Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates
Beach-Oswald Immigration Law
News Update
In This Issue . . .

1. Recent Grants & Successes

2. Discriminatory Practices in Central American Credible Fear Process

3. Is the United States Becoming More Immigrant Friendly?

4. Enhancing the Lives of Unaccompanied Minors
5. Citizenship for an Illegal Entry Temporary Protection Status Recipient
6. Evolving Trends in New Legal Permanent Residents
7. Evolving Trends in Refugee and Asylum Admissions
8. Nationality Trends in New Naturalized United States Citizens
Quick Links
Join Our List

Join Our Mailing List

AILA 2013

 Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

View our profile on LinkedIn

View our videos on YouTube

Visit our blog


clients choice award

 

Issue: #3June 2014

Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates, PC are Washington, DC immigration attorneys. Our law firm is devoted exclusively to immigration law. We have an AV rating (highest possible rating for lawyers for legal acumen and ethical standards). Practicing law since 1981.

 

Thank you all for your confidence and support as we have been listed again for Washington DC Super Lawyers 2011-2014, representing the top 5% of lawyers in the area as listed by the Washington Post 2014!

 

Please complete a Client Data Form prior to your consultation. We have forms in English, French, Spanish, Korean, Arabic and Russian. If you require a form in another language, please call us at (202) 331-3074.

 

 Read on!

Cartoon from Tom Toles, The Washington Post
 
Recent Grants & Successes by BOILA
success
Grants by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

BOILA is pleased to share that Ms. N, a native and citizen of Cameroon, received approval of her N-400 Application for Naturalization and has become a citizen of the United States.  BOILA was successful in assisting Ms. N in obtaining citizenship, which has enabled her to file a Petition for Alien Relative for her father, who is presently in removal proceedings.

 

Mr. K, a native and citizen of the Central African Republic (CAR), his wife and his daughter were granted approval of his asylum application by the Arlington Asylum Office due to persecution suffered by Mr. K as a result of his political activities with the CAR government.  Mr. K previously filed for asylum and his application was denied.  BOILA was successful in showing that changed country conditions allowed Mr. K to refile his application for asylum.

 

Ms. E, a native and citizen of Sweden, was granted approval of her I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence and received her non-conditional green card based on her continued bona fide marriage to her US citizen husband.

 

Mr. O, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was granted approval of his adjustment of status application and received his green card based on his marriage to his US citizen spouse.  BOILA was successful in appealing the previous revocation of Mr. O's I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, having his I-130 Petition approved, and terminating removal proceedings before the Baltimore Immigration Court.   Finally after Federal Mandamus and appeals over years of time the 204 C bar was removed.

 

Ms. M, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court based on persecution she suffered as a result of forced marriage in her native country and her political activism with the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC).  With BOILA's assistance, Ms. M's asylum application was granted by the Immigration Court.

 

Mr. A, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of his adjustment of status application and obtained his green card through his marriage to a US citizen and approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by his wife.  BOILA was successful in assisting Mr. A in obtaining his green card despite the fact that his previously-filed Petition for Alien Relative by his former spouse had been denied by USCIS.

 

Ms. D, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her I-130 Petition for Alien Relative based on her marriage to her US citizen husband. BOILA was successful in having Ms. D's removal proceedings administratively closed and looks forward to assisting Ms. D in adjusting her status to a lawful permanent resident.  Again it took a Mandamus and three years of pending application to get this resolved with USCIS and EOIR.

 

Mr. M, a native and citizen of Mexico, was granted waiver (I-601A)  of his unlawful presence in the United States based on his approved I-130 Petition for Alien Relative through his marriage to a US citizen.  Mr. M came to the US when he was only 2 years old and through BOILA's assistance, USCIS approved Mr. M's waiver of his unlawful presence and he will soon be able to adjust his status to a legal permanent resident.

 

Mr. T, a native and citizen of Egypt, was granted asylum by the Arlington Asylum Office based on his religious background, Coptic Christian, and the persecution he and his family suffered as a result of their religion.  BOILA looks forward to assisting Mr. T in filing an Asylee Relative Petition for his wife and children, so that they can join him in the United States.

 

Ms. S, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application and obtained her green card through her daughter, a naturalized US citizen, and approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her daughter.

 

Ms. F, a native and citizen of South Africa, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application and obtained her green card through her marriage to a US citizen and approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her husband.

 

Mr. S, a native and citizen of India, was granted approval of his I-130 Petition for Alien Relative based on his marriage to his US citizen wife. Now as a crewman entry his adjustment will be a challenge.

 

Ms. E, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her I-751 Waiver Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence and received her non-conditional green card although she has divorced her US citizen spouse because BOILA was successful in proving that Ms. E entered into the marriage in good faith.

 

Ms. B, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court based on her political activism with the Cameroon Democratic Union (CDU), a political opposition group, and persecution suffered by her ex-husband in her native country as a result of his political activism. With BOILA's assistance, Ms. B's asylum application was granted by the Immigration Court.  Case was based on well-founded fear of future persecution.

 

Ms. P, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted political asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court based on her political activism with the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) and the persecution suffered by her family members in her native country as a result of their political activities.  With BOILA's assistance, Ms. P's asylum application was granted by the Immigration Court.

 

Mr. N, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was previously granted asylum and with BOILA's assistance, received approval of his N-400 Application for Naturalization and has become a citizen of the United States.  His naturalization application filed pro se was previously denied based on several complex issues.

 

Mr. N, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted political asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court based on his political activism with the SCNC and persecution he suffered in Cameroon as a result of his political activities.  With BOILA's assistance, Mr. N's asylum and withholding of removal applications were granted by the Immigration Court.

 

Ms. N, a native and citizen of Zambia, received approval of his N-400 Application for Naturalization and with BOILA'a assistance, has become a citizen of the United States. 

 

Mr. L, a native and citizen of Cameroon,  living in Boston was granted a waiver of inadmissibility by the Arlington Immigration Court.( 212 (i) )   Mr. L, although previously granted withholding of removal by the Immigration Court with BOILA's assistance, entered the United States using someone else's passport, making a waiver of inadmissibility necessary.  BOILA was successful in showing that Mr. L's removal would cause hardship to his US citizen spouse and children.

 

Ms. F, a native and citizen of Indonesia, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application and obtained her green card through her marriage to a US citizen and approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her husband.  With BOILA's assistance, Ms. F's pending removal proceedings were terminated and Ms. F was able to adjust her status with USCIS.  Ten years ago she had been ordered removed based on her asylum application that was denied. 

 

Mr. A, a native and citizen of El Salvador who is in a same-sex marriage with a US citizen, was granted approval of his adjustment of status application and obtained his green card based on approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by his husband.

 

Mr. L, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Arlington Court by BOILA by summary stipulation.  With BOILA's assistance, his I-730 Asylee Relative Petition for his wife who is presently in his native country was approved and Mr. L is looking forward to being reunited with his wife.

 

Mr. A, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted political asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court based on his political activism with the SCNC and persecution he suffered as a result of his political activities.  With BOILA's assistance, Mr. A's asylum and withholding of removal applications were granted despite the fact that Mr. A lived in England for some time prior to coming to the United States.

 

Mr. T, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted political asylum by the Arlington Immigration Court based on his political activism with the SCNC and persecution he suffered in Cameroon as a result of his political activities.  With BOILA's assistance, Mr. T's asylum application was granted by the Immigration Court.

 

Ms. C, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application based on her approved U visa as the victim of a crime.  With BOILA's help, Ms. C was able to demonstrate good moral character and 3 years of continuous presence in the US after her US visa was approved, which enabled her to adjust her status to a legal permanent resident and obtain her green card.

 
Mr. T¸ a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative he filed on behalf of his adopted child in his native country.  BOILA was successful in showing that the Cameroonian adoption certificate was not fraudulent as alleged by USCIS and the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative was approved.
Discriminatory Practices in the Central American Asylum Credible Fear Process

The American Immigration Council recently issued a special report entitled, "Mexican and Central American Asylum and Credible Fear Claims: Background and Context." This timely report discusses the current rhetoric surrounding the credible fear process and the state of the U.S. asylum system. Specifically, the report examines the legitimacy of credible fear claims based on situations of persecution and violence in Central America and Mexico because of the drug conflict, the gang conflict, and state responses. It further explores some of the challenges and areas of concern associated with the ways in which credible fear interviews are implemented and how potential asylees are treated in detention.

 

There has been tremendous discussion and momentum surrounding comprehensive immigration reform. Within this discussion, there has been a harsh critique that the current system too easily receives positive credible fear finding, and that people who enter the U.S. are 'abusing' the system by making affirmative and defensive claims of asylum. Since 2012, there has been a substantial increase in the overall number of credible fear interviews, with two-thirds of the claims coming from Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans also known as the Northern Triangle of Central America.

 

The report stresses that the asylum process, including the credible fear process, is full of obstacles, challenges, and hurdles, and is not as easy to 'abuse' and 'manipulate' as some might suggest. There are numerous areas of concern such as the fact that officers are not consistent in their decision despite case similarities; decisions are completely discretionary.  Additionally, issues of trauma are not addressed for a credible fear interview, and the interpretation of country conditions is not consistent.  For instance, the report includes several examples of families who fled Mexico due to the drug conflict and only some family members were granted credible fear findings while others, despite having had the same experiences, received expedited orders of removal. 

 

The report also discusses the deteriorating conditions in Mexico and the Northern Triangle. Those involved in these conflicts are violent non-state actors such as drug cartels, street gangs, and organized crime syndicates. This type of conflict does not fall neatly within the current asylum framework and it has been challenging to offer legal protection for people who have been victimized and persecuted because of them.

 

Furthermore, the report includes a discussion of some logistical obstacles that are purposely designed to hinder individuals in the system. First, the bonds to get persons out of detention can be extremely high ranging from $5,000 to $10,000, depending on the individual circumstances. Second, individuals can be detained for extremely lengthy periods of time. Third, there is a general lack of awareness about the one year filing deadline for asylum claims. Fourth, there is resistance to find translators with knowledge of indigenous languages. Fourth, there are few resources available for pro-bono or low-cost legal services. And finally, there appears to be hostility on behalf of government agencies towards Mexican and Central American applicants. Each of these obstacles seriously affects the ability to successfully navigate the asylum system.

 

In order to fully adhere to the goals and the principles of the asylum system it is necessary to treat all applicants fairly, with the same opportunities, and processes. While the conflicts in Central America and Mexico are "non-traditional" and exhibit a new conceptual framework, they are incredibly violent and dangerous, and have resulted in thousands of people fleeing from their homelands. If the U.S. wants to continue to actively support human rights and the opportunity to fairly apply for asylum, everyone must be treated equally and fairly.

 
Written by Samantha Howland 

 

Is the United States Becoming More Immigrant Friendly?

In her May 19, 2014 article in Politico titled "States Take on Immigration," Seung Min Kim explains that states are increasingly taking immigration into their own hands.  However, where states used to pass laws focusing on immigration law enforcement such as Arizona's anti-immigration laws partially struck down in 2010, now they are focusing on expanding state benefits for immigrants.  Frustrated by federal inaction on immigration reform many states have begun to enact their own immigrant-friendly laws seeing as the last comprehensive immigration bill was in 1996, when the tough, enforcement-focused Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IRIRA) was passed.

 

Min Kim's article highlights several recent examples of this trend.  While undocumented immigrants are unable to receive in-state tuition in Arizona, Georgia, and Indiana, and are not even allowed to attend public colleges in Alabama and South Carolina, at least 19 states - most recently Virginia and Florida - now offer in-state tuition rates to undocumented students.  Additionally at least 11 states, including the District of Columbia, permit undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses.  And cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore, as well as counties in Oregon, Colorado, and Washington, are refusing to hold arrested individuals in their jails when ICE places a detainer on them - a request that the individual be held in jail until ICE has had a chance to verify their immigration status or pick them up for an immigration violation. As well, in Massachusetts the Governor wants to expand the H-1 program by employing high-skilled foreign workers in public colleges and institutions that are exempt from the annual 85,000/person cap on the H-1B visa.

 

If the recent immigrant-friendly trend throughout the states is any indication, when Congress finally does get around to passing comprehensive immigration reform, it will likely be much more immigrant-friendly than IRIRA was in 1996. This is good news for immigrants who are already in the U.S. as they will probably receive expanded benefits and possibly amnesty over a controlled period of time. However, with reform comes compromise, and any immigration reform bill will probably also include another major crackdown on the entry and hiring of new undocumented immigrants.   


Written by Carla Halle

 

 

Enhancing the Lives of Unaccompanied Minors
According to CNN, every day, hundreds of unoccupied minors cross the southwest border into the United States via rafts with instructional guides on how to reach the Border Patrol station to surrender in search of a better life. Usually, once at the station, they are given paperwork and admitted into the United States with a designated court date. Unless the children are from Mexico or Canada, the Department of Homeland Security does not deport these children back to their home country. The children are often released to family members in the United States and ordered to attend their specific court date.  Therefore, the children are able to have a better life in the United States with stable employment, economic stability, and safer living conditions. To address the rising flow of children at the southwest border, the Obama Administration announced the establishment of the "Interagency Unified Coordination Group." The Group will oversee the coordination of state, local, and federal agencies to provide these children with adequate, short-term amenities and services, as well as long-term programs to monitor and enhance their lives.
 
This federal response will provide a safe haven for children when they come to the United States. Many of them want to reunite with family members or escape violence in their country. In fact, in many of the countries from which these minors escape, there is an extraordinary amount of generalized violence, such as kidnappings, extortions, and threats, which pose risks to one's safety, while simultaneously creating a culture of fear and hopelessness.  The migration of these minors is thus virtually an escape from destabilization in their country and it benefits not only the minors but also the United States in that these children are able to remove themselves from a landscape of criminal activity and settle into a society that supports and values their hard work. Similarly, the United States benefits from the migration because these immigrants serve as the backbone of the country; they create and fulfill many necessary jobs, which, in turn, embeds them into the fabric of the country.

Written by Sharon Reece

 

Citizenship for an Illegal Entry Temporary Protection Status Recipient 

In Ramirez v. Dougherty, the district court for the Western District of Washington, in the Ninth Circuit, held that there was a path to citizenship for an alien from El Salvador who entered the U.S. without having been inspected and admitted or paroled, thus illegally in 1999.

 

The plaintiff had lived in the U.S. for approximately two years when an earthquake in his native country, El Salvador, prompted the Attorney General to designate that country for Temporary Protection Status (TPS).  TPS is a form of protection granted to individuals from certain countries that are experiencing temporary, but extraordinary humanitarian crises, and who were already in the U.S when their native country was designated by the Attorney General for TPS.

 

According to USCIS, the U.S. may grant TPS to nationals from countries undergoing armed conflict such as civil war, or environmental disasters such as earthquakes or hurricanes.  Individuals granted TPS are temprorarily not removable from the U.S., can obtain employment authorization, and may be granted travel authorization.  Current countries whose nationals are designated TPS include El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Syria.

 

TPS itself does not provide a pathway to citizenship.  However, an individual granted TPS may apply for nonimmigrant or immigrant status based if they are independently eligible for that status. For instance, if an individual is granted TPS and meets the eligibility requirements for citizenship, he or she may petition to adjust status to lawful permanent resident.

 

Ramirez v. Doughterty was groundbreaking because the court held that even though the plaintiff had entered the U.S. illegally his later participation in the TPS program constituted a lawful admission for immigration purposes. Thus, the court found that when he married a U.S. citizen and petitioned to adjust status, his illegal entrance into the U.S. did not bar him from becoming a lawful permanent resident.

 

The court's holding should not be given an overly broad interpretation as it did not hold that TPS provides an independent ground for becoming a lawful permanent resident.  Nor did it find that TPS recipients have an automatic path to citizenship. Rather, it found it essential that the plaintiff had disclosed his illegal entrance into the U.S. in his TPS application, and that he met the other requirements for adjustment of status such as good moral character. Finally, the court found that policy considerations, like the fact that the plaintiff had lived in the U.S. for fifteen years and had established roots here, also weighed in his favor.

 

This decision provides hope for those who have been granted protection under TPS but who are in limbo because their illegal entrance into the U.S. prevents them from becoming naturalized citizens. 


Written by Carla Halle

Read the Case Here...

 

Evolving Trends in New Legal Permanent Residents 

A legal permanent resident (LPR) or "green card" recipient is a person granted lawful permanent residence in the United States, a status conferring certain rights and responsibilities. LPR flow shows an upward trend since 1945, increasing from 250,000 in the 1950s to over 1 million from 2000 to 2012. The Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report presents information obtained from applications for LPR status on the number and characteristics of persons who became LPRs in the United States during 2012.

 

Modern Trends of new LPRs

1,031,631 individuals were granted LPR status in 2012, a 2.9% decrease from 1,062,040 in 2011.  LPR adjustments of status also decreased, from 580,092 in 2011 to 547,559 in 2012.  New arrival LPRs increased slightly, from 481,948 in 2011 to 484,072 in 2012.  53% of LPRs in 2012 were adjustments of status and 47% were new arrivals.

 

Family-sponsored immigrants equaled 66% of the total LPR flow in 2012. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens accounted for 46% of new LPRs. Spouses of U.S. citizens represented 57% of immediate relative LPRs. Parents of U.S. citizens accounted for 26%, and children of U.S. citizens comprised 17%. Approximately 20% of new LPRs were admitted under a family-sponsored preference.

 

Employment Sponsored Immigrants accounted for 14% of the LPR flow in 2012.

 

Refugee and asylee immigrants represented 15% of the total LPR flow in 2012. Refugee adjustments accounted for 10%; asylee adjustments represented 4.4%.

 

Diversity immigrant classes of admission accounted for 3.9% of the total LPR flow in 2012.

 

Region and Country of Birth: The leading regions of birth of new LPRs in 2012 were Asia (42%) and North America (32%), together accounting for over 70% of the LPR flow each year from 2009-2012. In 2012, 14% of all persons granted LPR status were born in Mexico. China (7.9%), India (6.4%), Philippines (5.6%), and the Dominican Republic (4%) together accounted for 38% of all new LPRs in 2012.

 

State and Metropolitan Area of Residence: 58% of new LPRs in 2012 intended to reside in five states: CA (19%), NY (15%), FL (10%), TX (9.3%), and NJ (4.9%). 39% of new LPRs intended to live in five leading metropolitan areas: New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (17%), Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana  (7.9%), Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach (6.4%), Washington-Arlington-Alexandria (3.7%), and Chicago-Naperville-Joliet (3.4%).

 

Age, Sex, and Marital Status: The median age for persons becoming LPRs was 31 years. Females accounted for 55% of persons granted LPR status. 58% of new LPRs were married.

 

Written by Lynn Bechtol

 

Read the Report Here... 

 

Evolving Trends in Refugee and Asylum Admissions

The United States provides refuge to persons facing persecution and abuse through two programs: a refugee program for those outside the U.S. and an asylum program for those already within its borders.  Unfortunately, the global demand for asylum status far outstrips the capacity the U.S., to provide it. Early each year, the President and Congress jointly establish an admissions ceiling for refugee and asylum applicants as well as regional allocations. During 2012, the government authorized a maximum of 76,000 individuals. The largest regional allocation, of 47%, was to the Near East/South Asia region, so as to accommodate individuals fleeing continued unrest in Iraq, Burma, and Bhutan.

 

Modern Trends among Refugees

 

Actual Admissions: During 2012, a total of 58,179 persons were admitted to the United States as refugees - up 3.2% from 56,384 in 2011. Refugee arrivals declined during the 1990s, and then reached a low point in 2002 following heightened security and admission requirements after 9/11/2001. Refugee arrivals reached a post-2001 peak in 2009, and then decreased from 2009-2011.

 

Categories of Admission: Principal refugees equaled 27,355 (47%) of refugees, dependent children and spouses represented 37% and 16%, respectively, and follow-to-join beneficiaries equaled 1,213 (2.1%).

 

Countries of Origin: The leading countries of origin (71% of admissions) were Bhutan (26%), Burma (24%), and Iraq (21%). Other leading countries included Somalia (8.4%), Cuba (3.3%), Democratic Republic of Congo (3.2%), Iran (3%), and Eritrea (2.3%).

 

Age, Sex, and Marital Status : 32% of refugees admitted to the U.S. in 2012 were under 18 years of age; A slight majority of refugees were male (54%), and 38% were married.

 

State of Residence: The leading states of residence of refugees in 2012 were TX (10%), CA (8.9%), NY (6.1%), and PA (4.8). Texas arrivals increased 4.9% from 5,627 in 2011 to 5,905 in 2012. New refugees residing in Florida declined 23%, while new refugees residing in Michigan increased 39%.

 

Modern Trends among Asylees

 

Actual Admissions: During 2012, 29,484 individuals were granted asylum, up from 24,873 in 2011. Additionally, 13,049 individuals received derivative asylum status by virtue of close familial relationship to a person receiving asylum status.

 

Categories of Admissions: Affirmative asylum grants increased 31%, from 13,369 in 2011 to 17,506 in 2012. Defensive asylum grants also increased, from 11,504 in 2011 to 11,978 in 2012. Follow-to-join derivatives travelling into the U.S. increased from 9,550 in 2011 to 13,049 in 2012; follow-to-join derivatives already in the U.S. decreased from 1,176 in 2011 to 1,028 in 2012.

 

Countries of Origin:In 2012, five nationalities represented over half the persons granted affirmative or defensive asylum: China (34%), Egypt (9.8%), Ethiopia (3.8%), Venezuela (3.7%), and Nepal (3.3%). For affirmative asylees, 48% were Chinese (27%), Egyptian (15%), and Venezuelan (5.5%). For defensive asylees, over half were Chinese (45%), Ethiopian (3.8%), and Nepalese (3.4%). Over half of following-to-join asylees authorized for travel to the U.S. were from China (38%), Haiti (7.1%) and Nepal (6.9%).

 

Age, Sex, and Marital Status: 73% of affirmative asylum grantees were aged 18-44. The median age of persons granted affirmative asylum was 29 years. 51% were male, and 46% were married. Around 47% of follow-to-join beneficiaries approved overseas were under 18 years.The median age of follow-to-join beneficiaries was 18 years; reflecting that the follow-to-join population is composed of spouses and children aged under 21 years. 47% of follow-to-join beneficiaries were female.

 

State of Residence: Over 2/3 of affirmative asylum grantees settled in CA (39%), FL (15%), and NY (14%).

 

Written by Lynn Bechtol

 

Read the Report Here... 

 

Nationality Trends in New Naturalized United States Citizens 
In 2013, the United States naturalized a total of 779,929 persons, an increase from 757,434 in 2012 and 694,193 in 2011. Within the United States, the largest number of persons naturalizing lived in California (164,792), New York (107,330), and Florida (101,773).Although the number of applications for naturalization filed decreased from 2012 to 2013, the number of applications processed during this period increased, suggesting (perhaps erroneously) that the process has grown more efficient in recent years.
 
Naturalization rates have increased exponentially in the past century, from less than 120,000 during the 1950s and1960s, to 210,000 during the 1980s, 500,000 during the 1990s, and to 680,000 from 2000-2009. Since 2010, this number has increased to 710,000.
 
The relative increases have not, however, been geographically consistent. Prior to 1970, most newly naturalized U.S. citizens originated in Europe.  A number of dynamic changes have dramatically altered this pattern; increased legal emigration from Asian countries, the arrival of Indochinese refugees in the 1970s, and the historically higher naturalization rates of Asian immigrants have all caused Asia to be the leading region of origin for most new citizens since 1976. Recent data, however, suggests that this trend may be changing; the report indicates that new citizens originating in Asia (275,700) only very narrowly outnumbered new citizens from North America (271,807).
 
Person of Mexican birth easily formed the largest group of naturalized citizens in 2013, with 99,385 such persons naturalizing in 2013. India placed a distant second with 49,897, trailed by the Philippines (43,489), the Dominican Republic (39,590), and the People's Republic of China (35,387). The number of naturalized citizens from Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America increased during this period, especially regarding immigrants from India (up 6,969), the Dominican Republic (up 6,239), Haiti (up 4,366), and the People's Republic of China (up 3,519). The largest percentage increases occurred in Haiti (23% increase), Iran (21% increase), the Dominican Republic (19% increase), and India (16% increase). Former Asian and North American citizens accounted for 35% of persons naturalizing in 2013, and the 10 countries with the largest number of naturalizations accounted for almost 50% of all newly naturalized citizens.
 
To complete the naturalization process, an applicant must fulfill requirements promulgated in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifying that a foreign national seeking to naturalize must a) be 18 years of age, b) be a U.S. lawful permanent resident, c) have resided in the country for at least 5 years. Additionally, such applicants must speak, read, and write English, have knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and display good moral character. Limited exceptions to these requirement exist for some applicants, including spouses and minor children of U.S. residents and persons with qualifying U.S. military experience. Additionally, naturalization requires filing an N-400 Application for Naturalization and undergoing an interview with U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services to determine eligibility. Finally, qualified residents who have fulfilled all requirements participate in an oath ceremony to officially proclaim their allegiance to their new nation of citizenship.
 
Written by Lynn Bechtol
 

All articles were written by attorneys and law students at Beach-Oswald Immigration Lawyers.

Please let us know if we can help you in any way for all your immigration needs. Have a wonderful summer!
 
Sincerely,
 

Danielle Beach-Oswald
Beach-Oswald Immigration Lawyers
FREE
Consult
Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates will be happy to answer all of your immigration related questions during a scheduled in-office or telephonic consultation. During your consultation, one of the partners of the firm will review your problem at length, and will explain in detail what resolutions are available to you. Click here now.

Disclaimer: This newsletter is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship. All information contained in this newsletter is generalized. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.