I-485面谈通知没收到、"缺席"被拒？新未名律所Motion to Reopen成功翻盘，婚姻绿卡获批 I-485 Interview Notice Never Received, Denied for "Failure to Appear" — New Weiming Law Group's Motion to Reopen Succeeded, Marriage Green Card Approved

一句话核心总结（TL;DR）：新未名律所为一位申请人提交了婚姻绿卡I-485申请，I-130亲属移民已获批。但USCIS声称已安排2026年4月的I-485面谈，申请人没有出席——因此直接拒绝了I-485。问题是：申请人和律所都从未收到过这份面谈通知。这不是故意缺席，而是根本不知道有这次面谈。我们通过I-290B Motion to Reopen，用客观证据链证明面谈通知未送达——Motion提交一个多月后获批，I-485重新开案，移民局很快批准了绿卡。这个2026年8月的案例证明：I-485因"缺席面谈"被拒≠案件终结——但翻盘的关键不是"嘴上说没收到"，而是用案件记录和客观文件证明通知确实未送达。

TL;DR (English): New Weiming Law Group filed a marriage-based I-485 for the applicant; the I-130 was already approved. USCIS claimed it scheduled an April 2026 interview that the applicant failed to attend, and denied the I-485. Neither the applicant nor the law firm ever received the interview notice. This was not intentional absence—they simply did not know the interview was scheduled. We filed an I-290B Motion to Reopen with an objective evidence chain proving non-delivery of the notice. The Motion was approved within about a month; the case was reopened; and USCIS quickly approved the green card. This August 2026 case proves: denial for "failure to appear" ≠ case over—but overturning it requires objective documentary proof, not just saying "I didn't receive it."

新未名律所立足美国首都华盛顿地区，服务大华府DMV地区、马里兰(Maryland)和弗吉尼亚(Virginia)的华人、留学生、博士后及高科技/科研人员。以下是我们2026年8月的一个I-485 Motion to Reopen成功案例——对所有通过婚姻、亲属或职业移民等待I-485面谈的申请人极具参考价值。

New Weiming Law Group, based in Washington D.C. and serving the DMV, Maryland, and Virginia Chinese community, presents an August 2026 I-485 Motion to Reopen success story—highly relevant for all applicants awaiting I-485 interviews for marriage-based, family-based, or employment-based green cards.

1. 案件经过：面谈通知寄了吗？申请人和律所为什么都没收到？ / What Happened? Was the Interview Notice Mailed? Why Did Neither the Applicant nor the Law Firm Receive It?

案件背景：

• 新未名律所代理申请人提交了基于婚姻的I-485调整身份申请；
• 相关的I-130亲属移民申请已经获得USCIS批准；
• 2026年6月，申请人突然收到USCIS的I-485拒绝决定。

USCIS拒绝的理由：移民局表示曾安排申请人在2026年4月参加I-485面谈（interview），但申请人没有出席（failure to appear），因此根据8 CFR 103.2(b)(13)和相关规定拒绝了I-485。

关键事实：申请人根本没有收到这份面谈通知。我们律所也没有收到——作为代理律师（attorney of record），USCIS应当同时向申请人和律师发送面谈通知副本，但双方均未收到。

USCIS stated it scheduled an April 2026 I-485 interview that the applicant failed to attend, denying the I-485 per 8 CFR 103.2(b)(13). Critical fact: neither the applicant nor the law firm (attorney of record) received the interview notice. USCIS is required to send interview notices to both the applicant and the attorney of record; neither received it.

2. 没收到面谈通知导致I-485被拒，还有救吗？ / Can an I-485 Denied for Missing an Interview Be Saved If the Notice Was Never Received?

答案是：有救——但仅仅说"我没有收到通知"远远不够。

Answer: Yes—but simply stating "I didn't receive the notice" is far from sufficient.

USCIS不会仅凭申请人口头声称"没收到"就撤销拒绝——否则任何人都可以在错过面谈后声称没收到来翻案。Motion to Reopen的核心是：用客观证据证明"没收到"这个说法是可信的。

USCIS will not vacate a denial based solely on the applicant's claim of non-receipt—otherwise anyone who missed an interview could claim the same. The core of a Motion to Reopen is: proving the claim of non-receipt is credible through objective evidence.

3. 新未名律所在Motion中提出了什么证据？ / What Evidence Did New Weiming Law Group Present in the Motion?

我们提交了Form I-290B, Motion to Reopen，核心论证策略如下：

• 关键证据一——邮件接收历史（Mail Receipt History）：申请人之前一直能够正常收到USCIS寄出的各类通知——I-485收据通知（receipt notice）、RFE补件通知、以及其他通信。这些文件上显示的地址是正确的。也就是说，申请人没有搬家后不更新地址，也不是长期收不到USCIS邮件——偏偏就是这份决定案件命运的面谈通知，她和律师都没有收到；
• 关键证据二——地址一致性（Address Consistency）：申请人档案中的地址（address of record）始终一致，未曾变更，证明不存在因地址变更导致的邮件送达失败；
• 关键证据三——律师也没有收到（Attorney Also Did Not Receive）：USCIS应当向代理律师发送面谈通知副本。我们以律所身份确认：从未收到过这份面谈通知。申请人和律师双方同时未收到，说明问题出在USCIS的邮寄环节而非申请人端；
• 法律论证：基于以上证据，我们论证申请人的未出席是由于USCIS通知未送达（failure of notice）导致的非自愿缺席（involuntary failure to appear），而非故意或疏忽。根据8 CFR 103.5(a)(2)，Motion to Reopen应基于新的事实和支持证据——上述邮件接收记录就是USCIS在做出拒绝决定时未考虑的新事实。我们明确要求USCIS撤销拒绝决定，重新安排面谈。

Key evidence: (1) Mail receipt history showing applicant consistently received all prior USCIS notices (receipt notices, RFEs, other correspondence) at the correct address—proving no address change issue and no pattern of non-receipt; (2) address consistency—address of record unchanged throughout the case; (3) attorney of record also did not receive the notice—simultaneous non-receipt by both parties indicates USCIS mailing failure; (4) legal argument that the failure to appear was involuntary due to USCIS notice failure, constituting new facts under 8 CFR 103.5(a)(2) warranting reopening.

4. Motion的结果如何？ / What Was the Outcome?

Motion提交约一个多月后：

• USCIS批准了I-290B Motion to Reopen，撤销了原来的拒绝决定；
• I-485案件成功重新开案；
• USCIS很快批准了这位申请人的婚姻绿卡。

About one month after filing the Motion: USCIS granted the I-290B, vacated the denial, reopened the I-485, and quickly approved the applicant's marriage-based green card.

5. 这个案例给所有I-485申请人的重要提示 / Key Takeaways for All I-485 Applicants

无论你的婚姻绿卡I-485面谈、亲属移民I-130/I-485、职业移民NIW国家利益豁免、EB-1A杰出人才、EB-2/3 PERM、H-1B、O-1、L-1工作签证、F-1身份维护、J-1豁免还是N-400入籍遇到了面谈通知未送达、RFE/NOID争议、或错误拒绝等问题，欢迎联系新未名律所的靠谱华人移民律师团队。我们在美国首都华盛顿地区、大华府DMV地区、马里兰(Maryland)和弗吉尼亚(Virginia)拥有丰富的I-290B Motion to Reopen和Motion to Reconsider经验，已经帮助多位申请人成功翻盘。

Whether your marriage I-485 interview, family I-130/I-485, employment-based NIW, EB-1A, EB-2/3 PERM, H-1B, O-1, L-1, F-1, J-1 waiver, or N-400 has encountered interview notice non-delivery, RFE/NOID disputes, or wrongful denials, contact New Weiming Law Group. We have extensive I-290B Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider experience across Washington D.C., the DMV, Maryland, and Virginia, and have helped multiple applicants successfully overturn denials.

免责声明 / Disclaimer：本文基于真实案例撰写，部分识别性细节已作处理。文中内容仅提供美国移民法的一般性信息，不构成针对具体案件的法律意见，也不保证任何申请结果。每位申请人的背景和法律适用不同，过往案例结果不预示未来结果。请咨询合格的美国移民律师进行个案分析。This article is based on a real case with certain identifying details adjusted. It provides general U.S. immigration information only, not case-specific legal advice, and does not guarantee any outcome. Prior results do not predict future outcomes. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for individual analysis.