Blog

For those applying for visas, times are bleak.  Visa suspensions, pauses, bans, delays, denials.  Consuls applying new over-the-top visa policies; targeting applicants who had no problems receiving visas in the past; and re-opening issues from 10/20/30 years ago, issues that had previously been reviewed and resolved. And so this is a good time to remember your visa rights.

For most naturalized U.S. citizens, denaturalization – or the process by which the US Government takes away citizenship - should not be a reason to lose sleep. Becoming a naturalized citizen does not mean that USCIS is routinely reopening the person’s old immigration file looking for reasons to take citizenship away. But a newly issued USCIS policy alert creates an important caveat: when a naturalized citizen comes back before USCIS to obtain an immigration benefit for somebody else, the agency may take another look at how that person became a citizen in the first place.

On September 14, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2026-13, “Revocation of Naturalization Referrals,” revising Volume 12, Part L of the USCIS Policy Manual. One sentence in the policy alert is particularly significant. USCIS expressly “affirms that for any pending or future filed petition or application associated with a U.S. citizen, USCIS determines whether the petitioner lawfully obtained citizenship.” In other words, when a naturalized citizen files an immigrant petition for a spouse (CR1/IR1), child (CR2/IR2), parent (IR5), or sibling (F4), the case is not necessarily limited to determining whether the beneficiary qualifies for immigration. USCIS may also revisit the petitioner’s own immigration and naturalization history.

The Trump Administration has revoked more than 175,000 U.S. visas, according to the State Department, with most revocations reportedly involving criminal conduct, immigration violations, fraud, or national-security concerns. But an increasingly important category involves people whose visas have been revoked because of political statements, political views, social-media activity, or associations with individuals considered problematic by US government officials. This visa revocation net has been cast far and wide, even encompassing political figures in Mexico and Brazil.  

A visa revocation, however, is not the same thing as a finding of inadmissibility. Under Section  221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of State or a consular officer has broad authority to revoke a visa after it has been issued. But when the individual later applies for a new visa, the government still must apply the relevant provisions of the law. For example, if the person has not committed a crime covered by Section 212(a)(2); has no applicable security or terrorism ground under Section 212(a)(3); has not committed fraud or a material misrepresentation under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i); and has no other applicable ground of inadmissibility, there may be no substantive basis to find the person inadmissible simply because of political views or an association with another person. Political activity can implicate particular provisions of Section 212(a)(3) in some circumstances, but there is no general rule making someone inadmissible merely because that person criticized President Trump or knew someone the administration considers undesirable.

In many cases, the promise of the shady visa consultant or agent is simple: pay a fee, follow the instructions, and the visa or the status will be approved. The problem is that the instructions often involve exaggerating qualifications, submitting fabricated evidence, or making outright false statements to U.S. immigration authorities. While the agent may collect a substantial fee and move on to the next client, it is the applicant who ultimately bears the consequences.

Over the years, immigration fraud has taken many forms. One example involved the AzTech/Wireclass/Findream OPT scheme, in which individuals were provided with fictitious employment or training arrangements designed to maintain immigration status and create the appearance of lawful employment or training. When these schemes were uncovered, USCIS, ICE, and the Department of State frequently focused not only on the organizers but also on the participants. The problem is that many of those individuals were misled and unwitting participants, particularly in the early years of 2015-2018 when such schemes were not well-known or understood to involve fraud. Yet many of those individuals now find themselves facing visa refusals, findings of fraud or misrepresentation under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i), removal proceedings, or long-term immigration consequences.

By now, you may have heard of the bombshell adjustment of status memorandum released by USCIS last week. In that memo, USCIS emphasizes that the grant of adjustment of status is “an extraordinary matter of discretion” and was not meant to “supersede the regular consular processing of immigrant visas.” While it is unclear how exactly it will be implemented or whether it will be invalidated by the courts, it is clear that, as of today, there is a new calculus in determining whether one should seek to adjust status or consular process. Any nonimmigrant – a visitor (B or ESTA/VWP), student (F), exchange visitor (J-1), professional (H-1B), business executive/manager/specialist (L-1), individual with extraordinary or distinguished ability (sciences, arts, etc.…) (O-1), athletes/cultural workers (P) religious workers (R-1) – who is located in the US and has an interest in and legal basis for immigrating through a family, immediate relative, employment or diversity lottery immigration category must consider the potential ramifications of the new memo.