for another visa that would enable him or her to return to the U.S. However, once an individual is issued a Notice to Appear, he or she is legally obligated to remain in the U.S. and appear before an immigration judge.
Anderson: What happens if an individual fails to appear?
Minear: If the person fails to appear in immigration court in compliance with the Notice to Appear, then a deportation order will be issued against the person. The failure to appear for removal proceedings carries a 5-year bar on re-entry to the United States. While it would be possible to apply for a waiver of that bar, there is no guarantee that the waiver would be granted. Having been previously ordered deported from the U.S. is likely to hamper one’s chances of being approved for another visa to return.
On the other hand, if the individual does remain in the U.S. to contest the removal proceedings – a process that could take years to complete due to the backlogs in immigration courts – he or she is considered “unlawfully present” during all of that time. If the individual prevails in the removal proceedings, his or her status will be restored and the unlawful presence will be wiped away. But if the individual loses, he or she will likely be subject to a 10-year bar on re-entering the U.S., depending on how much unlawful presence accrued by the time the final deportation order was entered.
Anderson: Can this happen to an H-1B professional whose employer files for an extension?
Minear: Yes. Many H-1B professionals whose petitions for initial or extended H-1B status are ultimately denied are likely to be placed into deportation proceedings under this policy.
Anderson: What will happen to the careers of individuals placed into deportation proceedings? Are people even allowed to work and support themselves while waiting for their immigration court appearance?
Minear: The consequences could be extreme because almost all people in removal proceedings are unable to obtain legal authorization to work. While the individual would be free to appeal a denial of the visa petition or other application that resulted in them being placed into removal proceedings and that may ultimately result in their status and employment authorization being reinstated and their deportation proceedings terminated, there is no work authorization generally available to those who are awaiting the conclusion of removal proceedings.
For most people, being placed in proceedings is a legal limbo where you are not lawfully present, yet not able to leave without triggering a bar on re-entry, and not able to work legally.
Anderson: Can you walk through how the new USCIS policy memo could affect an H-1B visa holder?
Minear: For example, an H-1B professional who has been legally employed in the U.S. in H-1B status in the past is permitted by federal regulation to continue living in the U.S. and working for the sponsoring employer for up to 240 days while an extension petition is pending – as long as the extension petition is filed prior to the expiration of the prior H-1B petition.
However, due to significant processing backlogs, USCIS very often takes 6 months or longer to adjudicate H-1B extension petitions. During that time the previous H-1B petition may expire, leaving the H-1B professional solely dependent on the 240 days of work authorization permitted under the regulation – and without any underlying H-1B status unless/until the H-1B extension petition is approved.
If the petition is ultimately denied, then such a person would be deemed unlawfully present as of the date of the denial and, under this new policy, an NTA would be issued. This is a very real scenario. The number of H-1B denials is increasing. That is due at least in part to changes in adjudications policies that, for example, now do not grant any deference to prior approvals of H-1B petitions filed by the same company on behalf of the same professional doing the same job identified in the prior petition.
Anderson: How could an international student be affected by the USCIS policy memo on Notices to Appear?
Minear: A number of international students who have entered the country to attend U.S. colleges and universities may also be placed in deportation proceedings under this new policy. This is because USCIS has also recently published another new policy that will take effect on August 9, 2018. That policy redefines “unlawful presence” to include any violation of student status. [See “USCIS Policy Change Could Bar Many International Students.”]
For example, if USCIS determines in the course of adjudicating an application for an immigration benefit that a student’s employment was unauthorized, or that the student’s school failed to update or maintain the student’s records, then USCIS could deny the application for immigration benefits, make a finding that the student is unlawfully present, and issue a Notice to Appear to the student. This is particularly alarming in that the student may have no prior warning that he has done anything to violate the terms of student status before removal proceedings are initiated against him.
Anderson: What about managers and executives?
Minear: Multinational managers or executives who have been transferred to the U.S. to work for U.S. offices of foreign companies may also become deportable under this new policy. When such executives apply for a green card, their employers must file an immigrant petition for them – and the processing times can take many months. If the manager or executive’s underlying temporary work visa (called an L-1A and which can only be maintained for a maximum of 7 years) expires while the immigrant petition and green card application are pending, and then USCIS denies the immigrant petition, the manager or executive and his family members will be issued NTAs and placed into removal proceedings – even if the denial of the petition was a clear error and there is a valid basis for appeal.
Anderson: What are the likely resource impacts of this new policy?
Minear: This will be an overwhelming administrative burden for an agency that is already struggling with ever increasing processing times and backlogs across all application types. USCIS can also expect increased litigation over denied applications and petitions now that the consequences of those denials are even more severe due to the virtual certainty of being placed in deportation proceedings.
In addition, the immigration court backlog is already over 700,000 cases as of May 2018. This new Notice to Appear policy from USCIS will only further contribute to the already enormous backlogs. Right now, many cases are not calendared for merits hearings until sometimes years after the NTA is issued. Those backlogs will likely grow exponentially given the number of new cases that will be added to the docket as a result of this policy.
Anderson: What advice do you have for individuals?
Minear: Foreign nationals need to take all possible precautions to ensure that their work visa petitions are filed and adjudicated to completion before the foreign national’s existing status expires, so that if the petition is denied, the foreign national will still be in another status and can avoid a Notice to Appear.
Petitions for nonimmigrant (temporary) visas may be filed up to 6 months in advance of the anticipated work start date. Extensions may be filed up to 6 months in advance of the expiration date of the current petition. Employers should plan to file petitions at the earliest possible moment. When available, the petition should be filed with a request for “premium processing,” which requires USCIS to take action on the petition within 15 days of filing.
Anderson: What about advice for employers?
Minear: Similarly, employers should consider sponsoring their workers for green cards at the earliest possible moment in order to maximize the chances the green card may be approved before the employee’s underlying temporary work visa expires or is denied for extension.
Where premium processing is not an option to ensure expeditious decision-making from USCIS, employers and foreign nationals may need to consider filing mandamus actions against USCIS to compel the adjudication of the application or petition for immigration benefit before the foreign national’s underlying immigration status expires.
Anderson: What does this USCIS memo on Notices to Appear and its consequences say about the state of immigration policy in America today?
Minear: I think this policy memo represents another piece of a well-organized and systematic effort by the current administration to make the process of legal immigration to the United States as difficult as possible for both immigrants and the employers who sponsor them. Other recently introduced policies, procedures and adjudication trends within USCIS have injected so much uncertainty and unpredictability into the process of seeking U.S. work authorization it has become almost impossible to advise clients as to what the outcome might be of a particular petition or application for an immigration benefit.
I fear that this policy, combined with others previously announced, will discourage the best and brightest minds from around the world from wanting to come to our country and contribute to our economy and culture. Indeed, that appears to be the intent of these policies – to frustrate and frighten people enough that they will not even attempt to navigate the process of coming here legally. Even if that is not the intent, that is sure to be the result.
正常情况是不会出现这种问题的，而且用词是说可以直接拒没说一定直接拒
现在据说有一种是，先交一部分材料用来占坑，那么pd rd之类的就是根据当时第一次收到材料时候来算
之后在等RFE就好了，现在这种情况估计不行了
这个是打回来重新提交的意思？
没有影响
对。只是防止占便宜的。以前材料不足占位只是RFE, 现在不再RFE的意思。
应该是这份申请被拒绝
那么就牵涉到两个问题
1. 如果申请人当时身份状态没有问题，只需要把材料准备好重新交
2. 如果申请人当时身份已经过期，那么再见
所以这个被打回来的时间点很关键，到底是收发室扫描材料时候就审核必要材料全不全呢，还是要被assign an officer后才打回来，如果是assign那么就可能过很久，如果是收发室就打回来其实影响不大
这里提到的几种情况也有点不清不楚的
如果以前申请最终是悲剧了，也是身份逾期啊，和这个描述的没有什么两样呢？
嗯，说的对。我猜测是第一个，收发室？
不过这其中还有一个问题，比如你证明你够条件了，你也交了材料了，但材料IO认为不够证明这一点, 这时是发RFE, 还是发DENY?
以前被收发室打回来是不收钱的
如果是收发室直接拒材料不够的，我认为IO还是会发RFE，而且现在说的是可以因为材料不够直接拒，也没说以后就没RFE了
以前申请学校的时候也用过这招，大部分材料都有，先在deadline之前交过去占坑，然后再补材料
☆ 发自 iPhone 华人一网 1.14.01
收发室打回来叫reject，就是因为压根不符合递交的条件。移民官审过之后的拒绝叫deny。 ---发自Huaren 官方 iOS APP
本来体检表就不是提交485的必须材料 485的instruction里面说得挺清楚。
我同事H1B就被REF了
我换工作更改H1B也被REF了
那以后出现我们这种情况，是不是就被直接拒了，然后遣送回国？
先不要担忧吧，感觉这个是执行尺度的问题。个人以为，应当只是要求加大DENY的比例，减少RFE. 因为这文件的说了， RFE浪费IO精力导致进展缓慢。
hope so....
那被拒就会被要求驱逐 出境的程序？