A Notice of Intent to Rescind (NOIR) under INA § 246 is a formal USCIS action to strip Lawful Permanent Resident status. In the 204(c) context, it is issued when USCIS concludes that the Green Card was granted based on an I-130 petition that should have been denied under the INA 204(c) marriage fraud bar — either because the current marriage is alleged to be fraudulent, or because a prior marriage was fraudulent and the 204(c) bar was not applied when the petition was originally approved.

Your Green Card is automatically rescinded by default. You immediately lose Lawful Permanent Resident status, you become subject to removal proceedings as an undocumented immigrant, and you have no right to appeal the rescission to the BIA. The 30-day deadline under 8 CFR § 246.2 is absolute — there are no extensions and no cure for a missed deadline.

Not necessarily. Under 8 CFR § 246.2, the response must both answer the allegations under oath and explicitly demand a hearing before an Immigration Judge. If either element is missing, the response is legally deficient and USCIS may still rescind the Green Card administratively — even though a response was submitted on time. Filing a sworn answer without the hearing demand is one of the most common fatal errors in rescission responses.

Before an Immigration Judge, USCIS must prove marriage fraud by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. This is a significantly higher threshold than the "substantial and probative evidence" standard applied at the USCIS field office level. Once the case moves to Immigration Court — by properly demanding the IJ hearing — USCIS bears that elevated burden for the entire proceeding.

No. They are entirely different proceedings under different statutes with different consequences. An I-130 NOIR targets the underlying visa petition. A Green Card rescission NOIR under INA § 246 targets your actual LPR status. Failing to respond to an I-130 NOIR results in denial of the petition. Failing to properly respond to a rescission NOIR results in automatic cancellation of your Green Card with no right of BIA appeal.

Yes. Under INA § 246(a), USCIS has 5 years from the date of admission as a lawful permanent resident to initiate rescission proceedings. If USCIS issued the NOIR after that 5-year window, the proceeding may be time-barred entirely — and the rescission must be terminated. Analyzing the admission date and NOIR date is one of the first things Attorney Loblack does when a rescission case is received.

Yes — and this is common in 204(c) fraud investigations. USCIS frequently issues both simultaneously: the I-130 NOIR targets the underlying visa petition, and the rescission NOIR targets the Green Card that was issued based on that petition. Each proceeding is governed by different rules, different deadlines, and different standards. Both must be responded to correctly and simultaneously.

USCIS typically relies on interview transcripts, consular notes, informant statements, third-party affidavits, prior petition records, financial records showing lack of commingling, and evidence of separation or divorce. Much of this evidence may never have been disclosed to the LPR before the NOIR was issued. Part of the defense involves identifying and challenging evidence the client was never given an opportunity to rebut.

No. A rescission based on INA 204(c) imposes a permanent lifetime bar on any future immigration benefit. No petition — by a new spouse, a U.S. citizen child, or an employer — can be approved while the 204(c) bar remains in place. The only path to relief is defeating the underlying fraud finding, either in the rescission proceeding itself or through federal court litigation.

The Immigration Judge conducts a formal adversarial hearing. USCIS presents its evidence of marriage fraud and must establish it by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Attorney Loblack cross-examines USCIS witnesses, challenges the admissibility and reliability of informant statements and derogatory evidence, presents the client's affirmative evidence of bona fide marriage intent at inception, and argues the legal insufficiency of USCIS's case. The IJ then issues a decision — and that decision can be appealed to the BIA.

Yes. If the Immigration Judge rules against you, you have the right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. If the BIA affirms, you can pursue an APA lawsuit in U.S. District Court and, if necessary, an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The full federal appellate path is available — but only if the IJ hearing right was properly invoked from the beginning. A default rescission cuts off all of these options permanently.

Rescission under INA § 246 is the administrative proceeding to cancel LPR status that was improperly granted. Removal under INA § 237 is the proceeding to deport an alien who is already present. In the 204(c) context, rescission typically comes first — USCIS strips the Green Card through § 246, then places the individual in § 237 removal proceedings. Successfully defeating the rescission prevents both.

If a removal order is entered or imminent, a motion to stay removal may be available pending the outcome of the rescission proceeding or any subsequent appeal. These motions are case-specific and require immediate assessment. If you are facing both a rescission proceeding and active removal proceedings, raise both with Attorney Loblack immediately so both can be managed as one coordinated strategy.

The legal standard is whether the marriage was entered into in good faith at the time of the marriage — not whether it succeeded or ended in divorce. Under Bark v. INS, post-marriage conduct including separation and divorce is relevant only to the extent it bears on the parties' intent at inception. A marriage that was genuine when entered does not become fraudulent because it later failed. Attorney Loblack builds the defense around the contemporaneous evidence of bona fide intent at the time of the marriage, not the marriage's ultimate outcome.

Several issues can complicate or limit the available defenses: prior immigration petitions that were withdrawn, denied, or abandoned; conflicting information provided on prior visa applications; arrests or criminal charges, particularly domestic-related incidents; prior orders of removal; and identity or status discrepancies. Attorney Loblack conducts a comprehensive review of the full immigration and background history before drafting any response, because undisclosed background issues can be used against the client at the IJ hearing if they surface without preparation.

Loblack Strategy treats the 30-day NOIR response as the opening pleading in formal litigation — not a letter to USCIS. The response is structured to satisfy all statutory requirements, invoke the IJ hearing right in legally effective form, analyze and raise the statute of limitations defense, and begin building the record for Immigration Court. Every submission is constructed with the Immigration Judge hearing — and any subsequent BIA appeal or federal court challenge — already in view.

USCIS Policy Alert 2025-12 (August 1, 2025) and Policy Alert 2025-23 (October 17, 2025) escalated 204(c) fraud scrutiny at every stage — including rescission of previously issued Green Cards. The frequency of rescission NOIRs is increasing. The 30-day deadline and the automatic rescission default remain the same regardless of enforcement environment. The urgency to act immediately upon receipt of the NOIR has not changed — only the volume of families receiving them has increased.

Yes — as long as the IJ hearing was properly demanded within the 30-day window. Once the case transfers to Immigration Court, your Green Card remains valid and all associated rights — work authorization, travel, and re-entry — continue until the Immigration Judge issues a final decision. If the Green Card is rescinded by default because no proper response was filed, those rights vanish immediately. This is why the 30-day response is not optional.

Yes. A rescission NOIR based on a prior fraudulent marriage means USCIS is alleging that the 204(c) bar should have been applied when your current I-130 was approved — but the prior fraud was not discovered until after your Green Card was issued. The defense focuses on whether the prior marriage was actually fraudulent at inception, not on your current marriage. The same 30-day deadline and IJ hearing demand apply. The record reconstruction and evidence strategy differ significantly from a current-marriage rescission case.