2002 Yates memo on unlawful voting, natz
Procedures for Handling Naturalization Applications of Aliens Who Voted Unlawfully or Falsely Represented Themselves as U.S. Citizens by Voting or Registering to Vote; May 7, 2002.
Archive for the ‘Citizenship’ Category
2002 Yates memo on unlawful voting, naturalization
Friday, June 18th, 2010Study Materials for the Naturalization Test
Monday, June 14th, 2010During your naturalization eligibility interview, a USCIS officer will test your ability to read, write, and speak English (unless you are exempt from the English requirements). You will also be given a civics test in English (to test your knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government) unless you are exempt. Even if exempt from the English test, you will need to take the civics test unless you qualify for a waiver. You may also be eligible to take the civics test in your native language with the assistance of an interpreter if you qualify.
English. Your English skills will be tested in the following ways:
- Reading. To test your ability to read in English, you must read one sentence, out of three sentences, in a manner suggesting to the USCIS officer that you understand the meaning of the sentence.
- Writing. To test your ability to write in English, you must write one sentence, out of three sentences, in a manner that would be understandable as written to the USCIS officer.
- Speaking. Your ability to speak English is determined by your answers to questions normally asked by USCIS officers during the naturalization eligibility interview regarding the information on your Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
Civics. During your interview, the USCIS officer will ask you to orally answer a set of civics questions. You must answer 6 out of 10 civics questions correctly to achieve a passing score. The list of questions can be found below or see the links to the left.
-
Study Materials for the Naturalization Test
- Multimedia Tools
- The USCIS Naturalization Interview and Test Video
- Becoming a U.S. Citizen: An Overview of the Naturalization Process Video
- English Portion of the Naturalization Test
- Naturalization Test: Vocabulary List for the English Reading Test (165KB PDF)
- Naturalization Test: Reading Vocabulary Flash Cards (1235KB PDF)
- Naturalization Test: Vocabulary List for the English Writing Test (167KB PDF)
- Naturalization Test: Writing Vocabulary Flash Cards (1219KB PDF)
- Civics Portion of the Naturalization Test
- Naturalization Test: Civics (History and Government) Questions with MP3 Audio (English)
- Naturalization Test: Civics (History and Government) Questions with MP3 Audio (Spanish)
- Naturalization Test: Civics (History and Government) Questions (Chinese Version) (363KB PDF)
- Naturalization Test: Civics (History and Government) Questions (Tagalog Version) (289KB PDF)
- Naturalization Test: Civics (History and Government) Questions (Vietnamese Version) (278KB PDF)
- Naturalization Test: Civics (History and Government) Questions for the 65/20 Exemption
- Civics Flash Cards for the Naturalization Test (8084KB PDF)
- Civics Flash Cards for the Naturalization Test (reversed colors) (8059KB PDF)
- Learn About the United States: Quick Civics Lessons for the Naturalization Test (1532KB PDF)
Additional Information
- Redesigned (New) Naturalization Test Informational Brochure (514KB PDF)
- Scoring Guidelines for the U.S. Naturalization Test (40KB PDF)
- Naturalization Test Redesign Project: Civics Item Selection Analysis (5664KB PDF)
- New Naturalization Test Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (62KB PDF)
- New Naturalization Test Fact Sheet (56KB PDF)
Naturalization Oath
Monday, June 14th, 2010History
United States naturalization regulations of 1929 were the first to differentiate between the “substance of” and the “text of” the oath of renunciation and allegiance. The substance of the oath was found in each of several U.S. nationality laws dating from 1790. Yet not until 1906, when the federal government first began its effort to standardize naturalization procedures, was there any attempt to issue a uniform, printed text for the oath. A prescribed text was not officially adopted and promulgated until the late 1920’s.
Any discussion of the oath’s history must recognize that prior to 1906 naturalization courts had little or no guidance on how to apply or administer the law. Naturalization legislation required an applicant to first declare an “oath” before any “court of record” announcing his intention to become a U.S. citizen. Later, upon petitioning a court:
The language of this section may have been amended to read in the first person, and the clerk of court might have transcribed, verbatim, its repetition by the applicant. More often than not, pre-1906 court records simply contain entries in the minute books documenting that a certain alien did indeed swear an oath of allegiance on a certain date. If the applicant read from any other text than the law quoted above, it would have been a text amended and printed by the court. Each court could have printed their own text, and, prior to 1906, there were as many as 5,000 courts with naturalization jurisdiction.
The President’s Commission on Naturalization reported in 1905 that United States naturalization courts displayed a remarkable lack of uniformity. The Commission recommended re-codification of naturalization laws and the creation of a federal agency to oversee the procedure. It also recommended standard forms to be used for all U.S. naturalizations, one of which was a form for the oath of allegiance.
The Basic Naturalization Act of 1906 implemented most of the Commission’s recommendations, but did not mandate a separate form for the oath. Rather, some of the substance of the oath was incorporated into the texts of the new Declaration of Intention form and Petition for Naturalization form. The Declaration included a renunciation of foreign allegiance. The Petition did the same, including renunciations of anarchism and polygamy, and a declaration of the applicant’s attachment to the Constitution. Presumably, in open court, the petitioner still recited (or affirmed) a spoken oath adapted from the law.
Though an official text was adopted by 1920 for the oath of allegiance taken by those resuming U.S. citizenship, an official text for the naturalization oath did not appear in the regulations until 1929. Rule 8, Subdivision C, of that year stipulated that before a certificate of citizenship could be issued, the applicant should “take in court and subscribe to the following oath of allegiance:”
With the introduction of a signed oath, the text of which was prescribed in Federal regulations, came the standardization of the language of the oath of renunciation and allegiance. Though the text was prescribed, there was yet no separate, federal form for the oath. It was probably printed on the back of the petition, as it is today.
Oath
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
USCIS Naturalization Ceremony in Afghanistan
Monday, June 14th, 2010BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan. The U.S. armed forces Combined Joint Task Force-82 hosted the 13th naturalization ceremony held in Afghanistan on June 3, 2010. During the ceremony 71 soldiers and Marines from 36 different countries became citizens of the United States.

Joanna Ruppel, Chief of International Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), led the naturalization ceremony and administered the Oath of Allegiance. Guests of honor included Karl W. Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of Combined Joint Task Force-82. Also attending the ceremony were more than 100 service members who gave a standing ovation to the new U.S. citizens.
“The Oath of Allegiance asks you to ‘bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law,’” said Ruppel. “These words hold special significance because you already have met those requirements even before you became U.S. citizens.”
During his remarks Ambassador Eikenberry congratulated the service men and women saying, “I cannot think of anyone who more deserves to become a citizen of the United States of America than somebody who has served in the United States armed forces.”
Officials from USCIS’s Bangkok District office joined Ruppel in Afghanistan to interview each citizenship candidate and administer the naturalization test for three days leading up to the ceremony. After the ceremony, staff from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul helped the new citizens complete their applications for their first U.S. passport.
Since October 2004, when USCIS naturalized 17 service members during a ceremony at Bagram Airfield, 701 members of the military have become U.S. citizens while serving in Afghanistan. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 allows for members of the military to naturalize while serving abroad. Before October 1, 2004, military service members could only naturalize while physically within the United States.
USCIS Proposes to Raise Fees more than 10%
Thursday, June 10th, 2010|
Application/Petition Description |
Current Fees |
Proposed Fees |
Percentage Changed |
| I-90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card |
$290 |
$365 |
25.86% |
| I-102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document |
$320 |
$330 |
3.13% |
| I-129 Petition for a Nonimmigrant worker |
$320 |
$325 |
1.56% |
| I-129F Petition for Alien Fiance(e) |
$455 |
$340 |
-25.27% |
| I-130 Petition for Alien Relative |
$355 |
$420 |
18.31% |
| I-131 Application for Travel Document |
$305 |
$360 |
18.03% |
| I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker |
$475 |
$580 |
22.11% |
| I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion |
$585 |
$630 |
7.69% |
| I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special Immigrant |
$375 |
$405 |
8.00% |
| I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status |
$930 |
$985 |
5.91% |
| I-526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur |
$1,435 |
$1,500 |
4.53% |
| I-539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status |
$300 |
290 |
-3.33% |
| I-600/600A Orphan Petitions |
$670 |
$720 |
7.46% |
| I-687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident |
$710 |
$1,130 |
59.15% |
| I-690 Application for Waiver on Grounds of Inadmissibility |
$185 |
$200 |
8.11% |
| I-694 Notice of Appeal of Decision |
$545 |
$755 |
38.53% |
| I-698 Application to Adjust Status From Temporary to Permanent Resident |
$1,370 |
$1,020 |
-25.55% |
| I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence |
$465 |
$505 |
8.60% |
| I-765 Application for Employment Authorization |
$340 |
$380 |
11.76% |
| I-817 Application for Family Unity Benefits |
$440 |
$435 |
-1.14% |
| I-824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition |
$340 |
$405 |
19.12% |
| I-829 Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions |
$2,850 |
$3,750 |
31.58% |
| Civil Surgeon Designation |
0 |
$615 |
* |
| I-924 Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program |
0 |
$6,230 |
* |
| N-300 Application to File Declaration of Intention |
$235 |
$250 |
6.38% |
| N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings |
$605 |
$650 |
7.44% |
| N-400 Application for Naturalization |
$595 |
$595 |
0.00% |
| N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes |
$305 |
$330 |
8.20% |
| N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document |
$380 |
$345 |
-9.21% |
| N-600/N-600K Naturalization Certificate Applications |
$460 |
600 |
30.43% |
| Waiver Forms (I-191, I-192, I-193, I-212, I-601, I-612) |
$545 |
$585 |
7.34% |
| Immigrant Visa |
$0 |
$165 |
* |
| Biometric Services |
$80 |
$85 |
6.25% |
Could you pass latest citizenship test?
Friday, May 28th, 2010Immigration status of military wives makes deployments even harder.
Monday, May 10th, 2010Three days ago the New York Times presented a well written article about Lt. Kenneth Tenebro and his family’s immigration problems. A military member’s family is always on their mind when deployed. The additional worry about immigration requirements and the need to appear at interviews only adds to the stress. I knew a young sergeant once, who was married to a very nice young lady from another country. They had done everything they could to follow the immigration laws. While the young sergeant was deployed to the middle east as part of Desert Shield/Desert Storm his wife was put in deportation. Her conditional status was revoked because the young sergeant failed to appear at the interview, because he was deployed overseas. This situation had a happy ending through the quick work of an attorney, the sergeant’s father. The immigration court was notified of the situation and the case was terminated. I was the young sergeant, my wife is now a U.S. citizen and we have been married for more than twenty years.
Because of my family’s experiences with immigration as a military member, my office has volunteered to be part of AILA’s military assistance program. In addition to our immigration assistance we have started a nonprofit company to provide information regarding military rights and benefits to those who intend to serve, those who are serving and those who have served. This site can be found at www.militarycop.com
Immigration Status of Army Spouses Often Leads to Snags
By JULIA PRESTON for the New York Times
Lt. Kenneth Tenebro enlisted in the armed forces after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, signing up even before he became an American citizen.
He served one tour of duty in Iraq, dodging roadside bombs, and he would like to do another. But throughout that first mission, he harbored a fear he did not share with anyone in the military. Lieutenant Tenebro worried that his wife, Wilma, back home in New York with their infant daughter, would be deported.
Wilma, who like her husband was born in the Philippines, is an illegal immigrant.
“That was our fear all the time,” Lieutenant Tenebro said. When he called home, “She often cried about it,” he said. “Like, hey, what’s going to happen? Where will I leave our daughter?”
Immigration lawyers and Department of Homeland Security officials say that many thousands of people in the military have spouses or close relatives who are illegal immigrants. Many of those service members have fought to gain legal status for their family members — only to hit a legal dead end created in 1996, when Congress last made major revisions to the immigration laws.
Today the issue is not only personal. “It is an issue of readiness for the American armed forces,” says Representative Zoe Lofgren, the Democrat from California who leads the House subcommittee on immigration. “We have many Americans who are afraid to deploy.”
Lieutenant Tenebro would like to make a career in the military, including new missions to Iraq or Afghanistan, but for now he is not stepping forward for an overseas deployment. “Our situation has kept me at bay because of the constant worry that something might happen to my family while I am away,” he said.
With the debate over illegal immigration sharpening after a tough law passed in Arizona, immigration lawyers said the Tenebros’ case illustrates legal obstacles that have stopped immigrants from becoming legal even when they could qualify.
“We have made it impossible for many illegal immigrants to become legal,” said Charles Kuck, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta who was 2009 president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the national bar.
Many lawmakers say that existing penalties have helped curb illegal immigration and, if anything, should be increased.
Like Lieutenant Tenebro, many soldiers, anticipating rebuke and possibly damage to their careers, do not reveal to others in the military their family ties to immigrants here illegally.
“You will always hear the jokes about those who crossed the border,” Lieutenant Tenebro said. “Even though we think we did everything legally possible, it’s just not knowing what other people will think. Maybe they will find ways to hit you, without knowing the whole facts.”
Lieutenant Tenebro, 35, an Army officer now stationed at Fort Dix, N.J., said he decided to tell his story publicly for the first time after lawyers advised Mrs. Tenebro that she had little hope of being approved to remain here as a legal resident without a change in immigration law. He risks drawing the attention of his commanders and the immigration authorities to his wife’s illegal status.
Mrs. Tenebro is snagged on a statute, notorious among immigration lawyers, that makes it virtually impossible for her to become a legal resident without first leaving the United States and staying away for 10 years.
Because of the Catch-22, the severe penalty applies to Mrs. Tenebro even though she is the wife of an American citizen who is also an active duty serviceman. Lieutenant Tenebro, who was never in the United States illegally, was naturalized in 2003.
The legal boomerang that snared her and many others was created in 1996, when Congress imposed automatic restrictions on illegal immigrants, barring them from returning for periods of 3 to 10 years after they leave the country, regardless of whether they were deported or left voluntarily. However, in many cases the law also requires immigrants who are approved for legal documents to complete their paperwork at American consulates in their home countries.
The Tenebros’ immigration troubles began with a moonstruck romance. They met one weekend five years ago while Wilma was on vacation in New York at the end of a job as a housekeeper on a cruise ship. She did not return to the Philippines, and eventually she overstayed her visa.
Love led to marriage, and their daughter, who is now 3, and an expensive battle to gain legal status for Mrs. Tenebro, 37.
In 2008, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency, gave Mrs. Tenebro approval to become a legal permanent resident, as the spouse of an American citizen. In general, immigration law is intended to make it easy for foreigners who marry citizens to become legal residents.
But because of the particular visa she overstayed — known as a crewman’s visa — she is required to finish the paperwork for her green card in the Philippines. Every one of a string of lawyers the couple consulted — $7,000 in fees so far — gave them the same bad news: Even though Mrs. Tenebro has qualified for a green card, if she leaves the United States to get it, she will automatically trigger the legal bar that will block her from returning for 10 years.
In rare circumstances of severe hardship, consular officials have the authority to grant waivers allowing spouses to return here more quickly. But officials in Manila are known among lawyers for being especially reluctant to give waivers.
For his wife, Lieutenant Tenebro said, the visa offered in Manila is “like the cheese in a mousetrap. It’s like, hey, come and get it! And then, swat! They’ll get you.”
One lawyer after another suggested the same option, he said: “Wait until there is a change in the language of the law.”
Susan Timmons, who runs the military assistance program for the immigration lawyers association, said there was little lawyers could do in such cases.
“If you do try to follow the law, you run into a serious problem and you won’t be able to fix your situation,” Ms. Timmons said. Her program has received hundreds of similar cases from American soldiers, she said.
Lieutenant Tenebro said he and his wife believed they were following the rules by prolonging their courtship and waiting for several months after their marriage in February 2007 to file for her immigration papers, so it would be clear that their marriage was not fake.
They remember the first time a lawyer explained the decade-long separation they could be facing. “I didn’t want to show emotion, but it was like shock,” Mrs. Tenebro said. “I was thinking, to be away from my family is hard.”
Representative Lofgren and Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, have proposed bills that would make it easier for spouses and close relatives of Americans in the military to become legal residents. Those bills are included in immigration overhaul legislation, including measures to grant legal status to millions of currently illegal immigrants, that Democratic Congressional leaders are preparing.
But after the furor over the Arizona law, President Obama said Wednesday that he wanted to “begin work” on the overhaul — but not try to pass a bill — this year. Republicans argue that the administration should concentrate on enforcement, not on easing the law.
“Millions of individuals come to the U.S. on visas every year and don’t overstay them,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “Congress has already provided for remedies in appropriate cases, so there should be no need to change the rules.”
Homeland Security officials said that in the absence of Congressional action, they had been working quietly to fix immigration problems for American soldiers on a case-by-case basis, using limited authorities that already exist in law. After a preliminary review of the Tenebros’ case in response to a reporter’s questions, Citizenship and Immigration Services officials said they were working to identify legal alternatives for them.
“Keeping U.S. military families together is a vital priority,” said Matt Chandler, a Homeland Security Department spokesman.
Now, instead of a foreign mission, Lieutenant Tenebro is running a marathon every month or so, raising money for veterans coming back with injuries. At home on Long Island, Mrs. Tenebro, who cannot work legally, feels a chill every time immigration news comes on the radio.
“We just have our bags packed all the time in case immigration will come knocking on the door,” Lieutenant Tenebro said “We talk about what school to pick and what apartment to get. But it’s in the Philippines.”
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2009
Wednesday, April 14th, 2010Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2009
Immigrants
| Table # | Title |
|---|---|
| Table 1 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2009 (XLS, 19 KB) |
| Table 2 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Region and Selected Country of Last Residence: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2009 (XLS, 44 KB) |
| Table 3 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Years 2000 to 2009 (XLS, 47 KB) |
| Table 4 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by State of Residence: Fiscal Years 2000 to 2009 (XLS, 27 KB) |
| Table 5 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) of Residence: Fiscal Years 2000 to 2009 (XLS, 20 KB) |
| Table 6 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 2000 to 2009 (XLS, 24 KB) |
| Table 7 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Detailed Class of Admission: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 63 KB) |
| Table 8 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Gender, Age, Marital Status, and Occupation: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 17 KB) |
| Table 9 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Broad Class of Admission and Selected Demographic Characteristics: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 18 KB) |
| Table 10 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Broad Class of Admission and Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 38 KB) |
| Table 11 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Broad Class of Admission and Region and Country of Last Residence: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 37 KB) |
| Table 12 | Immigrant Orphans Adopted by U.S. Citizens by Gender, Age, and Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 20 KB) |
Supplemental Tables
| Table # | Title |
|---|---|
| Supplemental Table 1 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by State or Territory of Residence and Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 167 KB) |
| Supplemental Table 2 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Leading Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) of Residence and Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 154 KB) |
| Supplemental Table 3 | Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Region of Birth and Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) of Residence: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 148 KB) |
| Supplemental Table 4 | Immigrant-Orphans Adopted by U.S. Citizens by State or Territory of Residence, Gender, and Age: Fiscal Year 2009 (XLS, 27 KB) |
Non-Citizen U.S. War Vets Facing Deportation Despite Military Promises of Citizenship
Monday, April 5th, 2010“We take a look at the threat of deportation that non-citizen veterans of American wars continue to face despite US military promises of citizenship. We talk to Rohan Coombs, a Jamaican-born U.S. vet who was in the US marine corps for six years and served in the Persian Gulf War. He spent eight months in prison for a marijuana-related conviction. The day he was to be released he was told he would be deported.
USCIS Expedite Criteria
Friday, February 26th, 2010All expedite requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and are granted at the discretion of the Director. The burden is on the applicant or petitioner to demonstrate that one or more of the expedite criteria have been met. The criteria are as follows:
- Severe financial loss to company or individual
- Extreme emergent situation
- Humanitarian situation
- Nonprofit status of requesting organization in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States
- Department of Defense or National Interest Situation (Note: Request must come from official United States Government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to our Government)
- USCIS error
- Compelling interest of USCIS
If you are filing your application or petition:
You must provide a written explanation as to why the application or petition needs to be expedited. You may include supporting evidence with the request. Write “EXPEDITE REQUEST” at the top of your letter. When you file your application or petition, place your expedite request letter on the top of your documents.
If you have already filed your application or petition:
You can contact the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-800-375-5283. The NCSC will take a “service request” and forward your expedite request to the office with jurisdiction over the application or petition. You also have the options of 1). visiting your local office by scheduling an InfoPass appointment or 2). writing a letter to the local office or service center.
If you have an attorney, it is always best to have the attorney handle this and all other communications with USCIS for you.
