Family Immigration Got a Major Policy Update
- Mansoor Eyvazi, Esq.
- Aug 2
- 35 min read
Comparative Analysis:
USCIS Policy Manual Update (Aug. 1, 2025) vs. Prior Guidance – Family-Based Immigrants
Background: On August 1, 2025, USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2025-12 updating the USCIS Policy Manual (Volume 6, Part B) on family-based immigrant visa petitions . This comprehensive update consolidates, clarifies, and supersedes prior guidance – notably AFM Chapter 21.1(a) and AFM Chapter 21.2, related AFM appendices, and various policy memoranda . The new guidance (effective immediately for pending or new petitions) aims to streamline policy and ensure clear, consistent standards for eligibility, filing, documentation, interviews, adjudication (approvals/denials), consular coordination, and Notices to Appear (NTAs) in family-based immigration cases . Below is a structured comparison of all major changes introduced by this update, organized by subject area, with side-by-side references to the new Policy Manual sections and the superseded AFM provisions or prior guidance. Citations are to official sources (USCIS Policy Manual, Policy Alert, AFM).
1. Eligibility Criteria and Qualifying Family Relationships for Family Immigration Cases
Scope: Volume 6, Part B, Chapter 2 – “General Eligibility Requirements” now comprehensively defines who may file Form I-130 and which family relationships qualify, incorporating and expanding on AFM 21.1 and 21.2 content.
Eligible Petitioners (U.S. Citizens, LPRs, and U.S. Nationals): The Policy Manual reaffirms that U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and also U.S. nationals (non-citizen nationals of the U.S.) may file family-based immigrant petitions . This inclusion of U.S. nationals (with a statutory reference and BIA precedent) clarifies prior guidance; under the AFM, nationals were less prominently noted. New: The manual explicitly cites Matter of Ah San and INA 101(a)(3) to confirm nationals’ petitioning rights . Prior AFM: Similarly allowed U.S. nationals to petition (by statute), but this point was not highlighted as clearly in AFM 21.1. (No change in substance, but clarity improved.)
Qualifying Family Relationships Defined: The updated guidance details which relatives can be sponsored and separates them into Immediate Relatives and Family Preference categories, mirroring INA 201(b) and 203(a) with added clarity. It provides enumerated lists of eligible relatives for each petitioner status and presents summary tables for immediate relatives vs. preference categories (e.g. first preference = unmarried adult sons/daughters of USC, etc.) . New: These tables and lists in Chapter 2.A-B are newly added, replacing the more text-heavy definitions in AFM 21.2. They also incorporate clarifications (e.g. “unmarried” means unmarried at filing through final action, regardless of prior marriage ). Prior AFM: AFM 21.2(a)(1) similarly listed the family categories (immediate relatives under INA 201(b) and four family preference categories under INA 203(a)) , but the new manual’s tabular format and footnoted legal references provide more user-friendly detail.
Relationship Must Exist at Filing and During Adjudication: The Policy Manual now explicitly states that the qualifying family relationship must exist at time of filing and continue through adjudication of the I-130 . New: This principle – which affects marriages (cannot divorce before approval), parent-child relationships, etc. – is highlighted to ensure petitioners maintain eligibility. Prior Guidance: This requirement was understood (and supported by INA 204 and regulations), but AFM did not succinctly articulate it as a general rule. The new guidance makes it explicit that officers must confirm the relationship’s continued existence up to approval (e.g. no divorce, death, or loss of status intervening).
“Life Events” – Naturalization, Marital Status Changes, Aging Out: A major addition is a dedicated section on the impact of material changes in circumstances (Chapter 2, Section B.3 “Impact of Life Events and Material Changes”). The new policy catalogues how certain events automatically affect a pending or approved petition:
Automatic Conversion of Preference Category: If a change occurs that enables a beneficiary to immigrate in a different category, USCIS will automatically convert the petition rather than require a new filing. The manual provides examples: a U.S. citizen’s F1 petition converting to F3 upon the beneficiary’s marriage, or an LPR’s F2 petition converting to IR (Immediate Relative) upon petitioner’s naturalization . In such cases the original priority date is retained.
Denials for No Eligible Category: If a life change leaves no category for the relationship, the petition is denied (if pending) or automatically revoked (if already approved). E.g., if an LPR’s unmarried-son petition (F2B) is pending and the son marries, USCIS will deny the I-130 because a married son of an LPR has no eligible category . If that marriage occurs after approval but before immigrant visa or adjustment, the approval is automatically revoked by law . The new text spells out these outcomes. Prior AFM: AFM 21.2 did note such scenarios in scattered sections (e.g. instructions to deny or revoke if an LPR’s child married) , but the Policy Manual now consolidates them in one place with clear language.
Aging Out and the CSPA: The manual clarifies that a child turning 21 normally ages out of eligibility unless protected by the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). It explains that if the CSPA permits the “aged-out” child to automatically convert to a new category (usually from derivative to principal beneficiary of an F2B petition), no new I-130 is required . An example is given: a derivative child of an LPR’s spouse, upon turning 21, can convert to principal F2B (unmarried son/daughter of LPR) and retain the original priority date . This guidance codifies conversion rules that were previously found in policy memos and the CSPA statute. If no conversion is possible (no category for the aged-out child), a new petition is required . Prior AFM: AFM 21.2 and legacy memos addressed some aging-out scenarios, but not as holistically. For instance, AFM 21.2(e) (as updated by the CSPA in 2002) discussed retention of priority dates for aged-out derivatives in certain cases . The new manual fully integrates CSPA principles into eligibility determinations.
Naturalization of Petitioner – Opt-Out Right: If an LPR petitioner naturalizes while an F2B petition for an unmarried adult son/daughter is pending, the beneficiary typically converts from F2B to F1 (adult child of USC). New policy: It explicitly notes the beneficiary’s statutory right to opt out of this conversion to remain in F2B (which can be advantageous if F2B is faster) . This opt-out (INA 204(k)) was previously recognized in policy memoranda but is now written into the manual. Prior guidance: The opt-out was not described in the AFM, though USCIS had procedures via the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act and subsequent guidance. The Policy Manual now provides clear direction that eligible beneficiaries “may opt out of automatic conversion” from F2B to F1 by request , thereby consolidating what had been an external policy note into official guidance.
Derivative Beneficiaries vs. Immediate Relatives: The updated manual clarifies which relatives can immigrate as derivatives on a single petition. Immediate relatives (spouse, parent, minor child of USC) cannot bring derivatives; each needs a separate petition . In contrast, family preference principal beneficiaries (F1–F4 categories) can have a spouse or children accompany as derivatives on the same petition . The manual emphasizes that the qualifying relationship between the derivative and principal (e.g. marriage or parent-child) must continue through the derivative’s immigration . It gives practical examples: a U.S. citizen filing for a spouse must file a separate I-130 for the spouse’s child (stepchild) because no derivatives are allowed in IR category . But an LPR filing for a spouse can have the spouse’s minor child come as a derivative or file separate petitions for each – a strategic choice discussed in the text . New: These guidelines incorporate what was previously found in AFM 21.2 and related regs (8 CFR 204.2). Notably, the manual references INA 204(l) relief for derivatives if the principal beneficiary (petitioner’s relative) dies – allowing qualifying derivatives to still immigrate without new petitions . Prior AFM: AFM 21.2(b) touched on derivative eligibility generally, and specific chapters (e.g. 21.3, 21.4) addressed when children could accompany. The new manual consolidates those rules. For example, AFM 21.2(b)(1) had guidance on when a child could immigrate as part of a spouse’s petition vs. needing their own, including the age-18 stepchild rule (which the new manual illustrates: a stepchild who was over 18 at marriage can only immigrate as a derivative of the parent, not via direct petition ). Overall, the substance is consistent with prior law, but the format and clarity are improved, with explicit instructions that “the petitioner may file one petition (for spouse + children as derivatives) or separate petitions, and officers must adjudicate each petition on its own merits” .
Practice Implications: The enhanced eligibility section in the Policy Manual provides practitioners a one-stop resource for assessing case strategy. The clear rules on automatic conversions and opt-outs help in counseling clients on how life changes (marriage, naturalization, aging out) will affect their petitions. The explicit bar on approvals if no qualifying relationship exists (with denial or revocation mandated) underscores the importance of promptly informing USCIS of marital or other status changes. Additionally, understanding the derivatives rules allows practitioners to decide when multiple petitions are advantageous (e.g. filing for a stepchild separately to hedge against petitioner’s naturalization, since a derivative would be lost upon conversion to IR category ). These clarifications align policy with longstanding statutory rules (INA 204 and CSPA) but now make them more accessible and authoritative in USCIS’s own manual.
2. Filing Procedures (Form I-130 Filing, Venue, and Multiple Petitions)
Scope: Volume 6, Part B, Chapter 3 – “Filing” was significantly expanded. The update rewrote Section A, eliminated old Section C, and added Section D, to cover where and how I-130s are filed, especially regarding U.S. consular filings abroad and cases of multiple filings. This replaces AFM 21.1(b), 21.2(a), and AFM Chapter 21.12 (which dealt with DOS local filings), bringing previously fragmented guidance into the Policy Manual.
Domestic Filing vs. Consular Filing (DOS Authority): The new policy confirms that as a rule, family-based I-130 petitions must be filed with USCIS domestically . It notes that USCIS has closed its international field offices (so it “no longer accepts… routine I-130s” abroad) . New: The Manual then details the limited circumstances where the U.S. Department of State (DOS) (consular officers) are authorized to accept and adjudicate a Form I-130 petition overseas under delegated authority . This delegation applies only to petitions by U.S. citizen petitioners for immediate relatives and only if the case is “clearly approvable” and an exceptional circumstance or blanket authorization criterion is met . Previously, DOS local filing procedures were governed by internal policy and the AFM 21.12; now it’s integrated here.
“Clearly Approvable” Standard: The manual defines a “clearly approvable” petition as one with sufficient primary evidence of the petitioner’s status and the qualifying relationship . New: This term was used in the Foreign Affairs Manual; its inclusion in USCIS policy underscores that consular officers abroad should only approve straightforward cases. A footnote cross-references the relevant 9 FAM 504.2 guidance and notes that factors like possible Adam Walsh Act issues might render a case not clearly approvable (those should be sent to USCIS) . This synergy with DOS’s FAM was not explicitly in the AFM, which simply referred to DOS requests. Now USCIS policy directly cites the FAM and conditions for consular filings .
Exceptional Circumstances for Local Filing: The updated guidance provides a non-exhaustive list of scenarios that justify an I-130 to be filed locally at a U.S. embassy/consulate due to urgency . These “exceptional circumstances” include:
Military emergencies – e.g. a U.S. citizen service member abroad gets sudden new deployment orders ;
Medical emergencies – petitioner or beneficiary facing urgent medical needs requiring travel ;
Threats to personal safety – e.g. petitioner/beneficiary had to flee civil strife or natural disaster and are in precarious circumstances abroad ;
Aging-out – beneficiary is within months of turning 21 (losing eligibility) ;
Petitioner recently naturalized while beneficiary has already traveled for an immigrant visa interview, necessitating a new I-130 (upgrade from F2 to Immediate Relative) ;
Adoption of a child abroad with imminent departure – if the adoption is fully finalized and 2-year custody/residency requirements met ;
Short-notice job relocation to U.S. – petitioner living abroad must move to U.S. on short notice for work .
The manual emphasizes this list is not exhaustive and consular officers have discretion to accept other urgent cases, “unless specifically noted otherwise” . However, it cautions that local filing is only for truly time-sensitive situations where even filing domestically with an expedite request would be insufficient . Prior AFM: These criteria were not all catalogued in one place. AFM 21.12 (2007) and later memos allowed local filings on a case-by-case basis (e.g. military exigencies, medical emergencies) but without the detail now provided. The new manual essentially codifies and slightly expands the examples, giving practitioners a clear checklist of situations where requesting a consular filing is viable.
Blanket Authorizations for Local Filing: The Policy Manual introduces Section A.2 “Blanket Filing Authorizations”, consolidating what was previously in AFM appendices or HQ directives. New content: USCIS may grant DOS a temporary “blanket” authorization to accept I-130s abroad in large-scale disruptive events (like prolonged civil strife or natural disasters) . In such events, petitioners directly affected can file locally without showing individual “exceptional” hardship, as long as they meet the blanket criteria. (DOS is still not required to accept every case – it may use discretion, and USCIS must be notified of the local filing) . This formalizes a mechanism that had been used ad hoc in crises (e.g. earthquake, war). Additionally, a standing blanket authorization exists for U.S. military members and certain U.S. government personnel stationed abroad: U.S. citizen service members on official orders at overseas bases, and U.S. citizen government employees at U.S. missions (or the American Institute in Taiwan), are allowed to file I-130s at consulates under an ongoing blanket authorization . This is essentially a carry-over of past policy (DOS and USCIS have long permitted military filings abroad). The manual specifies some limits: it doesn’t apply to contractors or those with other agencies, etc., and doesn’t require both petitioner and beneficiary to be physically in the consular district . Prior AFM/Policy: USCIS announced the closure of international field offices in 2019 and delegated more I-130 authority to DOS; this was reflected in the USCIS website alert (Feb 2020) but not formally in the AFM (since the AFM was by then retired). The August 2025 update is the first time these blanket criteria appear in the Policy Manual itself. AFM 21.12 had allowed some blanket filings (especially for military), but the new text provides greater clarity (even referencing the Foreign Affairs Manual section for exceptional filings ). For practitioners, this means the policy is now transparent: e.g., during a crisis, they can cite the Policy Manual’s language to request a local filing under a USCIS-announced blanket authorization .
When DOS Cannot Accept Local Filings: The updated manual also adds a Section B explicitly listing scenarios where local consular filing is not permitted. For instance, a petitioner in the U.S. can’t forum-shop by traveling abroad just to file an I-130 faster – USCIS will not authorize DOS to accept a case solely to circumvent normal processing . Similarly, if a petitioner has already filed an I-130 in the U.S. for the same beneficiary, they cannot file another abroad; they should pursue an expedite request on the existing petition if urgent . This policy prevents duplicate filings and misuse of the consular process. Prior guidance: AFM 21.12 implicitly discouraged these practices, but the new Policy Manual makes them explicit. It directs consular/USCIS staff to inform petitioners in such cases to file domestically or request expedited processing .
Local Filing Procedures and No Appeal: In Section C, the manual describes what happens if a case is accepted or refused by DOS: If DOS declines a local filing, they will inform the petitioner to file through USCIS (lockbox or online) as normal . There is no right to appeal or reconsider a consular officer’s refusal to accept a local filing . The manual reminds that local filing is a courtesy for exigent cases, not an entitlement – petitioners can always file with USCIS and request expedite as an alternative . Also, even if USCIS has given DOS authority to accept I-130s abroad, USCIS retains the authority to intervene – USCIS can choose to accept a local filing itself or conduct an in-person interview abroad if needed . Prior AFM: Such procedural points were not clearly addressed in the publicly available AFM. By stating them, USCIS sets expectations: practitioners now know there’s no appeal on a consular filing refusal and that USCIS can pull a case back if necessary.
Forwarding Approved Petitions (Consular Processing vs. Adjustment): The coordination of petition routing after approval was updated (though this fits under “Consular Coordination” in section 5 below, it’s part of the filing/adjudication process). Briefly, when approving an I-130, USCIS will either retain the petition (if the beneficiary will adjust status in the U.S.) or forward it to the National Visa Center (NVC) for consular processing . The update refined the criteria for this decision – this is discussed under Consular Coordination below, as it involves newly added language about when USCIS sends petitions to NVC (including the scenario of a denied adjustment).
Multiple Petitions (New Section D): The policy alert added Section D: “Multiple Petitions” to Chapter 3, addressing two situations: (1) duplicate petitions by the same petitioner for the same beneficiary, and (2) concurrent filings for multiple relatives. This content was previously reserved – the AFM had minimal guidance on duplicates, so this is a fresh codification:
Duplicate Petitions for Same Beneficiary: Sometimes petitioners file a second I-130 for the same relative (e.g., not realizing the first is still valid or to “reaffirm” a relationship). The new guidance says if a subsequent petition is approved for the same petitioner–beneficiary–category, USCIS treats it as a reaffirmation or reinstatement of the original approval . The original priority date is retained (no loss of priority) unless the first petition had been terminated, revoked, or already used for a visa issuance . If the earlier petition had been returned by DOS for revocation due to fraud or ineligibility, USCIS must address those issues before approving a new petition . Prior guidance: There was no single AFM section on this scenario, though legacy practice was to keep the earliest priority date active. The new manual formalizes that filing multiple petitions doesn’t confer any benefit beyond reaffirming the original and warns officers to investigate any prior fraud concerns before approving a second petition .
Simultaneous Petitions for Different Relatives: If a petitioner files petitions for multiple relatives at the same time (e.g., a U.S. citizen files separate I-130s for a spouse and for a parent concurrently, or an LPR files for a spouse and stepchild concurrently), the update advises that officers should, if possible, consider them together for efficiency . Evidence from one file can be used for the other provided a copy is placed in each file . However, each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits – they are separate cases . And critically, an officer should not hold a clearly approvable petition hostage waiting on another – they should approve one if ready, even if the other is still pending . Prior AFM: There was no explicit discussion of concurrently filed I-130s. This guidance is helpful for practitioners dealing with “family packets” – it confirms USCIS will attempt to keep family members’ cases together but will not delay an approval unnecessarily. It underscores the importance of submitting duplicate evidence or cross-referencing files.
Practice Implications: The new Filing guidelines give practitioners clear rules for where to file and how to handle special situations. For urgent cases, the spelled-out exceptional circumstance list provides a basis for requesting local DOS filing – practitioners can now point to specific qualifying factors in the Policy Manual . The blanket authorization criteria (e.g. for military or crisis situations) are explicitly stated, which is useful when assisting petitioners in those categories . The warning that traveling to file abroad to expedite is not allowed may deter misguided attempts to bypass USCIS queues. The Multiple Petitions section alerts attorneys that filing a second petition will generally be treated as a reaffirmation (and to ensure any prior issues are resolved) . It also encourages sending complete packets for multiple family members, knowing USCIS will try to adjudicate them together when feasible . Overall, these changes make filing procedures more transparent and consolidate years of policy into the official manual.
3. Documentation and Evidence Requirements
Scope: Volume 6, Part B, Chapter 4 – “Documentation and Evidence” was previously reserved in the Policy Manual; the update PA-2025-12 adds this chapter in full . It centralizes guidance on the standard of proof and initial evidence for I-130 petitions, much of which was scattered in regulations (8 CFR 103.2, 8 CFR 204.1-.2) and AFM 21.2(b). The new chapter doesn’t drastically change what evidence is required, but it clarifies USCIS policy on evaluating evidence and when to issue RFEs, etc.
Burden and Standard of Proof (Preponderance): The manual affirms that the petitioner bears the burden to establish eligibility and must do so by a “preponderance of the evidence” . It explains this means submitting relevant, probative, and credible evidence such that the claim is “more likely than not” true . This is consistent with longstanding policy (and Matter of Chawathe). It also notes that if a higher standard is required by law (e.g. certain marriage fraud cases require “clear and convincing”), that standard must be met . Prior AFM: AFM 21.2 didn’t explicitly discuss “preponderance” in the family petition context, though the standard was understood. Now the Policy Manual explicitly cites INA 291 and key cases (Matter of Brantigan, Matter of Chawathe) as authority , reinforcing that the usual civil standard applies to I-130s.
USCIS Actions if Initial Evidence Is Insufficient: The update details that if the initial filing lacks sufficient evidence, USCIS has a few options: issue an RFE, issue a NOID, schedule an interview, or deny the petition, depending on the circumstances . It emphasizes USCIS has discretion to deny without RFE/NOID if there’s no possibility of approval even if more evidence were provided – for example, if required initial evidence (like a marriage certificate for a spousal petition) is wholly missing, or if the relationship claimed is legally not qualifying (e.g. a grandparent) . However, crucially, if USCIS is relying on derogatory information unknown to the petitioner (e.g. fraud indicators), it must inform the petitioner of those details (through RFE, NOID, or at interview) before denying . New vs. Old: These practices are aligned with the 2013 RFE/NOID Policy in the USCIS Policy Manual Volume 1, but it’s now reiterated in the family context. The AFM (21.2 and Chapter 10) required informing petitioners of derogatory info, but the new text explicitly codifies it: USCIS will disclose derogatory facts not previously known to give the petitioner a chance to respond . Also, the No RFE needed when evidence is missing rule is backed by 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1) and is now stated in this chapter (and again in Chapter 5’s Denial section) . For practitioners, this means a properly documented initial filing is critical, as USCIS may deny outright for a failure to submit initial required evidence (though in practice RFEs are common, USCIS is asserting its authority to deny if, say, no relationship proof is given at all).
Adjudication Based on Record + Interview Testimony: The manual notes that adjudication is based on all information in the record and any testimony given at interview . This underscores that if an interview is held, what is said can be considered evidence as well. While not a change, it reinforces that petitioners/beneficiaries should be prepared to testify consistently with their documents.
Initial Evidence Requirements (Document Checklist): The updated guidance spells out the mandatory initial evidence that must accompany an I-130, echoing form instructions and regulations :
Proof of the qualifying relationship between petitioner and beneficiary – e.g. birth certificates, marriage certificates, divorce decrees from prior marriages (if any) .
Proof of the petitioner’s own U.S. status – U.S. birth certificate, naturalization certificate, unexpired U.S. passport, consular report of birth abroad, or copy of green card for LPRs .
Proof of legal name changes for petitioner or beneficiary, if names on supporting documents differ .
This list consolidates what is in 8 CFR 204.1(g) and 204.2 (and the I-130 form instructions). New: The Policy Manual provides examples of acceptable documents for petitioner’s status: it explicitly lists types of evidence for U.S. citizenship or LPR status, including an unexpired passport or passport card, or in the case of new LPRs who don’t yet have a green card, a temporary I-551 stamp in the passport or I-94 is acceptable . It even notes any other USCIS-issued document indicating LPR status could be used, and if necessary, USCIS might verify status or request interview if status is in doubt . Prior AFM: The AFM referenced the regulations for required evidence but didn’t enumerate them in plain language. The new manual makes it easier by listing documents and footnoting the corresponding regs .
Primary vs. Secondary Evidence; Affidavits: The chapter emphasizes that primary evidence (original documents like civil certificates) is expected, and secondary evidence will generally be considered only if primary evidence is unavailable or unreliable . If primary records can’t be obtained (e.g. a birth not registered), then other official records may serve as secondary evidence per DOS Reciprocity Tables . Moreover, affidavits from witnesses can be submitted, but only if both primary and secondary evidence are unavailable . These policies come straight from 8 CFR 103.2(b)(2) and 204.1(f), and the manual duly cites those regs . New: By integrating these rules here, the Policy Manual ensures officers and petitioners follow the hierarchy of evidence. It’s a reminder that simply providing affidavits when birth or marriage certificates exist is not sufficient – primary docs are expected unless truly unobtainable. Prior AFM: AFM 11.1 and 21.2 had guidance on primary vs. secondary evidence generally; AFM 21.2(b) specifically pointed to 8 CFR 204.1(f) for when secondary evidence/affidavits may be used. The manual now clearly instructs that affidavits require unavailability of primary/secondary evidence and even references the DOS Foreign Affairs Manual (Reciprocity) as the standard for availability of documents .
Identity and Name Variations: The manual notes that many required documents (birth, marriage, etc.) also help establish identity of the petitioner and beneficiary. It stresses that identity is material, citing Matter of B- and P- (BIA 1946) . If there are significant name discrepancies across documents, those must be satisfactorily explained with additional evidence or affidavits . New emphasis: This caution about name variations wasn’t prominent in prior family-based guidance, though it aligns with general evidentiary rules. Now it explicitly alerts officers (and practitioners) to resolve name differences (e.g. maiden vs married names, name changes) with proper documentation .
Translation Requirement: The manual reminds that any document not in English must have a certified English translation (citing 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3)). This is not new, but its inclusion ensures no aspect of evidence submission is overlooked in this chapter.
Overall, Chapter 4 doesn’t introduce new types of evidence to be submitted, but by codifying the evidence list and standards in the Policy Manual, it supersedes any AFM checklists (like AFM 21.2, which cross-referenced regulatory requirements). For example, 8 CFR 204.1(f) & (g) are the basis for requiring proof of petitioner’s status and relationship; these are now footnoted in the text .
No Change to Affidavit of Support in this update: Note that financial sponsorship (Form I-864) is not covered here – that comes at the visa stage or adjustment stage and was not part of this particular update (Volume 6 Part B deals with the petition stage only, while AOS and IV processing requirements are elsewhere). So the Policy Manual’s changes here focus on documents to prove the petition eligibility itself.
Practice Implications: The Documentation and Evidence chapter serves as a useful checklist for petitioners and attorneys. By following it, one can avoid needless RFEs. For instance, practitioners should ensure every I-130 has the petitioner’s proof of status attached (the manual now plainly states that is required) . The clarification that USCIS may deny without RFE for lack of initial required evidence is a warning – incomplete filings are at risk. The reaffirmation of the preponderance standard means officers should approve petitions if the evidence makes the claimed relationship more likely than not – this could be cited in borderline cases to argue that absolute certainty isn’t required, only >50% likelihood . Additionally, the guidance on secondary evidence and affidavits helps practitioners know when alternative proof is acceptable: e.g., if a birth certificate is unavailable due to country conditions (per the Reciprocity schedule), secondary evidence plus two affidavits may be submitted . Being grounded in regulation, these rules aren’t new, but having them in the Policy Manual (with citations) gives advocates an “official” source to cite if an officer erroneously demands more than the standard of proof or overlooks properly submitted secondary evidence . In sum, Chapter 4’s introduction by PA-2025-12 updates policy by collecting all evidentiary rules in one authoritative location, superseding the piecemeal AFM guidance.
4. Interview Requirements and Anti-Fraud Screening
Scope: Volume 6, Part B, Chapter 5, Section B – “Interviews” was previously reserved but is now filled with substantive guidance on when and how USCIS conducts interviews for I-130 petitions . This is a significant update: it consolidates general interview authority with specific mandatory interview criteria, many of which derive from prior fraud-detection policies (including a 2019 policy memo on marriages involving minors). The new guidance also delineates USCIS vs. Department of State roles in interviewing.
USCIS Authority to Interview: The Manual begins by reaffirming that USCIS has authority to interview any I-130 petitioner or beneficiary (or both) at any stage . It cites 8 CFR 103.2(b)(7) & (9) for this broad authority . While historically most I-130 petitions have been adjudicated without an interview (especially when the beneficiary will interview with DOS later for a visa), USCIS can choose to call in parties for an interview for further vetting.
DOS Generally Conducts Visa Interviews: It acknowledges that typically the State Department will conduct an in-person interview when the beneficiary applies for an immigrant visa abroad . This sets context: USCIS usually doesn’t duplicate DOS’s role unless needed. However, in adjustment of status cases, USCIS will interview the beneficiary during the I-485 stage. The new addition is USCIS specifying when it will interview for the petition itself.
Mandatory Interview Criteria (New Table): The most notable change is that USCIS now provides a clear list of scenarios where an interview is required for “standalone” I-130 petitions . This list appears in a table format in the manual and includes a series of fraud indicators or case types that automatically trigger an interview by USCIS. These criteria largely focus on detecting fraudulent or non-bona fide marriages and closely follow prior internal guidance. Below is a side-by-side comparison of interview triggers:
Prior Guidance (AFM & Memos) | New Policy Manual (2025) – Cases Requiring Interview |
USCIS historically exercised discretion to interview I-130 petitioners/beneficiaries when fraud was suspected or special issues arose. A 2019 policy (AFM update AD13-01) mandated interviews for I-130 spousal petitions involving minors. For example, AFM 21.2(D)(4)(iv) instructed that any spousal petition where either party is under 16, or one party is 16–17 and the other is ≥10 years older, must be referred to local office for interview . Other fraud indicators (prior filings, inconsistencies) were evaluated case-by-case under AFM 21.2 and marriage fraud provisions. | USCIS now requires interviews for I-130s meeting any of the following: (1) Evidence is missing or record suggests the marriage “is not bona fide.” (2) There are “material inconsistencies or derogatory information” in the case . (3) Spousal petition involving minors: either spouse (or both) was under age 16 at marriage ; or one spouse was 16 or 17 and the other spouse 10+ years older . (4) After an RFE/NOID, the petition still “lacks reliable documentary evidence” of the relationship . (5) Testimony is needed to resolve discrepancies or credibility concerns after an RFE/NOID . (6) The petitioner previously filed a spousal petition for a different beneficiary (i.e. has a history of sponsoring a prior spouse) . (7) Either the petitioner or beneficiary was previously the subject of a denied, revoked, terminated, or withdrawn spousal petition (suggesting prior marriage-benefit issues) . (8) For LPR petitioners: if the LPR gained residency through marriage within the last 5 years before filing for a new spouse (to detect potential serial marriage fraud) . (9) The marriage occurred while the beneficiary was in removal proceedings (triggering INA 204(g) concerns) . (10) Cases where an initial interview was conducted (perhaps by USCIS at an earlier point) but “bona fides of the marriage remain in question,” warranting a follow-up interview . |
As seen, the new list encompasses and expands on prior guidelines. Criteria (3) on minors comes directly from the 2019 policy (the thresholds match exactly: <16, or 16–17 with 10-year difference) . Criteria (6) and (7) target repeat filers and those involved in prior failed petitions – these reflect fraud indicators under INA 204(c) (fraudulent marriage prohibition) and were mentioned in AFM 21.2(h) and marriage fraud training (e.g., multiple filings can indicate potential fraud ). Criteria (8) addresses INA 204(a)(2)(A), which imposes a 5-year bar on an LPR who obtained status via marriage from petitioning a new spouse unless they can show the prior marriage wasn’t fraudulent – USCIS now ensures an interview in such cases to scrutinize bona fides. This wasn’t explicitly listed in AFM, but the statute exists; the manual now operationalizes it as an interview trigger. Criteria (9) corresponds to INA 204(g), where marriages in removal proceedings require heightened bona fide determinations (usually at adjustment stage, but USCIS taking it up at petition stage via interview is new proactive enforcement). The final criterion (10) acknowledges situations where one interview didn’t resolve doubts (perhaps in cases of overseas investigations or prior benefits).
Essentially, USCIS has formalized a policy that certain “at-risk” I-130 cases must be interviewed by its officers, rather than adjudicated on paper. This is a shift from purely discretionary interviews to a hybrid model: these listed conditions remove officer discretion – an interview is mandatory in those scenarios .
Rationale and Consistency: The manual’s focus is clearly on marriage-based petition fraud detection. Immediate relatives like parents or children rarely require interviews unless fraud is suspected (hence mostly marriage triggers). This codified list likely comes from the Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) directives and the mentioned 2019 USCIS policy on minor marriages. The new guidance ensures that officers nationwide apply consistent standards in referring cases for interview, enhancing uniformity.
Interview Logistics – Referrals to Field Offices: The manual explains that most family-petition interviews are handled by the Field Operations Directorate (field offices) . If a case is initially being processed at a USCIS Service Center and an interview is required (per the above criteria or officer decision), the Service Center will transfer the case to the appropriate local field office with an explanation of the interview need . The field office will then schedule the interview and complete adjudication . This clarifies the process that was somewhat opaque before. Prior AFM: It did mention complex cases could be sent to local offices, and indeed service centers have historically issued “I-130 interview” transfer notices for certain cases. Now it’s formalized that Service Centers must refer when those triggers are present , and presumably FDNS may flag cases as well.
Interview Conduct: While the new text doesn’t delve deeply into interview procedures, it references that USCIS may interview petitioner and/or beneficiary, together or separately . The AFM had detailed guidance on interviewing (especially for spousal cases, including sensitivity to minors and detecting forced marriages ). The updated Policy Manual likely relies on general interview training, but by listing triggers, it inherently instructs officers where to focus. For example, the AFM’s instructions on interviewing minor spouses (with sensitivity, presence of trusted adult, etc.) remain relevant and presumably carried over internally, though the Policy Manual did not reprint those procedural details in full.
DOS vs. USCIS Interviews: It’s noteworthy that these interviews are in addition to any DOS consular interview for the visa. The manual explicitly notes DOS “generally conducts in-person interviews” for immigrant visa applicants , but USCIS is adding its own interview in the petition phase when needed. This two-tier interview can be crucial: USCIS’s focus is on the petition validity (relationship bona fides), whereas DOS also evaluates admissibility. Coordination between USCIS and DOS isn’t explicitly detailed here, but if USCIS denies the I-130 after an interview, DOS of course cannot issue a visa.
Practice Implications: Petitioners falling under these criteria should now expect an interview and prepare accordingly. For example, if an LPR who got their green card via marriage files for a new spouse within 5 years, the petition will likely be routed for interview to examine the bona fides of both the prior and current marriage . Practitioners should gather strong evidence of bona fides in such cases and be ready to address questions about the prior marriage’s legitimacy (to overcome INA 204(a)(2) concerns). Similarly, any case with prior I-130 denials or withdrawals for a spouse will face scrutiny – attorneys should obtain the records of those prior filings to anticipate issues. The minors policy is clearly embedded – if either party was very young at marriage, an interview is inevitable ; practitioners should ensure compliance with any state laws and be prepared to demonstrate the marriage was bona fide and not coercive.
Moreover, this policy gives practitioners a heads-up: if they see material inconsistencies or lack of evidence in a case, they might proactively address them rather than wait for an interview or RFE. And conversely, if an interview is scheduled, they can often deduce the reason from this list – enabling focused preparation (e.g. if the petitioner had a prior petition, expect questions on that). Finally, the explicit statement that these family petitions cannot be denied as a matter of discretion (see next section) combined with the interview criteria implies that if no disqualifying factors are found at interview, the petition should be approved – officers do not have free rein to deny a petition that meets eligibility and credibility requirements.
5. Adjudication of Petitions: Approvals, Denials, Consular Coordination, and NTAs
Scope: Volume 6, Part B, Chapter 5 – “Adjudication of Family-Based Petitions” was revised, particularly Section C “Decision” (with subsections on Approvals and Denials), plus a short new subsection on NTAs (Removable Aliens). These changes incorporate prior AFM content (21.2(c)–(h)) and a May 2024 update, providing clearer instructions on how to handle approvals (including cases intended for consular processing vs. adjustment of status), how denials should be issued, and under what circumstances USCIS may issue Notices to Appear. Additionally, Section D “Post Decision Actions” (Withdrawals and Revocations) has been updated for completeness, though the core change for PA-2025-12 was to bring in the AFM’s guidance on these topics.
Approval Criteria – Non-Discretionary Nature of I-130 Adjudication: The Policy Manual underscores that if a petition is properly filed and the petitioner demonstrates eligibility, “USCIS must approve” the petition . It states there is generally no discretionary analysis in I-130 adjudications and USCIS “cannot deny these petitions as a matter of discretion.” . This is a crucial clarification: unlike some benefits (e.g. adjustment of status or certain waivers), I-130 approvals are mandatory when statutory criteria are met. Prior AFM: While INA 204(b) itself says the Secretary “shall…approve” an eligible immediate relative or preference petition, the AFM did not so bluntly phrase it. The new manual directly cites INA 204(b) and 8 CFR 204.2 to affirm this principle . For practitioners, this language is helpful to cite if an officer appeared to be denying based on subjective factors beyond the scope of the petition (e.g. not liking the petitioner’s conduct unrelated to eligibility). The manual does note one exception – petitions under the Adam Walsh Act (for petitioners with certain offenses) involve discretion, but those cases are covered in a separate part (Volume 6, Part C) and not this family-based Part B update.
Beneficiary’s Background Normally Irrelevant to Petition: The guidance explicitly says the alien beneficiary’s history or character is usually not relevant to adjudicating the I-130 . This means issues like inadmissibility, criminal record, etc., do not bar petition approval (except if they point to the relationship being fraudulent or a legal bar like bigamy). The manual does advise that if an officer encounters grounds of inadmissibility or other concerns during petition adjudication, they should document it for use at the visa or adjustment stage . Prior AFM: This aligns with prior practice – I-130s are about verifying the family relationship, not the admissibility of the beneficiary. By stating this, USCIS clarifies that an I-130 should not be denied due to the beneficiary’s inadmissibility (e.g. unlawful presence, etc.). Officers should note it, but the petition moves forward . This clarification helps avoid any conflation of petition eligibility vs. visa eligibility.
Approval Notice (Form I-797) Content – New Guidance: The manual instructs officers on ensuring the approval notice is accurate, including the correct priority date, the proper classification (section of law), and an indication of whether the petition is forwarded to NVC or retained for adjustment . It notes the approval notice generally acknowledges the petitioner’s indicated choice of consular processing or adjustment on the I-130 form . This was part of the May 22, 2024 Policy Alert (which dealt with approval notice errors and routing). New: If there’s a mistake on the approval notice (e.g. wrong category or priority date), the petitioner can request a corrected notice from USCIS . USCIS error in classification or date can also lead a consular officer or USCIS (adjustment) officer to return the petition for correction . The manual advises petitioners to provide correct info and notify USCIS of changes to avoid such errors . Prior AFM: AFM 21.2 didn’t cover the minutiae of approval notices. This new guidance is practical – it formally provides a remedy for notice errors (which previously one might resolve by contacting USCIS).
Consular Processing vs. Adjustment of Status – Revised Routing Guidance: USCIS has clarified how it decides to route an approved petition to NVC (for consular processing) or keep it for adjustment, and this language was revised in PA-2025-12. The italicized subheading “Consular Processing or Adjustment of Status” lays out general rules , then lists scenarios when USCIS will retain vs. send the petition. Key points:
If the petitioner indicates the beneficiary will adjust status in the U.S., and the beneficiary is in the U.S. and appears eligible to adjust, USCIS will retain the petition (not send to NVC) .
If the petitioner indicates the beneficiary will consular process, or if USCIS finds the beneficiary is ineligible to adjust status, USCIS will send the petition to NVC . This clause (in italics here) was newly added: “…or if the file indicates the alien beneficiary is ineligible to adjust status, USCIS sends the approved petition to the NVC.” . This directly addresses cases where a beneficiary might have filed an I-485 but was not eligible (e.g. denied for 245(a) ineligibility); now the petition can be converted to consular processing by USCIS proactively.
The manual then goes on to stress the importance of petitioners correctly answering the questions on the I-130 about the beneficiary’s intended process and location . If those are left blank or contradictory, USCIS will exercise discretion to decide the routing by looking at the beneficiary’s last known address and eligibility . If needed, USCIS will generally retain if evidence suggests the person is here and eligible, or send to NVC if evidence suggests otherwise . It basically outlines a default approach to ambiguous cases. The update also lists bullet points for when USCIS “generally retains” vs. “generally sends”:
Retains if: beneficiary’s address is in U.S. and I-130 indicates AOS; or address in U.S. and I-130 indicates both or neither (mixed signals); or if an I-485 has been filed by the beneficiary and address is U.S. .
Sends to NVC if: I-130 indicates consular (and not AOS); or beneficiary’s address is abroad (and form indicates both or neither); or beneficiary’s address is in U.S. but record shows ineligible to adjust . The italicized addition here is exactly the scenario of an adjustment ineligibility in the U.S., which is now cause to send the petition out for consular processing .
These changes in wording (first and third paragraphs and the second bulleted list under this subheading were revised ) ensure petitions don’t languish if adjustment fails. For example, under the new policy, if a beneficiary files AOS but is denied (say for an immigration violation) – USCIS will now forward the I-130 to NVC so the beneficiary can pursue an immigrant visa abroad . Prior guidance: Before this, the process was less clear – attorneys often had to file Form I-824 to initiate consular processing after a failed AOS. The updated manual still says if USCIS has already approved and the petitioner later wants to switch to consular, they must file Form I-824 , but by catching ineligibility at the time of petition approval, USCIS can act without waiting for an I-824. This potentially streamlines case progression, though the manual still advises that a petitioner update USCIS before adjudication if their plans change .
Practice note: The manual explicitly states an I-824 (with fee) is required to change to consular after approval , which is longstanding but now clearly in policy. It also notes if switching from consular to AOS post-approval, USCIS will work with NVC to retrieve the petition (no fee for that direction) .
Denials – When USCIS May Deny an I-130: The updated Section C.2 “Denials” succinctly states that USCIS may only deny a family-based petition if petitioner fails to prove either: (a) the petitioner’s status (U.S. citizen/national/LPR), or (b) the qualifying relationship to the beneficiary . In other words, a petition can’t be denied for other reasons at the petition stage (again reinforcing no discretion beyond statutory criteria). It also repeats that USCIS can deny without RFE/NOID if there’s no legal basis for approval – e.g., the relationship is not within those allowed by law (grandparent, cousin, etc.) . This mirrors what was discussed in the evidence section and what prior general policy has been (deny when statutory ineligibility is clear). If denied, USCIS will provide a written decision with specific reasons and, if applicable, advice on the right to appeal to the BIA . Prior AFM: AFM 21.2 didn’t concisely define when to deny, but by negative implication it was when criteria aren’t met. The explicit limitation that only status or relationship failures justify denial is helpful because it precludes denials on, say, public charge or beneficiary inadmissibility grounds.
The right to appeal is mentioned: by regulation, most I-130 denials may be appealed to the BIA (except immediate relative spousal petitions barred by INA 204(c) – those also go to BIA on marriage fraud findings). The manual’s inclusion of appeal info is user-friendly. AFM had mentioned appeal in context of denial notices but not as clearly in the “factors” section.
Notice to Appear (NTA) Policy – Removable Aliens: A new Subsection C.3 titled “Removable Aliens” addresses USCIS’s policy on issuing NTAs when beneficiaries are removable (out of status). It declares that if USCIS determines the beneficiary is removable and “amenable to removal”, “USCIS may issue a Notice to Appear (NTA)” placing them in removal proceedings . It pointedly reminds petitioners and beneficiaries that approval of an I-130 grants no lawful status and does not protect from removal . This language is almost certainly drawn from USCIS’s NTA policy guidance. New: While USCIS’s June 2018 NTA Memo (PM-602-0050.1) had directed NTAs in certain cases (including if an I-485 is denied and the alien has no status), it did not specifically mention I-130 approvals. By adding this to the Policy Manual, USCIS signals it will use its NTA authority in the context of I-130 adjudications if a beneficiary is unlawfully present or otherwise removable. This could occur, for example, if an I-130 is approved for someone in the U.S. with no status who cannot adjust (maybe due to 245(i) absence), USCIS might issue an NTA after approval or if the I-130 is denied and the person is removable.
Prior guidance: The AFM did not address NTA issuance in family petition chapters. NTA policy was governed by separate memoranda (the 2011 and 2018 guidance). Under the (now-rescinded) 2018 memo, USCIS would issue NTAs on “status-impacting denials” like I-485s , but I-130 petition approvals are not status-impacting by themselves. However, if an I-130 is denied for fraud, USCIS could refer for NTA under fraud criteria. The new manual section is essentially a notice to stakeholders: approval of the petition doesn’t legalize the alien, and USCIS can initiate removal if appropriate . This is consistent with law (an approved I-130 is just a document for future visa or adjustment, providing no legal stay).
Practically, since January 2021 the 2018 NTA memo was paused, but USCIS may still issue NTAs under the 2011 guidelines (for fraud, criminal cases, etc.) or at its discretion. This manual update likely aims to deter people from assuming an approved petition = protection, and to lay groundwork for potentially more routine NTAs in the future if policy shifts. It’s a warning: even if your U.S. relative petition is approved, if you have no legal status, you are not immune from being placed in proceedings.
Post-Decision (Withdrawals and Revocations): Although not explicitly highlighted in the question, the update did consolidate AFM guidance on withdrawing petitions and automatic or discretionary revocation into Section D:
Withdrawal: It explains a petitioner can withdraw an I-130 any time before decision, or even after approval if the beneficiary hasn’t immigrated or adjusted yet . It cannot be retracted once acknowledged, and the beneficiary cannot withdraw (only petitioner) . It also warns officers not to coerce withdrawal, though they may suggest it as an alternative to denial in appropriate cases . If a petitioner withdraws, that case cannot be appealed (because there’s no USCIS decision) . Prior AFM: AFM 21.2(c) and (d) covered withdrawal and effect (mirroring 8 CFR 103.2(b)(6)). The new text is similar, with added emphases (like considering a pattern of withdrawals in future as a potential red flag) .
Automatic Revocation: The manual lists the situations in which an approved I-130 is automatically revoked by law prior to the beneficiary obtaining residence . These match 8 CFR 205.1: death of petitioner or beneficiary, withdrawal by petitioner, marriage of an LPR’s child (convertible F2B -> no category) , legal divorce (if petition was for a spouse), or loss of LPR status by petitioner (other than via naturalization) . The update clearly states the revocation is effective on the date of approval, retroactively, not the date of the event or notice . For example, if an LPR’s son marries, the petition’s approval is considered revoked as of the approval date – even if he divorces later, the original petition can’t revive . This example is given to drive home the point about annulments vs. divorce . New vs. Old: AFM 21.2(h) had some of this, but the new manual articulates it clearly. It also instructs that USCIS will send notice of automatic revocation when it becomes aware, including notifying DOS if the case was at NVC/consulate . There’s no appeal from an automatic revocation (since it’s by operation of law) .
Revocation Upon Notice (Good and Sufficient Cause): The manual includes a section reflecting INA 205’s discretionary revocation authority. It basically says USCIS may at any time revoke an approval for good and sufficient cause, but must issue a NOIR (Notice of Intent to Revoke) first, giving the petitioner a chance to respond . It cites the BIA standard that “good and sufficient cause” exists where the unrebutted evidence at time of NOIR issuance would warrant denial of the petition . It also notes this revocation discretion is not judicially reviewable . This is essentially an import from AFM 21.2(h) and the precedent Matter of Estime. The manual emphasizes procedure: NOIR must include all reasons, petitioner gets usually 30 days to respond, and the revocation takes effect only when the revocation decision is final (after any appeal) .
These revocation sections, while largely restating existing law, show that the Policy Manual now fully covers the life cycle of a petition (approval, potential revocation by law or by USCIS action). They supersede the AFM paragraphs and ensure officers follow proper steps (e.g. can’t revoke without NOIR, must cite evidence, etc.).
Practice Implications: The adjudication updates largely affirm existing rights and processes but give practitioners clearer tools. The statement that USCIS “must” approve eligible petitions is a powerful quote to use if an officer seems to be inserting subjective judgment beyond the scope. The clarification that beneficiary’s inadmissibility is irrelevant to the I-130 should prevent any chilling effect of unrelated issues on petition decisions (though practitioners should still be mindful USCIS will note serious issues for later).
The consular vs. adjustment routing guidance is very practical: after this update, if an adjustment was denied, practitioners can reference the Policy Manual to ask USCIS to forward the I-130 to NVC (and if needed, follow up with an I-824). The inclusion of the scenario where the beneficiary is ineligible to adjust ensures those cases aren’t stuck – for example, an I-130 beneficiary in the U.S. who can’t adjust due to entering without inspection should now have their petition sent to NVC by USCIS upon approval , without needing the petitioner to realize an I-824 is required. This saves time.
For denials, the reiteration that denial decisions will include reasons and appeal rights is a reminder to petitioners that a denial isn’t the end – one can appeal to the BIA. The grounds for denial being limited to lack of proof of relationship or status means if a denial cites other grounds (like a discretionary doubt not tied to evidence), that could be attacked on appeal using this manual section .
The NTA reminder signals that clients with no status should not delay in pursuing their immigrant visa or adjustment once the petition is approved – a pending or even approved I-130 is not a shield. Practically, since the current DHS enforcement priorities focus on serious cases, many beneficiaries may not actually be targeted for NTAs solely due to an approved I-130. But USCIS has put the community on notice in its official policy that it may issue NTAs in appropriate cases . Practitioners should thus counsel clients not to remain unlawfully in the U.S. indefinitely just because a petition was filed or approved – they should either seek whatever relief (AOS if possible) or depart for consular processing when a visa is ready, to avoid accumulating more unlawful presence or risking enforcement.
Finally, the revocation and withdrawal clarifications mean attorneys must be vigilant even after petition approval: any change (death, divorce, etc.) must be recognized as ending the petition’s validity . And if USCIS issues a NOIR, the new manual provides the standard and process which is useful in mounting a defense (knowing one can only respond to reasons given, etc.) . These are not new rights, but having them in the Policy Manual helps ensure fair procedure is followed in petition revocations, consistent with prior BIA case law.
Sources:
USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-12 (Aug. 1, 2025) – Family-Based Immigrants.
USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6: Immigrants, Part B – Family-Based Immigrants, Ch. 1 (Purpose and Background) ; Ch. 2 (General Eligibility) ; Ch. 3 (Filing) ; Ch. 4 (Documentation and Evidence) ; Ch. 5 (Adjudication) – Section B, Interviews ; Section C, Decision (Approvals/Denials) ; Section C.3, Removable Aliens (NTA) ; Section D, Post-Decision (Withdrawals/Revocations) .
USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual (superseded) – Chapter 21.1(a) (Historical Info) and 21.2 (Factors Common to All Relative Petitions) (prior interview guidance); AFM updates AD10-09 and AD13-01 (interview guidelines for spousal petitions involving minors) ; AFM 21.2(h) (marriage fraud and revocation) .
Applicable Statutes & Regs: INA 201(b), 203(a) (family categories) ; INA 204 and 8 CFR 204 (petition procedures) ; INA 204(c), (g) (marriage fraud bar, in-proceedings bar) ; INA 204(a)(2) (5-year bar for LPR’s new spousal petition) ; INA 204(l) (surviving relatives) ; INA 205 & 8 CFR 205 (revocation authority) ; INA 291 (burden of proof) ; 8 CFR 103.2 & 204.1(f)-(g) (evidence requirements) ; 8 CFR 204.2(a)(3) (petition disposition) .
Comments