A USCIS Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) tells a petitioner that the agency, having previously approved a petition, now intends to undo that approval. The statutory authority comes from INA §205 (8 U.S.C. §1155), which lets the Secretary of Homeland Security revoke approval “at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause.” The implementing regulation is 8 CFR §205.2. The BIA framework that governs the merits is Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987), reaffirmed in Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568 (BIA 1988), and refined for marriage-based revocations by Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598 (BIA 2019), decided July 11, 2019.
What changed
8 CFR §205.2(a) gives a USCIS director authority to revoke approval “if the necessity for revocation comes to the attention of [USCIS].” Before revoking, §205.2(b) requires written notice with “specific reasons” and an opportunity to “offer evidence in support of the petition and in opposition to the grounds alleged for revocation.” Under 8 CFR §205.2(c), the petitioner has 30 days from service of the NOIR to respond — three days longer if the notice is mailed, per 8 CFR §103.8(b).
Matter of Estime defines the standard: an NOIR must, “when issued, contain a specific statement of the facts underlying the proposed action” and constitute “good and sufficient cause for the revocation of [the] approval.” A NOIR that is conclusory — “we now believe the marriage was not bona fide” without identifying which facts support that view — is procedurally deficient and a basis for reversal on appeal. Matter of Arias added that the evidence in the record at the time of approval cannot, by itself, be re-weighed as grounds for revocation — there must be new information or a re-examination of evidence that meets the substantial-and-probative evidence threshold the BIA articulated in Matter of Tawfik, 20 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 1990) and Matter of P. Singh.
The 2019 P. Singh decision is the most consequential recent development. It clarified that, in marriage-fraud revocations, INA §204(c) — the lifetime marriage-fraud bar — requires “substantial and probative evidence” of fraud in the record before approval can be revoked on that basis. A bare divorce, a short marriage, or a single inconsistent statement is not enough.
Why it matters
NOIRs hit later and hurt more than RFEs or NOIDs. The approval the petitioner is defending may already have produced a priority date, an AC21 H-1B extension, or I-140 portability rights under AC21 §106(c) — all of which are tied to the approved petition. A revocation can unwind years of downstream planning.
Three rules drive the defense:
Portability survives revocation only for narrow reasons. Under AC21 §106(c) (codified at INA §204(j)), an I-140 remains valid for AC21 portability if it was approved and has been so for at least 180 days, unless revoked for fraud, willful misrepresentation, INA §204(c) marriage-fraud bar, agency material error, or revocation on notice for any of those grounds. A revocation for business cessation alone does not destroy portability — see USCIS PM Vol 7, Part E, Chapter 5. The NOIR response should attack the ground, not just the revocation: if USCIS proposes to revoke for fraud, the response must show no fraud; if it proposes to revoke for business cessation, the response should concede portability rights are preserved while contesting the cessation finding.
Bona fides reach back to the date of approval. In an I-130 NOIR, the agency must show the marriage was not bona fide at inception. A genuine marriage that later fails is not §204(c) fraud. The response packages contemporaneous evidence from the marriage period: joint leases, joint accounts opened at the relevant time, photographs with dated metadata, declarations from family and friends who knew the couple then. Post-divorce affidavits are weaker but still useful when the record needs context.
Derogatory information must be disclosed. 8 CFR §103.2(b)(16)(i) requires USCIS to disclose derogatory information “of which the applicant or petitioner is unaware” before relying on it. If the NOIR references an FDNS site visit, an unidentified informant, or a “review of A-file information” without specifics, the response should demand particulars in writing and preserve the procedural objection for AAO appeal or federal-court APA review.
Way forward
- Calendar 30 days plus mailing time, then work backward. 8 CFR §205.2(c) and §103.8(b) are rigid. Build a 5-day buffer for FedEx delivery and confirm receipt with tracking.
- Demand the file under FOIA in parallel. A Form G-639 FOIA request to USCIS for the underlying A-file often surfaces the FDNS report or interview summary that drove the NOIR — invaluable for the response. Track-3 FOIA processing returns in days to weeks; ordinary processing can take months.
- Quote Estime and Tawfik in the response. Force the officer to engage with the actual standard. A NOIR that recites “we have reason to believe” without specific underlying facts fails Matter of Estime; say so in writing.
- Address the specific ground, not the kind of ground. A fraud NOIR demands a fraud rebuttal. A cessation NOIR demands a business-existence rebuttal. Conflating them weakens both.
- Preserve a Form I-290B appeal. If revocation issues, the AAO has jurisdiction over I-140 revocations under 8 CFR §103.3; the BIA hears I-130 appeals under 8 CFR §1003.1(b)(5). The 30-day appeal deadline runs from the revocation decision, not the NOIR.
- Coordinate with the beneficiary’s separate filings. A pending I-485 or I-765 depends on the underlying petition. If revocation looks likely, brief the beneficiary on travel risk and EAD-renewal timing before the decision lands.
Disclaimer
Fola Form is a software company, not a law firm. This is educational content, not legal advice. The revocation standard and the catalog of §205 grounds evolve as the BIA and federal courts decide new cases — verify against USCIS PM Vol 6, Part B and the current text of 8 CFR §205.2 before relying on any specific timing or evidentiary rule. Consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific case.