Documents to Include with Your N-400

Applying for citizenship in the U.S. is an exciting step in anyone’s immigration journey. However, like all things having to do with immigration, it can also be quite stressful and confusing. Some common questions include: 

↠ What form(s) do I use?

↠ How do I answer the questions?

↠ What if I fill part of it out wrong?

↠ What documents do I include?

↠ What can I expect at the interview?

↠What happens if I don’t pass the civics and history test?

This article will focus on the “What documents do I include?” question. Specifically, this article will address what documents to include when you are applying for naturalization because you have been a lawful permanent resident who is married to and residing with a U.S. citizen spouse for at least three years. This article will assume the applicant has no arrests, citations or detention and has not been separated from the U.S. citizen spouse. Basically, it is assuming a completely “clean” and straightforward case.

Here are the documents we include with these applications: 

↠ A copy of the front and back of the applicant’s green card; 

↠ A copy of the applicant’s tax returns for the most recent three years. If an applicant 

   files as “married but filing separately,” we also include the spouse’s taxes;

↠ A copy of the applicant’s marriage certificate and, if applicable, proof that all prior 

   marriages for the applicant and the applicant’s spouse have been terminated;

↠ If applicable, we attach the birth certificates for the applicant’s children;

↠ Proof that the applicant has been residing with their U.S. citizen spouse for three 

   years. This can include joint leases or mortgages, joint insurance statements, joint bills 

   covering the three year period, etc.

↠ Evidence of the Applicant’s good moral character. In practice, if an applicant has no 

   arrests, citations, detention, etc., letters of recommendation are generally not 

   necessary. This changes if the applicant has negative information in their record. 

If you have any questions about eligibility for naturalization, what documents to include, etc., you should consult with an attorney.

TPS Extended for Certain Countries

USCIS issued a notice announcing the extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the following countries: (1) El Salvador; (2) Haiti; (3) Nicaragua; (4) Sudan; (5) Honduras; and (6) Nepal. If you are the beneficiary of TPS from one of these countries, that means that USCIS has automatically extended your employment authorization document (work card). USCIS has also extended I-94s for TPS beneficiaries from the above countries. 

For beneficiaries of TPS from the above-listed countries, USCIS has extended the validity of employment authorization through December 31, 2022 provided the authorizations were issued during a certain time frame. If you have questions about the validity of your TPS or work authorization, you should contact an attorney to review your documentation. 

The Return of Domestic Violence Asylum

In 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued the decision Matter of A-R-C-G-, which opened a new avenue for asylum seekers. Specifically, the BIA held that, depending on the facts of a case, “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can constitute a particular social group for purposes of asylum. The reasoning in this case also allowed women from other countries in abusive relationships to apply for asylum as long as they met the standards set in Matter of A-R-C-G- and its subsequent cases. 

In 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions overruled Matter of A-R-C-G- and its subsequent cases in a decision called Matter of A-B-. In this case, the former Attorney General did not just overrule Matter of A-R-C-G-, which allowed domestic violence survivors from certain societies to apply for asylum, he made it more difficult for anyone being persecuted by a private actor to have a successful claim of asylum. 

In June of 2021, current Attorney General, Merrick Garland, overruled Matter of A-B- and restored an applicant’s ability to pursue asylum based on domestic violence in certain circumstances. The government is currently in the process of formulating official rules regarding domestic violence asylum. However, until those rules are drafted, published, and adopted, domestic violence asylum cases will be decided under the framework in Matter of A-R-C-G- and its subsequent cases. This is a win for asylum seekers and survivors of domestic violence that hopefully represents what will be a continued stark departure from the former administration’s relentless assault on the asylum process. 

**This article is meant for general informational purposes only. Asylum is a complicated area of immigration law and we highly recommend seeking legal counsel to evaluate your asylum claim.**

Washington Bans For-Profit Detention Centers Including Immigration Detention Centers

The Washington State Legislature passed a law, which the Governor signed, banning for profit detention centers in the State of Washington. This also applies to immigration detention centers, which means that the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC), a large for-profit immigration detention center owned by GEO, a private company, will have to be shut down by 2025.

The NWDC is a 1575-bed privately owned, for profit detention center used to detain immigrants pending resolution of removal defense proceedings. GEO has a long-standing relationship with the U.S. government that dates back to the 1980s. GEO operates under multiple contracts with the U.S. government, in particular Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). New York, Illinois, Nevada, and California have all enacted laws similar to the Washington law. In 2019, GEO signed new contracts with ICE for five GEO-owned private detention centers in California with a term of 15 years. Those contracts were expected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for GEO. GEO sued the State of California over the law and the federal judge presiding over the case ruled largely in favor of the State of California. GEO appealed the ruling and the appeal is pending.

The Biden Administration filed a briefing in the California case in which it adopted the Trump Administration’s arguments that the state law is unconstitutional. The Biden Administration did order agencies not to renew contracts with private prisons but specifically exempted immigration detention facilities from that order. For the time being, the Biden Administration is fighting to maintain the status quo as it relates to immigration detention and keeping immigrants in these for profit, private detention centers. This will leave it to the states to determine whether for-profit detention centers are welcome within their borders. It is highly likely that the Administration will also challenge the Washington law as unconstitutional.

New COVID-19 Testing Requirement For All Travelers Returning from Abroad

As of January 26, 2021, all travelers, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, will be required to get tested for COVID-19 no more than three days before entering the U.S. from a  foreign country and show a negative test result. Alternatively, if a passenger has been infected with and recovered from COVID-19, that passenger must show documentation confirming a positive test result and a letter from a health care provider confirming recovery and fitness to fly. This documentation is referred to as “Documentation of Recovery.” 

With limited exemptions, this new requirement applies to all passengers, regardless of immigration status, who are entering the U.S. after travel to any foreign country. If you are traveling using a negative test result taken within three days preceding your departure, the test result must read as follow: “NEGATIVE,” “SARS-CoV 2 RNA NOT DETECTED,” “SARS-CoV-2 ANTIGEN NOT DETECTED,” or “COVID-19 NOT DETECTED.” A test marked as “invalid” will not be acceptable. 

If you have any questions about these new travel requirements, please contact us. 

Social Security Number No Longer Required to Obtain an Oregon Driver License

The Oregon Legislature recently passed House Bill 2015, which went into effect on January 1, 2021. This is the bill that allows Oregonians to obtain a valid license without showing proof of lawful status in the U.S. The biggest benefit of this bill is that now Oregonians will be able to obtain a license without presenting a social security number. 

If you do not have a social security number, you can now apply for a license by making an appointment with the DMV and presenting the following: 

1. Your application; 

2. Proof of your full, legal name and identity; 

3. Proof of your date of birth; 

4. Proof of Oregon residency; and 

5. A signed statement confirming that you have not been assigned a social security number. 

For a complete list of required documents, please visit the Oregon DMV’s website at www.oregon.gov/odot/dmv. Some applicants have reported that the DMV is requiring a statement from the Social Security Administration that they have not been assigned a social security number. This requirement does not appear in the requirements listed on the DMV’s website, which provide that, if an applicant does not have a social security number, they must sign a statement confirming that they have not been assigned a number. However, if you would like an official statement that you have not been assigned a social security number, you can contact the social security administration. We can also provide you with a letter outlining the requirements of HB 2015 that you can present to the DMV when you apply for a license.  

Keep in mind that if you obtain a license under HB 2015, this will not be a REAL ID Act compliant license. This means that beginning on October 1, 2021, you will not be able to use this license to enter a secure federal building or board a domestic flight. 

If you have any questions about obtaining an Oregon license, please contact us.

How Many Biometrics Appointments is USCIS Going to Schedule?

Our clients, as well firms all over the country, have been receiving multiple biometrics notices for the same application. For example, several of our clients have attended a biometrics appointment for an I-765, Application for Employment for Authorization, commonly referred to as a work permit, and, after attending the appointment, clients receive another notice instructing them to attend a second biometrics appointment. These notices offer no explanation as to why the second notice was issued. This is annoying and burdensome for clients, particularly for clients who do not reside close to the office where the biometrics are collected. 

When this happens, the first question that clients ask is, “Why did this happen?” There are many possible answers to that question. However, the most likely answer is that USCIS made a mistake and issued the second notice in error. There is also a possibility that there was a problem with the collection or readability of your fingerprints. In any case, we are advising clients to attend these appointments even though it is both annoying and burdensome for them. The main reason we advise clients to attend is to avoid a potential wrongful denial based on abandonment. It is easier to attend a technically unnecessary biometrics appointment than it is to get USCIS to rescind a wrongful denial. 

If you receive a biometrics notice and you are unable to attend, you need to let your attorney know immediately, so she can reschedule the appointment. If you do not have an attorney, follow the instructions for rescheduling on the biometrics notice to reschedule your appointment. 

Proposed Affidavit of Support Rule Places Heavy Burden on Sponsors

On October 3, 2020, USCIS announced its intention to amend the rules relating to the I-864, Affidavit of Support. This new rule would make it more difficult for petitioning sponsors to establish they meet the requirements to serve as what is commonly referred to as a “financial sponsor.” It will also make it more difficult for petitioning sponsors to locate eligible joint sponsors. Under the current rules, a financial sponsor must meet meet the following requirements and submit the following documents: 

1. The sponsor’s income must be at or above 125% of the federal poverty guidelines; 

2. The sponsor must submit their Federal Form 1040 (Tax Return), along with W-2s and 1099s, for the most recent tax year and disclose their adjusted gross income from the prior two tax years; 

3. Pay stubs from the most recent six months or bank accounts showing income from the most six months if self-employed; and

4. Proof of status in the U.S.

The new proposed rules will impose heavy documentary requirements on sponsors. Under the new rule, sponsors would have to submit extensive documentation, including credit reports, credit scores, tax returns for three years, and extensive banking records. New requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Requiring a joint sponsor if the petitioning sponsor received any kind of means tested benefit with the 36 months preceding the application. This would apply even if the petitioning sponsor now makes well over the federal poverty guidelines. For example, if someone received means tested benefits three years before petitioning for a relative but then had two steady years of income well above the federal poverty guidelines, the petitioner would still need a joint sponsor. In this scenario, a joint sponsor would be required even if a petitioning sponsor made over one million dollars a year for the two years preceding the application; 

2. All sponsors would be required to submit a full three years of tax returns or tax transcripts and W-2s and 1099s; 

3. The new rule would limit who can serve as a “household member” for purposes of establishing total household income. DHS is proposing limiting who can be a household member for purposes of total income to spouses of sponsors and, in certain circumstances, the intending immigration. For example, if a mother petitioned for a child and the the petitioning mother and sponsored child also live with an adult sibling, the sibling would no longer be able to serve as a household member for purposes of total income; 

4. Requiring sponsors and household members to submit credit scores and reports; 

5. Require banking information for sponsors and household members; and 

6. DHS would like to lift the requirement that USCIS would need to receive a subpoena from an outside agency before providing an outside agency with a certified copy of the Affidavit of Support. Under the new rule, DHS could provide an outside agency with a full copy of the affidavit and all supporting documents upon a “formal request.” 

In the proposed rule, the government claims that, currently very little is currently required for a sponsor or joint sponsor to show their income is sufficient to sponsor an immigrant. However, as you can see by the requirements listed above in the first enumerated list, this is not correct. Under the current rules, a sponsor must submit a complete copy of their most recent Federal Form 1040 and all supporting schedules, all W-2s and W-9s for the most recent tax year, and six months worth of pay stubs. In situations where applicants need a joint sponsor, the primary complaint we hear is that the potential joint sponsor does not want to disclose so much financial information to the government. By imposing requirements that sponsors submit banking records, credit reports, etc., the administration will make it even more difficult to find a qualified joint sponsor. 

This rule appears to be another attempt to quell lawful immigration without going through Congress for comprehensive immigration reform. If you have questions about how these new rules could impact your case, please contact us.