Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Americans

by

raul-najera-TAqspfWom04-unsplash-1-scaledOn September 18, 2025, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the implementation of a newly revised civics test for naturalization applicants, known as the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test.

This updated version builds on the 2020 test—and will replace the existing 2008 civics examination for most applicants.

The civics test remains a key component of the naturalization process, intended to evaluate an applicant’s knowledge of U.S. history, government, and civic responsibilities. While the English language portion of the test remains unchanged, the civics section has been updated to improve clarity and educational relevance.

What’s New & What’s the Same

  • The 2025 Civics Test builds off the 2020 version (which had been previously introduced by the Trump administration but not widely used), making modifications in content and procedure.
  • About 75% of the questions come from the 2008 test—some carried over exactly, others reworded or updated to reflect current educational goals. The rest (~25%) are entirely new content. Some 2008 questions were removed altogether.
  • English‑language requirements remain the same. The focus is on updating the civics portion only.

Key Changes in Test Procedure

  • The question bank used is the same 128‑question bank that had been introduced in 2020.
  • Applicants will be asked up to 20 questions and must answer at least 12 correctly to pass.
  • A procedural change: the USCIS officer can stop asking additional questions once the applicant either passes (i.e. reaches 12 correct answers) or fails (i.e. accumulates 9 incorrect answers). This reduces extra, unnecessary questions for both parties.

Continue reading

by

marek-studzinski-9U9I-eVx9nI-unsplash-scaled

A new UC Berkeley IGS poll shows that a strong majority of California voters disapprove of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. Nearly 70% of respondents said they are unhappy with how immigration is being handled in the state — and many reported emotional responses to images of raids, describing them as unfair and upsetting.

The poll reveals a sharp political divide. Ninety-five percent of Democrats expressed disapproval with Trump’s immigration enforcement, while 79% of Republicans voiced support. Emotional reactions followed suit: most Democrats said they felt anger or sadness when shown footage of enforcement actions, while most Republicans felt hopeful or satisfied.

Specific policy questions revealed more tension. An overwhelming majority of Democrats support requiring immigration agents to wear visible ID and oppose raids in places like schools and hospitals. Republicans were more divided, with only about half supporting agent identification and a slight majority favoring enforcement in public spaces.

The issue of birthright citizenship also proved polarizing. 67% of Republicans said they support ending automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented parents, while 92% of Democrats opposed such a move.

Continue reading

by

raul-najera-TAqspfWom04-unsplash-scaledOn Friday August 15th, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a new policy memorandum (PM-602-0188) increasing the scrutiny of applications for U.S. citizenship, as part of the Trump administration’s latest efforts to tighten eligibility for naturalization.

Specifically, USCIS has directed immigration officers to evaluate additional factors when assessing whether applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” a key requirement for naturalization, alongside passing English and civics tests.

The requirement of “good moral character” is typically met when applicants have no criminal history or have not engaged in conduct that would disqualify them from U.S. citizenship, such as committing violent crimes or aggravated felonies.

Friday’s policy memorandum however expands this determination stating that the “good moral character” assessment must involve more than a “cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing.” The expanded policy will now require “a holistic assessment of an alien’s behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character.”

This directive mandates greater scrutiny of factors that could show a lack of “good moral character,” which go beyond the crimes and disqualifying conduct previously taken into consideration by USCIS.

Continue reading

by

motherhood-7114294_1280Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking the Trump administration’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, except in class action lawsuits.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, at least three different lawsuits had secured nationwide injunctions protecting all individuals potentially affected by Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. However, the Court’s ruling scaled back those protections, potentially leaving some children unprotected.

To safeguard all families across the country and address any gaps left by prior legal actions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class-action lawsuit, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump to stop the government’s enforcement of the order against all current or future babies born or after February 20, 2025, where:

(1) that child’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth, or

(2) that child’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth.

The U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s executive order from being enforced against any affected baby born in the United States after February 20th.

Continue reading

by

american-flag-2054414_1280This week President Trump unleashed a fresh barrage of executive orders targeting illegal immigration and antisemitism in the United States.

Executive Order Expanding Migration Operations at Guantánamo Bay

Among these orders, on January 29th the President signed, “Expanding Migration Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay,” unveiling his administration’s plans to use a migrant holding facility at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to house more than 30,000 migrants deported from the United States.

The White House has said the naval station will soon be operating at its full capacity to detain “high priority” criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States, and to “address attendant immigration enforcement needs,” identified by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

Immigration advocates have questioned the optics of this decision due to Guantánamo Bay’s sordid history. Once a processing center for asylum seekers and HIV-positive refugees, it has been well known for its detainment of notorious terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants such as the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This decision has raised alarm due to Guantanamo’s unfit conditions and frequent human rights violations reported to international human rights organizations.

Despite these criticisms, the White House has said that deported migrants held in Guantánamo will not be detained in the same U.S. military prison where foreign terrorists are being held. Instead, migrants will be placed in a separate holding facility previously used to detain migrants intercepted at sea.

Continue reading

by

library-of-congress-jPN_oglAjOU-unsplash-scaledIt has been less than 24 hours since President Donald Trump has taken office, and he has already signed into law a flurry of executive orders directly impacting immigration.

More than a dozen of these executive orders dismantle Biden era immigration policies, and usher in restrictive policies for visa seekers, asylum applicants, and undocumented immigrants.

The swift issuance of these executive orders signals a tough political climate ahead for immigration, and what is sure to be a continuance of the Trump administration’s hardline stance on immigration.

While some of these executive orders may face legal challenges, here is a summary of all the executive orders affecting immigration issued on day one of Trump’s presidency.

Executive Order: President Trump’s America First Priorities

President Trump’s first executive order entitled “President Trump’s America First Priorities,” states the following as top priorities of his administration, which touch upon immigration.

  • President Trump promises to take “bold action” to secure the U.S. border and protect communities by calling on the U.S. Armed Forces and National Guard to assist with border security
  • At the President’s direction, the State Department will have an “America-First” foreign policy
  • Ends Biden’s Catch-and-Release Policies

What it is: Catch-and-release authorized the release of individuals without legal status from detention while awaiting immigration court hearings.

  • Reinstates Remain in Mexico Policy

What it is: Known formerly as the Migrant Protection Protocol, this policy will require certain asylum seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico for their hearings in U.S. immigration court.

  • Continues the construction of his southern border wall with Mexico
  • Prohibits asylum for individuals who have crossed the border illegally

What it is: Aims to end asylum and close the border to those without legal, to facilitate a more immediate removal process

  • Cracks down on U.S. sanctuary cities
  • Enhanced vetting and screening of noncitizen aliens seeking admission to the U.S.

What it is: The President will direct agencies to report recommendations for the suspension of entry for nationals of any country of particular concerns.

  • Expands deportation operations for aliens with a criminal record
  • Suspends the refugee resettlement program
  • Designates cartels such as the “Tren de Aragua” as foreign terrorist organizations and calls for their removal by using the Alien Enemies Act
  • Calls on the Department of Justice to implement the death penalty for illegal immigrants “who maim and murder” Americans and commit “heinous crimes”

Continue reading

by

boy-2027487_1280In the last few days, the immigration world has been reeling from the results of the Presidential election. People across the nation are preparing for an incoming Trump administration that promises to be extremely tough on immigration.

While the future of many hangs in the balance, the federal courts have started taking action to undo the immigration policies of the Biden administration.

Just two days after Americans cast their ballots and elected Donald Trump to become the next President of the United States, federal Judge J. Campbell Barker of the Eastern District Court of Texas issued a court order in the case Texas et. al. vs. DHS et. al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00306 (E.D. Tex.), ending President Biden’s Keeping Families Together parole program.

In a short one-page ruling, the judge declared that the Biden administration lacked the authority to grant parole in place to undocumented aliens, and therefore set aside and vacated Biden’s Keeping Families Together program.

In doing so, judge Barker delivered the first major blow to Biden’s immigration friendly policies. This decision stops the government from accepting applications for parole in place under the program, which would have allowed undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. Citizens to remain together during the immigration process.

Continue reading

by

usa-1327105_1280The U.S. presidential election is set to be held in just fifteen days and the stakes couldn’t be higher for immigrants at the mercy of our broken immigration system.

In this blog post, we discuss where the presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand on key issues relating to immigration.

What would immigration look like under the Harris administration?

Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to continue many of the immigration policies proposed under President Biden. Among them, illegal immigration continues to be a hot button issue.

Illegal Immigration

Harris plans to tackle the border crisis by pushing for bipartisan legislation that would provide additional funding to hire thousands of new border patrol agents to secure our southern border.

In keeping with Biden’s proposals, Kamala also supports closing the border once border crossings have reached an average of more than 5,000 migrants per day over a week period. She has also said she will throw her support behind Biden’s policies barring asylum applications from individuals crossing the border illegally.

Since becoming Vice President, she has become tougher on illegal immigration telling CNN, “We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there should be consequences.”

Concerning pathways to permanent residence, she supports “an earned pathway to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants. However, no details have been provided by her campaign regarding necessary criteria to become legalized.

Continue reading

by

smile-5621670_1280-1On Tuesday June 4, 2024, President Joe Biden’s rumored executive action on immigration was unveiled by the White House.

Among its sweeping provisions, effective Wednesday June 5, 2024, the order will limit the number of migrants who can claim asylum at ports of entry along the southern U.S. border, while there are high levels of illegal crossings at the southern border.

Specifically, migrants seeking asylum will be turned away at the border when the seven-day average of daily border crossings exceeds 2,500 daily encounters between ports of entry. Since the number of encounters currently exceeds this figure, the order will go into effect immediately.

This means that starting June 5th U.S. border officials will stop conducting credible fear interviews for asylum claims and will instead quickly expel migrants seeking asylum at the border.

Migrants who are expelled under the order will receive a minimum five-year bar on reentry to the United States and potentially be subject to criminal prosecution.

The government will only accept asylum claims at the border if 14 days have passed, and the number of daily encounters has declined to 1,500 migrants or less at U.S. ports of entry.

Apart from unaccompanied minors, the order applies to all noncitizens, encountered along the southern border, irrespective of their country of origin.

What does the order do?

This executive order will temporarily suspend the entry of noncitizens who cross the border without prior authorization, or a legal basis to do so, including those claiming asylum at the border during periods of high border crossings.

Can migrants still claim asylum through scheduled appointments on the Customs and Border Protection’s One App?

Yes. The executive order does not prohibit migrants from using the CBP One app to make appointments at the border where they are able to claim asylum. The executive order only prohibits “unscheduled” asylum claims at the border.

Continue reading

by

courthouse-1223279_1280The federal government has sued the state of Oklahoma in a new lawsuit seeking to block HB 4156 from taking effect, a new anti-immigration law that regulates the entry of noncitizens by detaining and fining migrants who are unlawfully present in the state.

The U.S. government filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on May 21st arguing that HB 4156 is unconstitutional because the federal government maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of immigration and the status of noncitizens under the supremacy clause and foreign commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Oklahoma’s HB 4156 which was slated to take effect July 1st considers the unlawful presence of a noncitizen in the state to be an “impermissible occupation” and directs law enforcement officials to arrest and jail undocumented immigrants.

The law aims to protect the state’s citizens against undocumented immigrants who could “potentially harm” its residents. Under the law, a first conviction would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in county jail and a $500 fine. A second conviction would rise to a felony and carry a sentence of up to two years in county jail and a $1,000 fine.

Those convicted would be required to leave the state of Oklahoma within three days of being released from county jail.

In attempting to enforce this law, the Justice Department argues that the state is circumventing established law and constitutional authority by trying to take matters into its own hands.

Continue reading