The US Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) latest move tied to H-1B visa holders and I-140 employment-based immigrant petitions has raised concerns in the community. In a rare move, federal officials are now issuing Requests for Evidence (RFEs) asking the concerned immigrants for home addresses and biometrics.
With USCIS’ unexpected request weighing heavy on the immigrant community, people are wondering if this development could be tied to Trump administration’s intimidating efforts to deport people. Market research nonprofit nfpResearch voiced similar apprehensions on an X post that read, “Immigration officials are issuing Requests for Evidence for H-1B and employment-based petitions asking for home addresses and biometrics, possibly adding to Trump admin plans to identify and deport people here lawfully,” according to Newsweek.
As of now, the federal immigration authorities claim to be seeking updated residential addresses over claims of “potential adverse information” regarding certain individuals. “We have encountered potentially adverse information related to the beneficiary. To continue processing your application or petition, we required an updated address for the beneficiary so that we may collect biometric data,” a USCIS adjucator stated in a Request for Evidence, as per Forbes. Submissions of the “beneficiary’s current and updated residential address” are also requested in the same notice.
H-1B anxiety: Use of AI in immigration crackdown efforts flagged again
The fear-inducing move comes amid incessant reports of chilling student visa revocations that have muddied the fate of international students pursuing higher education in the US. Immigration law firm Goel & Anderson’s Vic Goel called the requests “highly unusual because biometrics are not typically required for these case types.”
Alluding to the so-called “adverse information” cited by the USCIS officials, Goel said the scarcity of explanation surrounding the matter has left employers and attorneys alike in the dark. Flagging the claims as a potential result of AI use, he reiterated the sentiment that has echoed in numerous circumstances tied to the immigration havoc under the Trump administration. “It appears that DHS [Department of Homeland Security] may be using AI tools to flag individuals based on undisclosed data, possibly from social media or other government databases.”
The lack of clarity on the issue contradicts the USCIS’ guidelines about an RFE explaining why existing evidence is insufficient. Officials should also clarify what additional evidence would be needed meet the requirements, as per Newsweek. The official USCIS website states that they may request for additional evidence if: “You did not submit all the required evidence; The evidence you submitted is no longer valid; or The officer needs more information to determine your eligibility.”
History repeats itself: Trump’s first terms targetted H1-B petitions with RFEs
A similar situation arose during Trump’s first term when the USCIS published ‘A Breakdown of Why RFEs Were Issued for H-1B Petitions in Fiscal Year 2018’ after official data at the time confirmed both request for evidence and denials were on the rise for many nonimmigrant visa categories. The numbers especially jumped sharply after Donald Trump pushed his “Buy American and Hire American” executive order.
The 10-point explainer listed top reasons why RFEs were issued in FY 2018 for H-1B petitions.
“1. Specialty Occupation: The petitioner did not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(1) of the Act and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and/or that it meets at least one of the four criteria in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii).
2. Employer-Employee Relationship: The petitioner did not establish that they had a valid employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary, by having the right to control the beneficiary’s work, which may include the ability to hire, fire, or supervise the beneficiary, for the duration of the requested validity period.”
3. Availability of Work (off-site): The petitioner did not establish that they have specific and non-speculative qualifying assignments in a specialty occupation for the beneficiary for the -entire time requested in the petition.
4. Beneficiary Qualifications: The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary was qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation per 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C).
5. Maintenance of Status: The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary properly maintained their current status. This category is reflective of many different reasons
that status may not have been maintained.
6. Availability of Work (In-house): The petitioner did not establish that they have specific and non-speculative qualifying assignments in a specialty occupation for the beneficiary for the entire time requested in the petition.
7. LCA Corresponds to Petition: The petitioner did not establish that they obtained a properly certified Labor Condition Application (LCA) and that this LCA properly corresponds to the proffered position and terms of the petition.
8. AC21 and Six Year Limit: The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary was eligible for AC21 benefits or was otherwise eligible for an H-1B extension as it appeared that H-1B had hit the six-year limit.
9. Itinerary: The petitioner did not meet the itinerary requirement at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), which requires petitioners to submit an itinerary with a petition that requires services to be performed in more than one location. The itinerary must include the dates and locations of services to be provided.
10. Fees: The petitioner did not establish that they paid all required H-1B filing fees.”