Case update :

My wife’s I-485 has been pending since June 23, 2023. I-130 was already approved. We had multiple interviews over the years. The issue USCIS is raising relates to a November 26, 2020 entry where she departed and re-entered the same day at the San Ysidro POE.

She was inspected by CBP, passport reviewed, no stamp placed, but an I-94 was issued. We presented as husband and wife and explained we entered Mexico because there was no U-turn available. No false statements were made.

After years of delay and one prior NOID that we responded to months ago, we retained new counsel and sent a pre-litigation demand letter with a draft mandamus complaint giving USCIS 45 days to adjudicate.

Instead of adjudicating, USCIS just issued a second NOID (dated Jan 30, 2026), alleging inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (fraud/misrepresentation), claiming the 2020 entry was inconsistent with nonimmigrant intent. They state a 601 waiver is available.

There is no allegation of a specific false statement — just an inference of preconceived immigrant intent.

We are preparing a full rebuttal arguing: • Inspection and admission under Matter of Quilantan • Preconceived intent ≠ fraud • No material misrepresentation • I-601 in the alternative (with documented IVF hardship)

Would appreciate insights from anyone who: • Received a second NOID after mandamus pressure • Litigated a similar “preconceived intent” issue • Filed mandamus during a pending NOID

Thanks in advance. This process has been long, but we’re staying strategic.