VAWA Self-Petitions in 2025: Mandatory Interviews and Stricter Evidence

(U N I T E D S T A T E S) — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services overhauled its Policy Manual on December 22, 2025, tightening evidence requirements for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitions and applying the changes immediately to both pending and newly filed cases.

Immediate scope and timing

USCIS applied the revised guidance to all VAWA requests pending or filed on or after December 22, 2025, with no grace period described in practitioner summaries. For many applicants with cases already in the pipeline, the new approach prompted efforts to supplement records proactively to match the revised standards, particularly where older filings relied on a lighter documentary burden.

“Restore program integrity.”
USCIS framed the changes as a response to an “unprecedented surge” in filings that it said strained resources and enabled abuse of the process, and said it aims to restore program integrity consistent with congressional intent.

Interviews: in-person requirement and implementation

• USCIS has required in-person interviews since December 2024 for VAWA self-petitioners who have both a pending Form I-360 and a pending Form I-485.
• Interviews are conducted at local field offices and are used to:
• Verify credibility,
• Inspect original documents,
• Detect fraud (for example, sham marriages).

Typical interview elements (as tracked by advocates):
– Questions about the relationship, history, and abuse allegations.
– Expectation that applicants bring original documents.
– Officers compare interview testimony against prior filings and documents for consistency.

The interview requirement is not described as routinely extending to stand-alone Form I-360 filings, but the December 22, 2025 evidentiary standards apply to all pending and new cases — increasing the likelihood of RFEs when documentation is sparse.

Key evidentiary changes in the Policy Manual (Volume 3, Part D)

The December 22, 2025 update (Policy Alert PA-2025-33) formalized stricter standards in multiple core areas:

Shared residence

• Requirement: residence with the abuser during the qualifying relationship.
• USCIS defines this as the principal dwelling place, not merely visits.
• Example documentation:
• Leases
• Utility bills
• Affidavits
• Emphasis on aligning timelines to demonstrate cohabitation during the qualifying period.

Good-faith marriage

• Primary evidence: marriage certificate and proof of termination of prior marriages.
• Corroborating evidence: joint finances, photos, shared leases, etc.
• Clarification: separation does not excuse weak proof of a good-faith marriage — pressuring applicants whose relationships deteriorated rapidly or who had limited shared financial footprints.

Proof of abuse (battery or extreme cruelty)

• Shift from checklist-style assessments to a detailed showing of:
• A pattern of power and control;
• The abuser’s motive;
• The impact on the survivor.
• Corroborating materials include:
• Detailed medical records,
• Police reports,
• Counseling notes,
• Written narratives and supporting documentation.

Good moral character

• No longer presumed; must be proven with specifics beyond affidavits.
• Applicants must address criminal history or inconsistencies from any timeframe, including post-filing conduct.
• The period of concern extends through adjudication, increasing risk for applicants with inconsistent records or conduct after filing.

Statutory bars and fraud screening

• The guidance underscores enforcement of statutory bars that can block immigration benefits even in VAWA cases, including:
• INA §204(c) — prior marriage fraud,
• INA §204(g) — marriages entered in removal proceedings,
• INA §204(a)(2) — repeat petitions.
• VAWA does not automatically override these bars.
• USCIS grounded the update in statutory/regulatory citations, including 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii), (iv), (vii) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c).

Fraud prevention posture

USCIS paired stricter evidentiary standards and interview expansion with broader fraud prevention measures:
– Increased issuance of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs).
– More fraud referrals, coordination with law enforcement, and verification efforts.
– New photo policies to aid identity checks during adjudication.
– Emphasis on immigration bars such as INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) for false claims to U.S. citizenship, with a clarification tied to Matter of Zhang applying a strict intent standard.

A recent criminal example cited by practitioners: a May 2025 conviction of an Indian citizen for a fake VAWA claim tied to a sham marriage — used by USCIS to illustrate enforcement.

Impact on applicants and advocates

Practical consequences and operational impacts:
– Expect RFEs, NOIDs, or denials under expanded officer discretion when submissions are thin or inconsistent.
– Field offices have reported backlogs and scheduling delays; USCIS summaries suggest 6–12+ month delays for interviews and adjudications as offices manage increased in-person appointments.
– Longer timelines can mean more time responding to RFEs or preparing for interviews under new expectations.

Guidance for practitioners and applicants (summarized from practitioner advice):
1. Submit robust, consistent documentation upfront.
2. Anticipate deeper scrutiny of timelines and relationship histories.
3. Prepare applicants to reconcile any inconsistencies across submissions.
4. For concurrent filers (Form I-360 + Form I-485), prepare for routine interviews where officers can test credibility and compare originals to copies.

Special situations and clarifications

• The manual clarifies treatment of step-relationships after death, requiring petitioners to prove an ongoing tie to the surviving abuser.
• Even stand-alone Form I-360 adjudications are affected by the updated definitions of shared residence, good-faith marriage, abuse evidence, and moral character — increasing the likelihood of RFEs if records do not establish relationship history in sufficient detail.
• The update also sharpens consequences when INA §204(c) is triggered: the bar can foreclose approval and VAWA does not bypass those restrictions.

Confidentiality and trauma-informed considerations

• USCIS reiterated that confidentiality protections remain central to the VAWA process.
• Interviews are designed to avoid contact with the abuser and are described as handled by officers using trauma-informed methods.

Advocacy concerns:
– Groups including ASISTA and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center have applauded survivor protections but warned that:
– Interviews can retraumatize applicants.
– Stricter documentation demands may lead to denials where legal aid is not available.
– ASISTA has tracked field office implementation through surveys and alerts, including a February 2025 alert that was updated in later summaries.
– Reports emphasize inconsistent implementation, a need for better training, and that the new standards leave more room for officer discretion and credibility judgments.

USCIS response and outlook

• USCIS has emphasized balancing integrity screening with sensitivity, and said refinements are ongoing as the interview and evidence regime expands.
• The combined effect of the December 22, 2025 manual rewrite and the December 2024 interview expansion is a VAWA adjudication environment that relies more heavily on:
• Field office questioning,
• Tighter documentary standards,
• Expanded fraud screening,
• And increased officer discretion.

This posture reflects USCIS’ stated rationale: that an “unprecedented surge” in filings necessitated changes to restore program integrity, while preserving the statutory pathway for survivors who can document eligibility.