WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — Thousands of Indians living, working, or studying in the United States could face tougher immigration procedures after the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a major policy update that took effect immediately.
On Aug. 5, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, said applicants must prove they qualify for an immigration benefit when they file their petitions. They also must submit all required initial documents with their applications. If they fail to do so, USCIS may deny the request without first issuing a Request for Evidence, known as an RFE, or a Notice of Intent to Deny, called a NOID.
The updated policy applies to requests that are pending or filed on or after Aug. 5, 2026.
The new guidance affects several popular immigration categories. These include H-1B, L-1 and O-1 visas, EB-1 immigrant petitions, Green Card applications, Optional Practical Training, STEM OPT extensions, H-4 Employment Authorization Documents, applications to extend or change student or visitor status, dependent status requests, advance parole and re-entry permits.
USCIS said the change brings its procedures in line with long-standing Department of Homeland Security regulations. The agency explained that applicants have always carried the responsibility of proving eligibility at the time they file. Therefore, officers may now exercise full discretion when reviewing incomplete or unsupported applications.
Previously, officers often issued RFEs or NOIDs before denying many cases. Those notices allowed applicants to submit missing documents or additional evidence. However, the agency said that practice encouraged some people to file incomplete or placeholder applications. According to USCIS, those filings sometimes allowed applicants to receive temporary benefits while waiting to complete their cases.
In addition, USCIS said those extra requests increased processing times and added to agency backlogs. The agency also said the process raised operating costs, which eventually affected filing fees paid by applicants. Because of those concerns, officials decided to restore officers’ authority to deny deficient cases without first requesting more evidence.
Even so, USCIS officers may still issue an RFE or NOID when appropriate. However, those notices are no longer automatic. Instead, officers will decide whether additional evidence could help resolve a case before making a final decision.
The agency also updated its guidance on response deadlines. Under federal regulations, an RFE response period cannot exceed 12 weeks, while applicants must respond to a NOID within no more than 30 days. Furthermore, applicants receive only three additional days when USCIS serves notices by mail. The agency no longer grants an extra 14 days for notices mailed outside the United States because current regulations do not permit that extension.
USCIS said the revised policy creates clearer expectations for applicants and promotes consistent decisions across immigration cases. Moreover, the agency believes the changes will discourage incomplete filings, reduce processing delays, and ensure fair treatment for everyone seeking immigration benefits.
The agency also said the policy strengthens the integrity of the immigration system by directing resources toward complete and properly supported applications. Officials added that the updated guidance aligns agency procedures with existing regulations and official form instructions.
Washington-based immigration attorney Kevin J. Andrews said the policy gives USCIS officers broader authority to deny cases when required evidence is missing. In a social media post, he noted that the guidance also applies to applications that are already pending. He added that officers may now set response deadlines that are shorter than the previous standard 12-week period, provided they remain within regulatory limits.
However, Andrews also raised concerns about how the policy could affect applicants. He said shorter response periods for detailed requests may create challenges for many families and employers. He also suggested that the new approach could lead to additional legal challenges if applicants believe the agency acted unfairly.
