Tell Me a Story: The Value of A Solid Narrative in Source of Funds

Sometimes, petitioners and their family members get annoyed when I keep asking them for more material for Source of Funds reports. Here’s why I do it:

It’s common knowledge that Petitions by Alien Entrepreneur (I-526) must prove that the funds used for the investment are lawfully sourced. So why do so many I-526’s result in Requests for Evidence (REF) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID) because of a lack of appropriate proof? 

Based upon the cases I have been asked to “fix,” I think that many petitioners’ and lawyers underestimate the value of a good story - a narrative - in convincing USCIS that the burden of proof has been overcome. They just throw a bunch of documents at USCIS and expect a good result.

Assessing the strength of a Source of Funds (SOF) report is an art.

IN RFEs and NOIDs, USCIS typically refers to the Regulation: 8 C.F.R. 204.6(j). The regulation refers to “to lawfully acquired capital,” but does not give much guidance. USCIS will cite one of the few presidential cases - Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169,195 (Assoc. Comm. 1998), for a variety of propositions, including a requirement that the transfer of capital be “documented.” Neither Izummi nor the CFR actually require the conclusive documentation of every step in the path of funds, and they don’t say anything about how far back documentation should go. They are just not that helpful.  

However, since the preponderance of evidence rule applies to I-526s, the Petitioner must prove only that a reasonable person would believe it more likely than not that the allegations are true, based upon the record as a whole. That is why I focus on the petitioner as a whole when I write a Source of Funds (SOF) report. 

I started my legal career as a public prosecutor in Nassau County, NY, outside of New York City. Our office was very diligent about training its young lawyers. The value of fitting evidence into our “theory of the case” was hammered into our heads. We were trained to tell stories to convince jurors. It was an effective lesson that I never forgot in over 20 years of litigation in US courts. Based upon my experience as an adjudicator, I believe that adjudicators like and respond to a good story as readily as anyone else. A good cohesive story that makes sense can convince an adjudicator to cut the petitioner some lack in certain areas where proof is weak, because the story simply makes sense.

Therefore, facts including where a petitioner, or her father, went to school, are important. Blood is a good reason for generosity, so relationships should be explained. Too many filings provide no justification for sweetheart business deals. The explanation, “who is petitioner’s brother in law,” can sway an adjudicator to believe something that might be inconceivable as an arm’s length transaction. There is no shame to admit that immigration may be a family affair. At some level, when an adjudicator picks up an I-526 for the first time, s/he is thinking, “Who is this petitioner?” A good SOF report answers that question: “The kind of guy who, by education, family ties, and shared dreams, would be able to collect a few hundred thousand dollars without having to break the law.”

RFEs and NOIDs are stress producing! USCIS is notorious for poor drafting. Ambiguity in RFEs and NOIDs can leave a petitioner confused. Retrogression and processing delays make failure at the I-526 stage untenable. Better to get it right the first time. For that reason, I cannot underestimate the value of the narrative in the SOF presentation.