With stricter rules on “Good Moral Character,” applying for naturalization is now beginning to read more like a marriage proposal to America than a legal document
“Must be law-abiding, financially responsible, tax-paying, and community-minded. Bonus points for volunteering, caregiving, advanced degrees, and steady employment. Should be ready to prove commitment, integration, and devotion.”
If you thought these criteria belonged in a matrimonial ad, you wouldn’t be far off. But here’s the twist – similar benchmarks are now required if you want to pursue not your “dream partner” but American citizenship.
On August 15, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memo calling for a more holistic assessment of an applicant’s “good moral character.”
The policy memorandum states: “Evaluating aliens seeking to become naturalized is the most sacred and profound responsibility that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is charged with performing. Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen means being an active and responsible member of society instead of just having a right to live and work in the United States. Among other eligibility factors, aliens applying for naturalization must demonstrate that he or she has been and continues to be an individual of good moral character (GMC). Evaluating GMC involves more than a cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing. It entails a holistic assessment of an alien’s behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character.”
READ: USCIS expands ‘Good Moral Character’ review in citizenship applications (August 18, 2025)
The new assessment standards immediately sparked buzz and surprise in immigration circles. Many observed that the revised focus on “Good Moral Character” goes far beyond the previous expectation of simply avoiding obvious red flags—such as criminal records or unpaid taxes. According to experts, the change reflects a broader shift: a full review of an applicant’s conduct, designed to ensure that a prospective citizen goes above and beyond in proving they embody the qualities America deems worthy of citizenship.
Seattle attorney Kripa Upadhyay, co-chair of Buchalter’s Immigration & Global Mobility Practice, explains, “Statutorily, a USCIS officer is allowed to deny an application for causes such as criminal convictions or civil infractions that suggest a lack of ‘Good Moral Character.’” However, she adds, “Under the new rules, USCIS will now apply a totality-of-circumstances approach. Going forward, officers must consider an applicant’s positive attributes—not merely the absence of misconduct.”
Many permanent residents waiting to begin their citizenship journey say this policy shift represents a fundamental change, moving from a simple checklist of disqualifiers to a broader assessment of an applicant’s overall character.
Experts warn that the expanded notion of “moral character” introduces ambiguity, allowing for subjective interpretation and moving the process further from well-defined criteria for citizenship. Anil Can Cetinkaya, an attorney at Akcok Law Office, a California firm specializing in immigration and civil litigation, notes, “The new policy is going to make things much more unpredictable for most people. A DUI may not be a problem for one officer, while it can be a huge red flag for another. A series of traffic infractions may not matter to most officers but could be grounds for denial for someone else.”
Highlighting what she calls the practical absurdities of the new USCIS rules, Aditi Paul, founder of , Dr. Paul & Company, a New York-based mentorship network that helps immigrants pursue talent-based pathways to U.S. residency, says, “As I dug into the new USCIS guidance on ‘good moral character,’ one line struck me as particularly preposterous: ‘Any other acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside.’ The notion of judging immigrants by the ‘average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction’ is, frankly, an absurd standard.”
Undeniably, the shift raises the stakes for millions of immigrants, leaving many to wonder which “virtues” now count as positive factors and what evidence applicants should present. As naturalization increasingly resembles a judgment of character rather than a straightforward legal step, Kripa Upadhyay notes:
“This also opens a plethora of questions, such as—what happens if your chosen community involvement is for a cause this particular officer does not agree with? Or what type of job is considered ‘stable’ in this age of the gig economy? Also, what about people with physical and other challenges who may not have attained higher education but hold a stable job or show ‘active’ participation in community organizations?”
In a climate where immigration hurdles are already mounting, the change is both sobering and revealing. Upadhyay adds, “It will almost assuredly result in even bigger backlogs at already overwhelmed federal courts.”