United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has recently announced two notable policy changes that, taken together, signal a broader shift toward expanding officer discretion in immigration adjudications. One relates to Good Moral Character (GMC) determinations in naturalization (United States citizenship) applications, while the other policy change involves updates to the USCIS Policy Manual that expands discretionary analysis relating to the grant of immigration benefits more generally. Although distinct, both trends share a common thread: adjudicators will have additional power to deny benefits in situations that historically would not have posed substantial issues for the applicants. Employers and foreign nationals should recognize that these policy adjustments may have far-reaching implications in future adjudications.
Good Moral Character in Naturalization
Applicants seeking naturalization must demonstrate that they have been, and continue to be, a person of “good moral character” during the statutory period, typically five years prior to the application (or three years for those applying based on marriage to a United States citizen).
Traditionally, the GMC analysis has focused on clear statutory bars, such as certain criminal convictions, false testimony, or unlawful acts that Congress or the regulations explicitly designate as disqualifying. For conduct outside these bars, adjudicators have generally been guided by case law and long-standing policy interpretations.
On August 15, 2025, USCIS issued a policy memo titled “Restoring a Rigorous, Holistic, and Comprehensive Good Moral Character Evaluation Standard for Aliens Applying for Naturalization” (PM 602 0188), which shifts from a focus on the absence of disqualifying conduct to a holistic, totality-of circumstances approach. Adjudicators are now instructed to assess not only whether applicants avoided misconduct, but also whether they affirmatively demonstrated positive contributions, such as adherence to societal norms, community involvement, fiscal responsibility, and educational or employment achievements.
This expansion introduces more uncertainty into the naturalization application process, allowing adjudicators to deny applications based on subjective or inconsistent interpretations based on highly discretionary factors. Some critics claim this is an effort to “move the goalposts,” making the naturalization test more about immigration officer discretion than about an applicant’s documented eligibility. Legal professionals warn the guidelines are “incredibly broad and incredibly subjective,” creating a high risk of inconsistent outcomes.
Policy Manual Changes Expanding Discretion
The USCIS Policy Manual is the immigration agency’s centralized repository of immigration policy guidance. While not legally binding, it strongly directs the immigration officer’s decision-making in daily operations. Updates to the policy manual can therefore have immediate practical effects on outcomes, even if the governing statutes and regulations remain unchanged.
In a new policy alert issued August 19, 2025, USCIS clarified its discretionary framework, particularly in employment-based petitions, extending discretion in applications for various benefits including employment petitions involving National Interest Waivers, EB-5 (employment creation) investor petitions, and green card applications. Notably, it now classifies association with antisemitic terrorist organizations or ideologies as an overwhelmingly negative discretionary factor.
Much like the GMC guidance, these revisions arm adjudicators with more latitude to push back or deny applications that, under prior standards, would likely have been approved. For employers and their sponsored foreign national employees, even if the petition is meritorious and satisfies statutory and regulatory requirements, these benefit requests could still be denied on “soft” grounds.
Implications for Employers and Foreign Nationals
While these moves may appear to be neutral or common-sense updates to policy language, in practice, they will represent a significant shift in how USCIS approaches adjudications. The combined effect of these changes is greater unpredictability in the immigration system. Employers and employees should be prepared for the following key takeaways:
- Increased risk of arbitrary denials: Even cases that meet the statutory requirements may now be vulnerable if adjudicators invoke discretionary concerns;
- Expanded evidentiary burdens: Employers and applicants should be prepared to provide more robust documentation, not only to prove eligibility but also to proactively address potential moral or ideological concerns;
- Higher stakes for credibility: Minor inconsistencies or lifestyle factors could take on outsized importance in adjudications; and
- Longer timelines and costs: The need for more comprehensive filings and responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) will likely increase.
Looking Ahead
USCIS appears to be adopting a more subjective adjudication framework with these policy shifts. It will be important to closely monitor how these changes play out in practice and to adapt case preparation strategies accordingly. Employers and applicants should prepare for a more demanding process and consult immigration counsel to help mitigate risks.
Special thanks to law clerk Ana Shiu Luo for her contributions to this article. Ana is not yet admitted to practice in any jurisdiction.
