Legal disputes in the United States Country of Citizenship A law firm’s claim that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) intends to deny naturalization to an applicant because the applicant sent a LinkedIn connection request to officials within the agency has raised concerns.
The issue was highlighted when the law firm published a post on X outlining atypical reasons for scrutinizing applicants’ moral character.
U.S. Citizenship Cases: That’s What Law Firms Say
“Wow. @USCIS thinks @LinkedIn Complying with requirements for its employees revealed a “lack of judgment” and “adversely affected the company” [] Good moral character,” the company wrote.
“Now want to deny naturalization because the applicant sent a LinkedIn follow request, so @immigration office His complete profile is accessible. There is no accusation of actual contact, just a request to follow. The findings in this case will be interesting. “
The content of the post appears to be part of a USCIS notice detailing the agency’s reasons for considering whether an applicant’s behavior meets the standards of good moral character for naturalization.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Use of the Immigration and Nationality Act
As noted in the filing, USCIS cited a catch-all provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows the agency to evaluate conduct that falls outside the categories clearly defined by the statute when determining an applicant’s character.
“INA § 101(f) contains a catch-all provision that provides: “The fact that any person does not fall into any of the foregoing categories shall not preclude a determination of good moral character for other reasons.” “
“The record here contains conduct related to your good moral character, although not listed in INA § 101(f). While your application was pending, you attempted to contact the Director of the USCIS San Jose Field Office, [Redacted]and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services San Francisco Regional Director, [Redacted]through a personal social media platform (LinkedIn). During the interview, you testified that you requested attention and contact with USCIS personnel so that they could “learn who you really are.”
“This conduct is inconsistent with appropriate professional boundaries between applicants and USCIS personnel, reflects a disregard for official channels of communication with the agency, and raises concerns about potentially threatening, coercive, or improperly influencing behavior by USCIS personnel. DHS personnel do face threats and intimidation, and your lack of judgment in this regard adversely affects your good moral character.”
USCIS talks about conduct issues
According to the agency’s clarification, the LinkedIn request was interpreted as an effort to contact USCIS staff outside of designated communications protocols. USCIS believes this behavior raises professional boundary issues and could be viewed as an attempt to improperly influence agency personnel, although the document does not claim there was any direct communication beyond the connection request.
The legal proceedings are expected to examine the scope of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ discretion in interpreting the standard of good moral character in federal immigration legislation.
Attorney Richard T. Herman shares his perspective
In reviewing the case, Richard T. Herman migrant The attorney with more than three decades of experience and founder of Herman Law Group provides his insights exclusively to American Marketplace.
Herman said DHS personnel must be protected from threats and undue influence, adding that a request to follow someone individually on LinkedIn does not constitute a threat, intimidation, harassment or a reflection of poor moral character.
Herman argued that the mere use of a professional website should not be considered evidence of guilt against a citizenship applicant.
“If USCIS officers retain public LinkedIn profiles, then ordinary use of the platform cannot fairly serve as a citizen trap. ‘Lack of judgment’ requires facts, not speculation,” he added.
USCIS August 2025 Memorandum
USCIS evaluates good moral character based on the standards of a typical citizen. Even with the broader, comprehensive review outlined in the August 2025 memo, the agency will still need concrete evidence of ethically significant misconduct. The term “lack of judgment” should not be used as a vague guess.
The situation changes if there is evidence of threats, coercion or undue influence. However, turning a standard online network into a basis for disqualifying citizenship is arbitrary, raises constitutional questions, and is likely to be challenged in federal court.
