You are hereI-829 RFE/Denial? / [HOT] I-829 conditions removal denials / [HOT] Misuse of Katigbak and Izummi decisions to deny I-829 petition?

[HOT] Misuse of Katigbak and Izummi decisions to deny I-829 petition?


Do people find it "strange" or objectionable that USCIS commonly cites Katigbak and Izummi decisions to deny I-829 petition where there has been some changes -- "material changes" as alleged by USCIS -- AFTER I-526 petition approval?

I don't know about you, but these cases are being misused in a very subtle manner, because when you examine the facts of the two cases, the changes referred in the cases had occurred while immigrant petitions (I-130 and I-526 immigrant petitions, respectively) were PENDING, meaning the immigrant petitions were defective at the time they were filed.

Read correctly, Katigbak and Izummi decisions stand for a proposition that immigrant petitions which are defective at the time they are filed cannot be approved. In context of I-829 adjudication, these two cases do not govern the effect of the changes that take place AFTER I-526 has been approved. More bluntly put, these two cases are not relevant and do not govern a I-829 adjudication scenario where certain change -- allegedly "material change" -- occurs AFTER I-526 petition has been approved. Moreover, in the context of I-829 petition, USCIS has not defined "material changes" concept in a logical manner. Whether you realize it or not, USCIS just put a big blackhole in I-829 adjudication area, as if I-829 adjudication needs more confusion.

Also, you cannot just call some changes "material", without first defining "material" in respect to the specific requirements you are trying to meet. In other words, changes do not become "material" just because you choose to call them "material". In context of I-829 petitions, a change becomes "material" ONLY WHEN the change dooms the petitioner from meeting the specific I-829 requirements. Therefore, you cannot determine whether certain change is "material", without first reviewing to see whether the specific I-829 requirements have been met.

For EB-5 Program to advance, we don't need more tenuous concepts: we need clearly-delineated concepts that are in tune with real world demands.