A recent USCIS policy memorandum, dated August 15, 2025, focuses on restoring a rigorous, holistic, and comprehensive good moral character (GMC) evaluation standard for applicants seeking naturalization through Form N-400. This memo, titled "Restoring a Good Moral Character Evaluation Standard for Aliens Applying for Naturalization," emphasizes a return to a totality of circumstances approach in assessing GMC under section 101(f) of the INA. 

U.S. immigration officers will now take a broader view when judging whether green card holders can become citizens, under new guidance from the Trump administration. The policy, released August 15, directs officers to look beyond criminal records and take into account both positive contributions and conduct that may be lawful but socially suspect.

Under the new policy, USCIS officers are instructed to take a more expansive approach:

What changed: greater emphasis on Positive Contributions of the Applicant

.Applicants may now benefit from factors such as:

• Long-term community involvement
• Caregiving or family responsibilities
• Educational achievements
• Lawful and stable employment history
• Financial responsibility, including paying taxes
• Length of time spent lawfully in the U.S.

What changed: stricter scrutiny of Negative Conduct

USCIS will now consider:

• Technically legal but socially questionable behavior (e.g., repeated traffic offenses, harassment, aggressive solicitation)
• Conditional bars such as multiple DUIs, unlawful voting, or drug offenses
• Any conduct that doesn’t fit with the “typical behavior” of people in a community.

What changed: Focus on Rehabilitation

USCIS is also placing greater weight on evidence of rehabilitation.

Applicants who have engaged in past wrongdoing may still be approved for naturalization if they can show genuine reform, such as:

• Complying with probation
• Paying overdue taxes or child support
• Providing credible letters of community support
• Mentoring others with similar experiences

​A Shift Toward Subjective Discretion

The memo gives USCIS officers more discretion to deny citizenship based on a wider range of behaviors, even if those behaviors don’t fall into existing statutory bars.

Naturalization applicants should now expect:

• More thorough background reviews that go beyond criminal records to include civic behavior, financial history, and community reputation.
• Potential delays if USCIS officers require additional documentation to evaluate moral character.
• Greater need to highlight positive contributions, such as volunteer work, caregiving roles, educational achievements, and long-term ties to the U.S.
• Heightened risk of denial for seemingly minor infractions, including traffic violations, social misconduct, or technical noncompliance with local norms, especially if no counterbalancing evidence of rehabilitation or positive character is submitted.

​

Read more here.

On May 18, 2021, the U.S. State Department announced that it will recognize the U.S. citizenship of a married couple’s child who is born outside the country if one of their parents is an American citizen. Same-sex married couples or children born via surrogate mother, IVF are included into this new interpretation.

The State Department will now approve U.S. citizenship for children born abroad to same-sex or heterosexual American parents via in-vitro fertilization, IVF, surrogacy and by other assisted reproductive means. Under the policy announced Tuesday, the child must be born abroad to married parents and at least one of the parents has to be a U.S. citizen. The child must have biological ties to at least one parent. The child can have biological ties to a foreign parent.

“Children born abroad to parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen and who are married to each other at the time of the birth, will be U.S. citizens from birth if they have a genetic or gestational tie to at least ONE of their parents and meet the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act)’s other requirements. Previously, the department’s interpretation and application of the INA required that children born abroad have a genetic or gestational relationship to a U.S. citizen parent. This updated interpretation and application of the INA takes into account the realities of modern families and advances in ART (assisted reproductive technology) from when the Act was enacted in 1952”, the U.S. State Department said.

​The U.S. Department of State guidance can be found here: 

​

USCIS is revising the current Naturalization or Citizenship Test, for applicants who submitted Form N-400, The goal is to create a uniform test that assesses applicants’ knowledge and understanding of U.S. history, government and values.

This spring, the former USCIS director signed the Revision of the Naturalization Civics Test Memorandum. This memorandum announces the revision of the naturalization test and formalizes a revision schedule of the naturalization test.
​
USCIS set an implementation date in December 2020 or early 2021.

​Read more here.

On June 4, 2018, USCIS began issuing redesigned Certificates of Citizenship and Naturalization. The redesign of these eight certificates is one of the many ways USCIS is working to combat fraud and safeguard the legal immigration system. 

USCIS piloted the new certificate design at the Norfolk, Tampa, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Sacramento Field Offices, as well as at the Nebraska Service Center.
​ 
The Certificates of Naturalization are: 

• N-550, issued to an individual who obtains U.S. citizenship through the naturalization process; 
• N-578, issued to a naturalized U.S. citizen to obtain recognition as a United States citizen by a foreign state; and 
• N-570, issued when the original Certificate of Naturalization is lost, mutilated, or contains errors.

A Certificate of Citizenship is issued to an individual who obtains U.S. citizenship other than through birth in the United States or through naturalization. The various types of Certificates of Citizenship are: 

• N-560A, issued to an applicant who derived citizenship after birth; 
• N-560AB, issued to an applicant who acquired citizenship at birth; 
• N-645 and N-645A, issued to the family of an individual who served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during a designated period of hostility and died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by that service. Form N-645 is issued if the decedent was a male, and the N-645A if the decedent was a female. 
• Form N-561, issued to replace a Certificate of Citizenship when the original certificate is lost, mutilated, or contains errors.

The redesigned certificates of citizenship and naturalization feature a large, central image against a complex patterned background, which helps deter the alteration of personal data. Each certificate possesses a unique image only visible under ultraviolet light and attempts to alter it will be evident. Posthumous Certificates of Naturalization and the Special Certificate of Citizenship each bear a different image, yet feature the same fraud-deterrent security features.
Although the look and feel of the documents is new, the process of applying for and receiving them has not changed. Individuals do not need to renew their Certificates of Naturalization or Citizenship, regardless of when they were issued. The certificates we issued before the redesign will continue to be accepted as proof of citizenship. 

Answer: Yes, an illiterate person can naturalize and become a U.S. citizen, but only if she is over 50 and has been a permanent resident for at least 20 years; or she is over 55 and has been a permanent resident for at least 15 years; or her inability to read or write stems from a disability.

The law provides three exemptions from the English language requirement for naturalization. The exemptions are for applicants at least age 50 who have been permanent residents for at least twenty years, those at least age 55 with at least 15 years permanent residence and for those who have a mental or physical disability that prevents them from learning English. If the applicant is exempt under any of these rules, she qualifies even if she is illiterate. She can naturalize even if she cannot read or write another language.
If the disability prevents applicants from learning U.S. history and government (Civics part of the naturalization test), they are exempt from answering civic knowledge questions as well. Otherwise, they must answer the Civics questions in their own language.

Permanent residents at least age 65 who have been a permanent resident for at least 20 years take an easier test of U.S. history and government.
If the applicant is claiming an exemption based on a disability, she needs to file USCIS form N-648, Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions with your from N-400. A medical doctor or licensed clinical psychologist must sign the certification. An identifiable mental or physical disease must cause the disability. If the doctor says something like, “he’s too old to learn English,” the USCIS will deny the waiver request.
If a person is so disabled that he or she is unable to understand or agree to the citizenship oath, a legal guardian may file the application and the applicant may get U.S. citizenship.

English Language Exemptions 

You Are Exempt From The English Language Requirement, But Are Still Required To Take The Civics Test If You Are:

• Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (green card holder) in the United States for 20 years   (commonly referred to as the “50/20” exception).
  OR
• Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the United States for 15 years (commonly referred to as the “55/15” exception).

Note:

• Even if you qualify for the “50/20” or “55/15” English language exceptions listed above, you must still take the civics test.
• You will be permitted to take the civics test in your native language.
• If you take the test in your native language, you must bring an interpreter with you to your interview.
• Your interpreter must be fluent in both English and your native language.
• If you are age 65 or older and have been a permanent resident for at least 20 years at the time of filing for naturalization, you will be given special consideration regarding the civics requirement.

For more information, see the USCIS Policy Manual Citizenship and Naturalization Guidance.

Information about Naturalization Test is here.

Soldiers in the U.S. Army Reserve are suing the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security for stalling their citizenship applications after they joined the military through MAVNI, a program that promised them fast-track naturalization for their service.

“Each plaintiff-soldier has kept his/her end of the bargain,” their lawsuit states. The immigrant recruits did their part by enlisting, training in drills with their unit, and subjecting themselves to deployment. The U.S. Army certified their service, and the military is supposed to provide citizenship as soon as they complete basic training or attend drills.

But at the Pentagon’s request, the Homeland Security Department is not processing their applications, as required.

Pentagon and Homeland Security officials now say they are considering going back and changing who is eligible to receive a certification of military service, possibly even revoking the certifications for those soldiers not in active-duty service. 

Although the soldiers named in this suit received their certifications, they “could be considered signed in error and may be decertified,” said Director of Military Accession Policy at the Pentagon, citing the program’s guidance.
The delay has put some soldiers at risk of deportation, the lawsuit states. These soldiers are “suffering irreparable harm” and financial strain as they face uncertainty about their status, unable to get a job, a drivers license, or a passport to visit sick family members, their attorneys say.
The 10 reservists who brought the suit were recruited through the Pentagon’s Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, known as MAVNI, which gives expedited citizenship to legal immigrants who enlist with critical language skills or medical training.
Nearly 10,000 immigrants are in the MAVNI program, most of them serving in the Army. The popular program was allowed to accept 5,000 recruits in 2016, but was frozen last fall after security concerns about the vetting of recruits.

Now the Pentagon is considering scrapping it altogether, according to an internal memo included in the suit. This would leave roughly 1,000 non-citizen recruits at risk of deportation despite being enlisted in the U.S. military.
​Read the full article here.

On June 12, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new decision on acquisition of U.S. citizenship from birth by a child born abroad and out of wedlock, when one parent is a U. S. citizen and the other a citizen of another nation, striking down on equal protection grounds the distinction in INA 309 between the physical presence required for unwed fathers and mothers when the child is born out of wedlock: 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1191_2a34.pdf.

Applicable to married couples, the main rule in effect at the time here relevant, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a)(7) (1958 ed.), required the U.S.-citizen parent to have ten years’ physical presence in the United States prior to the child’s birth, “at least five of which were after attaining” age 14.

The same rule is made applicable to unwed U.S.-citizen fathers by §1409(a), but §1409(c) created an exception for an unwed U. S.-citizen mother, whose citizenship can be transmitted to a child born abroad if she has lived continuously in the United States for just one year prior to the child’s birth. 

Under the US Supreme Court ruling, the government (USCIS and US Dept of State) is going to equally apply to mothers and fathers the more restrictive rule for fathers (10 years of physical presence), rather than the much less restrictive rule (exception) for mothers (one-year rule).

This should apply (probably, not clear at this time) only to children of unwed mothers who are born after June 12, 2017, because citizenship is automatically acquired at birth, and a later decision can't strip you of it.

This new law will be relevant in many N-600 applications.

Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision here.

In Russian:

12 июня 2017 Верховный Суд США вынес решение по делу автоматического получения американского гражданства внебрачным ребенком, рожденным за пределами США, когда один из родителей (мать или отец) являются гражданином США, и когда родители не состоят в законном браке.

По старому закону, правила были более жесткие по отношению к отцу внебрачного ребенка.

Теперь после решения суда от 12 июня 2017, суд ужесточил закон о по отношению детей, рожденных вне брака, где американская гражданка - это мать ребенка. По новому закону, мать должна доказать физическое проживание в США в течение как минимум 10 лет (ранее это был всего год).

Пока закон не изменится Конгрессом США, это новое правило будет применяться везде в США и за пределами США во всех посольствах и консульствах.

Решение суда можно почитать тут. 

​

Matter of FALODUN, 27 I&N Dec. 52 (BIA 2017).

There is a big difference between Certificate of Citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization. Both of them serve as evidence of U.S. citizenship status. However, unlike Certificate of Naturalization, Certificate of Citizenship does not confer United States citizenship but merely provides evidence that the applicant previously obtained citizenship status (derived through a parent).

When a person has a Certificate of Naturalization, it means that they applied for U.S. citizenship, passed the test and all background clearances, and their application was approved, and U.S. citizenship was granted.

​When a person has a Certificate of Citizenship, it means that they applied for a document as evidence of their U.S. citizen status. When USCIS approves the application for Certificate of Citizenship, the USCIS merely verifies the records and issues a document, as a proof of the U.S. citizenship status. The applicant doesn't apply for citizenship and doesn't take the test. The applicant applies for a proof or evidence of his or her citizenship. 

On June 2nd 2017, the BIA held that institution of judicial proceedings to revoke naturalization are not required to cancel a certificate of citizenship, which the Department of Homeland Security can cancel administratively upon a determination that an applicant is not entitled to the claimed citizenship status.

BIA held: "A certificate of citizenship only provides documentation of United States citizenship for persons who claim to have obtained that status derivatively. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 341.1, 341.2(c) (2016). It does not confer United States citizenship but only furnishes recognition and evidence that the applicant has previously obtained such status derivatively, that is, upon the naturalization of a parent or parents. See Section 341(a) of the Act. Thus, the issuance of a certificate of citizenship, like a United States passport, only serves as indicia of citizenship. It is not a grant of United States citizenship. Because the respondent’s United States citizenship claim was based on fraud, his Certificate of Citizenship is void." 

Facts: The respondent is a native and citizen of Nigeria who was born in Benin City, Nigeria, on June 30, 1981. He obtained lawful permanent resident status in 1996 as the stepchild of a United States citizen who was married to the respondent’s alleged adoptive father. The respondent’s claim to United States citizenship derives from the naturalization of his putative custodial adoptive father in 1995. On February 17, 1998, the respondent was issued a Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-560).

In removal proceedings, evidence of foreign birth gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of alienage, shifting the burden to the respondent to come forward with evidence to substantiate his citizenship claim. Matter of Rodriguez-Tejedor, 23 I&N Dec. 153, 164 (BIA 2001) (citing Matter of Leyva, 16 I&N Dec. 118, 119 (BIA 1977)); Matter of Tijerina-Villarreal, 13 I&N Dec. 327, 330 (BIA 1969).

Assessing the respondent’s claim to citizenship, the Immigration Judge noted that the evidence of record raises serious questions whether the respondent has ever qualified as a United States citizen. Specifically, the record includes an August 20, 2002, notice of intent to cancel the respondent’s Certificate of Citizenship (“NOIC”) issued by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), alleging that the certificate had been obtained by fraud.

The NOIC was based on information obtained in connection with a Federal criminal investigation. This investigation revealed that the respondent’s putative adoptive father was actually his biological brother. Although the respondent claimed that his biological father had died in 1983, records indicated that, as of 2002, he was alive and living in Nigeria. The NOIC further alleged that the respondent submitted a fraudulent adoption certificate. In his October 23, 2002, response to the NOIC, the respondent presented a letter from an attorney specifically denying each of the allegations in the NOIC. He also submitted a purported death certificate for the person the respondent alleged was his biological father. The death certificate was issued more than 8 months after this individual’s death and just days before the respondent’s response to the NOIC was due.

In a decision dated April 21, 2003, the District Director concluded that the evidence the respondent provided in response to the NOIC was insufficient to overcome the evidence supporting the cancellation of the Certificate of Citizenship. He determined that the Nigerian adoption decree submitted on the respondent’s behalf was fraudulent and that he did not derive United States citizenship through his biological brother under former section 321(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(2) (1996), which was in effect when the respondent turned 18 years old. The District Director therefore cancelled the respondent’s Certificate of Citizenship after concluding that it had been obtained by fraud. On March 29, 2004, the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the District Director’s decision
 
The respondent does not claim United States citizenship through naturalization. Instead, he was issued his Certificate of Citizenship under section 341 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1452 (1996), based on his claim of derivative citizenship through the naturalization of his brother, who the respondent fraudulently claimed was his adoptive father.

To read the decision, click here.

A new Department of Defense and DHS rule that bars MAVNI recruits from receiving security clearances until they complete their first term of service has crippled the ability of soldiers to earn a commission and prevents the military from using their talent for years.
Earlier this spring, Dr. Kusuma Nio was anticipating two things in May. The trauma surgeon hoped to deploy with his Army Reserve unit to Afghanistan, where his expertise in treating catastrophic injuries would be vital to U.S. and Afghan forces roiled by resurgent militants.
The other thing: on May 5th, he was expected to naturalize and become a U.S. citizen.
Instead, he is watching his fellow soldiers of the 1st Forward Surgical Team based in New York leave for war. His path to citizenship has been delayed "indefinitely".

His citizenship oath was postponed indefinitely April 13 2017 by the United States Citizenship Immigration Service, who told him the Defense Department has suspended all applications from foreign-born recruits looking to serve.
​
MAVNI or Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program was implemented in 2009 to take advantage of medical and language skills critical to the success of military operations around the world.
Newly imposed requirements issued in a Pentagon memo Sept. 30, 2016 — when the program was renewed — have created a backlog of applicants.

A rule that bars MAVNI recruits from receiving a security clearance until they complete their first term of service has crippled the ability of soldiers like Nio to earn a commission and prevents the military from using their talent for years. Until then, his time as a reserve specialist is spent cleaning scalpels instead of using them in life-saving surgery.
Nio and others are left asking a simple question: If the military wanted their talents, why are they sitting around not using them?

“I’m a fully qualified and American-trained surgeon. It doesn’t make sense to me,” Nio said.
Margaret Stock, a retired Army officer central in creating the MAVNI program, said May 8, 2017 that the reforms are so severely counter to the original intent of the program that it is now imploding, sending ripples throughout the military that will hurt recruiting, undermine its security missions and send personnel spending into a frenzy as the force pays bills for native troops to receive top medical and language training.
“This isn’t extending the program,” Stock said of the new measures. “This is destroying the program.”
Stalled by new rulesThe MAVNI program has attracted thousands of legal immigrants, offering a fast track to citizenship in exchange for vital medical expertise and cultural and language skills. The military identifies skills in “critical shortfall” and sets goals to bring qualified candidates into the service, according to the Sept. 30 Pentagon memo extending the program until September.

About 10,400 soldiers have entered the Army through the program since 2009, Army spokesman Hank Minitrez said May 9 in an email.

The decision to bar MAVNI recruits from receiving security clearances during their first enlistment term severely limits the contributions that soldiers like Nio can make, Stock said. Doctors cannot receive a commission without the clearance. Enlisted troops cannot enter special operations, civil affairs or intelligence fields, while troops with deep skills in languages such as Russian, Arabic and Pashto are restricted for years from doing the job the Pentagon said they desperately need to be done now.
Another big change: Applicants were required to have a legal immigration status for two years and complete background checks in order to enlist. They could start the Tier-5 investigation before shipping off to training while the long process unfolded, Minitrez said.

Now, recruits must complete a Tier-5 investigation before they get orders for training. The process takes months and involves investigations from the Justice and Defense departments and intelligence agencies, Minitrez said.

Stock said the Army was unprepared for the flood of additional requirements, leaving personnel soldiers scrambling to complete case files without proper training while soldiers piled up in the system. Soldiers like Nio are trapped in a classic military Catch-22 as he continues as a reservist, still unable to attend the basic officer leaders course.

“We haven’t been naturalized, so we can’t go to basic. But we can’t go to basic because we haven’t been naturalized,” he said.
Applicants are screened by the State and Homeland Security departments and other agencies when they get visas, which makes them the most vetted recruits in the military, Stock said.

Green-card holders, who are permanent residents but not citizens, are not subject to the rules, she said.
​
“The new rule is especially pernicious because the requirements for passing [additional screenings] are completely different from the ‘good moral character’ required for citizenship,” Stock said.
“That’s not the legal standard for naturalization,” and the new requirements have not been imposed on immigrants naturalized in the past few years, Stock said.
Process breakdownThe Army, which according to service data is the biggest user of the MAVNI program, has defended the new security measures.
“The background checks are time-consuming and extensive, but we owe it to our soldiers in the ranks and the American people to ensure everyone joining has been properly vetted,” Minitrez said.
MAVNI recruits have been highly sought in Special Operations Command, for instance, due to their reliability and cultural skills vital to training and fighting with foreign troops.
“If you’re going to sneak into the military, this is the last program you’d go through,” she said.
The Army has acknowledged the new Pentagon requirements have severely bottlenecked the process since September.

About 1,000 Army recruits — nearly a quarter of the 4,200 waiting for background check approvals — have been in limbo so long that they no longer have legal immigration status and need extensions or exemptions from USCIS, according to an internal Army document marked “for official use only” but posted online in April. Minitrez and others were listed as the point of contact for information. The document is no longer online.

Minitrez declined to confirm that number, referring the query to DHS and USCIS. The New York Times reported that the number could be as high as 1,500.

While those delay occur, recruits without legal status can’t obtain a job if they are reservists and are subject to deportation.

Unused skills

The Army’s execution of new regulations has frustrated Nio.
Before recent changes, MAVNI could churn out minted troops with citizenship in hand in one to four months, Stock said. But the new restrictions have jolted the program enough to turn off future applicants, Stock said. While recruits with language skills await security clearances to begin training, they must enlist in other specialties that do not correspond with their skills.
“There’s no point to the program if all it does is produce extremely well-vetted truck drivers,” she said.
Nio said his motivations were different than some others. He holds a visa reserved for immigrants with special skills, and the hospital where he works can easily sponsor his legal status.
“This is a perfect way to give back and to serve and to learn,” Nio said about his path to becoming an Army doctor. “There is nothing like combat surgery.”
After earning his doctorate at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Nio enlisted as a specialist in 2015 with the agreement that he would earn his commission as a captain. His contract required him to serve six years in the Army Reserve and two in the inactive Reserve, he said. He finished his background investigation in April 2016, with his oath of citizenship and commissioning on track for this month, he said. But the restrictions have stopped all progress, he said.
Nio works at a Level 1 trauma center in his civilian job, where he treats patients with gunshot wounds, severe burns and injuries sustained from car wrecks, along with surgeries for conditions like appendicitis and hernias, he said.
Contrast that with his placeholder Army reservist occupation: operating room specialist. The job involves sterilizing equipment and cleaning rooms between patients. The experience disparity equates to a pilot grounded to scrape bug splatter off an F-16.
“I’m almost through a third of my service time already,” he said. “You have someone ready to go, and sitting as a specialist?”

Luckily, Nio said, his unit sympathizes with the disconnect between his skill and his rank.
Surgical teams in his unit conduct realistic training during their drill weekends, he said. Patients eviscerated by imaginary IEDs and gunfire flood medical tents. Nurses and medics buzz around Nio, who plays the role of trauma surgeon.
The training is realistic, but his authority is a facade. Once Nio removes his scrubs and stores his instruments, he steps out of the tent as a junior enlisted soldier.
Nio’s unit will arrive in Afghanistan this month as the country braces for another Taliban offensive and Islamic State militants seek to regain footholds. Sharp violence has recently struck U.S. troops there. Two Army Rangers were killed April 26 during a fierce battle with Islamic State militants, and three soldiers were wounded in a suicide car bomb explosion May 3 in Kabul.
“My unit is desperate for surgeons to go on this deployment,” he said. “And I’m just saying goodbye to everyone.”

​Read the article at Stars and Stripes here.

A an adult Korean adoptee who is awaiting deportation from an immigration detention center in Washington State because he lacks American citizenship, even though he has lived in the United States since he was 3 years old.

Last month, an immigration court denied his final request to stay in the United States.

Officials at South Korea’s Ministry say they know of at least five adoptees who were deported back from the United States. But advocates for Korean adoptees say there may be more than twice as many, some undocumented.
Tossed back to a country they had left decades ago, these adoptees were once again foreigners struggling to adapt to an unfamiliar culture and language.

This can happen to a person who was adopted from a foreign country without following a proper procedure for applying for legal document, a proof his or her US citizenship. Sometimes people don't even realize the seriousness of their situation and lack of legal status in the United States until it's too late.

​Read more here. 

Recent update from USCIS:

If you are applying for U.S. citizenship through a process known as naturalization (filing a USCIS form N-400), you can now use a credit card to pay the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization fee. 

Most applicants must pay a $680 fee, which includes biometrics fee.

To pay with your credit card, you must file a Form G-1450, Authorization for Credit Card Transaction. 

At this time, USCIS accepts payments by credit card ONLY for one application, Form N-400, application for naturalization. This can change in the future. You should always review the form's instructions online before filing.

Here is the form: http://www.uscis.gov/g-1450 and instructions how to pay with a credit card.

On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions. However, not all of these initiatives have been implemented, and USCIS is not accepting any DAPA or expanded DACA applications at this time. 

Beware of anyone who offers to help you submit an application or a request for any of these actions before they are available. You could become a victim of an immigration scam. 

If you need legal advice on immigration matters, make sure that the person you rely on is an attorney who is authorized to give you legal advice. Only an attorney or an accredited representative working for a Board of Immigration Appeals-recognized organization can give you legal advice. An immigration attorney can be licensed in any state because immigration law is federal law. It's important to consult an experienced and knowledgeable attorney before submitting any immigration applications.

The Internet, newspapers, radio, community bulletin boards and local businesses storefronts are filled with advertisements offering immigration help. Not all of this information is from attorneys and accredited representatives. There is a lot of information that comes from organizations and individuals who are not authorized to give you legal advice, such as “notarios” and other unauthorized representatives. The wrong help can hurt. Here is some important information that can help you avoid common immigration scams.

Here are some examples of common immigration scams:

**Telephone Scams**.

Do not fall victim to telephone scammers posing as USCIS personnel or other government officials. In most instances, scammers will:

• request personal information (Social Security number, Passport number, or A-number);
• identify false problems with your immigration record; and
• ask for payment to correct the records.

If a scammer calls you, say “No, thank you” and hang up. These phone calls are being made by immigration scammers attempting to take your money and your credit card information. USCIS will not call you to ask for any form of payment over the phone. Don’t give payment over the phone to anyone who claims to be a USCIS official.

If you have been a victim of this telephone scam, please report it to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Learn more about telephone scams and telephone scammers’ techniques by visiting Federal Trade Commission-Telemarketing-Scams. 

**"Notario Publico"**.

In many Latin American countries, the term “notario publico” (for “notary public”) stands for something very different than what it means in the United States. In many Spanish-speaking nations, “notarios” are powerful attorneys with special legal credentials. In the U.S., however, notary publics are people appointed by state governments to witness the signing of important documents and administer oaths. "Notarios publico,” are not authorized to provide you with any legal services related to immigration.

Please see the National Notary Association website "What is a Notary Public" for more information.

**Local Businesses who are not law firms and not attorneys or lawyers**.

Some businesses in your community “guarantee” they can get you benefits such as a:

• Visa
• Green Card
• Employment Authorization Document

These businesses sometimes charge you a higher fee to file the application than even a licensed attorney (but will tell you that attorneys charge more "for the same work"). They claim they can do this faster than if you applied directly with USCIS. These claims are false. 

**Dot-com websites - operated by non-attorneys or people not authorized to give legal advice**.

Some websites offering step-by-step guidance on completing a USCIS application or petition will claim to be affiliated with USCIS. Many of these websites are scammers or fraudsters, often taking money for blank forms or minimal assistance without attorney supervision.

USCIS has its own official website: www.uscis.gov with:

• Free downloadable forms
• Form Instructions
• Information on filing fees and processing times

Do not pay for blank USCIS forms either in person or over the Internet. You can download forms for free at www.uscis.gov.

Do not pay to a non-attorney (not a lawyer) for help with immigration paperwork, applications, affidavit. Oftentimes, they give you wrong advice and can potentially damage your chances of ever becoming a permanent resident (getting a green card).

**Green Card Lottery or DV Lottery scams**.

Once a year in fall, the Department of State (DOS) makes 50,000 diversity visas (DVs) available via random selection to persons meeting strict eligibility requirements and who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. During this time or often around the year, it is common for immigration scammers to advertise in emails or websites that reference either the:

• DV lottery
• Visa lottery
• Green Card lottery

These emails and websites often claim that they can make it easier to enter the annual Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. Some scammers even identify you as a DV lottery “winner” and ask for significant amount of money "helping get a visa". These emails and websites are fraudulent. 

The only way to apply for the DV lottery is through an official government application process (Department of State website, and only when it's open, during an application period which is usually in October-November only). DOS does not send emails to applicants. 

On or after May 1st, you can visit the Department of State website to verify if you are actually a winner in the DV lottery. 

If need help, consult a licensed attorney (not one of the "green card lottery" websites).

**INS doesn't exist. It's been replaced by DHS and USCIS**.

To this day, some local businesses, websites, "notarios"  and individuals make reference to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This agency no longer exists! 

If someone refers to USCIS as "INS", it's a sign that they are not an attorney, but rather someone unqualified with little knowledge in immigration matters.

INS was dismantled on March 1, 2003, and most of its functions were transferred from the Department of Justice to three new components within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the component that grants immigration benefits. The other two components are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

All official correspondence regarding your immigration case will come from USCIS. USCIS will communicate with you and your attorney by mail, by mailing you notices, approved work permit and green card through USPS (postal service).

If you need a legal assistance, we will be glad to help. Our contact information is here.

Read here. 

Applicants from all over the world who registered for the DV-2016 program were selected at random from 11,391,134 qualified entries (17,573,350 with derivatives) received during the application period that ran from noon, Eastern Daylight Time on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 until noon, Eastern Daylight Time on Monday, November 3, 2014. 

The visas have been apportioned among six geographic regions with a maximum of seven percent available to persons born in any single country. 

The Kentucky Consular Center registered and notified the winners of the DV-2016 diversity lottery. Approximately 91,563 applicants have been registered and notified and may now make an application for an immigrant visa (so called"selectees" or "winners"). Some of the first *50,000 persons registered will not pursue their cases to visa issuance, this larger number (91,563 selectees) should insure that all DV-2016 numbers will be used during fiscal year 2016 (October 1, 2015 until September 30, 2016).

During the visa interview, principal applicants must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent, or show two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience within the past five years. Those selected will need to act on their immigrant visa applications quickly. Applicants should follow the instructions in their notification letter and must fully complete the information requested. 

Registrants living legally in the United States who wish to apply for adjustment of status instead of consular processing of their visas, must apply through USCIS Department of Homeland Security (** Please note that you have to be eligible for adjustment of status. Therefore, if you were selected as a winner in the Green Card lottery and you live in the United States, it's advisable to consult an experienced attorney before applying for your green card). 

Once the total *50,000 visa numbers have been used, the program for fiscal year 2016 will end. Selected applicants (aka "selectees" or "winners") who do not receive visas by September 30, 2016 will derive no further benefit from their DV-2016 registration. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2016 principal applicants are only entitled to derivative diversity visa status until September 30, 2016.

Section 203(c) of the INA provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit additional immigration opportunities for persons from countries with low admissions during the previous five years. The NACARA stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This resulted in reduction of the DV-2015 annual limit to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions.  No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.

P.S. Our office would be happy to assist you with your DV visa application or adjustment of status should you be selected as a winner. Please email us to schedule a phone or Skype consultation. Please remember that a visa must be issued prior to September 30th of the current fiscal year (09-30-2016 for DV-2016 winners). No visas will be issued after this date. If selected as a winner you should act fast and submit your applications and required documents in a timely matter. Assistance of a qualified and experienced immigration attorney would be of great help to many. 

The following is the statistical breakdown by foreign-state chargeability of those registered for the DV-2016 program: 

AFRICA

ALGERIA  1,952

ETHIOPIA  4,000

NIGER  102

ANGOLA  108

GABON  32

RWANDA  412

BENIN  914

GAMBIA, THE  67

SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE  2

BOTSWANA  4

GHANA  3,179

SENEGAL  427

BURKINA FASO  199

GUINEA  1,818

SEYCHELLES  0

BURUNDI  208

GUINEA-BISSAU  4

SIERRA LEONE  2,141

CABO VERDE  6

KENYA  2,729

SOMALIA  272

CAMEROON  3,047

LESOTHO  5

SOUTH AFRICA  535

CENTRAL AFRICAN REP.  23

LIBERIA  4,430

SOUTH SUDAN  17

CHAD  40

LIBYA  240

SUDAN  3,216

COMOROS  3

MADAGASCAR  75

SWAZILAND  7

CONGO  124

MALAWI  17

TANZANIA  93

CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE  4,475

MALI  114

TOGO  1,241

COTE D’IVOIRE  1,129

MAURITANIA  15

TUNISIA  227

DJIBOUTI  92

MAURITIUS  41

UGANDA  453

EGYPT  4,024

MOROCCO  1,993

ZAMBIA  57

EQUATORIAL GUINEA  0

MOZAMBIQUE  11

ZIMBABWE  152

ERITREA  544

NAMIBIA  18

ASIA

AFGHANISTAN  406

JAPAN  302

QATAR  42

BAHRAIN  13

JORDAN  349

SAUDI ARABIA  267

BHUTAN  22

NORTH KOREA  0

SINGAPORE  39

BRUNEI  1 

KUWAIT  143

SRI LANKA  704

BURMA  236

LAOS  1

SYRIA  460

CAMBODIA  1,229

LEBANON  225

TAIWAN  297

HONG KONG SPECIAL
ADMIN. REGION  151

MALAYSIA  95

THAILAND  73

INDONESIA  126

MALDIVES  3

TIMOR-LESTE  0

IRAN  4,501

MONGOLIA  185

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  103

IRAQ  330

NEPAL  3,801

YEMEN  724

ISRAEL  162

OMAN  12

EUROPE

ALBANIA  1,931

GREECE  93

NORWAY  35

ANDORRA  0

HUNGARY  186

POLAND  629

ARMENIA  1,277

ICELAND  3

PORTUGAL  58

AUSTRIA  50

IRELAND  89

  Macau  23

AZERBAIJAN  380

ITALY  410

ROMANIA  626 

BELARUS  811

KAZAKHSTAN  376

RUSSIA  2,200

BELGIUM  47

KOSOVO  244

SAN MARINO  0

BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA  92

KYRGYZSTAN  209

SERBIA  283

BULGARIA  865

LATVIA  73

SLOVAKIA  70

CROATIA  67

LIECHTENSTEIN  0

SLOVENIA  33

CYPRUS  28

LITHUANIA  153

SPAIN  193

CZECH REPUBLIC  74

LUXEMBOURG  0

SWEDEN  108

DENMARK  35

MACEDONIA  258

SWITZERLAND  122

ESTONIA  40

MALTA  0

TAJIKISTAN  337

FINLAND  57

MOLDOVA  1,854

TURKEY  1,795

FRANCE  510

MONACO  0

TURKMENISTAN  124

  French Polynesia  1

MONTENEGRO  8

UKRAINE  4,507

  Saint Martin  1

NETHERLANDS  81

UZBEKISTAN  4,300

  Wallis and Futuna  1

  Aruba  4

VATICAN CITY  0

GEORGIA  571

  Curacao  2

GERMANY  678

NORTHERN IRELAND  9

NORTH AMERICA

BAHAMAS, THE  16

OCEANIA

AUSTRALIA  832

NAURU  12

SAMOA  5

  Cocos Islands  1

NEW ZEALAND  208

SOLOMON ISLANDS  0

FIJI  393

  Cook Islands  4

TONGA  26

KIRIBATI  4

PALAU  4

TUVALU  0

MARSHALL ISLANDS  0

PAPUA NEW GUINEA  3

VANUATU  5

MICRONESIA, FEDERATED STATES OF  3

SOUTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA  0

DOMINICA  6

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS  2

ARGENTINA  68

GRENADA  7

SAINT LUCIA  5

BARBADOS  0

GUATEMALA  31

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES  7

BELIZE  0

GUYANA  14

SURINAME  3

BOLIVIA  49

HONDURAS  73

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  51

CHILE  17

NICARAGUA  58

URUGUAY  21

COSTA RICA  50

PANAMA  5

VENEZUELA  1,038

CUBA  1,488

PARAGUAY  7

P.S. Natives of the following countries were not eligible to participate in DV-2016: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born, excluding Hong Kong S.A.R., Macau S.A.R., and Taiwan), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. 

Our office would be happy to assist you with your DV visa application or adjustment of status should you be selected as a winner. Please email us to schedule a phone or Skype consultation. Please remember that a visa must be issued prior to September 30th of the current fiscal year (09-30-2016 for DV-2016 winners). No visas will be issued after this date. If selected as a winner you should act fast and submit your applications and required documents in a timely matter. Assistance of a qualified and experienced immigration attorney would be of great help to many. 

USCIS launched a new interactive webportal myUSCIS. 

See at: https://my.uscis.gov/

USCIS recently introduced another useful webportal, where customers can submit e-request to ask questions about a pending case, report non-delivery of a document (work permit, green card, etc) or official letter (Receipt or Approval Notice, Form I-797), request certain accommodations. I found it to be a very useful tool.

See at: https://egov.uscis.gov/e-Request/Intro.do?locale=en_US

DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP CHARTS: 

How children born abroad to a US citizen mother or father acquire or derive US citizenship through their parents, their mother or father. How children used to derive US citizenship under the old laws (which is still relevant because it applies to those children who were born during those timeframes). 


Please see charts on acquisition/derivation of citizenship here: http://www.ilrc.org/resources/naturalization-quick-reference-charts