A legal battle over a U.S. citizenship application has drawn attention after a law firm claimed that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is seeking to deny an applicant’s naturalization because he sent LinkedIn connection requests to agency officials.
The issue came to light after the law firm shared a post on X, describing what it called an unusual basis for questioning an applicant’s good moral character.
“Wow. @USCIS thinks a @LinkedIn follow request to its employees reveals a ‘lack of judgment’ and ‘reflects adversely on [] good moral character.’ It now wants to deny naturalization because an applicant sent a LinkedIn follow request so @USCIS could have access to his full profile. There is no accusation of actual contact, just a request to follow. Discovery in this case will be fun.”
The post included what appears to be an excerpt from a USCIS notice outlining why the agency believes the applicant’s actions are relevant to the good moral character requirement for naturalization.
According to the document, USCIS relied on the catchall provision under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the agency to consider conduct beyond the specific categories listed in the statute when assessing an applicant’s character.
“INA § 101(f) contains a catchall clause stating: ‘The fact that any person is not within any of the foregoing classes shall not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral character.’
“Here the record contains conduct that is relevant to your good moral character despite not being enumerated at INA § 101(f). During the pendency of your application, you attempted to initiate contact with the USCIS San Jose Field Office Director, [Redacted], and the USCIS San Francisco District Director, [Redacted], through a personal social media platform (LinkedIn). At your interview, you testified that you requested to follow and connect with USCIS staff members so that they could ‘have access to who you are as a person.’
“This conduct is inconsistent with appropriate professional boundaries between applicants and USCIS personnel, reflects a disregard for official channels of communication with the agency, and raises concerns about potentially threatening, coercive, or improperly influential behavior toward USCIS staff. DHS personnel do face threats and intimidation, and your lack of judgment in this regard reflects adversely on your good moral character.”
According to the agency’s explanation, the LinkedIn requests were viewed as an attempt to contact USCIS personnel outside established communication channels. USCIS argued that the conduct raised concerns about professional boundaries and could be perceived as an attempt to improperly influence agency employees, although the document does not allege any direct communication beyond the connection requests.
The litigation is expected to test the scope of USCIS’ discretion in interpreting the good moral character requirement under federal immigration law.
Reviewing the case, Richard T. Herman, an immigration attorney with more than three decades of experience and founder of Herman Legal Group, shared his views exclusively with The American Bazaar.
“DHS officers must be protected from threats and improper influence. But a LinkedIn follow request, by itself, is not a threat, coercion, harassment, or bad moral character.”
Herman argued that merely using a professional networking platform should not be treated as evidence against a citizenship applicant.
“If USCIS officials maintain public LinkedIn profiles, ordinary use of that platform cannot fairly become a citizenship trap. ‘Lack of judgment’ needs facts, not speculation.
USCIS’s own policy measures good moral character against the standards of average citizens. Even under the August 2025 memo’s broader, holistic review, the agency still needs facts showing morally meaningful misconduct. “Lack of judgment” cannot become a vague catch-all for speculation.
If there is evidence of threats, pressure, or improper influence, that is different. But converting normal online networking into a citizenship-disqualifying character finding is arbitrary, constitutionally suspect, and highly vulnerable to challenge in federal court.”