Some Thoughts on Responding to RFE (Request For Evidence) Cases Originally Filed by Other Law Firms or Clients
Some Thoughts on Responding to RFE (Request For Evidence) Cases Originally Filed by Other Law Firms or Clients
Because of our approval rate and reputation, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates are constantly approached by clients after they received an RFE (Request for Evidence), NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) or a denial letter. We therefore have the chance to review many petition letters and petition packages prepared by other attorneys or clients themselves. Every once in a while, we encountered petitions with very low quality. For example, we are filing a motion to reopen and reconsider for an EB-1 case and found the original attorney did not even quote the correct statute.Regardless of the challenging nature of these cases, we were able to help many clients have their cases approved after responding to RFE or NOID or re-filing their cases.
Most of the time, we helped respond to RFE (Requests for Evidence) for individuals who have self-filed their petition or worked with another attorney. Each RFE is unique to the petition; however, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates have observed some common errors that can be avoided in the petitions to reduce the chance of receiving a complicated RFE.
Not Arguing Based on Pertinent Law or USCIS Regulations
We at Chen Immigration Law Associates constantly reviewed petition letters drafted by clients or other attorneys; on many occasions we have noticed these letters were not argued based on the most update or accurate precedents or USCIS regulations.For examples, all EB-1A (EB1-EA) Alien of Extraordinary Ability, and EB1B (EB1-OR) Outstanding Researcher/Professor cases are adjudicated based on the standards of law set by Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010)
Karzarian case is a recent court decision that has clarified the approach immigration officers should use when evaluating evidence submitted. Karzarian case instructs that the evidence in a case should first be counted, and then if qualifying under at least three criteria should be considered in terms of its final merits. This case is extremely important in EB-1(A) and EB-1(B) cases, and immigration officers expect the petition to address this two part approach. Since the case was recently released, many individuals and attorneys have not been presenting evidence in a way that addresses the two part approach. This is leading to many unnecessary RFEs.
All the petition letters prepared by Chen Immigration Law Associates are argued based on the most pertinent cases, precedents and USCIS memos, which leads to our extremely high approval rate.
Poor Presentation of Evidence
Another common issue we at Chen Immigration Law Associates has observed in petitions filed by other attorneys or clients is poorly presented evidence. Even if a beneficiary has good credentials, failure to present evidence of the beneficiary’s abilities in a clear and precise way will lead the immigration officer to underestimate the merits of the beneficiary’s work and accomplishments. The burden to proof for I-140 petitions falls entirely on the petitioner and poor presentation of evidence will lead to RFE or even denial. An immigration officer is not required to find additional evidence to answer questions raised in the petition.We at Chen Immigration Law Associates always present evidence in the most clear and complete way. We make sure that it is easy for the immigration officer to understand our clients' accomplishments and work. In addition, we tailor each petition to the individual, their work, and their qualifications.
Empty Statements without Substantive Evidence of Support
We at Chen Immigration Law Associates also noticed many EB1A (EB1-EA) and EB1B (EB1-OR) petitions claiming too many regulatory criteria, even when it does not apply to the individual and ended up getting RFE or denial. We always remind our clients that it is not an effective method to claim criteria without substantial evidence of support because it will most certainly result in an RFE. We have observed many firms use a copy-and-paste method drafting petition letters, repeating the languagesof law without providing substantive evidence. To make sure our clients always obtain approval within the shortest possible time, we at Chen Immigration Law Associates include detailed and comprehensive discussion of clients’ credentials, presenting the case with a tailored and extensive index of exhibits and make sure the immigration officer can understand the essence of our clients’ achievements.
Submitting Evidence with Low Quality
Another common mistake we have observed at Chen Immigration Law Associates is that many attorneys and clients did not provide the “best” evidence to support the beneficiary’s qualifications. A petition could be denied simply because evidence provided is with low quality that was not deemed reliable or sufficient. In these cases, providing evidence from reliable sources could have made the difference between denial and approval. Often, an RFE (Request for Evidence) requires better quality of evidence. We at Chen Immigration Law Associates always help clients to provide the best evidence from the start. We are aware of what immigration officers are looking for, and what types of insufficient evidence will likely trigger an RFE.The visa process can be complicated and properly presenting a petition will increase the chance of approval substantially. We at Chen Immigration Law Associates have helped hundreds of clients avoid these common mistakes by creating a clear petition that meets all USCIS expectations and successfully have their cases approved.