Missing Historical Records and a Contradictory Prior Filing — I-526E RFE Taken Over Mid-Stream, Approved 16 Days After Our Response

USCIS has steadily raised its standards for reviewing EB-5 source of funds, and Requests for Evidence have become a routine part of the process. In practice, though, a long list of questions is not the hardest situation. The hardest is when some of the historical records an RFE asks for simply cannot be obtained.

This case was handled by the Sophie Zhang team. It was originally filed by another attorney, and the client transferred it to us after receiving an RFE. By the time we took over, nearly half of the response period had already passed, and the case was under three kinds of pressure at once:

• The path of funds traced back to income accumulated more than ten years earlier, and some key historical records were objectively unobtainable;
• USCIS questioned whether the case involved a sensitive background; and
• The original filing itself contained several contradictions and omissions.

Our attorneys quickly assessed the case, adjusted the strategy, and strengthened the evidence, filing a complete response nearly two months before the deadline. USCIS approved the petition 16 days after confirming receipt of the response.

Timeline

• I-526E filed: July 17, 2023 (by prior counsel)
• RFE issued: July 9, 2026
• RFE response deadline: October 7, 2026
• RFE response delivered (receipt confirmed by USCIS): August 12, 2026
• Response entered in USCIS systems: August 19, 2026
• Approval notice: August 28, 2026 (16 days after the response was received)

Client background

Ms. A.'s source of funds was complex. The investment came from a loan from a company owned by her and her husband. Part of the collateral for that loan came from the parents' wage savings accumulated years earlier, and part from the proceeds of a property sale.

Traced all the way to the original source, the funds rested on the wages of two parents earned more than ten years ago. There were objective limits on obtaining those historical records, and some original documents could not be replaced, so other evidence had to show the income levels and the accumulation of funds at the time.

The challenges

• The original filing's statements and documents contained several contradictions and omissions. The response had to explain them without contradicting the earlier statements.
• Bank statements, individual tax records, and social insurance records from more than ten years ago had to be supplied, with a clear showing that income levels reasonably supported the amount of funds.
• Every relevant individual and entity had to be screened against international sanctions lists, with an explanation of whether any had business dealings or contracts with any country's military or government bodies.

Strategy

1. Explain the contradictions without overturning the prior filing

Contradictions and omissions are common in transferred cases, and they are the part that needs the most care. The response must explain them without simply disowning what was said before. If an RFE response is read as overturning or changing the facts of the original filing, it may be treated as a material change, or even raise questions of misrepresentation, which is far more serious than the original inconsistency.

Our approach was to change no facts and add context instead. For each apparent inconsistency, we supplied objective records explaining how it arose, so that the earlier and later statements fit together once the additional information was in place rather than contradicting each other. Related entities and historical parties that had been left out were identified in full and disclosed at once, eliminating the risk of further inconsistencies.

2. Turn "unobtainable" into evidence

For records that genuinely could not be obtained, we did not simply answer "not available." We submitted evidence of the objective limits on obtaining them and the reasons why, showing that the gaps were not due to any lack of cooperation, and supported the showing with substitute documents.

We used a chain of indirect evidence to corroborate the income levels and capacity to accumulate savings, building a reasonable account of where the money came from. The response also expressly limited the burden of proof to the direct source of funds, which kept USCIS from extending its review to bank records from more than a decade earlier.

3. Resolve the concern about a sensitive background

USCIS asked whether any related individuals or entities were subject to international sanctions or had business dealings with military or government bodies. We screened first and then drew distinctions, addressing every related entity one by one. Drawing the boundaries clearly, rather than glossing over facts, resolved the agency's concern.

Attorney perspective

An RFE case with many unfavorable factors was approved 16 days after our response. These were the keys:

• The value of time: Even taking over mid-stream and rebuilding the file from scratch, we filed well ahead of the deadline and obtained a quick approval. An RFE does not mean a case has gone bad, but it is not a moment to wait and see.
• Judgment when inheriting a case: Explaining a contradiction is not the same as overturning the prior filing. Adding context without changing facts resolves doubts while avoiding the risk of a material change.
• Substitute evidence: When original documents are unavailable, a substitute-document strategy combined with legal argument is essential. The key is to make "unobtainable" itself part of the evidence.
• Draw distinctions instead of denying: Define the scope of proof precisely and stop the review from expanding improperly. Faced with questions about a sensitive background, a clear factual boundary is more persuasive, and safer, than a blanket denial.

Whether your source of funds has been questioned in an initial filing, you have received an RFE or NOID and need a strong response on a short timeline, or a case filed by prior counsel has gone off track and needs a fresh strategy, we can draw on deep case experience to turn complex funding paths and background facts into an argument an immigration officer will find convincing.

Our team is dedicated to clearing the obstacles on your EB-5 path so that a complete, lawful, well-argued petition gets the result it deserves. Please contact us for a consultation.