What New USCIS Policy Says About Discretion & Social Media Vetting
Your online presence now matters more than ever in the U.S. immigration process. In 2025, the Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) introduced new rules, reflected in updates to the official USCIS Policy Manual, allowing officers to systematically review applicants’ social media accounts as part of their discretion.
This review goes beyond checking eligibility under the law. Officers may now look at online activity to confirm consistency in claims, spot potential security or reputational concerns, and evaluate whether an applicant’s profile aligns with values USCIS considers important. Posts that appear extremist, discriminatory, terrorist-related, antisemitic, or “anti-American” are explicitly flagged for scrutiny. The policy doesn’t list every possible example, leaving officers broad judgment; the goal is not to monitor personal opinions but to identify red flags that could cast doubt on the application.
How USCIS Uses Social Media in Discretionary Decisions (O-1, NIW, EB-5)
USCIS officers now treat social media as part of the applicant’s overall record when exercising discretion. This means that what you post online can influence whether your petition is viewed as credible, consistent, and aligned with U.S. values. Officers are instructed to look for:
- Consistency: whether your online presence matches the information in your petition (jobs, achievements, affiliations).
- Credibility: whether posts support your claimed expertise or raise doubts about your professional standing.
- Risk factors: content or affiliations that could be interpreted as extremist, discriminatory, or “anti-American.”
- Character: whether your digital footprint reflects integrity and reliability.
While USCIS does not monitor every opinion, officers have wide discretion to decide if certain posts or affiliations undermine trust in the application. In practice, this makes social media a formal part of the discretionary review process not just a background check.
Who Is Affected in the Immigration Process: O-1, NIW, EB-5 Applicants
This change applies broadly, but it is especially significant for three categories of applicants.
For O-1 applicants, who must show extraordinary ability in the sciences, business, education, athletics, or the arts, the review goes beyond verifying achievements. Officers may check whether a candidate’s online presence supports the claimed level of expertise and recognition, or whether affiliations undermine the credibility of that standing.
For NIW applicants, the discretionary review examines whether social media aligns with the claim that the applicant’s work benefits the United States at a national level. Inconsistent or negative content may weaken the argument that granting a waiver of the labor certification is in the national interest.
For EB-5 investors, the vetting focuses on reputation and trustworthiness. Because EB-5 requires a significant financial commitment, officers are attentive to any online content that raises questions about the legitimacy of funds or affiliations with groups that may pose reputational risks.
What to Review & Organize Before Applying
Think of your LinkedIn, Twitter/X, Instagram, or other public profiles as extensions of your application. Officers may review every visible account LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, forums so it’s your responsibility to make sure they are accurate and consistent. Achievements, positions, and affiliations listed in your petition should match what appears online. Even small inconsistencies can raise red flags and suggest misrepresentation, even if unintentional.
Highlighting positive contributions like articles, awards, collaborations, or professional projects, can reinforce your credibility and moral character.
Risks & Pitfalls: What Could Go Wrong
The risks of ignoring this process are substantial. A common problem arises when petition materials present one version of professional history, but social media shows something different. Even small inconsistencies can erode trust in the application.
Another pitfall is failing to recognize how old content may be viewed today. Posts written years ago, perhaps without much thought, can appear in a different light under USCIS review. Even a single statement that looks discriminatory or extremist may be treated as a negative factor in the discretionary analysis and used as a reason to question moral character.
Affiliations. Being listed as a member of an organization online, even passively, can create concerns if that organization is associated with anti-American activity. Officers are not required to prove intent; they only need to determine whether the affiliation raises doubts.
Finally, because discretion is broad, outcomes can be unpredictable. Two applicants with similar records may receive different decisions if one has an online presence that raises questions and the other does not.
How to Build a Resilient Application?
Applicants should build their case around achievements that highlight extraordinary ability, national interest, or legitimate investment, but they should also demonstrate integrity and alignment with U.S. values.
If older posts cannot be deleted, applicants should prepare clear written explanations. For example, a youthful comment may not reflect current beliefs, and an affidavit can clarify that the applicant has since established a professional record consistent with U.S. standards and values.
Most importantly, the application should be consistent across all platforms. Officers reviewing a petition and an applicant’s LinkedIn profile should see the same narrative. This consistency signals credibility and reduces the likelihood of additional scrutiny.
What to Expect: USCIS Review Process & Possible RFEs Under New Rules
Applicants should be prepared for USCIS to actively review their public social media profiles as part of the process to adjudicate immigration benefit requests. Officers may issue RFEs when they see inconsistencies, questionable affiliations, or unclear content. An RFE may ask for clarification, additional evidence, or explanations about why certain posts should not be considered problematic.
In more serious cases, problematic content may appear in a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) or final denial. While USCIS does not automatically reject every applicant with concerning posts, the burden of proof lies with the applicant to resolve doubts.
Conclusion: Managing Discretionary Factors to Strengthen Your U.S. Immigration Benefit Request
Today, applicants must be aware that USCIS discretion now extends to social media. Online activity is no longer separate from the immigration record, it can directly influence whether O-1, NIW, or EB-5 benefit requests are approved.
These visa categories rely heavily on reputation, achievements, and professional impact, which are easily verifiable online. Any inconsistency or negative association on social media can undermine credibility.
Key Questions About USCIS Discretion and Social Media Vetting
What is discretion in USCIS adjudication, and why does it matter?
Discretion is the authority USCIS officers hold to make judgments based on the totality of an applicant’s record. Even if you meet the statutory eligibility requirements, your petition can be denied if discretionary factors raise concerns.Will USCIS automatically deny applicants with certain social media posts?
Posts that raise questions about extremist views, anti-American activity, or discriminatory affiliations can trigger an RFE or even lead to denial if left unexplained.What types of social media activity could harm my application?
Content that appears extremist, discriminatory, anti-American, or inconsistent with your petition (e.g., different job titles or affiliations) may create doubts about your credibility and moral character.
Need help with your case? Schedule a call with our customer care team. They’ll be happy to discuss your needs and connect you with an immigration attorney.
