Why Knowing What the Government Has in Its File Matters More Than What You Remember

Many immigration decisions turn not on what a client believes happened, but on what the government’s records say happened. These two things are often not the same.

Clients frequently come to us confident about their immigration history. They remember when they entered, what status they had, who filed for them, and what was approved. Those memories are usually sincere. They are also often incomplete. Immigration records span decades, agencies, and filing systems, and they are not always accurate, consistent, or intuitive.

In today’s immigration environment, where adjudications are slower, more discretionary, and more skeptical, relying on memory alone is increasingly risky.

Immigration Is Decided on the Record, Not the Narrative

Immigration officers do not decide cases based on explanations given in good faith. They decide cases based on what appears in the government’s files. That includes prior applications, entry records, notes from interviews, border encounters, enforcement actions, and filings prepared by third parties years ago.

Clients are often surprised to learn that information they never personally submitted, or do not recall submitting, is now central to a current decision. This is especially common in cases involving childhood entries, filings prepared by family members, notarios, or prior attorneys, or old interactions with immigration officials that did not seem important at the time.

Once something is in the record, it does not disappear. It can be re-examined, reinterpreted, and relied upon later, even if it was never questioned before.

Why Inconsistencies Appear Even When No One Lied

Many inconsistencies in immigration cases are not the result of dishonesty. They arise because different forms asked different questions, prior filings were completed imprecisely, dates were estimated, or information was entered incorrectly by someone else. Over time, these small discrepancies accumulate.

What makes this dangerous is that the government often treats inconsistencies as credibility issues, even when there is a reasonable explanation. Without knowing what the government sees, clients cannot anticipate which issues need explanation and which do not.

The Limits of “It Was Approved Before”

One of the most common misconceptions we encounter is the belief that prior approval resolves prior issues. It does not. Approval often reflects limited review at a particular stage, not a final judgment on the entire immigration history.

At later stages, especially adjustment of status, I-751s, naturalization, or discretionary applications, officers may revisit earlier filings with a different lens. Issues that were overlooked, deemed immaterial, or never reviewed can become relevant again.

This is why cases that feel routine on the surface sometimes encounter unexpected scrutiny.

Why Reviewing the Government’s File Changes Strategy

Understanding what is actually in the government’s file allows immigration decisions to be made strategically rather than reactively. It informs how applications are prepared, how questions are answered, what explanations are provided, and whether certain filings or travel should be delayed.

In some cases, reviewing the record confirms that a client’s understanding is accurate. In others, it reveals errors or gaps that need to be addressed before moving forward. Either outcome is valuable. The risk lies in proceeding blindly.

This is particularly important before interviews, international travel, major filings, or escalation efforts. Once a statement is made or a filing is submitted, it becomes part of the permanent record as well.

Immigration Planning Requires More Than Eligibility

Eligibility alone is not enough. Immigration planning requires an accurate understanding of the factual record the government will rely on. Without that foundation, even well-intentioned decisions can create unnecessary complications.

In a system that is opaque and often unforgiving, knowledge is one of the few advantages available. Knowing what the government has in its file does not guarantee a smooth process, but it allows decisions to be made with eyes open rather than in the dark.