USCIS Redefines "Good Moral Character": How New Subjective Standards Make Naturalization Harder
- Sarah Pelud
- Aug 25
- 9 min read
By Sarah Pelud, Immigration Attorney | Pelud ImmigrationPublished: August 25, 2025
Table of Contents
The Day Everything Changed
Friday, August 15, 2025 started like any other day in immigration practice. I was reviewing cases, helping clients prepare for interviews (including naturalization interviews), and feeling optimistic about several straightforward applications. Then USCIS released a policy memorandum with the bureaucratic title "Restoring a Rigorous, Holistic, and Comprehensive Good Moral Character Evaluation Standard for Aliens Applying for Naturalization."
Twenty-four hours later, I found myself contacting clients to warn them that the rules had fundamentally changed overnight.
The policy memo runs several pages, filled with the kind of administrative language that makes eyes glaze over. But buried within that bureaucratic prose is a seismic shift that transforms naturalization from a legal process into something resembling a character contest. Where once applicants needed to meet clear statutory requirements, they must now convince government officers of their subjective worthiness to become Americans.
This isn't a minor technical adjustment. It's a fundamental reimagining of what it means to qualify for American citizenship.
Reading through the new USCIS memo, one phrase stopped me cold: 'Any other acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside.' This single sentence encapsulates everything wrong with the new policy. We're now asking immigration officers to define and enforce 'average behavior' standards that don't exist, can't be measured, and vary wildly across American communities. The idea that immigrants should be held to behavioral norms that half of all citizens fail to meet - by mathematical definition - reveals the fundamental illogic of this approach.
How We Got Here
To understand why this change matters so profoundly, we need to look at how "good moral character" evaluations worked before August 15, 2025.
The traditional approach was refreshingly straightforward. Immigration officers would review an applicant's background for specific statutory disqualifiers listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Did you commit certain crimes? Did you fail to pay court-ordered child support? Were you involved in prostitution or drug trafficking? If the answer was no, and you had no other serious criminal history, you generally satisfied the good moral character requirement.
This system worked because it was predictable. Applicants knew what would disqualify them. Attorneys could advise clients with confidence about their chances. Officers could make consistent decisions based on clear legal standards. The process had integrity because it treated similar cases similarly.
More importantly, it reflected a fundamental American principle: that citizenship should be earned through meeting objective legal requirements, not granted based on government officials' subjective approval of your character.
But USCIS has now abandoned this approach in favor of what they call a "holistic, totality-of-circumstances review." Officers must no longer simply check whether applicants avoid statutory disqualifiers. Instead, they must evaluate whether applicants demonstrate sufficient "positive contributions" and "adherence to societal norms" to deserve citizenship.
The policy memo frames this as returning to historical practices, citing pre-1990s approaches that considered broader character evidence. But context matters. Those earlier discretionary frameworks operated in a different legal and social environment, with different due process expectations and anti-discrimination protections. Reviving subjective character judgments in today's polarized political climate invites the very problems our legal system evolved to avoid.
The New Reality
Under the new standards, USCIS officers must evaluate naturalization applicants across multiple subjective dimensions. They're instructed to consider "positive factors" including community involvement, family caregiving, educational attainment, employment stability, and tax compliance. Simultaneously, they must scrutinize any conduct that might be "contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside."
Let that phrase sink in: "average behavior of citizens." We're now asking immigration officers to determine what constitutes normal behavior in diverse American communities and judge whether foreign-born applicants meet those undefined standards.
The absurdity becomes apparent when you consider real-world applications. How many speeding tickets constitute "average" behavior? The government doesn't even collect data that would allow such a determination - traffic statistics exist in aggregate, not individual frequency patterns. How many Americans could actually document the level of community involvement now expected of naturalization applicants? What is the "average" level of volunteer work in New York City versus rural Wyoming? How do you measure "stable employment" in an economy increasingly dominated by gig work? Should a software engineer who changes jobs every two years to advance their career be viewed less favorably than someone who stays in the same position for decades?
The memo also emphasizes that applicants with any negative history must demonstrate "genuine rehabilitation" through community testimony from "credible sources," full compliance with legal obligations, and evidence of ongoing positive character. While rehabilitation has always been relevant for serious criminal cases, the new policy expands this requirement to minor infractions and civil violations.
But what I find most troubling is that the policy explicitly states that officers should consider "any other acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside." This catch-all provision essentially gives officers unlimited discretion to find character defects in any aspect of an applicant's life.
What This Means in Practice
The practical implications of these changes will become clear through in the upcoming months as officers implement this new guidance. We can expect that officers will be asking more detailed questions about applicants' community involvement, volunteer work, and family responsibilities. They could scrutinize employment histories for patterns of job changes or periods of unemployment. They could request additional documentation about rehabilitation efforts for minor traffic violations.
Consider Maria. She's been a lawful permanent resident for eight years, has no criminal record, pays her taxes faithfully, and works as a nurse at a local hospital. Under the previous standards, her case would have been straightforward. Now, I find myself advising her to document her community involvement and prepare explanations for a six-month period of unemployment three years ago when she was caring for her sick mother.
Maria's situation illustrates the broader challenge all applicants now face. The documentation requirements alone represent a significant burden. Applicants must now compile evidence of community service, volunteer work, educational achievements, employment stability, family responsibilities, and tax compliance. They need letters of support from community members who can attest to their character. They must be prepared to explain any periods of unemployment, job changes, or minor legal infractions in terms of overall character assessment.
This documentation gathering takes time and money. Not everyone has access to community leaders willing to write character letters. Not everyone participates in organized volunteer activities or belongs to community organizations. Some people work multiple jobs just to survive, leaving little time for the kind of community involvement that apparently now defines good moral character.
The new policy creates concerning possibilities for the interview process. Officers now have explicit authority to evaluate subjective character traits, which could lead to open-ended questioning about applicants' values, community contributions, and personal philosophies. The risk is that naturalization decisions may shift from objective legal determinations to subjective character assessments based on individual officers' interpretations of citizenship worthiness.
The Constitutional Problem
As an attorney, I'm deeply concerned about the constitutional implications of these new standards. The Due Process Clause requires that government action be based on clear, predictable standards that give people fair notice of what's expected. Terms like "societal norms," "average behavior," and "civic responsibility" are inherently vague and subjective.
How does an applicant prepare for evaluation against "average behavior" when that standard is undefined and varies by geography, culture, and individual officer interpretation?
What constitutes adequate "community involvement" when communities have different resources, expectations, and opportunities for participation?
What happens if your chosen community involvement is for a cause that your particular officer does not agree with?
What's considered a 'stable' employment history in today's age of the gig economy?
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government discrimination based on protected characteristics like race, religion, and national origin. But subjective character evaluations create obvious opportunities for such discrimination to occur, whether consciously or unconsciously. An officer who views certain types of community involvement as more valuable than others, or who has particular ideas about family responsibilities or employment patterns, may inadvertently discriminate against applicants from different cultural backgrounds.
These aren't hypothetical concerns. They're inevitable consequences of replacing objective legal standards with subjective character judgments. When officers must decide whether someone's behavior meets undefined community norms, they necessarily rely on their own cultural assumptions and personal biases.
The policy also creates procedural due process problems by making naturalization decisions less predictable and more arbitrary. Similar cases may receive different outcomes depending on which officer handles them, what mood they're in, or how they personally interpret vague standards about character and community norms.
Building Your Case Under the New Rules
Despite my concerns about this policy, my job is to help clients succeed under whatever system exists. While we don't yet know exactly how officers will implement these new subjective standards, the policy memo provides clues about what preparation strategies make sense.
The new requirements will likely demand a completely different approach to naturalization preparation - one that focuses as much on character storytelling as legal compliance. Based on the memo's language, every case should probably include a comprehensive evidence portfolio that demonstrates positive character traits through community involvement, family responsibilities, employment stability, educational achievements, and financial compliance.
The policy suggests officers will need to explore community involvement, family responsibilities, employment history, and personal values in greater detail. Applicants should prepare specific examples of community contributions and character demonstration, though we're still discovering what will resonate with officers under these subjective standards. The uncertainty itself is part of the problem - applicants must now prepare for evaluation criteria that remain largely undefined and untested.
My Assessment
Having practiced immigration law for nearly two decades, I've seen many policy changes that affected how cases are processed and adjudicated. But this policy represents something qualitatively different - a fundamental shift away from the rule of law toward subjective governmental approval of citizenship worthiness.
The legal system has evolved toward objective standards precisely because they promote fairness, consistency, and constitutional compliance. When government decisions are based on clear statutory criteria, citizens can predict outcomes, prepare appropriately, and challenge arbitrary action. When decisions are based on subjective judgments about character and worthiness, none of these protections exist.
The policy memo attempts to justify this change by citing historical practices and emphasizing that citizenship is a privilege requiring positive demonstration of character. But this framing misses the crucial point that our legal system has evolved to prevent exactly the kind of arbitrary decision-making this policy reintroduces.
Yes, citizenship carries responsibilities and should be earned. But those requirements should be defined through clear, objective standards. They shouldn't be left to individual government officers making subjective judgments about undefined concepts like "societal norms" and "average behavior."
I suspect practical problems with this policy will becoming apparent soon enough. Officers will invariably interpret the new standards differently, creating inconsistent outcomes for similar cases. This kind of variability is exactly what objective legal standards are designed to prevent.
The constitutional problems are even more serious. Courts have consistently held that government action must be based on clear standards that provide fair notice of what's expected. The new USCIS policy fails this test spectacularly. How can applicants prepare for evaluation against "average behavior" when that standard is undefined and varies by location, culture, and individual officer interpretation?
Most fundamentally, this policy changes the nature of American citizenship itself. Instead of earning citizenship through meeting clear legal requirements, applicants must now seek governmental approval of their personal worthiness. This transforms citizenship from a legal status earned through compliance with objective standards into a discretionary benefit granted based on bureaucratic grace.
Moving Forward
Despite my concerns about this policy, my responsibility is helping clients navigate whatever system exists. The new standards require different preparation strategies, more extensive documentation, and higher legal costs.
For those considering naturalization, these changes demand immediate reassessment. Professional legal guidance has shifted from helpful to essential given the subjective nature of the new requirements. Current applicants need to rebuild their cases around positive character evidence, comprehensive documentation, and narrative development about community contributions.
Beyond individual cases, the immigration law community must address the constitutional problems this policy creates. I expect significant litigation challenging the vague standards and discriminatory potential. Courts will need to determine whether subjective character evaluations comply with due process and equal protection requirements.
This policy represents another step backward from the rule of law toward arbitrary power. But American legal traditions include mechanisms for challenging such overreach, and I'm hopeful those mechanisms will ultimately prevail.
Contact Pelud Immigration
If you're considering naturalization or have questions about how these new standards affect your case, don't wait to seek professional guidance. The complexity and subjectivity of the new requirements make expert legal representation more crucial than ever.
Contact Information:
Email: info@peludimmigration.com
Phone: 450-497-1644
Website: www.peludimmigration.com
Sarah Pelud is an immigration attorney based in Montreal, Canada, specializing in US business and family immigration. She has been helping clients navigate complex US immigration requirements since 2006.
Disclaimer: This analysis provides general information about new USCIS policies and should not be construed as legal advice for any specific situation. Immigration law is complex and constantly evolving. Always consult with a qualified immigration attorney regarding your specific circumstances.
