The article accurately reports on the issuance of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which ask for home addresses and biometrics for H-1B and employment-based immigrant petitions. It correctly notes that these requests are unusual and have not been a standard practice in the past. However, the article speculates on the potential use of AI tools by DHS to flag individuals, which lacks direct evidence and could benefit from further verification. The claim about USCIS not providing notice about process changes aligns with the facts, as the agency has not publicly explained these RFEs. Overall, while the core facts are accurate, the speculative elements regarding AI usage and the broader implications of these RFEs require more substantiation.

The article primarily presents the perspective of immigration attorneys and stakeholders concerned about the implications of the new RFEs. It includes quotes from attorneys like Vic Goel and Kevin Miner, who express concern over the lack of transparency and potential adverse effects on visa applicants. However, it lacks input from USCIS or government officials, which could provide a more balanced view. The absence of an official response from USCIS leaves the article leaning towards the perspectives of those opposed to the changes, potentially skewing the narrative.

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it accessible to readers with a basic understanding of immigration issues. It logically presents the information, starting with the issuance of RFEs and moving through the concerns of attorneys and potential implications. However, some speculative aspects, such as the use of AI tools, could be better explained or clarified. The tone remains neutral, focusing on the facts and expert opinions without sensationalism.

The article relies heavily on statements from immigration attorneys and experts in the field, such as Vic Goel and Kevin Miner, who are credible sources given their expertise. However, it lacks direct input from USCIS or any official government sources that could corroborate or challenge the claims made. The reliance on secondary sources, like the Inside Higher Education report, without direct quotes or data from USCIS, affects the article's overall source quality.

The article is somewhat transparent in its reporting, as it provides details about the nature of the RFEs and the concerns of immigration attorneys. However, it lacks transparency regarding the basis for the claims about AI usage and the broader intentions behind the RFEs. The article does not clearly indicate the sources of some speculative claims, which affects its transparency. Additionally, there is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases from the quoted sources.