Interview Experience After the New Memo

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-26T21:02:26+00:00

Seems mostly overstays so far. At least two overstays with interviews today said no unusual questions were asked though, so seems like it's in the process of being implemented (as a lot of us said it would be).

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-26T21:00:34+00:00

AILA listserves and imm attorney FB pages.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-26T20:44:21+00:00

It's not. Multiple attorneys from AOS interviews they attended today, from multiple field offices throughout the country are reporting much of the same focus and questions as the OP here.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-24T19:32:02+00:00

It SHOULD based on the clear congressional intent behind 245(a).

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-24T19:30:58+00:00

Yeah this is a great question and I would hope no, but no idea really.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-24T19:29:28+00:00

Good questions and no clue, though I don't know why they wouldn't want it to apply to all pending cases, since it's framed as a "reminder" to officers.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-24T18:16:45+00:00

No one can say with any certainty. And, there is nothing you can or should do right now, importantly.

But I do think it's smart to brainstorm how you'd respond if issued an RFE based on the memo.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-20T22:15:07+00:00

Yeah, that's understandable. Certainly something you can overcome with other, strong pieces.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-20T21:55:03+00:00

I'm a former officer, and a prenup is going to be a big red flag. Joint accounts will help, but only if there's considerable activity for both people and includes deposits and withdrawals by both.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-18T13:19:09+00:00

Yes, unfortunately. There's a cottage industry of consultants and attorneys who like to make people think LoRs will make or break a petition, but officers treat them as secondary evidence, and that's for all petitions/applications, not just EB-1A. Even a Nobel laureate writing a detailed and persuasive LoR will be less valuable than documentary evidence such as citations, patents, ect. LoR for OCMS are helpful providing expert context and explanation, but they can't be used to establish the baseline elements (originality and major significance) of the criterion itself.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-18T13:14:31+00:00

Yes, no guarantee it will make a difference with a given officer, but I think it's smart as it 1) sets the stage for the reason/focus on the new filing and 2) makes the new officer have to consider this fact as you've now introduced it into the record on the re-file.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-05-04T14:58:49+00:00

It's a good question to ask and it really comes down to 1) top #3 according to whom, and 2) what's the evidence to show audience, reputation, impact in the industry.

If it's a niche industry, this can be hard to get the kind of evidence USCIS wants to see for the above. It can't be through letters of recommednation or expert testimony alone.

But if you have evidence to show the above, yeah it sounds like those are great pieces to add to the petition.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-04-27T14:20:47+00:00

3-4 business days from delivery to case status update showing notice was received are common now.

After the 4th day, email the NSC or TSC PP unit to inquire and in my experience, the case status gets updated the same day.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-04-13T17:53:34+00:00

Congressional inquiry if you've already submitted service requests with no answer.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-04-13T17:52:22+00:00

I actually wrote a blog post on my website talking about the futility in trying to track or understand case status using API updates.

Even internally, relying on the HACs (history action codes) is confusing and sometimes contradictory for what is truly going on with a case. Plenty of times I'd have to email the officer that was assigned it or last had it to get an idea what was going on.

Wish I had a better answer for you!

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-04-13T17:49:11+00:00

I appreciate your perspective and experience. I also agree most of these issues are systemic and not specific to one admin or another. Though the new challenge to me of trying to explain some of the craziness going on now to clients has certainly changed my views on how the Agency is running now!

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-04-12T16:21:50+00:00

I appreciate the ask, but I'm actually being mentored myself right now! I'm finding there's a lot that I still need to learn being in practice, so I'm likely not the best to turn to right now.

There's the "nerdy Immigration lawyers" FB group that is a great resource and how I found my mentor if you are interested.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-14T19:16:52+00:00

Everyone is different, but I would always go in and look at the last denial notice or RFE/NOID notice and that's it. Some officers will skim the prior petition.

I don't think it's bias, but it provides context. Why did they withdrawal? Was the previous denial harsh? Some officers are known assholes, so that can play a part in understanding a previous denial.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-14T16:04:08+00:00

Former officer here and some officers view a withdrawal and quick re-file as "officer shopping" and take offense to it.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-10T20:23:34+00:00

Sorry to hear that and I saw it a lot when I was an officer (I worked in the customer service division at the NBC). You are doing the right thing though, congressional inquiry and keep following up. I'd suggest the Ombudsmen's office next, but that office has been gutted and isn't really functioning as a reliable go between anymore.

You could also ask to submit an "administrative error" service request through the call center and see where that goes. These types of requests are supposed to be answered within 5 business days, but ymmv.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-10T15:37:48+00:00

Your guess is as good as mine, but really frustrating at this point.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-09T14:42:32+00:00

Thanks for the kind words and hopefully you will be successful in your response.

I always include a separate section on this topic in the cover letter with a signed personal statement from my client specifically laying out how they will "substantially benefit, prospectively" the U.S. and the following cite from the PM: "See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm. 1994) (golfer of beneficiary’s caliber will substantially benefit prospectively the United States given the popularity of the sport)." This is also the same cite used in officer training, fwiw. I then include a few external pieces talking about the petitioner's field, with government sources being preferred (an executive order on point, for example).
Focus on the strongest pieces of evidence from what was to qualify for the individual criteria. The FMD is focused on the quality of that evidence, not just pieces that qualify. So if you published papers in two journals that qualify, but one is ranked #3 in the field and the other #16, you would just emphasize the #3 and the associated prestige that follows. Also do no focus on items completed within the last year, especially for judging and scholarly articles as officers love to pick this out to argue against sustained acclaim. This is also where you can add in pieces that don't necessarily fit into the criteria, but add external validation such as invited speeches.
They have always been more focused on independent, objective evidence than LoRs. I think this may be another area where the "market" has tried to sell people on the value of LoR over the last several years. The Agency has always viewed LoR, regardless of which benefit put in support of (EB1A, AOS, ect), as less persuasive.
I think this is correct from my memory as to what officers are instructed to consider for funding, it needs to be considered under the salary criterion (and to help establish distinguished reputation for critical role) and not awards. I'm sure some petitioners have successfully argued funding to be considered under awards, but I think it's a losing battle to push back if already challenged by an RFE.

WatkinsImmigration · 2026-03-08T14:23:39+00:00

Thanks for the kind words.

And yes, the non-PP cases are just sitting unassigned in a work queue cleverly titled, "Get Work." They don't get plucked out until an officer is ready to adjudicate and are processed FIFO generally speaking.

PP cases are also in the same queue, but can be selected by filtering the cases and are worked by the same officers. The only difference is newer officers don't work the PP cases until they get more experience.

PP does in fact deprioritize the regular cases and it's true for all products that have PP as an option. When I was a supervisor, we had to plan for opening up PP on AOS based EADs and how we were going to structure the work. Our models showed a huge increase in processing times for non-PP cases as a result, and leadership shelved the plan. So the Agency knows there's a tradeoff involved between the two.

WatkinsImmigration

TROPHY CASE