In a new complication for individuals seeking H-1B visas, federal immigration authorities are now requiring applicants to submit their home addresses and biometric data for H-1B and employment-based immigrant petitions. This move has raised concerns among immigration attorneys, who point out that requesting biometrics for these petitions is highly uncommon. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has begun issuing Requests for Evidence (RFEs) asking for this additional information.
A Request for Evidence, or RFE, is an official notice issued by USCIS when it determines that more documents are needed to properly evaluate a petition. It should not be interpreted as a denial but rather as a normal step in the process when an application is incomplete or lacks sufficient documentation. According to the USCIS’s own policies, an RFE must clearly detail which eligibility requirements have not been satisfied, explain why the submitted materials are inadequate, and provide guidance on what further evidence could help fulfill the criteria.
These RFEs are a routine part of immigration procedures, particularly when there are missing documents, inconsistencies regarding project information, or a lack of adequate supporting evidence. However, the nature of the current RFEs has sparked unease among legal experts who feel that this particular type of request is out of the ordinary.
A critical question now being asked is whether this new development signals an effort to specifically target H-1B applicants as part of a broader crackdown on immigration.
Vic Goel of the immigration law firm Goel & Anderson shared his concerns with Forbes, highlighting how unusual the situation is. He noted, “The RFEs also fail to explain the nature of the adverse information, leaving employers and attorneys in the dark. It appears that DHS [Department of Homeland Security] may be using AI tools to flag individuals based on undisclosed data, possibly from social media or other government databases.” Goel emphasized that in typical H-1B and employment-based petition cases, biometric data collection has not been a standard requirement, making these RFEs highly atypical.
Further complicating the matter is the language used by USCIS adjudicators in the Requests for Evidence. As reported by Forbes, a USCIS adjudicator stated in one RFE, “We have encountered potentially adverse information related to the beneficiary. To continue processing your application or petition, we required an updated address for the beneficiary so that we may collect biometric data.” This phrasing has added to the confusion and concern among employers, attorneys, and applicants, as it hints at the presence of unspecified negative information without offering any concrete details.
The mention of “adverse information” ties into the wider context of increasing immigration enforcement actions under recent federal policies. It aligns with the broader trend of heightened scrutiny and vetting processes for immigrants, a shift that has been openly endorsed by political leaders.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently spoke about the importance of tightening immigration controls to ensure national security. In his remarks, Rubio emphasized the ongoing responsibility of the U.S. government to monitor visa holders even after a visa has been granted. He said, “US visa holders should know in no uncertain terms that the US government’s rigorous security vetting does not end once a visa is granted.” Rubio’s statement underlines the administration’s commitment to maintaining strict oversight over immigrants long after their initial entry into the country.
The practice of issuing RFEs for home addresses and biometrics without clearly identifying the adverse information has drawn strong reactions from the legal community. Many attorneys are questioning whether these measures are appropriate or legally justified given the traditional norms associated with employment-based petitions. Some believe that the government’s use of artificial intelligence tools and cross-referencing data from social media or other databases could raise concerns about privacy, transparency, and due process.
Legal experts are also concerned that this could be a precursor to a broader pattern of surveillance and enforcement that disproportionately impacts certain groups of immigrants. Without clear explanations from the government, employers are left uncertain about how to comply, and applicants are left wondering about the status and security of their cases.
Given the growing complexity and unpredictability surrounding immigration processes, many immigration attorneys are advising their clients to prepare meticulously and to respond promptly to any USCIS requests. They recommend ensuring that all personal information is accurate, all documents are up to date, and legal counsel is sought immediately upon receiving an RFE that involves biometric data collection.
Meanwhile, USCIS has not issued a formal explanation about the policy change or addressed concerns regarding the use of undisclosed data sources to evaluate immigrant petitions. Without such clarification, speculation continues about whether these RFEs are isolated incidents or part of a deliberate policy shift aimed at tightening control over employment-based immigration.
Overall, the combination of heightened scrutiny, vague allegations of “adverse information,” and new demands for biometrics is creating a chilling effect on potential immigrants and employers alike. Many fear that these changes could discourage talented professionals from seeking opportunities in the United States at a time when the country faces significant challenges in attracting global talent.
In sum, while Requests for Evidence are a normal part of the immigration process, the current wave of RFEs requesting home addresses and biometrics for H-1B applicants represents an unusual and potentially troubling development. As Vic Goel noted, “The RFEs also fail to explain the nature of the adverse information, leaving employers and attorneys in the dark.” Until USCIS offers greater transparency, uncertainty will continue to overshadow the immigration landscape, making it more challenging for individuals and businesses to navigate the system.