On August 15, 2025, USCIS issued a policy memorandum revising the framework for evaluating good moral character (GMC) in naturalization cases. The memorandum directs officers to apply a holistic, totality of circumstances approach, replacing the more limited checklist-style method used in recent years. Under the updated guidance, adjudicators are instructed to consider both statutory disqualifications and affirmative evidence of positive contributions or rehabilitation when determining whether an applicant meets the GMC requirement.
Background to the Changes
GMC determinations are grounded in INA §316(a)(3) and §101(f), reinforced by case law confirming that statutory bars are not exhaustive. Permanent bars such as murder and aggravated felonies remain absolute and cannot be overcome through rehabilitation. Conditional bars, including controlled substance violations, multiple DUI convictions, or false claims to U.S. citizenship, may be rebutted with evidence of reform.
Historically, pre-1990 practice allowed officers broad discretion to weigh rehabilitative and positive evidence. Subsequent legislation, such as the Immigration Act of 1990 and IIRIRA, narrowed that discretion by expanding fixed statutory bars. The restrictive 2019 USCIS memorandum further reduced officer latitude. The August 2025 memorandum explicitly rescinds that 2019 policy, restoring a broader framework in which officers may consider both adverse conduct and affirmative contributions.
The Totality of Circumstances Standard
Under the revised framework, officers must weigh the whole record of an applicant’s life, including conduct during the statutory period (typically three or five years) and beyond. The standard of proof remains “preponderance of the evidence,” requiring applicants to show it is more likely than not that they meet the GMC requirement. Importantly, the agency clarifies that GMC is not simply the absence of statutory violations but an affirmative demonstration of a character “commensurate with the standards of average citizens.”
A key concern is the introduction of significant subjectivity risks. Officers are now directed to evaluate conduct that, while lawful, may still be deemed inconsistent with civic responsibility. This creates potential for uneven adjudications across field offices, as the policy lacks precise boundaries. Applicants with similar records could face different outcomes depending on local interpretation, raising questions of fairness and consistency.
Positive Contributions
The memorandum directs adjudicators to give explicit weight to positive moral indicators. Examples include sustained community involvement, caregiving responsibilities, educational and employment achievements, compliance with taxes and financial obligations, and long-term lawful residence in the United States.
This shift means applicants may increasingly need to submit supporting evidence such as reference letters from community organizations, volunteer certifications, tax compliance records, or employment documentation, rather than relying solely on a clean criminal record.
Scrutiny of Negative Conduct
While statutory and conditional bars continue to apply, the policy broadens the inquiry to encompass lawful but socially undesirable conduct. Officers may find GMC lacking for repeated reckless traffic violations, harassment, aggressive solicitation, or similar behaviors that suggest disregard for civic norms.
This discretionary expansion blurs the line between legality and morality, potentially increasing denials where applicants have technically lawful but disfavored conduct. It underscores the need for applicants and counsel to prepare a strong evidentiary record to balance any concerns raised during the interview process.
Rehabilitation and Reformation
The guidance re-emphasizes the possibility of overcoming conditional bars through rehabilitation. Applicants may demonstrate compliance with court-ordered obligations, repayment of debts or benefits, rectification of unpaid child support, or credible testimony attesting to reform. Active efforts such as mentoring or community service may also support a favorable finding.
It is critical to note that permanent statutory bars cannot be overcome through rehabilitation. Murder, aggravated felonies, torture, and other absolute disqualifiers remain permanent obstacles to naturalization.
Strategic Implications
Previously, applicants without disqualifying history could expect the GMC requirement to be satisfied with minimal inquiry. That presumption no longer applies. Officers are instructed to look affirmatively for positive attributes while also scrutinizing lawful but questionable conduct.
For applicants, the burden of proof has effectively shifted upward, requiring evidence of civic engagement, employment, educational progress, family responsibilities and financial compliance at the outset to help prevent delays or Requests for Evidence.
The discretionary expansion into “lawful but undesirable” conduct presents litigation risks. Terms like “reckless traffic violations” or “inconsistent with civic responsibility” are vague and open to interpretation.
Applicants should also expect their social media and online presence to come under review, requiring an audit of their digital footprint for material that could be misinterpreted as inconsistent with GMC.
Naturalization cases will become more resource-intensive, with longer interviews and higher potential denial rates. Appeals will play an increasing role. Denied applicants may file a Form N-336 for administrative appeal before seeking judicial review in federal district court. However, it is important to recognize that courts often defer to USCIS discretion. Litigation may succeed only where agency decisions are arbitrary or legally unsupported, meaning expectations for court relief must be tempered.
Need assistance?
Applicants for naturalization should anticipate longer adjudication times, deeper questioning and potentially higher denial rates under the new framework. While the policy may face court challenges, its immediate impact is clear: applicants must not only avoid statutory disqualifications but also present affirmative evidence of positive contributions and rehabilitation.
For specialist support with preparing your naturalization application and evidentiary records, contact us.
Author
Founder & Principal Attorney Nita Nicole Upadhye is a recognized leader in the field of US business immigration law, (The Legal 500, Chambers & Partners, Who's Who Legal and AILA) and an experienced and trusted advisor to large multinational corporates through to SMEs. She provides strategic immigration advice and specialist application support to corporations and professionals, entrepreneurs, investors, artists, actors and athletes from across the globe to meet their US-bound talent mobility needs.
Nita is an active public speaker, thought leader, immigration commentator, and immigration policy contributor and regularly hosts training sessions for employers and HR professionals.