Overcoming Obstacles to Citizenship:
How Group Processing Can Better Serve
Immigrant Communities
Produced by the MIRA Coalition with the generous support of the Fish Family Foundation
Acknowledgements:
The MIRA Coalition would like to thank the Fish Family Foundation for its generous support and
leadership in creating and sustaining the Greater Boston Citizenship Initiative. Without their vision,
countless immigrants would still be lost in the wilderness of immigration law. We would also like to
thank all the members of GBCI – Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center (BCNC), Centro Latino,
College Bound Dorchester, the Irish International Immigrant Center, Jewish Vocational Services (JVS),
and the Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers (MAPS) – whose hard work and dedication
were critical to making GBCI a success. We would also like to extend our deepest appreciation to the
hundreds of volunteers who helped with our citizenship clinics, without whom these clinics would not
have been possible.
Page | i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
II. INTRODUCTION
Background and Methodology
Naturalization Requirements
2
2
3
III. OBSTACLES
Financial Issues
Lack of Awareness
Civics/US History Exam
Lack of Resources/Assistance
English Requirement
Complexity
Benefits
Biographical Information
Illiteracy
Legal Assistance
Residency
Dual Citizenship
Good Moral Character
4
4
6
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
IV. CONCLUSION
14
APPENDIX
16
Page | ii
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Immigration law is widely considered one of the most complex areas of US federal law, second
only to tax law. For an immigrant trying to navigate the process from obtaining an immigrant
visa to becoming a US citizen, it is vital to have access to reliable legal assistance in order to
ensure that each step in the process is properly completed. The consequences of completing a
step incorrectly can range from delays in processing to added expenses to potential deportation.
However, reliable legal assistance can be prohibitively expensive, leaving many otherwise
eligible immigrants without the resources necessary to move along the continuum from new
arrival to US citizen. For this reason, the Fish Family Foundation brought together a number of
community-based organizations to create the Greater Boston Citizenship Initiative (GBCI) to
provide free expert legal assistance to Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) eligible to apply for
citizenship. GBCI relied primarily on a “group processing” or “clinical” model which relied on
an assembly line approach to assist large numbers of applicants in a single day. Potential
applicants would move from station to station where trained staff and volunteers would screen
for eligibility, fill out the N-400 Application for Naturalization, and double check for accuracy
and completeness of the application. Applicants who were able to finish the process would leave
the event with a completed application ready to be submitted to US Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS).
During its first year, GBCI was highly successful in reaching out to and assisting eligible LPRs
with their N-400 applications. In doing so, however, we found that our efforts were not sufficient
to overcome all the obstacles that many community members faced in seeking to become US
citizens. Some applicants turned out to be statutorily ineligible to become citizens. Others were
unable to pay the $680 application fee charged by USCIS. Still others had too little knowledge
of the process. As part of GBCI, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition
(MIRA) examined applicant records and conducted a survey of potential applicants to discover
what obstacles remained and how best to overcome them. What we discovered was that GBCI’s
service model was an appropriate way to overcome some of the primary obstacles, especially
lack of assistance/resources and the high application fee. Other obstacles, such as lack of English
and lack of awareness, can be overcome through targeted community outreach and education.
An expanded group processing program that includes more direct contact with community
members would increase efficiency at GBCI group processing events by ensuring that a greater
percentage of applicants are eligible and prepared to commence the naturalization process.
Page | 1
II.
INTRODUCTION
Immigrants to the US who naturalize stand to gain a wide range of legal and economic
advantages for themselves and their families. The current naturalization process, however,
presents many complications that hamper the applications of potentially eligible Lawful
Permanent Residents (LPRs) and discourage many others from even trying to apply in the first
place. As part of the Greater Boston Citizenship Initiative (GBCI), the Massachusetts Immigrant
and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) and other GBCI members have been conducting group
processing clinics to assist eligible LPRs apply for US citizenship. Using data collected from
these clinics, this paper seeks to uncover the most important obstacles that stand in the way of
LPRs obtaining US citizenship and propose ways that GBCI can efficiently overcome these
obstacles. The discussion below explores both the statutory issues and more personal challenges
that face applicants in this respect, including the details of naturalization requirements
themselves, financial issues, lack of access to assistance, and lack of awareness about the
naturalization process and/or the benefits of naturalization.
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
Group processing clinics aim to reach those LPRs with the most straightforward legal cases and
can assist anywhere from 20 to over 200 LPRs with their applications in a single day. To do this,
group processing takes an assembly line approach to application assistance, with applicants
moving from station to station, each station providing a different aspect of service. At its most
basic, group processing involves three primary stations:
Screening: At this station, experienced volunteers screen applicants to ensure that they
meet basic eligibility requirements in order to naturalize (see eligibility requirements
below). Screening provides greater efficiency in the process by ensuring that only those
applicants that are eligible to naturalize move on to the next station.
Application Assistance: At this station, a trained volunteer works with the applicant to
complete the N-400, Application for Naturalization.
Quality Control: At this station, experienced volunteers review the application for
accuracy and completeness. Quality control volunteers can also fill out the I-912,
Request for Fee Waiver for those applicants who receive a means-tested benefit or who
have a household income at or below 150% of the federal poverty level1 and are therefore
unable to pay the $680 application fee.
To obtain the data used in this study, MIRA reviewed the files of 840 potential applicants from
clinics conducted between September 2011 and September 2012.2 This includes 247 participants
who were unable to complete their applications for various reasons. MIRA also conducted
surveys with 93 applicants at clinics in Milford, Dorchester, and Brockton prior to those
1
Fee waivers are also available for applicants with “financial hardship.” However, because of the time and
documentation required to qualify for a fee waiver under this basis, it is not efficient to file an I-912 on this basis at
group processing. Applicants who wish to file on this basis are referred out to legal services.
2
Clinics were held in Boston (9/17/11, 12/3/11, 2/4/12, 4/21/12, 5/19/12, & 6/30/12), Framingham (3/24/12),
Milford (7/28/12), and Brockton (9/22/12).
Page | 2
applicants being screened.3 Together, this data allows us to look at what eligible LPRs believed
would be obstacles to applying, and compare it to what issues actually stood in their way.
NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS
The requirements for naturalizing can be very complex and difficult to understand for
immigrants and native-born alike. Moreover, these requirements are not necessarily consistent
from case to case, meaning that applicants need individualized legal assistance to determine
whether they qualify for citizenship. To add to these complications, the risks of applying can be
very high. In some cases, the denial of an application means the loss of the $680 application fee
as well as any legal fees the applicant might have paid. In other instances, applying for
citizenship could involve the applicant drawing attention to themselves and the fact that are
deportable for violating the terms of their LPR status. This is usually due to a criminal
conviction, but it could also be that an individual has abandoned his or her LPR status by
demonstrating an intention to live outside the United States.
In order to qualify for naturalization, an LPR must pay a $680 fee to USCIS and meet a number
of eligibility requirements:
Be at least 18 years old;
Meet certain residency requirements;
Have Good Moral Character;
Be able to pass a basic English exam;
Be able to pass a civics exam; and
Be willing to swear loyalty to the United States.
With the exception of the age requirement, all of these requirements can involve complex issues,
and many come with exemptions. For instance, the residency requirement can vary depending
on the applicant’s particular situation; an applicant might be exempt from the English exam
depending on age and duration of LPR status; certain disabilities might excuse a person from
having to take the English and/or civics exam; and exemptions can be made for part of the
loyalty oath. Perhaps the most complicated part of the application is meeting the Good Moral
Character requirement: the intersection between state criminal law and federal immigration law
is one of the most complex aspects of American law while also coming with the most severe
risks. These requirements will be discussed in greater detail below as we discuss the primary
obstacles that our work has shown deter LPRs from applying for naturalization.
Legal naturalization requirements are not the only hurdles that eligible LPRs need to overcome,
however. The complexity of the process, a lack of understanding, the amount of information
required, and other issues turn applying for naturalization into a daunting task that many
applicants are unwilling to undertake on their own, if at all. Add to that, the lack of resources
available unless one is willing and able to pay for an attorney (in addition to the application fee)
means that financial issues can pose a major obstacle to naturalizing. Some people seeking
assistance with the application are simply in need of a little hand-holding through the process –
they just require some assurance from an expert that everything is handled properly. Others have
more serious concerns about their eligibility and the impact that applying for citizenship might
3
Survey included as Appendix
Page | 3
have on them and their families. These less formal but often just as daunting issues were
addressed in the applicant survey, and both sets of obstacles will be addressed in greater detail in
the following section of the paper.
III.
OBSTACLES
GBCI used two methods to determine which factors posed the greatest obstacles to an eligible
LPR’s desire to naturalize. First, we looked at the actual files of applicants who came through
GBCI clinics to determine what problems they encountered in the application, how many
applicants qualified for a disability waiver of naturalization exam requirements or qualified for
language exemptions, and why GBCI had to turn ineligible applicants away. Second, GBCI
conducted surveys with clinic participants before they went through the application process to
determine what obstacles they felt stood in their way. Participants in the survey were given a list
of issues and asked if they were not an obstacle, a potential obstacle, or a serious obstacle.
Combining this information allowed us to look at both perceived and actual obstacles allowing
us to look at what might have prevented an eligible LPR from trying to apply for citizenship and
what issues actually did prevent an LPR from applying. Based on the information obtained from
this study, we have ranked the major obstacles according to the number of participants
perceiving it as having an impact, starting with the most serious obstacle:
Financial Issues
Lack of Awareness
Civic/US History
Exam
Lack of
Resources/Assistance
English Requirement
Complexity
Benefits
Biographical
Information
Illiteracy
Legal Assistance
Residency
Dual Citizenship
Good Moral Character
FINANCIAL ISSUES
Financial issues covers a fairly broad array of factors that can impact a person’s ability to
naturalize. Costs associated with becoming a US citizen include enrolling in citizenship/ESOL
classes in order to pass the naturalization exam; obtaining legal assistance with the application;
and finding transportation to classes, legal help, and the many appointments that applicants have
with USCIS during adjudication of the application. Many of these costs can be alleviated
through free programs provided by community service organizations and schools, but the
extended economic downturn has meant that most programs have seen their resources decrease
while at the same time an increasing number of people are in need of free or low-cost services.
Page | 4
Moreover, even where eligible applicants have access to free or low-cost programs, they still
must overcome one of the most serious financial obstacles to applying for citizenship: the high
fee charged by USCIS.
Sharp increases in the fees charged by USCIS have been a major obstacle for eligible LPRs to
overcome in applying for citizenship. Much of the blame for this goes to Congress, which has
refused to appropriate operating funds for USCIS. Thus, USCIS is required to charge high fees
to applicants as the only way to cover its own operating costs. Fees for the N-400 stood at only
$35 in 1983, but had risen to $260 by 2003 and $330 by 2006. In the summer of 2007, fees for
the N-400 jumped to $595 plus an additional $80 fee for biometrics for a total of $675. While
the fee for the N-400 has not increased since 2007, the biometrics fee has risen to $85, bringing
the current total cost for naturalization to $680. Of the 31 European and North American
nations tracked by the Migrant Integration Policy Index, only 5 have higher fees associated with
applying to naturalize.4
According to federal regulations, USCIS has discretion to waive fees when the applicant is
unable to pay.5 To obtain a waiver of the naturalization fee prior to 2010, applicants had to
submit a written request to USCIS stating that, “he or she is entitled to or deserving of the benefit
requested, the reasons for his or her inability to pay, and evidence to support the reasons
indicated.”6 Until recently, there was no form for requesting a fee waiver, and applicants would
have to make a written request with little guidance on what to include and no clear way of
knowing if their financial situation was sufficient to warrant a fee waiver. More importantly for
programs like GBCI, the process of requesting a fee waiver was not one that could be handled in
a group processing setting; rather, the time and documentation required applicants to consult
individually with an experienced attorney.
This situation was rectified in November 2010 when the Obama Administration introduced Form
I-912, Request for Fee Waiver. Created with input from stakeholders around the country, the I912 provides much needed clarity and consistency to the fee waiver process and provides clear
requirements for documenting a fee waiver request. Most important for the group processing
context, the I-912 sets out two categories of people who are virtually guaranteed to have their
requests approved: those receiving means-tested public benefits and those with a household
income at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level. This greatly simplified the request
process to the point that it became easy to incorporate the requests into the group processing
setting: applicants need only bring with them a copy of a letter from a government agency stating
that they are receiving the benefit, their most recent tax returns, or recent paystubs. While this is
a great benefit to most applicants seeking a fee waiver, those who suffer from some other type of
financial hardship – for example, someone with major medical expenses due to illness in the
household – are still not well served in a group processing setting. Due to the time and
documentation burden required to set out a compelling case for a fee waiver, GBCI refers such
applicants out to legal services that can dedicate the necessary time and resources to the I-912.
4
Migrant Integration Policy Index, www.mipex.ed/usa.
8 CFR §103.7(c)
6
8 CFR §103.7(c)(1)(ii)
5
Page | 5
Financial issues easily ranked as the most serious obstacle facing naturalization applicants at
GBCI clinics. Of 93 applicants surveyed, 64 (68.8%) responded that financial issues had been a
problem in applying for citizenship, with 23 of those (24.7% of total respondents) saying that
these issues were a serious problem. Of the 593 applicants who had completed an N-400 at a
GBCI clinic, 187 (31.5%) also completed an I-912. Our study also revealed a large geographic
disparity. In Brockton, 31 of 42 respondents (73.8%) said that financial issues were a problem,
with 17 (40.4%) saying that it was a serious problem. This contrasts with Milford and
Dorchester which saw 16 (66.7%) and 17 (63.0%) applicants respectively respond that financial
issues were a problem. Similarly, 60 (70.6%) participants who completed an application in
Brockton also completed an I-912. This contrasts with only 15 (34.1%) in Milford and 108
(25.6%) in Boston.
In a legal services context, the only thing that can be done to reduce the financial obstacles
facing applicants is to assist with completion of the I-912, something that GBCI has been
successful at. The 187 I-912s that GBCI has assisted with have saved applicants over $127,000,
and this does not include legal fees that applicants would have had to pay an attorney had
GBCI’s free assistance not been available. However, such a process does not reduce the general
burden on applicants, particularly those who are unable to pay the application fee but do not
qualify for a fee waiver. One possible option for these applicants would be to create a fund from
which they could receive money to pay the fees, either as a loan or an outright gift. With the
economy still slowly coming out of recession and donor budgets stretched thin, this is an
unrealistic solution at this time. Outside of direct services, efforts are underway to advocate for a
reduction in N-400 application fees and therefore make citizenship more accessible to a wider
range of eligible LPRs.
LACK OF AWARENESS
The survey also asked eligible applicants about their basic awareness of the application process.
For immigrants still trying to come to grips with the American legal system, navigating the
complex immigration system on the way to becoming US citizens can be an incredibly daunting
task. Learning which application to use, what the basic eligibility requirements are, where to
send the application, and what documentary evidence is required is a major hurdle for many
LPRs to overcome. The depth of information needed for a successful application, combined with
the high fee and constant risk of deportation that hangs over immigrants, discourages many
applicants from seeking citizenship on their own without legal guidance.
Unsurprisingly, lack of awareness proved to be one of the top obstacles to those wishing to apply
for US Citizenship, with 33 respondents (35.5%) saying that it was a problem, though only 3
respondents said it was a serious problem. Without a federal integration program that guides
newcomers along the path to citizenship, immigrants are left to rely on state and local programs
and non-profit agencies to provide the necessary information and support. However, with the
extended economic downturn, state and local governments have continually cut or eliminated
funds geared towards integrating immigrants. In 2000, the Massachusetts General Court
provided $2 million in grants for citizenship work every year, but later completely eliminated
those grants due to the recession that followed the crash of the tech bubble. The General Court
restored these grants in the mid-2000s, but at the much reduced level of $650,000/year, and the
slow recovery from the most recent recession has meant that those funds have been slowly
Page | 6
whittled down to just $250,000/year. To further aggravate the problem, the vast majority of
these resources are devoted to direct assistance with applications, rather than on community
education. In order to improve knowledge of the citizenship processes, resources need to be
devoted to targeted community outreach aimed at educating community members about the
basics of the naturalization process.
CIVICS/US HISTORY EXAM
In order to obtain US Citizenship, an applicant must pass an exam on US History and Civics.
The exam, administered during an applicant’s citizenship interview, consists of 10 questions
taken from a publicly available list of 100 possible questions; in order to pass, an applicant must
answer at least 6 questions correctly. Numbers related to the citizenship exam are stunning. In
surveys of native-born American citizens, testers have found that one-third would fail the exam.
A 2011 poll of 1,000 US Citizens by Newsweek found that 38% failed the exam.7 In 2012, a
survey of 1,000 native-born US Citizens by the Center for the Study of the American Dream at
Xavier University found that 35% would fail the exam, with a surprisingly low level of
knowledge regarding basic principles and features of American government.8 In contrast, 97.5%
of US citizenship applicants passed the citizenship exam in 2010.9
Despite the low failure rate, 31 respondents (33.3%) stated that the civics exam was an obstacle
to applying for citizenship, placing it among the most serious potential barriers uncovered by the
survey. At this point, one can only speculate why there is such a large discrepancy between the
rate at which eligible LPRs perceive the exam as an obstacle and the rate at which applicants
actually fail the exam. One possible explanation is that applicants have not looked at the exam
prior to attending a citizenship clinic, and are unaware of what is expected of them. Indeed,
many applicants feel great anxiety about the exam even when they are well prepared, and some
fail because they freeze up and are unable to answer any of the questions. Another possibility is
that the citizenship exam is a relatively easy obstacle to overcome in a short amount of time
without additional resources. Citizenship applicants usually have at least three months between
mailing in the application to USCIS and attending a naturalization interview, giving them ample
time to study the list of 100 questions. Moreover, USCIS study materials are widely available
and easy to use. Civics flash cards, published by USCIS and available for free, are the most
popular study item available at GBCI clinics. USCIS also posts the questions on their website
and provides CD-ROMs and other materials for applicants to study from. To combat applicants’
concerns regarding this exam, any outreach aimed at reducing the lack of awareness should also
incorporate comprehensive information regarding the citizenship exam and provide study
materials to those interested.
7
Romano, Andrew. “How Dumb Are We?” The Daily Beast. March 20, 2011.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/03/20/how-dumb-are-we.html.
8
“U.S. Naturalization Civics Test.” Center for the Study of the American Dream. March 2012.
http://www.xavier.edu/americandream/programs/documents/5CivicTestpowerpointfinalPDF.pdf
9
“US Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Records Study on Pass/Fail Rates for Naturalization Applicants.” ICF
International. July 30, 2011. http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/files/Records_Study_for_the_Naturalization_Test.pdf.
Page | 7
LACK OF RESOURCES/ASSISTANCE
The GBCI survey revealed that
another major barrier to
citizenship was a lack of
resources available to help those
interested in applying. Resources
include not just application
assistance, such as that provided
at GBCI Citizenship Clinics, but
also assistance with ESOL and
other forms of guidance that
applicants need to navigate the
complex immigration system.
The lack of a federal integration
program, combined with cuts in
state funding for citizenship
services, has meant that fewer resources are available to provide eligible LPRs with the
assistance they need. At the same time, the country’s slow recovery from the recession has
meant more and more potential applicants who are un/underemployed and unable to afford fees
charged by attorneys. This not only prevents many eligible LPRs from applying, it also drives
many to notarios and others who make lofty promises, but who are not qualified to provide
reliable assistance. USCIS has been greatly concerned by this danger, and in response recently
initiated its Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law campaign to provide better information to
members of the community. The GBCI survey found that 30 respondents (32.3%) said that a lack
of resources posed a problem for them, with 3 (3.2%) saying it was a serious problem.
GBCI clinics are meant to directly counter this obstacle by providing the resources and
assistance that eligible LPRs need to start the process of becoming a US Citizen. Greater
outreach to immigrant communities would provide a pathway through which immigrants can
learn about and access these and other available resources.
ENGLISH REQUIREMENT
One of the most complicated obstacles hindering naturalization is the requirement that
individuals be able to speak basic English in order to become a US Citizen. Unlike the civics
requirement, English proficiency is not something that applicants have the time to achieve
between filing an application and attending the naturalization interview; applicants need to be
able to speak English sufficiently well at the time of application. However, in the group
processing context, it can be difficult for volunteers to gauge whether an applicant’s English
skills are sufficient to pass the exam, and even more difficult to achieve consistency in this
regard from one volunteer to another.
Applicants without sufficient proficiency in English might qualify for an exemption or waiver.
If the applicant qualifies for an exemption, there is no application to be approved and no
discretion on the part of USCIS to deny the exemption. LPRs will be automatically exempt from
the English requirement if they meet one of two circumstances: (1) the applicant is at least 50
Page | 8
years old and has had their green card for at least 20 years or (2) the applicant is at least 55 years
old and has had their green card for at least 15 years. If an applicant meets one of these
conditions, they can skip the English portion of the exam and take the civics portion in their
native language with an interpreter they bring with them.
The other option for applicants is to apply for a waiver of the English requirement based on a
disability that prevents them from learning English. In order to obtain this waiver, the applicant
must file an N-648, Certification of Medical Disability which is then adjudicated by the
interviewing officer. There are two major complications with this form. One, this form must be
filled out by a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, or clinic psychologist licensed to practice in
the United States. However, these medical professionals are generally unfamiliar with the form
and how to fill it out to USCIS’s satisfaction. Second, the adjudication happens when the
applicant arrives for their citizenship exam, meaning that applicants will not know beforehand
whether or not USCIS will require them to take the English exam until they first meet the
interviewing officer.
Interestingly, applicants who came to GBCI clinics seem to have more confidence in their
English skills than expected. Of the 93 people who responded to the survey, only 27 (29.0%) of
them listed the language requirement as a problem, with 8 saying it was a serious obstacle.
However, of the 141 people at clinics who failed to complete their applications and for whom
GBCI has detailed information, 90 (63.8%) failed because of their lack of sufficient English
skills. This is by far the most common reason for GBCI attendees to fail to complete the N-400.
Of the 593 who did complete their applications, 44 (7.4%) completed with an N-648 and another
80 (13.5%) qualified for the exemption.
COMPLEXITY
The general complexity of the naturalization process proved to be another obstacle in the path of
eligible LPRs wishing to apply for citizenship. Immigration law is widely considered second
only to tax law in terms of its complexity, and this complexity is aggravated by the many
different ways in which the Immigration and Nationality Act interacts with state law. Even
without taking this interaction into account, the long list of basic requirements, the detailed tenpage application, and the very serious and real risk of deportation if the process is not properly
followed all combine to make many eligible LPRs wary of the application process, leading them
to hold off on the application unless/until they are able to obtain guidance.
While not one of the top five barriers, 20 of the 93 survey respondents (21.5%) responded that
they found the entire process too overwhelming, complex, or intimidating, leading them to put
off their applications. By providing group processing clinics for eligible applicants, GBCI has
managed to help many LPRs to overcome this barrier by providing a safe and comfortable venue
for people to seek not only assistance with their applications, but also information and guidance
on eligibility and other issues around their immigration status or that of a family member. These
efforts could be further bolstered with greater community outreach and education to present such
complex issues in a simple, understandable format that responds to the concerns of community
members. This is not to say that people should be encouraged to apply on their own; the
citizenship process is not easily accessible to the layman, and even trained attorneys can run into
unusual issues that they are not equipped to handle. However, the information should be
Page | 9
presented to eligible LPRs in a way that cuts through the complexity and reduces the
intimidation factor, while still encouraging LPRs to seek out reliable legal assistance rather than
filing on their own.
BENEFITS
Another issue preventing eligible LPRs from applying for US citizenship has been a lack of
awareness of the benefits of being a US citizen – why go through the long, expensive, and
potentially risky process of applying for citizenship if you see no tangible benefits to doing so?
In truth, becoming a US citizen confers many important benefits, including:
Being able to vote in elections;
Traveling on a US passport;
Broader range of relatives for
whom one can apply for an
immigration visa;
Shorter wait times for
obtaining immigrant visas for
family members;
Derivative citizenship for
minor children;
Ability to apply for certain
federal jobs;
Protection from deportation;
and
Eligibility for certain grants,
scholarships, and government
benefits.
In all, 20 (21.5%) respondents said that the perceived lack of benefits to naturalization had been
a barrier to them applying. However, 4 of those 20 had actually applied within one year of
becoming eligible and another respondent was still a few months shy of being eligible to apply.
10 had applied between one and five years of becoming eligible. The remaining 5 respondents
applied more than 5 years after becoming eligible, one of whom had been eligible for over 20
years and another for over 25 years.
Despite this data, measuring an eligible LPR’s perception of the benefits of naturalizing is
extremely difficult to accomplish at group processing events. Because of the nature of such
events, only those who see some potential benefit of US citizenship, if not actual tangible
benefit, are likely to attend. Those who see no benefit to applying for citizenship are much less
likely to actually attend such an event. It is surprising, therefore, to see that as many as 21.5% of
respondents cited lack of benefits as a barrier to naturalizing. It is clear that community outreach
needs to emphasize the very real benefits of naturalization in order to reach those who have been
reluctant to naturalize.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Similar to the issue of the complexity of the process, the detailed nature of the N-400
Application to Naturalize can be a major hindrance for those wishing to become US citizens.
Page | 10
Applicants are asked to provide a lot of biographical information including: where they have
lived, worked, and gone to school for the last five years; details regarding all foreign travel since
becoming an LPR; and basic biographical information about their spouse, ex-spouse, spouse’s
ex-spouse, and all their children. For many applicants, much of this information is not readily
accessible. At group processing events, GBCI staff has encountered applicants who have been
estranged from family members who often still live in their home countries and cannot provide
the necessary information. Other applicants have serious difficulties providing travel
information: of the 200 applicants who completed applications at three clinics, 70 (35.0%) had
been LPRs for at least 10 years, 52 (26.0%) had been an LPR for at least 15 years, 33 (16.5%)
for at least 20 years, 16 (8%) for at least 25 years, and 7 (3.5%) for at least 30 years. For these
people, listing all travel since becoming an LPR is a daunting task; many do not keep their old
passports with stamps from such trips, making it difficult if not impossible to complete the
application.
Eighteen (19.4%) survey respondents said that providing such detailed biographical information
was a problem in applying for citizenship, with 4 saying that it was a serious problem. This is an
issue that is not easily overcome; no amount of outreach or education can bring back a passport
that has been lost or destroyed or bring estranged family back together. GBCI does not turn such
people away; rather it provides these applicants with their application and a list of missing
information for them to obtain before sending the application to USCIS. Outreach can help to
overcome this obstacle by encouraging applicants to apply as soon as they are eligible so that
they still have the necessary biographical information handy. Although this approach cannot
help people who have already waited decades to apply for citizenship, one can hope to avoid
similar problems with newly eligible LPRs.
ILLITERACY
Illiteracy has been an issue that GBCI members and others have been concerned about for many
years now, and something that we encountered at a number of GBCI group processing events. In
the past, this issue has arisen in the context of refugees who were about to lose Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) benefits, because as LPRs they were only eligible for SSI for five (later
extended to 7) years. Many of these refugees were elderly and illiterate in their native language,
making it extremely difficult for them to satisfy the requirement that they be able to read and
write English in order to naturalize. For the majority of people in this situation, there was no
waiver or exemption available; illiteracy on its own does not excuse a lack of English
proficiency. For a small few, there was the option of filing an N-648, Certification of Medical
Disability, if they could demonstrate, through accepted medical practices, that their illiteracy was
related to a mental disability that qualified them for a waiver. However, this exception is so
narrow as to be useless to the vast majority of illiterate LPRs.
Through the survey conducted at group processing events, GBCI encountered 17 (18.3%)
respondents who stated that illiteracy was a problem for them, 3 of whom said it was a serious
problem. Of those, 9 were able to successfully complete the application, indicating that their lack
of language skills was not as severe as they had feared. Despite GBCI’s success, illiteracy
remains a far more complex issue than most of the other challenges facing eligible LPRs.
Community education and outreach by themselves will not be able to overcome this problem,
and many ESOL programs are not designed to provide appropriate services to those who are
Page | 11
illiterate in their native language. In order to overcome this burden, government agencies and
community organizations should work together, preferably as part of a larger national integration
program, to provide targeted outreach and services to immigrants who are illiterate.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE
A small group of respondents also had legal concerns with their citizenship applications. As
with those who said that the lack of resources was a barrier, this group included people seeking
direct assistance with their applications. However, these applicants were seeking legal assistance
because of concerns with a
specific issue in their case
(e.g. questions around
residency or good moral
character), rather than
looking for general
assistance with their
applications.
For the GBCI survey, 13
respondents (14.0%) stated
that legal assistance was a
problem in applying for
citizenship, with 3 saying
that it was a serious
problem. However, 12 of
those 13 respondents were
able to complete their applications at a GBCI clinic, indicating that group processing is an
effective way to handle many specific legal issues that might otherwise dissuade eligible LPRs
from applying for naturalization. For those applicants with legal issues that cannot be handled
appropriately in a clinical setting, GBCI refers to not-for-profit legal service providers to review.
RESIDENCY
Residency requirements for naturalization are rather complex. While most applicants are aware
that, in most cases, an individual must have been an LPR for at least 5 years, there are exceptions
to this requirement as well as other residency requirements that must be fulfilled prior to
applying for citizenship. For example, someone who has had LPR status for only 3 years might
still be able to apply for citizenship if (a) they have been married to a US citizen for those 3 years
and (b) their spouse has been a US citizen for those 3 years.10 In addition to time as an LPR,
applicants must meet certain physical presence requirements. One such requirement is that an
LPR must have been physically present in the United States for at least half of the required
residency period – 2½ years for most, 1½ years for someone applying as the spouse of a US
citizen. A second requirement is that a person must have resided continually in the US during
that period; that is, they cannot have had any long interruptions in their physical presence during
10
LPRs who have served honorably in the US Armed Forces have different residency requirements as well.
However, because the military provides information and free assistance with naturalization applications, LPRs who
would qualify under military service see far fewer obstacles in their way and have little need to turn to non-profit
agencies for assistance with the process.
Page | 12
the residency period. Generally, this means that an applicant cannot have been out of the United
States for more than 6 months at a time. For those who are out of the country for between 6
months and one year, there is a rebuttable presumption that they have violated this requirement,
and must therefore wait at least 4 years and 1 day from returning before they can apply (2 years
and 1 day for someone applying on the basis of marriage to a US Citizen). An individual can
rebut this presumption if they can demonstrate good reason for their prolonged absence, the most
common example being that they were caring for a sick relative. Absences for over 365 days are
generally considered to have broken the continuous residence requirement unless the applicant
has filed an N-470, Application to Preserve Residence of Naturalization Purposes prior to
reaching the one year mark.
Despite the complexity of the residency issue, GBCI has found that few of the applicants we
surveyed were concerned with meeting the residency requirements. In all, only 12 (12.9%)
respondents reported that the residency requirements had posed a potential problem for them,
and all but one of those succeeded in completing an application at one of the group processing
events. We have encountered a handful of enthusiastic LPRs who were a few months short of
meeting their eligibility requirements. These people were not turned away from group
processing, rather they were able to complete the process and given specific instructions on when
they could submit their application to USCIS.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
While the United States allows for naturalizing immigrants to retain their prior citizenship, thus
making them dual citizens, applicants must also look to what the laws of their own country say
on the subject. GBCI served applicants from 64 countries, and each country has its own laws on
whether a person must relinquish their citizenship upon becoming a US Citizen. While we know
that 10 (10.8%) respondents stated that the issue was a concern to them, it is difficult to measure
the true impact that losing one’s original citizenship has on one’s willingness to naturalize.
Those who refuse to naturalize due to the fear of losing their original citizenship are unlikely to
even come to a naturalization clinic, meaning that we cannot measure their numbers or the
impact that loss of citizenship may have on deterring one from applying for citizenship. Clearly,
this is an issue that can be dealt with in outreach by providing eligible LPRs with information on
which countries do and which countries do not recognize dual citizenship.
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
The requirement that eligible LPRs have Good Moral Character (GMC) in order to naturalize is
one of the most complex issues in immigration law, and the questions surrounding GMC take up
almost one-third of the 10-page N-400. GMC covers a number of criminal and other matters that
may have been committed during the required residency period, yet USCIS can and often does
look beyond the residency period to determine an applicant’s moral character. Moreover, the
risk to the applicant is exceedingly high; many crimes would not only prevent someone from
becoming a US citizen, they would lead to the applicant being deported regardless of when the
offense was committed.
In the clinical context, working with GMC issues is extremely difficult; the complexity of the
issue requires more time and research than can be devoted to it in group processing. Addressing
this issue is particularly complicated in Massachusetts where federal and state law do not
Page | 13
necessary match. In Massachusetts, for instance, there exists a criminal disposition known as a
Continuance Without a Finding, which for state purposes is not a conviction. However, because
of the way that immigration law is worded,11 it is considered a conviction for immigration
purposes. This means that someone who thinks their case was dismissed might actually have a
criminal conviction on their record, a conviction that might result in their deportation. For this
reason, any and all criminal issues are referred out to attorneys who can take the time and have
the resources available to properly handle the case.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the dire consequences, criminal issues were not a major concern
for those attending GBCI citizenship clinics. Of the 93 survey respondents, only 4 (4.3%) listed
criminal issues as an obstacle to obtaining citizenship. Similarly, only 22 (3.3%) of those
attending clinics were unable to complete their applications due to a criminal issue. One possible
explanation is that LPRs are familiar enough with the law to know that criminal convictions are
an issue that could get them into serious trouble. In which case, many of these individuals would
be screening themselves out of the process.
Such data indicates that criminal convictions are not a major issue for those attending GBCI
clinics. That does not mean, however, that those running the clinics should not be concerned
about criminal records. Experience has shown that applicants are often times reluctant to admit
to criminal behavior, either because they do not think it is a substantive issue that will impact
their application or because they are embarrassed to admit to their past misdeeds. It is extremely
important that volunteers at the clinics repeatedly emphasize the risks of not coming forward
with these issues, or the clinics risk doing more harm than good.
IV.
CONCLUSION
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s 2011 Immigration Yearbook, just over
30,000 people in Massachusetts have become LPRs every year for the last 10 years.12 However,
during that same period, only around 20,000 immigrants in the state have naturalized every year
during that same period.13 This leaves an estimated 10,000 immigrants in Massachusetts every
year who are eligible to naturalize but fail to for one reason or another. From the data collected
at GBCI clinics, four primary obstacles stand out as impacting broad swaths of the immigrant
community: English ability, high fees, lack of resources, and lack of knowledge. GBCI’s clinics
have been able to address two of these issues in a reliable manner by providing the resources to
complete and file N-400s while also assisting with the I-912.
However, it is clear from the data that stronger outreach needs to be conducted within immigrant
communities to address the lack of knowledge. A coordinated community outreach campaign
must involve more than just media outreach; it needs to include speaking to immigrant
communities directly and being able to answer questions about the process and the benefits of
applying for citizenship. Those who are interested in applying for citizenship must be able to
find the resources they need to guide them through the process, and those who are not interested
11
INA §101(a)(48)(A)
12
“2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics”, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security,
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf, p.16.
13
Ibid, p. 57.
Page | 14
should be shown how their lives could improve if they become US citizens. This is a difficult
task, since immigrant communities can vary significantly from one community to another,
requiring different outreach strategies. Outreach efforts need to be tailored by community-based
organizations to address their communities in the most effective and efficient way possible.
The lack of English skills among many immigrants seeking to apply for citizenship is a more
difficult issue to address. In part, this can be addressed in outreach efforts; in addition to
resources for application assistance, outreach should stress the requirement that applicants be
able to speak English and include information on ESOL classes. However, resources in
Massachusetts for ESOL classes are severely lacking, and many immigrants seeking such classes
are placed on waiting lists for up
to two years. Clearly, there is a
need for increased funding from
state and local stakeholders –
government, businesses, and
foundations – to provide ESOL
classes. GBCI should also
develop its outreach efforts in a
way that gets to LPRs before they
are eligible for citizenship so that
they can get on the waiting list
for ESOL classes early and be
prepared for the English exam
once they are eligible to apply for
citizenship.
Page | 15
Appendix
Barriers to Naturalization Survey Form (B-Natz)
Basic Information:
INTAKE NUMBER:
__________________________
What year did you arrive in the U.S.?
____________
What is the date you received your Green Card?
____________ (mm/dd/yyyy)
What is your highest level of education? (please select one):
Educated in U.S.?
(circle yes or no)
 Elementary or primary school (grades 1-5)
YES / NO
 Middle school or junior high (grades 6-8)
YES / NO
 High school (grades 9-12)
YES / NO
 Attended community college
YES / NO
 Graduated from community college
YES / NO
 Attended 4-year college but did not graduate
YES / NO
 Received bachelor’s degree from 4-year college
YES / NO
 Attended graduate school
YES / NO
 Received master’s degree
YES / NO
 Received Ph.D.
YES / NO
What is your level of English proficiency? (please select one):
None
Beginning
Intermediate
Advanced
Fluent
Page | 16
Below are commonly identified barriers to becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Please identify whether each of these issues has presented a serious barrier to your becoming
naturalized:
Rating
0 = not a barrier
1 = barrier
2 = serious barrier
X = does not know / not applicable / declines to answer/does not understand
question
1. Complexity of the Process / Bureaucratic Barriers
Is the complexity of the naturalization process a serious barrier to naturalization?
2. Language Barriers
Is lack of English proficiency a serious barrier to pursuing naturalization?
3. Lack of Awareness
Is lack of awareness regarding the process a serious barrier to naturalization?
4. Financial Hardship / Fees
Does lack of financial means pose a serious barrier to naturalization?
5. Dual Citizenship
Does giving up citizenship in your land of birth pose a serious barrier to
naturalization?
6. Lack of Interest
Do you think there are no significant benefits to naturalization?
7. Legal Issues
Did you feel you needed to see a lawyer or seek legal help to complete the citizenship
application?
8. Travel Restrictions/Residency Requirements
Do residency requirements pose a serious barrier to naturalizing?
9. Criminal History
Were legal troubles or criminal history a serious barrier to naturalization?
10. Lack of Information About Biographical History
Did gathering your personal information (e.g., travels, documentation, birth
certificates, etc.) pose a barrier to naturalization?
11. Lack of Resources / Assistance
Does not having resources, or help with the process, pose a barrier to naturalization?
12. Civics and History Test Preparation
Do difficulties in preparing for Civics and History tests pose a barrier to naturalization?
13. Illiteracy
Do difficulties in reading or writing pose barriers to naturalization?
14. Family Involvement / Consensus in Making Decision
Does lack of agreement among your family members pose a barrier to naturalization?
Page | 17
Top 3 barriers to naturalization:
Read out the titles of all questions you have rated as ‘2 – serious barrier’ and rank the top 3 barriers
1.
2.
3.
List other barriers to naturalization here:
Page | 18