Under typical circumstances, the process of renewing a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) card via Form I-90 is straightforward, akin to renewing a driver’s license. However, recent developments have indicated a concerning trend whereby the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing Requests for Evidence (RFEs) that inquire into issues ostensibly related to the applicant’s intent to maintain their permanent resident status—questions which, based on current legal guidance, are not appropriate during the adjudication of an I-90 renewal.
Background and Relevant Policy Guidance
A case in point involves a recent client’s experience, who received an RFE asking for extensive documentation regarding travel outside the United States and residence history, despite having a valid Green Card. The RFE included requests for:
- A detailed travel history since May XXX 20XX, when the client obtained LPR status;
- Photocopies of all passports issued since that date, containing stamps of entries and exits;
- A written account of residences since May XXX 20XX, with explanations for any periods of absence;
- Evidence of residence and employment history, including pay stubs, filed tax returns, utility bills, property deeds, mortgages, and leases.
This approach appears to be inconsistent with established USCIS policy, specifically the memorandum issued on February 6, 2009, titled Revised Guidance Pertaining to the Adjudication of Form I-90. This policy explicitly states that an applicant holds their lawful permanent resident status unless such status has been abandoned or revoked through formal proceedings such as rescission or removal. It further emphasizes that until this occurs, the applicant is entitled to evidence of their status and that the adjudication of I-90 applications should be strictly limited to verifying identity and confirming lawful permanent resident status.
Legal Principles and USCIS Memorandum
The 2009 USCIS memorandum clarifies that the adjudication process for Form I-90 should neither include nor be predicated upon questions regarding an applicant’s intent to reside permanently in the United States. Specifically, the guidance stipulates that:
- An applicant’s status remains valid until revoked through formal legal proceedings;
- The adjudication outcome should not depend on travel or residence outside the U.S.;
- Questions about foreign residence or intent are deemed inappropriate and irrelevant to the renewal process.
Furthermore, the memo indicates that issues of potential removability based on non-criminal grounds should be examined only after the initial adjudication, and via separate enforcement proceedings, such as issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA). The issuance of RFEs requesting criminal records or court dispositions during the I-90 process is expressly no longer authorized; these are within the purview of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and are not relevant to the renewal application itself.
Implications and Current Practical Concerns
Despite the clear guidance provided by USCIS, some officers under the current administration continue to issue RFEs that probe into issues of travel history and intent—questions which are unwarranted and inconsistent with established policy. As a result, there is concern that such RFEs could be used improperly to argue that an applicant has abandoned their permanent resident status or to gather evidence that might later be used against them.
It is important to recognize that, legally, an applicant’s Green Card holder status is protected unless formally revoked through legal proceedings, and the sole authority to terminate such status resides with an immigration judge, not USCIS during the renewal process. The requirement to produce criminal records or other documentation similarly has no statutory basis during I-90 adjudication.
Caution and Best Practices
While failure to respond to such RFEs may result in a denial—especially under the current administrative environment—it is crucial for applicants and practitioners to exercise caution. The issuance of these RFEs, despite their potential overreach, introduces a significant risk, and navigating this landscape requires careful legal judgment.
Questions remain whether such RFEs represent a new policy shift or simply an individual officer’s overinterpretation of authority. For applicants who have traveled extensively or been outside the U.S. for prolonged periods, these inquiries merit close scrutiny and, where appropriate, legal challenge.
Conclusion
In sum, during the renewal of a Green Card via Form I-90, USCIS is legally bound to focus strictly on verifying identity and confirming lawful permanent resident status. Any inquiries into travel intentions or residence outside the United States are unwarranted and should be challenged when encountered. We advise clients to be aware of these issues and to seek legal counsel if faced with such RFEs, as the procedural landscape is evolving—and careful navigation is essential to maintaining lawful status.
We remain available to provide guidance and strategic advice for those navigating this complex situation.