Federal courts in three states, a sweeping USCIS fraud crackdown, and a new interview policy that is catching petitioners off guard. Here is what is happening — and what you need to do now.
A NOTE ON SOURCES
The litigation described below is drawn from publicly filed federal court complaints and reporting by the Seattle Times. All allegations remain unproven and defendants deny the claims. USCIS statistics are from official agency publications. Nothing here constitutes legal advice.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) allows certain spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to self-petition for immigration benefits — including work authorization and a path to a green card — without relying on or notifying the abusive family member. Because VAWA petitions are filed confidentially and evaluated under a broad "any credible evidence" standard, they have historically provided a critical lifeline for abuse survivors with limited access to other immigration options.
In recent years, however, this same flexibility has drawn the attention of USCIS fraud investigators, federal prosecutors, and plaintiffs' attorneys. What follows explains why — and what it means for anyone with a pending or recently filed VAWA case.
In May 2026, federal courts in Washington and Texas became the latest venues for a wave of litigation targeting high-volume VAWA immigration practices. The Seattle Times reported that nine former clients of Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law — a large Tukwila-based firm serving tens of thousands of immigrants — filed a class action complaint in the Western District of Washington alleging legal malpractice, civil RICO violations, and a scheme involving false immigration documents. Lozano has denied the allegations, stating her practice remains client-centered and results-oriented.
Separately, a federal class action filed in Houston alleges that a competing firm, Meneses Law, copied the same high-volume model and used it to process hundreds of clients through an assembly-line system without meaningful attorney involvement. Meneses Law also denies the claims. Both cases are at early stages with no findings of liability.
The allegations across both complaints describe a recognizable pattern: non-attorney staff conducting all client intake, declarations drafted without meaningful client review, clients signing documents they did not read or could not read in English, and the word "VAWA" never mentioned to clients at all. Whether or not these specific allegations are proven, they have drawn sustained attention from USCIS, federal prosecutors, and the immigration bar.
In December 2025, USCIS published a formal alert titled "USCIS Restores Integrity to the VAWA Domestic Abuse Program After Finding Rampant Fraud," documenting a 360% overall surge in VAWA self-petitions between fiscal years 2020 and 2024 and a 2,239% increase in parent-based petitions — populations the agency said were not traditionally associated with VAWA filings. USCIS cited "recent fraud convictions" and updated its Policy Manual to give officers enhanced tools to scrutinize petitions for credibility and fraud indicators.
Following that alert, immigration attorneys nationwide began observing significant changes in how USCIS processed VAWA petitions — most notably, the introduction of in-person interviews at stages of the process where interviews had not previously been required.
Historically, USCIS decided I-360 VAWA petitions on the written record. Interviews, when they occurred at all, were reserved for the I-485 adjustment of status stage — and the approved I-360 was not re-examined at that point. That practice has changed significantly.
Beginning in December 2024, USCIS started scheduling interviews for a sample of I-360 VAWA self-petitioners. By March 2026, immigration attorneys nationwide were reporting concurrent interview notices for both the I-360 and the I-485 at the same appointment — including for cases filed as far back as 2021 and 2022.
Importantly, increased scrutiny does not mean legitimate VAWA cases cannot succeed. Strong, credible, and well-prepared petitions continue to be approved.
OUR FIRM'S EXPERIENCE: A 3.5-HOUR CONCURRENT I-360 / I-485 INTERVIEW
We recently accompanied a client to one of these combined interviews. The appointment lasted three and a half hours. The officer's questions were thorough and methodical — covering the petitioner's good-faith intentions, the shared residence with the abuser, and the specific details of the abuse alleged in the declaration.
What stood out was the significant portion of the interview dedicated to how the application was prepared: who drafted the declaration, whether the client reviewed it, whether the facts were the client's own words, and how signatures were obtained. There was no specific reason to doubt our client's case — and the officer did not suggest there was. This line of questioning appears to be standard practice now, applied broadly across VAWA petitions regardless of the individual file's merits.
Immigration attorneys nationwide have reported an increasing number of these interviews, with appointments ranging from two to six hours. Some report adjudication by a panel of officers rather than a single examiner. No formal policy announcement has been made by USCIS, but attorneys practicing in this area are encountering them with growing regularity.
Yes. Credibility is a central element of any VAWA adjudication, and inconsistency between a petitioner's declaration and their testimony at interview is one of the most common grounds for denial. If an officer finds that the petitioner cannot accurately describe the events in their own declaration — or that the declaration contains facts the petitioner does not recognize — USCIS may conclude that the petition lacks credibility.
A credibility denial can also trigger a finding of willful misrepresentation, which carries its own consequences: it can serve as a permanent bar to future immigration benefits under INA § 212(a)(6)(C).
WARNING:
If your petition contains inaccurate or exaggerated statements that you did not knowingly authorize, obtaining independent legal counsel promptly is essential.
If your VAWA petition was prepared by a firm you no longer work with — or if you are uncertain about what was filed in your name — there are concrete steps you can take before your interview date.
First, you have an absolute right to a complete copy of your immigration file. Your former attorney cannot withhold it because of unpaid fees or any other reason. If they refuse, a new attorney can compel the release of your file through a formal written demand or, if necessary, through the relevant state bar.
Second, once you have your file, read your declaration carefully. If it is in English and you do not read English, have a qualified translator go through it with you word by word. The question to ask yourself is simple: can I describe every event in this document, in my own words, in a way that matches what is written here? If the answer is no, you need legal counsel before your interview.
Third, do not withdraw your petition without legal advice. Withdrawal may or may not be the right strategy depending on your specific circumstances — in some situations it reduces exposure, in others it creates additional complications. That decision must be made with counsel who knows the full facts of your case.
Preparation for a concurrent I-360 and I-485 interview requires significantly more work than a standard green card interview. Officers are examining the underlying petition as well as the adjustment application — which means you need to be ready to discuss the full history of your case, not just your current circumstances.
Obtain every document filed with USCIS on your behalf: the I-360 petition, your personal declaration, any RFE responses, supporting evidence, and the I-485 application. Read each one. Confirm that the facts are accurate and that you can speak to them in your own words.
Officers conducting these interviews focus on three areas: your good-faith intentions in filing the petition; whether you resided with the family member you allege abused you; and the specific details of the abuse you experienced. You should be able to answer questions about each of these areas in detail, in your own language, without referring to your documents.
Interview preparation is not something you should do alone. An experienced immigration attorney can walk you through the likely questions, identify any areas of the record that need clarification, and help you present your case clearly and consistently. Attorneys attend these interviews with clients — you do not have to face this alone.
IF YOU HAVE A PENDING VAWA CASE, YOU SHOULD
→ Review every declaration and document submitted in your case — in your language
→ Understand how your application was prepared and who drafted your declaration
→ Prepare to answer detailed questions about the abuse, your residence, and your good-faith intentions
→ Consult an attorney before attending any USCIS interview
→ Seek a second opinion if you did not personally review your filing before it was submitted
→ Do not withdraw your petition without legal advice — it may not be the right move
The combination of active federal litigation, a government fraud crackdown, and a new interview policy that can run four to six hours under oath has made VAWA one of the highest-stakes areas of immigration law in 2026. If you have a pending case or have received an interview notice, the time to act is now.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every immigration case is different; outcomes depend on individual circumstances.
Sources: USCIS, "USCIS Restores Integrity to the VAWA Domestic Abuse Program After Finding Rampant Fraud" (Dec. 22, 2025); USCIS, "USCIS Restores Integrity to the VAWA, T Nonimmigrant, and U Nonimmigrant Programs After Suspected Fraud" (Dec. 22, 2025); Nina Shapiro, "WA immigration lawyer Alexandra Lozano sued for alleged malpractice," Seattle Times (May 11, 2026); Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law, PLLC v. USCIS, No. 2:26-cv-00001 (D. Vt. Jan. 6, 2026); Acosta v. Meneses Law, PLLC, No. 4:26-cv-03930 (S.D. Tex. May 16, 2026). All litigation-related allegations are unproven; defendants deny the claims.
Phone: (213) 375-8096
Email: info@sabrinali.law
Hours: Mon-Fri, 9:00AM - 5:00PM PT (Except Public Holidays)
