Recent developments suggest that the interpretation of “Good Moral Character” (GMC) in U.S. naturalization cases may be becoming increasingly strict.
During the second Trump administration, reports indicate that the government has filed 16 denaturalization cases, winning 7 of them. One widely cited example involved a British-born individual who was convicted of offenses related to child exploitation.
While denaturalization has historically been rare, these actions signal that the government continues to closely scrutinize citizenship grants — particularly in cases involving serious criminal conduct or alleged misrepresentation.
Under U.S. immigration law, applicants for naturalization must demonstrate “Good Moral Character” for a specified statutory period — typically five years (or three years in certain marriage-based cases).
However, the law does not provide a simple checklist.
Instead, immigration officers evaluate the totality of the applicant’s conduct, including:
According to Deborah Chen, an attorney with a New York legal aid organization, some applicants have reportedly been denied naturalization due to unresolved tax issues — even where repayment plans were in place.
While serious criminal convictions clearly affect eligibility, the broader concern is that non-criminal factors may also receive heightened scrutiny.
Applicants may now be expected to provide stronger evidence of:
This suggests a shift toward requiring not only the absence of wrongdoing, but affirmative evidence of positive character.
Naturalization is a discretionary benefit. Even if an applicant meets the basic statutory requirements, USCIS officers have authority to examine the applicant’s overall conduct.
In today’s environment, applicants should be prepared to:
Transparency and preparation are critical.
Denaturalization cases generally involve:
While such cases remain relatively rare, recent enforcement actions demonstrate that citizenship grants may be revisited in extreme circumstances.
The concept of “Good Moral Character” is not static. Its interpretation can evolve based on policy priorities and enforcement practices.
Applicants for naturalization should approach the process carefully, with full awareness that:
Given heightened scrutiny, legal guidance may be particularly important for applicants with prior legal, financial, or immigration complications.
"I personally was recommended to Sanford Perliss. My situation was dire. After our first meeting I Immediately felt relieved, I knew I was in good hands. He handled the case diligently and with the utmost professionalism. I don't know where I would be without the help of this man. Thank you Sandy, I will recommend you to anybody I know."
"I can’t thank Perliss Law Firm enough for their outstanding representation. I felt confident I was in good hands from the moment I walked into their office. They explained every step of the process regarding my case and made sure I was fully informed about my options. Perliss Law Firm is professional and cares greatly about their clients. Highly recommend!"
"Perliss Law Firm’s attorneys are extremely experienced and skilled。 They treated me with respect and were always available to answer any questions I had. I am extremely grateful and would recommend their firm if you’re looking for a dedicated and trustworthy defense team."
.avif)
.avif)
