A legal dispute regarding a U.S. citizenship application has garnered attention following a law firm’s assertion that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) intends to reject an applicant’s naturalization due to his sending LinkedIn connection requests to officials within the agency.
This matter was highlighted when the law firm published a post on X, which outlined what it referred to as an atypical reason for scrutinizing an applicant’s moral character.
US citizenship case: Here’s what the law firm said
“Wow. @USCIS thinks a @LinkedIn follow request to its employees reveals a ‘lack of judgment’ and ‘reflects adversely on [] good moral character’,” the firm wrote.
“It now wants to deny naturalization because an applicant sent a LinkedIn follow request so @USCIS could have access to his full profile. There is no accusation of actual contact, just a request to follow. Discovery in this case will be fun.”
The post featured what seems to be a segment from a USCIS notice detailing the agency’s rationale for considering the applicant’s actions pertinent to the good moral character criterion for naturalization.
Also Read: Green Card holders rights under threat: New immigration ruling could raise risks for permanent residents
USCIS and use of Immigration and Nationality Act
As stated in the document, USCIS invoked the catchall provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, permitting the agency to evaluate behavior that extends beyond the explicitly defined categories in the statute when determining an applicant’s character.
“INA § 101(f) contains a catchall clause stating: ‘The fact that any person is not within any of the foregoing classes shall not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral character.’
“Here the record contains conduct that is relevant to your good moral character despite not being enumerated at INA § 101(f). During the pendency of your application, you attempted to initiate contact with the USCIS San Jose Field Office Director, [Redacted], and the USCIS San Francisco District Director, [Redacted], through a personal social media platform (LinkedIn). At your interview, you testified that you requested to follow and connect with USCIS staff members so that they could ‘have access to who you are as a person.’
“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 influential behavior toward USCIS staff. DHS personnel do face threats and intimidation, and your lack of judgment in this regard reflects adversely on your good moral character.”
USCIS speaks about behavior issues
As per the agency’s clarification, the LinkedIn requests were interpreted as an effort to reach out to USCIS staff outside of the designated communication protocols. USCIS contended that this behavior raised issues regarding professional boundaries and could be seen as an attempt to unduly influence agency personnel, although the document does not claim any direct communication beyond the connection requests.
The legal proceedings are anticipated to examine the extent of USCIS’s discretion in interpreting the good moral character criterion under federal immigration legislation.
Laywer Richard T. Herman shares his view
In reviewing the case, Richard T. Herman, an immigration attorney with over thirty years of experience and the founder of Herman Legal Group, provided his insights exclusively to The American Bazaar.
DHS personnel must be safeguarded against threats and undue influence, Herman said, adding that a request to follow someone on LinkedIn, in isolation, does not constitute a threat, coercion, harassment, or a reflection of poor moral character.
Herman contended that simply utilizing a professional networking site should not be regarded as incriminating evidence against an applicant for citizenship.
“If USCIS officials maintain public LinkedIn profiles, ordinary use of that platform cannot fairly become a citizenship trap. ‘Lack of judgment’ needs facts, not speculation,” he added.
USCIS August 2025 memo
USCIS evaluates good moral character based on the standards of typical citizens. Even with the broader, holistic review outlined in the August 2025 memo, the agency still requires concrete evidence of morally significant misconduct. The term “lack of judgment” should not be used as an ambiguous catch-all for conjecture.
In cases where there is proof of threats, coercion, or undue influence, the situation changes. However, transforming standard online networking into a basis for disqualifying citizenship is arbitrary, raises constitutional concerns, and is likely to face challenges in federal court.
