1. Naturalization Denial Washington D.C. | Case Background and Applicant Profile
The applicant was a lawful permanent resident who had resided continuously in the United States for more than two decades and was in his early seventies at the time of filing for naturalization in Washington, D.C.
Due to age related health conditions, the applicant sought a disability based waiver of the English and civics requirements, which USCIS approved pursuant to federal regulations.
The naturalization denial arose not from statutory ineligibility on its face, but from credibility concerns raised during the interview process.
Long Term Residence and Medical Exemption Approval
The applicant had maintained lawful permanent resident status for many years without interruption and had no criminal history or removal proceedings on record.
Because of diagnosed cognitive and memory impairments, a Form N-648 medical certification was submitted and accepted under 8 C.F.R. § 312.2(b)(2), exempting the applicant from standard testing requirements.
Despite this accommodation, USCIS later relied on the applicant’s impaired recollection during questioning as a basis for adverse findings.
This tension between approved disability accommodations and interview based credibility assessments became central to the naturalization denial.
2. Naturalization Denial Washington D.C. | USCIS Interview Issues and Allegations
The applicant appeared alone at the Washington, D.C. USCIS Field Office for the naturalization interview, without legal representation present.
During the examination, the interviewing officer focused extensively on a marriage that had occurred approximately thirty years earlier, despite the absence of prior findings of fraud.
The officer’s questioning style and scope significantly exceeded the applicant’s cognitive capacity.
Interview Conduct and Memory Based Inconsistencies
During questioning, the applicant was asked to recall dates, living arrangements, and personal details from decades earlier, which he could not accurately provide due to medically documented memory loss.
Under INA § 316(a), USCIS may assess good moral character and eligibility, but such assessments must be grounded in reliable evidence rather than confusion caused by disability.
The officer nevertheless treated inconsistent answers as affirmative evidence of misrepresentation.
These interview responses later formed the sole factual basis for the proposed naturalization denial.
3. Naturalization Denial Washington D.C. | Notice of Intent to Deny and Legal Framework
Several weeks after the interview, USCIS issued a written Notice of Intent to Deny the naturalization application.
The notice alleged that the applicant’s prior marriage constituted a sham marriage entered into for immigration purposes, thereby barring naturalization eligibility.
This allegation invoked INA § 204(c), which permanently prohibits immigration benefits if marriage fraud is established by substantial and probative evidence.
Legal Deficiencies in the Denial Rationale
The Notice relied exclusively on the applicant’s confused interview statements rather than contemporaneous documentary evidence or prior adjudicative findings.
No previous USCIS or immigration court decision had ever concluded that the marriage was fraudulent.
Under controlling case law and USCIS policy guidance, a finding of marriage fraud requires independent, objective evidence, not retrospective inference drawn from impaired testimony.
These deficiencies rendered the proposed naturalization denial legally vulnerable.
4. Naturalization Denial Washington D.C. | Response Strategy and Successful Outcome
After receiving the Notice, the applicant retained counsel experienced in complex naturalization denial matters in Washington, D.C.
A comprehensive response was prepared and submitted within the statutory response period, addressing both factual and legal errors.
USCIS ultimately reversed its position and approved the naturalization application.
Evidence Submission and Statutory Rebuttal
The response included medical documentation clarifying the scope and impact of the applicant’s cognitive impairment at the time of the interview.
Affidavits, historical records, and prior immigration approvals were submitted to demonstrate the bona fide nature of the prior marriage.
The legal argument emphasized due process principles, the evidentiary standard under INA § 204(c), and the improper reliance on disability affected testimony.
Following review, USCIS withdrew the naturalization denial and granted U.S. citizenship.
30 Dec, 2025
