You opened the USCIS notice and it is a Request for Evidence on your I-526E or I-829. This page walks through what that means in the current adjudication climate, the response window, and how practitioners typically approach the record.
A Request for Evidence, issued under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), is USCIS's formal request for additional documentation on a pending petition. In the EB-5 context an RFE most commonly arrives on an I-526E (the immigrant petition for a regional-center investor) or on an I-829 (the petition to remove conditions on the conditional green card). The notice will identify the specific evidentiary issues the adjudicating officer has flagged, will state a response deadline, and will warn that failure to respond on time typically results in denial.
In the current environment, receiving an RFE is in some respects a better starting point than the alternative. As of March 2026, USCIS is issuing direct denials on I-526E petitions without first sending either an RFE or a Notice of Intent to Deny, a pattern practitioners have linked to the June 2025 reinstitution of the CISNA/EDLO directive (instructing officers to deny rather than issue further requests in close cases). An RFE means the officer has identified the evidentiary gaps and is giving you an opportunity to fill them. That opportunity should be used in full.
The page that follows describes how RFE response is typically approached. It is general information, not specific advice on your case. The tone of an effective RFE response is professional and educational rather than adversarial, but the substance has to be filing-grade. We will tell you up-front whether we believe the record can be rebuilt to a defensible posture or whether the underlying weakness is one a response cannot reach.
The procedural anchor for an RFE is 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), which authorizes USCIS to request additional evidence and to set a response window. The same regulatory section authorizes a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), which is the more adverse cousin: USCIS has tentatively concluded the petition should be denied and is giving the petitioner a final chance to rebut. In either posture, the response date stated in the notice controls, so reading the notice carefully on day one is essential.
The substantive standard remains preponderance of the evidence: more likely than not. That standard has not changed. What has changed is USCIS's willingness to extend benefit of the doubt. Officers are applying 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b) ("approvable when filed") more aggressively, treating gaps that previously would have been cured at the RFE stage as grounds for outright denial of the petition. Petitions filed in the 2018-2019 era when "skeletal" filings cured at RFE were workable are not the petitions filed now.
For source-of-funds RFEs specifically, the federal courts in Battineni v. Mayorkas, Civ. No. 22-1332 (PLF) (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2024) and Zhou v. Noem, Civ. No. 19-2650 (TJK) (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2025) have narrowed USCIS's reach: investors generally need not trace beyond their own immediate source, and prior owners of gifted funds are not required to be sourced as if they were the petitioner. Those rulings are persuasive but are not binding on adjudicators outside the parties to the cases. Practitioners typically include the Battineni / Zhou legal argument where it fits the facts but do not rely on it as a substitute for documentation. Whether a particular RFE response is sufficient depends on the entire record and the discretion of the adjudicating officer.
The substantive RFE patterns that we and other firms see most often on I-526E petitions are: insufficient accumulation evidence on source of funds; breaks in the path of funds; loan-structure scrutiny (especially non-bank lenders, where the lender's own seven years of tax returns and two years of bank statements are now expected); conditional-gift language; cross-reference inconsistencies (DS-160, DS-260, prior NIV filings, social media, news coverage); and partial-investment timing issues. On I-829 petitions, the dominant pattern is de novo re-examination of source of funds, sometimes reaching back ten or more years, despite no regulatory authority for that approach. Each pattern calls for different documentary remediation, and the right approach is decided case-by-case.
Almost always, when the RFE has been issued in good faith and the underlying record can be rebuilt.
The default approach is to provide everything the RFE requests, in the order requested, with a cover index, and to use the response as an opportunity to address arguably unrelated weaknesses preemptively. If the RFE asks for accumulation evidence on a single bank account, the response typically includes the account, the related accounts, the path of funds chart, and a narrative reconciling any cross-reference issues. This is closer to a re-filing than a patch. The thoroughness, rather than the legal argument, tends to carry weight with adjudicators. Whether this approach succeeds depends on the entire record and the discretion of the adjudicating officer.
When the RFE asks for material the petitioner is not legally required to produce, typically in source-of-funds contexts implicating Battineni or Zhou.
If the RFE asks the petitioner to source funds that belonged to a predecessor in the chain (the parent who gifted, the lender's lender, the spouse's commingled corpus), practitioners may include both the documents that exist and a written legal argument relying on Battineni v. Mayorkas and Zhou v. Noem for the proposition that the SOF inquiry is narrow. The argument is included as a hedge, not as a substitute. The federal courts have narrowed USCIS's reach in those cases, but the rulings are not binding on adjudicators outside the parties, and over-documentation alongside the argument is the safer posture. Whether the argument is given weight depends on the adjudicating officer.
When USCIS has issued a NOID rather than an RFE.
A NOID is more adverse than an RFE: the officer has tentatively decided to deny, and the notice may set a very short response period. NOID responses tend to be tightly written legal briefs paired with documentary corrections. We have seen 30-page NOIDs on affiliated-entity loan structures in the post-RIA environment. NOID response work cannot wait, and triage has to happen on the day of receipt. Whether a response succeeds depends on the entire record, the adjudicating officer's discretion, and the strength of the legal and factual rebuttal.
When new material evidence becomes available after the response goes in but before adjudication, especially additional capital infusions or newly available banking records.
USCIS will typically accept supplementary evidence interfiled after a timely RFE response. Practitioners use this when, for example, a final wire of capital is completed between the response and the adjudication, when a missing tax return is finally produced by a foreign tax authority, or when an additional declaration corrects a cross-reference inconsistency. Interfiling is not a way to extend the response window, and it is not a substitute for a complete initial response, but it is a tool. Whether interfiled evidence is considered depends on the adjudicating officer.
Rarely, and only after candid case assessment.
If the underlying record cannot be rebuilt to a defensible posture within the response window, withdrawal and refiling is occasionally the lesser of the available paths. Withdrawal does not preserve grandfathering under RIA Section S, and a refiled I-526E filed after September 30, 2026 falls outside the grandfathering window. The Section S deadline is a hard constraint on this option for any investor whose original petition was filed before that date. Withdrawal is a last-resort path and is decided case-by-case after a candid look at what the record can carry.
EB-5 approval rates have fallen materially over the past several adjudication cycles, and the rate at which USCIS issues Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny, and direct denials has risen sharply. The June 2025 reinstitution of the CISNA/EDLO directive (instructing officers to deny rather than RFE in close cases) and the routine pairing of I-829 denials with Notices to Appear in removal proceedings are reshaping how EB-5 practice is done. Profiles that we and other firms saw approved without challenge two or three years ago are now drawing aggressive scrutiny, particularly on RFE response posture and source-of-funds re-examination at I-829, and some are being denied outright on records that, on their face, look as strong as records that previously cleared. Officers also vary considerably in how they apply discretionary judgments under the post-RIA framework. This climate is not unique to investors who have received an RFE, but it is real, and it informs how we counsel clients before, during, and after filing.
This page describes patterns we have seen across many RFE and NOID responses. It is general information about how this type of response is typically analyzed, not a prediction about any specific case and not a representation that any particular evidence pattern will result in approval. EB-5 outcomes turn on the entire record, the strength of the legal and factual arguments, the current adjudication climate, and the discretion of the adjudicating officer.
Tell us about your immigration needs and we'll be in touch to discuss how we can help.
Immigration counsel to Fortune 500 employers at a national firm · Adjudicated 12,000+ visas at the U.S. Consulate, Mexico · Working in U.S. immigration since 2008
Featured in Newsweek, Condé Nast Traveler, Daily Mail