Evidence submitted too late
Evidence first offered on appeal was not considered because the petitioner had an earlier chance to submit it.
What this objection usually means
When an RFE or NOID gave the petitioner notice of a deficiency, evidence submitted for the first time on appeal is generally not considered.
What has tended to answer it
Answer every RFE point fully with evidence; assume there will be no second chance.
General patterns drawn from past decisions, not legal advice for your case. Ask a licensed immigration attorney how this applies to you.
The rule
Quoted from the USCIS Policy Manual current as of Sept 23, 2026. Check the online manual before filing.
Free account
See what your own profile records against this objection
Assess compares your case profile with the kinds of evidence that have answered “Evidence submitted too late” and the other catalogued objections in past decisions. It shows evidence coverage, not a prediction.
See it on a sample caseHow often it is raised, by year
108 of 3,701 decisions in scope (years with 5+ decisions)
By field
Decisions raising it
- Business & finance423% of field
- Engineering153% of field
- Clinical & health123% of field
- Computing, AI & data113% of field
- Education95% of field
- Arts, media & sports65% of field
- Aviation & transport64% of field
- Law & policy24% of field
Where it sank the appeal
Recent dismissed appeals raising this objection
- Dismissed2026-07-28Education
Where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal or on motion.
Read decision JUL282026_02B5203 - Dismissed2026-07-07Education
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2 Because the Petitioner was previously put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.
Read decision JUL072026_05B5203 - Dismissed2026-06-29Engineering
We will not consider new evidence for the first time on appeal.
Read decision JUN292026_03B5203 - Dismissed2026-06-25Computing, AI & data
The Petitioner claims the opinion letter should not be considered new evidence, but rather as evidence clarifying and explaining previously submitted evidence, citing Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Comm. 1998) and Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec 764, 766 (BIA 1988).
Read decision JUN252026_02B5203 - Dismissed2026-03-16Computing, AI & data
As to the additional evidence presented on appeal, we decline to consider the Petitioner's new evidence for the first time on appeal.
Read decision MAR162026_04B5203 - Dismissed2026-03-04Business & finance
Because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.
Read decision MAR042026_02B5203
Where the petitioner still won or got a remand
Sustained or remanded decisions where this issue was discussed: read them to see what answered it
- Remanded2024-08-08Business & finance
The Petitioner's new proposed endeavor, submitted for the first time on appeal, cannot retroactively establish eligibility.
Read decision AUG082024_01B5203