u/mutlu234

I was planning to buy a small piece of land located in Virginia, and reached out to a title company by email to handle the transfer/title work. I did not sign any agreement or paperwork, and no fee was discussed up front.

The title company then performed a title search and found out that the seller does not actually have a recorded deed/title to the property, even though he has apparently been paying property taxes on it for years.

Because of that, we could not proceed with the purchase.

Now the title company is asking me to pay $125 for the title search. The title company says I would need to pay the entire amount due, and can seek reimbursement from the seller outside of them.

My questions are:

• Am I generally obligated to pay this fee even though I never signed anything and the fee was not disclosed beforehand?
• Since the issue was with the seller’s ownership/title, would it be reasonable to ask the seller to split or cover the fee?
• What is typically done in situations like this?

Just trying to understand what is considered normal/fair here.

I wanted to share my experience with EP regarding my EB2 NIW I-140 petition and RFE response, in case it helps others considering working with them.

Please ask your questions in the comments rather than via PM so others can benefit from the discussion.

Overall, I’m disappointed—especially by how the RFE stage was handled.

My initial petition was filed with what seemed like a solid profile (postdoc in the U.S. in a STEM field, advanced degree, research background, publications, ~35 citations, ROW, not from any banned countries, etc.). We also upgraded to premium processing and received an RFE after approximately 40 business days.

In the RFE, the officer had already accepted that my work had substantial merit and that I was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The remaining issues were national importance and the balancing tesT.

However, once we received the RFE, my attorney repeatedly described it as “templated” and “too generic,” and indicated that it wouldn’t require much effort to respond.

The response strategy felt misaligned. Instead of focusing on strengthening the missing prongs, the response took an aggressive tone toward the officer’s comments—even on points that were already accepted. For example, there was an effort spent arguing that the officer misunderstood aspects of one prong, even though that prong had already been satisfied. At the same time, the response relied heavily on citing the original submission rather than incorporating new evidence.

During the RFE stage, I strongly pushed to include dependent and independent recommendation letters as they could directly address the issues the officer found lacking. However, the attorney refused to include any letters in the RFE response, saying that the letters may "distract" the officer.

One of the most concerning parts for me was the handling of the balancing test. The response included only a short paragraph for this section (2-3 sentences only). I tried to expand it by adding additional supporting evidence, but those additions were removed and replaced with the original brief paragraph. I was told that once national importance is accepted, the balancing test would “easily follow,” so further evidence was not necessary.

After the denial, the explanation I received focused heavily on criticizing the officer—stating that the officer misunderstood the case and didn’t properly review the materials. Personally, I disagree with that assessment. Even if the officer may not have seemed particularly sympathetic, they still provided a detailed RFE outlining the concerns and gave a clear opportunity to address them. In my view, that opportunity wasn’t fully used.

What also surprised me was the post-denial guidance. I was advised to refile with essentially the same evidence, without meaningful discussion of how to strengthen the case. The option of a refund—despite a refund guarantee agreement—was not initially mentioned; I had to bring it up myself. Even then, I felt some pressure to refile, with the reasoning that a different officer might lead to a better outcome.

To be fair, communication was generally professional, and they did outline options like refiling or appealing. However, once I decided to proceed with the refund option, I did not receive a response for about a week and had to send a follow-up message. I then waited another five days before receiving a response. After being told that the refund check was being processed, it still took approximately three more weeks for me to receive it.

To be honest, if my case had been approved, I probably would have continued on my life happily and never questioned the strategy.

Just sharing my experience in case it helps others make a more informed decision. Of course, others may have had different experiences.