All posts by Cheng, Cho, & Yee, Immigration Lawyers

What to Expect at Your Naturalization Oath Ceremony

At the Naturalization Oath Ceremony, immigrants who have received approval for their Application for Naturalization (Form N-400), taken an English and Civics test, and passed their citizenship interview will recite the Oath of Allegiance before a USCIS official to become American citizens. After taking the oath, people will receive the Certificate of Naturalization, which serves as proof of U.S. citizenship.

What Is a Naturalization Oath Ceremony?

The Naturalization oath ceremony is the final step in becoming a U.S. citizen. A tradition that dates back to the 18th century, attending this formal ceremony and reciting the Oath of Allegiance is mandatory for all naturalization applicants.

Where and When Does the Citizenship Ceremony Take Place?

Depending on the schedule for the individual’s district, the ceremony could take place anywhere from the same day as the interview to several months later.

The ceremony can take place in a courtroom or a smaller room in a state or federal building, or in a convention center or stadium. On some occasions, these ceremonies take place at historical landmarks such as the U.S.S. Constitution. Regardless of where the ceremony occurs, wearing the appropriate attire is advised, including suits, dresses, or other formal wear.

Citizenship applicants are required to attend the ceremony unless they request to reschedule and provide a specific reason for their inability to attend. Arriving about an hour before the ceremony is advised. This gives applicants ample time to check in with a USCIS officer who will ensure eligibility and collect all required documents.

Documents Required for the Ceremony

Form N-445, Notice of Naturalization Oath Ceremony will provide immigrants with a list of what to bring to the ceremony. The list may include:

After taking the Oath of Allegiance, the person will receive his or her Certificate of Naturalization. The certificate serves as proof of United States Citizenship.  If the individual has chosen to undergo a name change, the new name will appear on the naturalization certificate.  Once received, individuals can use this certificate to vote in local, state, and national elections and apply for U.S. passports, driver’s licenses and social security cards.

Here’s What the Trump Administration Has in Store for Immigration

The Trump administration plans to establish far-reaching immigration regulations that could have a major impact on international students, employers, L-1 and H-1B visa holders, asylum seekers, and EB-5 investors. Details about the plans are available to the public in the Unified Agenda for the Department of Homeland Security.

How New Regulations Could Impact H-1B Visas

Under the Trump administration, there has already been an increase in denial rates for H-1B petitions. The proposed changes would present even more challenges for foreign nationals and employers. Under the new rule, the definition of “specialty occupation” would be revised to “focus on obtaining the best and brightest foreign nationals via the H-1B program.” The definitions of “employment” and “employer-employee relationship” would also be revised to strengthen worker protections. The Department of Homeland Security would propose additional requirements to ensure appropriate wages are paid to H-1B visa holders.

The rule may also defend the administration against lawsuits from organizations arguing that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act by avoiding the rulemaking process when performing certain actions on H-1B petitions.

New Rule for L-1 Visas

The USCIS also plans to add further restrictions to the L-1 visa, even though the Trump administration has already made it difficult for L-1 visa applicants to receive approval at American consulates in India and China when moving employees to the United States. Denial rates are extraordinarily high for L-1B petitions, which are used for employees who have what is considered “specialized knowledge.”

Rules for International Students, Unlawful Presence, and OPT

The Trump administration’s new regulations are likely to keep international students from seeking education in the U.S. The administration plans to continue to focus on Optional Practical Training. The OPT program enables international students to work for a year after graduating. Graduates in technology, math (STEM), engineering, and science fields are allowed an additional 24 months.

USCIS also plans to propose another rule, “Enhancing the Integrity of the Unlawful Presence Inadmissibility Provisions,” which is likely a response to the U.S. District Court blocking USCIS policy memos in 2018 that could bar international students unknowingly violating their immigration status from entering the U.S. for 10 years.

Deciding the Fate of DACA

A Supreme Court ruling that will decide the fate of DACA is likely to come late this spring. On November 12, the Supreme Court seemed in favor of the Trump administration’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which has enabled almost 700,000 undocumented children and young adults to live and work in the U.S. without fearing deportation.

Over the course of an 80-minute exchange in the Supreme Court with some threatened immigrants in attendance, multiple conservative justices argued in favor of the Department of Homeland Security’s reasons for the decision to cease the DACA program. While he acknowledged the impact the decision would have on immigrants based on the “sympathetic facts” of the case, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that the justices also considered how ending the DACA would affect communities and employers.

Questioning the Legality of DACA

When it came to voting on the decision to end DACA, the court’s four liberal justices made the argument that the program’s fate should ride on the Trump administration’s controversial claim that DACA was illegal.

Chief Justice John Roberts’s vote appeared to be the most influential. Prior to the DACA hearing, Roberts voted in June with the four liberal justices to vote “no” on the administration’s desire to include a new citizenship question on the 2020 census. However, Roberts said that the attorney general may be right in declaring the DACA illegal following a connected U.S. Court of Appeals ruling for the 5th Circuit, which the Supreme Court upheld after a 4-4 vote three years earlier in 2016.

The Supreme Court won’t likely make a ruling until this spring as the 2020 presidential election campaign continues. However, even if the court decides to end DACA, a majority of recipients will still remain protected for the two-year period until January 2021, when either President Donald Trump or a new Democratic candidate is in office.

There’s no question that the Trump administration has the ability to rescind the program, but the purpose of the November hearing was to determine if the reasons for ending DACA were valid. While some conservatives had questions for U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco regarding the administration’s considerations for current DACA recipients and others the program affects, the liberal justices expressed a desire to rule against the administration.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was particularly vocal regarding the decision, stating that “this is not about the law. This is about our choice to destroy lives.”

Conflicting Administrations

The Obama administration started DACA in 2012 following faltering negotiations with Congress to create citizenship. President Barack Obama wanted to provide extending protections to over 4 million undocumented parents of legal permanent residents or citizens, but the federal courts decided against the motion.

With the establishment of the Trump administration, Texas threatened to sue regarding DACA if the program didn’t end. Following the removal of the program from Texas by the Department of Homeland Security, several states from New York to California filed lawsuits, followed by two federal judges’ decision to block the ending of the program nationally.

If individuals want to qualify for DACA every two years, the recipient must either be a student, high school graduate, or serve or have served with an honorable discharge from the military. Individuals convicted of significant misdemeanors, felonies, or more than three lesser crimes are don’t qualify for DACA.

On behalf of these recipients, civil rights organizations and immigration groups, along with groups representing educators, labor unions, big business, law enforcement, religious institutions, and national security groups, collectively submitted almost three dozen legal briefs.

President Trump also represented a post-facto justification for the ending of DACA by tweeting that many who are protected under DACA are hardened criminals, which is a reversal of his previously expressed sentiments regarding DREAMers, which were complimentary and supported protecting these recipients. 

Why the Case Matters

Apart from maintaining the benefits that DACA provides to DREAMers, there are several other reasons why this case is important.

  • It’s representative of a significant conflict between the legislative and executive branches of government.
  • It forwards the Trump administration’s continued dismantling of Obama administration-era policies.
  • It serves as the third significant Supreme Court battle around immigration in which the current administration has changed justifications for its decisions and motions, following the travel ban put in place against multiple majority-Muslim countries and the introduction of the new 2020 census question regarding immigration.
  • The Trump administration’s win in the court could culminate in continued negotiations with Congress to increase funding for the border wall as a favor for extending the DACA program. DACA would then become a major issue in the 2020 presidential election.

Ultimately, ending DACA could present certain hardships for younger immigrants who are otherwise eligible to live and work in the U.S. 

Understanding the Legal Responsibilities of Immigrant Sponsors

Significant financial responsibilities come with immigrant sponsorship if immigrants are unable to support themselves. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) highlights these responsibilities, which could influence immigrants’ ability to obtain citizenship. The USCIS Presidential Memorandum regarding Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens in May 2019 states the specific requirements that apply to individuals who have sponsored or will sponsor immigrants, and those who plan to make assets or income available in an effort to help sponsor an immigrant.

Since 1997, the U.S. has required immigrant sponsors to file and sign an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act that pledges financial support for immigrants who are sponsored. In the process of signing and submitting either the affidavit or a binding Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member, sponsors are agreeing to utilize finances to support the sponsees appearing on the forms and to cover the cost of means-tested public benefits that sponsees receive when legal agreements are in effect.

Immigrant sponsors may file one of the following affidavits or contracts:

  • Form I-864: Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA
  • Form I-864EZ: Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act
  • Form I-864A: Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member

Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors to Reimburse Public Benefits

Occasionally, sponsored immigrants will apply for and receive what are referred to as means-tested public benefits from tribal, local, state, or federal agencies. These benefits can include Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, and the State Child Health Insurance Program.

In some cases, sponsees will be ineligible for some means-tested public benefits once the agency assesses all assets and resources, along with those of household members, when determining the immigrant’s eligibility through a process known as “income deeming.”

Immigrant sponsors may be responsible for reimbursing these means-tested public benefits if an immigrant appearing on the affidavit receives the benefits when the affidavit is in effect. If the sponsor fails to reimburse the agency, that agency may be able to obtain a court order to ensure that the sponsor repays.

This makes it necessary for immigrant sponsors to make sure that they can reimburse any means-tested public benefits that sponsees receive prior to filing an affidavit or contract. Otherwise, sponsors may face legal repercussions that could, in turn, affect the sponsored immigrants’ ability to obtain citizenship in the U.S. 

Do You Want to Become an Immigrant Investor in the US?

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a final rule regarding changes to the EB-5 Immigration Investor Program that applies to immigrants who want to become U.S. investors. The rule became effective on November 21, 2019.

What Is the EB-5 Immigration Investor Program?

The EB-5 program allows individuals to apply for conditional lawful permanent residence within the United States if they make a qualifying investment in a U.S. commercial enterprise and either preserve or create 10 permanent full-time jobs for U.S. workers who are also qualified.

As of November, USCIS made changes to this program, including:

Increased Minimum Investment Amounts

The USCIS’s final rule for the EB-5 program raised the standard minimum investment level from $1 million to $1.8 million to account for inflation, which is the first time it’s seen an increase since 1990. This rule also maintains a 50% minimum investment differential between a targeted employment area (TEA) and non-TEA, increasing the TEA amount from $500,000 to $900,000. Subsequently, the minimum investment amount will further adjust for inflation once every five years.

TEA Designation Reform

The final rule also outlined certain changes to the EB-5 to cover the gerrymandering of areas with high unemployment, i.e. manipulating electoral constituency boundaries. Historically, gerrymandering of these areas was achieved by merging a number of census tracts in the attempt to link prosperous project locations to less prosperous communities in order to achieve the qualifying average unemployment rate. The rule would ensure that the Department of Human Services (DHS) would directly make TEA designations to help maintain fairness and consistency.

Detailed Procedures for Removing Permanent Residence Conditions

The final rule also revised regulations to clarify that derivative family members who are also lawful permanent residents are required to independently file to remove permanent residence conditions. This requirement isn’t applicable to family members who appear in a principal investor’s petition for the removal of conditions.

Enabling Petitioners to Maintain the Priority Date

The final rule grants more flexibility for immigrant investors with an EB-5 immigrant petition that’s already been approved. When filing a new petition, these individuals will now be able to keep the priority date of the previous petition with a few exceptions.

Individuals interested in becoming immigrant investors in the U.S. can visit the USCIS website to learn more about the changes that the new EB-5 final rule will bring.