Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

USCIS Raises the Stakes: Incomplete Immigration Filings May Face Immediate Denial

By Kate Kalmykov on August 10, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
USCIS on United States flag from Department of Homeland Security

Table of Contents

  • What Changed?
  • The Practical Message: The Initial Filing Matters More Than Ever
  • What This Means for Employment-Based Immigration
  • Significance for EB-5 Investors
  • Adjustment of Status Filings Also Require Care
  • Another Development in a Rapidly Changing Immigration Environment

The Trump administration has prioritized immigration policy, with new developments emerging on an almost weekly basis. From changes affecting visa processing and adjustment of status to increased vetting, enforcement initiatives, employment authorization, humanitarian programs, and agency adjudication standards, employers and foreign nationals are navigating a rapidly shifting immigration landscape.

The latest development comes from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). On Aug. 5, 2026, USCIS updated its Policy Manual to reinforce the principle that applicants and petitioners should establish eligibility for an immigration benefit at the time of filing. The agency has also restored broader discretion for officers to deny certain applications and petitions without first issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).

This represents a departure from the approach adopted in 2021, under which USCIS officers were generally instructed to issue an RFE or NOID when additional evidence could potentially establish eligibility. Under that policy, an incomplete filing did not necessarily result in denial without first allowing the applicant or petitioner an opportunity to supplement the record.

Link to What Changed? What Changed?

Under the August 5 policy update, USCIS emphasizes that the burden rests with the applicant or petitioner to establish eligibility and submit required initial evidence at the time of filing. USCIS form instructions identify the initial evidence required for particular benefit request, and officers once again have broader discretion to deny a filing without providing an opportunity to cure deficiencies through an RFE or NOID. This approach mirrors a policy USCIS implemented during the first Trump administration in 2018, which similarly expanded adjudicators’ discretion to deny filings without first issuing an RFE or NOID where required initial evidence was missing or the record did not establish eligibility.

The 2026 policy is effective immediately and applies to benefit requests pending or filed on or after Aug. 5, 2026, except where regulations or other USCIS policies provide otherwise.

USCIS has characterized the change as an effort to discourage frivolous or substantially incomplete filings and prevent applicants from submitting what the agency describes as “placeholder” applications to obtain benefits associated with a pending filing, such as employment authorization.

Link to The Practical Message: The Initial Filing Matters More Than Ever The Practical Message: The Initial Filing Matters More Than Ever

For employers, investors, foreign nationals, and their counsel, the practical consequence is straightforward: assuming that an RFE will provide an opportunity to fix an incomplete filing carries increasing risk. An RFE should not be viewed as part of ordinary case preparation. Under the prior policy, however, applicants and petitioners had greater assurance that USCIS would request additional evidence where a potentially curable deficiency existed. That assurance has now been substantially reduced.

Petitioners and applicants should approach the initial filing as though it may be their only opportunity to establish eligibility. Required initial evidence should be carefully identified, documentation should be reviewed for inconsistencies or gaps, and legal arguments should be developed before submission rather than reserved for a possible RFE response.

Link to What This Means for Employment-Based Immigration What This Means for Employment-Based Immigration

The policy has implications across employment-based immigration categories. H-1B, L-1, O-1, immigrant petitions, and adjustment applications frequently involve complex factual records, and a missing document or inadequately developed eligibility argument can materially affect adjudication outcomes.

Employers should be cautious about filing cases primarily to meet a deadline when key evidence remains outstanding. While timing pressures are common in immigration practice, the new policy increases the importance of determining whether the record submitted at filing independently demonstrates eligibility. It also reinforces the need for employers and foreign nationals to respond promptly to requests from immigration counsel for supporting documentation. Delays in providing corporate records, employment documentation, educational evidence, or other required materials until shortly before a filing deadline may create greater risk in the current adjudicatory environment.

Link to Significance for EB-5 Investors Significance for EB-5 Investors

The timing of this policy change is notable for EB-5 investors preparing petitions ahead of the Sept. 30, 2026, grandfathering deadline under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act.

EB-5 petitions are inherently document-intensive. Investors may need extensive documentation establishing the lawful source and path of investment funds, while the underlying project and regional center filings involve their own substantial evidentiary requirements. With September 30 approaching, investors seeking to preserve grandfathering protections may feel pressure to file quickly. The new USCIS policy, however, makes the distinction between filing quickly and filing completely important.

Investors should not assume that deficiencies in source-of-funds documentation or other required evidence can be addressed later through an RFE. Cases should be initiated sufficiently in advance to permit counsel to review bank records, tax documents, employment and compensation records, property transactions, gifts, loans, business proceeds, and other evidence relevant to the particular source of investment capital. The deadline remains important, but so does filing a petition capable of establishing eligibility based on the record submitted to USCIS.

Link to Adjustment of Status Filings Also Require Care Adjustment of Status Filings Also Require Care

The policy applies equally to adjustment of status applications, particularly as USCIS continues to increase scrutiny of adjustment filings and the circumstances surrounding an applicant’s eligibility. Foreign nationals filing Form I-485 together with related applications for employment authorization and advance parole should make certain that the adjustment application itself is complete and supported by required initial evidence.

The fact that a pending adjustment application may provide collateral benefits makes it important not to treat the underlying filing as a placeholder. Immigration strategies built around obtaining an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) or other interim benefits from a pending application should be evaluated carefully. The administration has identified the use of incomplete filings to obtain associated immigration benefits as one of the concerns underlying the new policy.

Link to Another Development in a Rapidly Changing Immigration Environment Another Development in a Rapidly Changing Immigration Environment

This policy should not be viewed in isolation. The administration has maintained a focus on immigration, and policy changes are occurring with frequency across USCIS, the Department of State, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security. Immigration policy is evolving not only through legislation or formal rulemaking, but also through policy memoranda, executive actions, agency guidance, adjudication practices, and litigation.

For employers and foreign nationals, immigration planning should not be static. Strategies that were appropriate months ago — or even weeks ago — may warrant reconsideration as new rules, policy memoranda, executive actions, litigation developments, and adjudication standards emerge. The Aug. 5 USCIS policy update reflects that changing environment and carries a procedural message: applicants and petitioners should not rely on USCIS to provide a second opportunity to establish eligibility. Preparation before filing remains essential.

Photo of Kate Kalmykov Kate Kalmykov

Kate Kalmykov is based in our New York and New Jersey offices and has over two decades of experience in business immigration matters. Kate currently Co-Chairs the Global Immigration & Compliance Practice at Greenberg Traurig. In this role, she works with employers of

…

Kate Kalmykov is based in our New York and New Jersey offices and has over two decades of experience in business immigration matters. Kate currently Co-Chairs the Global Immigration & Compliance Practice at Greenberg Traurig. In this role, she works with employers of all sizes across a variety of industries in understanding and complying with the immigration laws relating to the hiring and retention of foreign talent. Specifically, her practice focuses on supporting clients and advising them on temporary and permanent residency immigration options for multi-national executive, business, scientific, and information technology personnel. In addition, her practice provides support to companies in the global transfer of personnel. Known by her clients for her out-of-the-box thinking, responsiveness and hands-on approach, Kate is often called upon to assist in developing immigration options and strategies in the most unique circumstances and to respond to complex Requests for Evidence (RFEs), Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) or to appeal denied cases. Likewise, she has also been instrumental in developing employer compliance programs for DOL related filings including H-1Bs and PERMs, as well as for I-9 employment eligibility verification. To this end, she develops and conducts nationwide I-9 compliance trainings and policy manuals for human resources personnel, advises on best practices for E-Verify employers, provides guidance on avoiding immigration-related unfair employment practices claims and has defended and minimized penalties in immigration-related government audits. Kate regularly works with professionals from the firm’s labor, employment, tax and benefits groups, to provide strategic planning on immigration issues within a cross-border framework.

Kate also has deep experience working on all aspects of the EB-5 immigrant investor program. Kate has worked with real estate developers, private equity funds, and other organizations on applications to designate new EB-5 Regional Centers, applications for pre-approval of EB-5 projects; having projects adopted by existing EB-5 Regional Centers; structuring projects to be EB-5 compliant, the sale of existing EB-5 Regional Centers, preparing template I-526 petitions and advice on structuring direct EB-5 projects. Pursuant to the requirements introduced under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act, Kate works with EB-5 Regional Centers, EB-5 Projects, Overseas Migration Agents and Broker/ Dealers to develop internal programs for ongoing compliance and to prepare USCIS I-956, I-956F, I-956,G, I-956H, I-956K submissions. Kate has represented thousands of investors in obtaining their green cards through EB-5 regional center projects, as well as direct EB-5 investment opportunities. She also represented and structured the largest EB-5 offering in the Program’s history and has over the course of her career structured over $12 billion in EB-5 deals.

Within the field of immigration law, Kate is a well-known speaker and author. She is often called upon by various media outlets to comment on topics of business immigration law including the Real Deal, the Wall Street Journal, and Law360. Kate has appeared on numerous TV programs related to immigration law including CNN, the Stoler Report, Vietface TV, and China Business Network. Kate is also a prolific writer on the topic of immigration and has been published in immigration practice handbooks for the American Bar Association, American Immigration Lawyers Association, ILW, and in news periodicals that include the New Jersey Lawyer, the New York Law Journal, the New Jersey Law Journal, USA Today, GlobeSt.com, and the Commercial Observer. At the request of the American Bar Association, Kate co-authored the book “What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Immigration Law,” a guide for non-lawyers on immigration law practice. She has sat on numerous bar association related committees including the American Immigration Lawyers Association EB-5 Practice Committee, the New Jersey Business Immigration Coalition and has chaired the American Bar Association’s, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Section of Administrative Law since 2011. Kate has been recognized in various legal surveys including Chambers Global, New York Super Lawyers, the New Jersey Law Journal who ranked as her as a “New Leader of the Bar,” (formerly 40 under 40) in 2012, NJBIZ “Best 50 Women in Business,” 2019, National Law Review, “Go-To Thought Leader: Immigration Law,” 2022, and Lawdragon 500, Leading U.S. Corporate Employment Lawyers, 2020-2022.

Kate is devoted to pro bono matters and has spent extensive time helping clients fleeing conflict and persecution with asylum applications, applying for and obtaining Temporary Protected Status and Humanitarian Parole.

Read more about Kate KalmykovEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory, Immigration
  • Blog:
    Inside Business Immigration
  • Organization:
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo