U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has updated its VAWA policy guidance after noticing significant increases in filings and concerns about fraud within the domestic abuse self-petition program. The changes are meant to restore program integrity, reduce processing delays, and ensure that immigration protections remain available for survivors with valid claims.
USCIS Responds to Unprecedented Filing Trends
USCIS announced updates to Volume 3 of its Policy Manual for the Violence Against Women Act self-petition program. This program lets certain noncitizens who are survivors of domestic abuse seek immigration relief without needing help from an abusive family member.
According to the agency, Form I-360 VAWA self-petitions increased by approximately 360 percent between fiscal years 2020 and 2024. During the same period, filings from male self-petitioners rose by 259 percent. USCIS said these growth patterns are unprecedented and inconsistent with historical filing trends.
The agency also reported a 2,239 percent increase in VAWA self-petitions filed by parents during that timeframe. USCIS noted that these populations have not historically accounted for a significant share of VAWA applicants, raising concerns about misuse of the program.
Protecting Program Integrity and Legitimate Survivors
USCIS emphasized that eligibility requirements for VAWA self-petitions have not changed in recent years. However, the agency said the dramatic shift in filing volume and applicant characteristics required a policy response to protect the program’s original purpose.
Officials warned that fraudulent or unqualified filings strain agency resources and create processing delays, ultimately harming survivors with legitimate claims. USCIS said restoring integrity to the VAWA program is necessary to ensure timely adjudications and maintain confidence in the immigration system.
The updated guidance follows recent fraud convictions tied to misuse of the VAWA program and reflects USCIS’s broader effort to align adjudications with congressional intent.
Key Policy Clarifications and Evidence Requirements
USCIS explained that the revised guidance emanates from long-standing decision-making practices. It also purportedly gives better explanations for both the officers and the applicants involved. It aims to minimize confusion, enhance the validity of the decisions being made, and reduce unnecessary requests for evidence.
Key revisions include more precise explanations of the statutory VAWA provisions relied on in determinations, as well as simpler requirements for the evidence an applicant must provide. The guidance clarifies that only USCIS, under INA 204(a)(1)(J), may make determinations about the credibility and weight of evidence.
The policy also requires self-petitioners to prove they lived with the alleged abuser during the qualifying relationship and to show good-faith marriages with primary evidence. Additional revisions address step-relationships, requiring proof that the relationship continues after filing when a parent or child has died.
A Look Ahead
USCIS said the policy update is part of an ongoing effort to monitor filing trends, prevent fraud, and preserve immigration protections for abuse survivors who qualify under the law. Further guidance may follow as the agency continues to evaluate the effects of these recent changes.
For continued monitoring of developments affecting VAWA, asylum policy, immigration court procedures, and third-country deportation practices visit ImmigrationQuestion.com, a meeting ground for individuals seeking clarity on U.S. immigration policy.
Get answers to your immigration questions from licensed immigration attorneys. For attorneys, use our innovative 3-in-1 case management software to improve your practice. Download our free app on Google Play Store and the Apple App Store.
Resources
**ImmigrationQuestion.com is a networking platform founded by Immigration Attorneys. It serves as a meeting ground for licensed immigration attorneys and people with immigration questions. It is not a law firm. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by USCIS or AILA. Attorneys on this platform are independent and have the discretion to offer a free consultation and/or set their fees under the law.
