August 19, 2025
A new policy memorandum from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), issued on August 15, 2025, is being presented as a move towards a more reasonable and holistic evaluation of "Good Moral Character" (GMC) for naturalization applicants. The memo, titled "Restoring a Good Moral Character Evaluation Standard for Aliens Applying for Naturalization," rescinds a more restrictive 2019 policy and claims to restore a "totality of the circumstances" approach.
On the surface, this sounds like a positive development. However, a meticulous reading of the policy reveals language that should give every potential applicant, and every immigration lawyer, serious pause. The critical question is how this new guidance will be implemented in practice. While it purports to offer flexibility, it simultaneously introduces a standard that could be interpreted as more demanding, more subjective, and potentially more perilous for those seeking U.S. citizenship. The policy, as written, may not be the restoration it claims to be, but rather a subtle raising of the bar under the guise of discretion.
The New Affirmative Burden: Proving Your Goodness
One of the most significant and potentially transformative elements of this new policy is its apparent redefinition of what constitutes good moral character. For years, the standard was largely understood in the negative: if an applicant did not have disqualifying marks on their record, they were generally considered to possess GMC. The new memo seems to challenge this long-standing assumption.
The policy states:
"Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character... An alien must demonstrate that their conduct and behavior reflect the values and standards of the community in which they reside."
If implemented strictly, this could represent a profound shift. The burden would no longer simply be to show that you have a clean record; the burden would now be on you to affirmatively prove your worthiness. The policy's clarification that adjudicators must conduct a "positive assessment of the applicant's character" suggests that a person who has lived a quiet, law-abiding life but has not been actively engaged in community activities could, in theory, be found lacking. The clean slate, once a safe harbor, could now be interpreted as a blank slate—and that may no longer be sufficient.
The Danger of Vague Standards: "Contrary to the Average Behavior"
Perhaps the most alarming section of the new policy, depending on its implementation, is its expansion of what an adjudicator can consider as negative evidence. The text appears to empower officers to look beyond the established statutory bars to GMC and delve into an applicant's entire life, potentially scrutinizing lawful conduct through a highly subjective lens.
The memo grants adjudicators the discretion to consider:
"Any other acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside. These could be actions that, while technically lawful, may be inconsistent with civic responsibility within the community, such as reckless or habitual traffic infractions, or harassment or aggressive solicitation."
This language could open a Pandora's box of ambiguity. What, precisely, is the "average behavior of citizens"? Is it the same in a small town in the Midwest as it is in New York City? This is not a legal standard defined by statute or regulation; it is a sociological concept that could be left entirely to the personal interpretation of a USCIS officer.
The memo continues:
"In assessing acts that are unlawful or contrary to the average behavior of citizens... USCIS will review all available documentation and question aliens seeking naturalization regarding the specific circumstances of their actions to determine if a particular situation or act should bar an alien from naturalization."
Consider the potential implications. A history of traffic tickets, which previously might have been a minor footnote in an application, could now, in a worst-case scenario, be bundled together and characterized as "habitual" and "reckless," forming the basis for a denial. A neighborhood dispute, a contentious online debate, or any number of perfectly legal activities could potentially be framed as "harassment" or "contrary to average behavior" by an officer inclined to do so. The text, as written, could open the door to a level of scrutiny that is deeply concerning, allowing for denials based not on unlawful acts, but on an officer's subjective assessment of an applicant's lifestyle and personality.
Practical Steps in an Uncertain Landscape
Given this uncertainty, how should a prospective applicant prepare? A prudent strategy would be one of proactive documentation. The goal is to build a case that is so strong that it minimizes the potential for negative subjective interpretation by an adjudicator.
-
Construct a Portfolio of Virtue: It may no longer be enough to submit the N-400 and supporting documents. Applicants should now consider compiling a comprehensive "Good Moral Character" portfolio. This should include letters of support from a wide range of sources: employers (past and present), landlords, neighbors, religious leaders, and leaders of any community or volunteer organizations you are part of. Evidence of consistent, on-time tax payments, financial support for your family, and any and all civic engagement should be meticulously documented.
-
Anticipate and Address the Negatives: It would be wise to review your entire history with a critical eye. Pull your complete driving record. Think about any civil disputes, arguments with neighbors, or any situation that could be twisted into a negative narrative. For each of these, you should prepare a clear, concise, and remorseful explanation. If you have a history of speeding, for example, it would be wise to include a certificate from a defensive driving course. The key is to demonstrate self-awareness and rehabilitation before you are even asked.
-
The Personal Statement May Now Be Essential: Based on how the policy is implemented, a detailed personal statement may now be considered a highly advisable, if not mandatory, part of any naturalization application. This is your primary tool to control the narrative. It allows you to frame your life story, highlight your contributions to your community, express your commitment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, and provide context for any potential issues in your record.
Naturalizations: A Higher, More Arbitrary Standard?
While the new USCIS policy is framed as a restoration of discretion, the text itself seems to create a discretion that could be weighted against the applicant. It allows for a higher, more ambiguous standard of proof and invites a level of subjective judgment that could lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decisions.
We must hope that in practice, USCIS adjudicators will apply this guidance with reason and restraint. However, the policy as written is a cause for grave concern because it creates the potential for a system where an applicant's fate could hinge not on their adherence to the law, but on an officer's personal opinion of their lifestyle. The actual impact of this memorandum will only become clear as we see how it is applied in individual cases. For now, navigating the path to citizenship, always a complex journey, requires an even greater level of preparation for the demanding and uncertain road that may lie ahead. It may now require not just a clean record, but the active and meticulous construction of a case that proves you are, in the subjective eyes of the government, worthy.