Produced by the MIRA Coalition with the generous support of the Fish Family Foundation

Overcoming Obstacles to Citizenship: How Group Processing Can Better Serve Immigrant Communities Produced by the MIRA Coalition with the generous sup...
11 downloads 1 Views 877KB Size
Overcoming Obstacles to Citizenship: How Group Processing Can Better Serve Immigrant Communities

Produced by the MIRA Coalition with the generous support of the Fish Family Foundation

Acknowledgements: The MIRA Coalition would like to thank the Fish Family Foundation for its generous support and leadership in creating and sustaining the Greater Boston Citizenship Initiative. Without their vision, countless immigrants would still be lost in the wilderness of immigration law. We would also like to thank all the members of GBCI – Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center (BCNC), Centro Latino, College Bound Dorchester, the Irish International Immigrant Center, Jewish Vocational Services (JVS), and the Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers (MAPS) – whose hard work and dedication were critical to making GBCI a success. We would also like to extend our deepest appreciation to the hundreds of volunteers who helped with our citizenship clinics, without whom these clinics would not have been possible.

Page | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

II. INTRODUCTION Background and Methodology Naturalization Requirements

2 2 3

III. OBSTACLES Financial Issues Lack of Awareness Civics/US History Exam Lack of Resources/Assistance English Requirement Complexity Benefits Biographical Information Illiteracy Legal Assistance Residency Dual Citizenship Good Moral Character

4 4 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 13

IV. CONCLUSION

14

APPENDIX

16

Page | ii

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Immigration law is widely considered one of the most complex areas of US federal law, second only to tax law. For an immigrant trying to navigate the process from obtaining an immigrant visa to becoming a US citizen, it is vital to have access to reliable legal assistance in order to ensure that each step in the process is properly completed. The consequences of completing a step incorrectly can range from delays in processing to added expenses to potential deportation. However, reliable legal assistance can be prohibitively expensive, leaving many otherwise eligible immigrants without the resources necessary to move along the continuum from new arrival to US citizen. For this reason, the Fish Family Foundation brought together a number of community-based organizations to create the Greater Boston Citizenship Initiative (GBCI) to provide free expert legal assistance to Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) eligible to apply for citizenship. GBCI relied primarily on a “group processing” or “clinical” model which relied on an assembly line approach to assist large numbers of applicants in a single day. Potential applicants would move from station to station where trained staff and volunteers would screen for eligibility, fill out the N-400 Application for Naturalization, and double check for accuracy and completeness of the application. Applicants who were able to finish the process would leave the event with a completed application ready to be submitted to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). During its first year, GBCI was highly successful in reaching out to and assisting eligible LPRs with their N-400 applications. In doing so, however, we found that our efforts were not sufficient to overcome all the obstacles that many community members faced in seeking to become US citizens. Some applicants turned out to be statutorily ineligible to become citizens. Others were unable to pay the $680 application fee charged by USCIS. Still others had too little knowledge of the process. As part of GBCI, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) examined applicant records and conducted a survey of potential applicants to discover what obstacles remained and how best to overcome them. What we discovered was that GBCI’s service model was an appropriate way to overcome some of the primary obstacles, especially lack of assistance/resources and the high application fee. Other obstacles, such as lack of English and lack of awareness, can be overcome through targeted community outreach and education. An expanded group processing program that includes more direct contact with community members would increase efficiency at GBCI group processing events by ensuring that a greater percentage of applicants are eligible and prepared to commence the naturalization process.

Page | 1

II.

INTRODUCTION

Immigrants to the US who naturalize stand to gain a wide range of legal and economic advantages for themselves and their families. The current naturalization process, however, presents many complications that hamper the applications of potentially eligible Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) and discourage many others from even trying to apply in the first place. As part of the Greater Boston Citizenship Initiative (GBCI), the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) and other GBCI members have been conducting group processing clinics to assist eligible LPRs apply for US citizenship. Using data collected from these clinics, this paper seeks to uncover the most important obstacles that stand in the way of LPRs obtaining US citizenship and propose ways that GBCI can efficiently overcome these obstacles. The discussion below explores both the statutory issues and more personal challenges that face applicants in this respect, including the details of naturalization requirements themselves, financial issues, lack of access to assistance, and lack of awareness about the naturalization process and/or the benefits of naturalization. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY Group processing clinics aim to reach those LPRs with the most straightforward legal cases and can assist anywhere from 20 to over 200 LPRs with their applications in a single day. To do this, group processing takes an assembly line approach to application assistance, with applicants moving from station to station, each station providing a different aspect of service. At its most basic, group processing involves three primary stations: Screening: At this station, experienced volunteers screen applicants to ensure that they meet basic eligibility requirements in order to naturalize (see eligibility requirements below). Screening provides greater efficiency in the process by ensuring that only those applicants that are eligible to naturalize move on to the next station. Application Assistance: At this station, a trained volunteer works with the applicant to complete the N-400, Application for Naturalization. Quality Control: At this station, experienced volunteers review the application for accuracy and completeness. Quality control volunteers can also fill out the I-912, Request for Fee Waiver for those applicants who receive a means-tested benefit or who have a household income at or below 150% of the federal poverty level1 and are therefore unable to pay the $680 application fee. To obtain the data used in this study, MIRA reviewed the files of 840 potential applicants from clinics conducted between September 2011 and September 2012.2 This includes 247 participants who were unable to complete their applications for various reasons. MIRA also conducted surveys with 93 applicants at clinics in Milford, Dorchester, and Brockton prior to those

1

Fee waivers are also available for applicants with “financial hardship.” However, because of the time and documentation required to qualify for a fee waiver under this basis, it is not efficient to file an I-912 on this basis at group processing. Applicants who wish to file on this basis are referred out to legal services. 2 Clinics were held in Boston (9/17/11, 12/3/11, 2/4/12, 4/21/12, 5/19/12, & 6/30/12), Framingham (3/24/12), Milford (7/28/12), and Brockton (9/22/12).

Page | 2

applicants being screened.3 Together, this data allows us to look at what eligible LPRs believed would be obstacles to applying, and compare it to what issues actually stood in their way. NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS The requirements for naturalizing can be very complex and difficult to understand for immigrants and native-born alike. Moreover, these requirements are not necessarily consistent from case to case, meaning that applicants need individualized legal assistance to determine whether they qualify for citizenship. To add to these complications, the risks of applying can be very high. In some cases, the denial of an application means the loss of the $680 application fee as well as any legal fees the applicant might have paid. In other instances, applying for citizenship could involve the applicant drawing attention to themselves and the fact that are deportable for violating the terms of their LPR status. This is usually due to a criminal conviction, but it could also be that an individual has abandoned his or her LPR status by demonstrating an intention to live outside the United States. In order to qualify for naturalization, an LPR must pay a $680 fee to USCIS and meet a number of eligibility requirements: Be at least 18 years old; Meet certain residency requirements; Have Good Moral Character; Be able to pass a basic English exam; Be able to pass a civics exam; and Be willing to swear loyalty to the United States. With the exception of the age requirement, all of these requirements can involve complex issues, and many come with exemptions. For instance, the residency requirement can vary depending on the applicant’s particular situation; an applicant might be exempt from the English exam depending on age and duration of LPR status; certain disabilities might excuse a person from having to take the English and/or civics exam; and exemptions can be made for part of the loyalty oath. Perhaps the most complicated part of the application is meeting the Good Moral Character requirement: the intersection between state criminal law and federal immigration law is one of the most complex aspects of American law while also coming with the most severe risks. These requirements will be discussed in greater detail below as we discuss the primary obstacles that our work has shown deter LPRs from applying for naturalization. Legal naturalization requirements are not the only hurdles that eligible LPRs need to overcome, however. The complexity of the process, a lack of understanding, the amount of information required, and other issues turn applying for naturalization into a daunting task that many applicants are unwilling to undertake on their own, if at all. Add to that, the lack of resources available unless one is willing and able to pay for an attorney (in addition to the application fee) means that financial issues can pose a major obstacle to naturalizing. Some people seeking assistance with the application are simply in need of a little hand-holding through the process – they just require some assurance from an expert that everything is handled properly. Others have more serious concerns about their eligibility and the impact that applying for citizenship might 3

Survey included as Appendix

Page | 3

have on them and their families. These less formal but often just as daunting issues were addressed in the applicant survey, and both sets of obstacles will be addressed in greater detail in the following section of the paper.

III.

OBSTACLES

GBCI used two methods to determine which factors posed the greatest obstacles to an eligible LPR’s desire to naturalize. First, we looked at the actual files of applicants who came through GBCI clinics to determine what problems they encountered in the application, how many applicants qualified for a disability waiver of naturalization exam requirements or qualified for language exemptions, and why GBCI had to turn ineligible applicants away. Second, GBCI conducted surveys with clinic participants before they went through the application process to determine what obstacles they felt stood in their way. Participants in the survey were given a list of issues and asked if they were not an obstacle, a potential obstacle, or a serious obstacle. Combining this information allowed us to look at both perceived and actual obstacles allowing us to look at what might have prevented an eligible LPR from trying to apply for citizenship and what issues actually did prevent an LPR from applying. Based on the information obtained from this study, we have ranked the major obstacles according to the number of participants perceiving it as having an impact, starting with the most serious obstacle: Financial Issues Lack of Awareness Civic/US History Exam Lack of Resources/Assistance English Requirement Complexity Benefits Biographical Information Illiteracy Legal Assistance Residency Dual Citizenship Good Moral Character FINANCIAL ISSUES Financial issues covers a fairly broad array of factors that can impact a person’s ability to naturalize. Costs associated with becoming a US citizen include enrolling in citizenship/ESOL classes in order to pass the naturalization exam; obtaining legal assistance with the application; and finding transportation to classes, legal help, and the many appointments that applicants have with USCIS during adjudication of the application. Many of these costs can be alleviated through free programs provided by community service organizations and schools, but the extended economic downturn has meant that most programs have seen their resources decrease while at the same time an increasing number of people are in need of free or low-cost services. Page | 4

Moreover, even where eligible applicants have access to free or low-cost programs, they still must overcome one of the most serious financial obstacles to applying for citizenship: the high fee charged by USCIS. Sharp increases in the fees charged by USCIS have been a major obstacle for eligible LPRs to overcome in applying for citizenship. Much of the blame for this goes to Congress, which has refused to appropriate operating funds for USCIS. Thus, USCIS is required to charge high fees to applicants as the only way to cover its own operating costs. Fees for the N-400 stood at only $35 in 1983, but had risen to $260 by 2003 and $330 by 2006. In the summer of 2007, fees for the N-400 jumped to $595 plus an additional $80 fee for biometrics for a total of $675. While the fee for the N-400 has not increased since 2007, the biometrics fee has risen to $85, bringing the current total cost for naturalization to $680. Of the 31 European and North American nations tracked by the Migrant Integration Policy Index, only 5 have higher fees associated with applying to naturalize.4 According to federal regulations, USCIS has discretion to waive fees when the applicant is unable to pay.5 To obtain a waiver of the naturalization fee prior to 2010, applicants had to submit a written request to USCIS stating that, “he or she is entitled to or deserving of the benefit requested, the reasons for his or her inability to pay, and evidence to support the reasons indicated.”6 Until recently, there was no form for requesting a fee waiver, and applicants would have to make a written request with little guidance on what to include and no clear way of knowing if their financial situation was sufficient to warrant a fee waiver. More importantly for programs like GBCI, the process of requesting a fee waiver was not one that could be handled in a group processing setting; rather, the time and documentation required applicants to consult individually with an experienced attorney. This situation was rectified in November 2010 when the Obama Administration introduced Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver. Created with input from stakeholders around the country, the I912 provides much needed clarity and consistency to the fee waiver process and provides clear requirements for documenting a fee waiver request. Most important for the group processing context, the I-912 sets out two categories of people who are virtually guaranteed to have their requests approved: those receiving means-tested public benefits and those with a household income at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level. This greatly simplified the request process to the point that it became easy to incorporate the requests into the group processing setting: applicants need only bring with them a copy of a letter from a government agency stating that they are receiving the benefit, their most recent tax returns, or recent paystubs. While this is a great benefit to most applicants seeking a fee waiver, those who suffer from some other type of financial hardship – for example, someone with major medical expenses due to illness in the household – are still not well served in a group processing setting. Due to the time and documentation burden required to set out a compelling case for a fee waiver, GBCI refers such applicants out to legal services that can dedicate the necessary time and resources to the I-912.

4

Migrant Integration Policy Index, www.mipex.ed/usa. 8 CFR §103.7(c) 6 8 CFR §103.7(c)(1)(ii) 5

Page | 5

Financial issues easily ranked as the most serious obstacle facing naturalization applicants at GBCI clinics. Of 93 applicants surveyed, 64 (68.8%) responded that financial issues had been a problem in applying for citizenship, with 23 of those (24.7% of total respondents) saying that these issues were a serious problem. Of the 593 applicants who had completed an N-400 at a GBCI clinic, 187 (31.5%) also completed an I-912. Our study also revealed a large geographic disparity. In Brockton, 31 of 42 respondents (73.8%) said that financial issues were a problem, with 17 (40.4%) saying that it was a serious problem. This contrasts with Milford and Dorchester which saw 16 (66.7%) and 17 (63.0%) applicants respectively respond that financial issues were a problem. Similarly, 60 (70.6%) participants who completed an application in Brockton also completed an I-912. This contrasts with only 15 (34.1%) in Milford and 108 (25.6%) in Boston. In a legal services context, the only thing that can be done to reduce the financial obstacles facing applicants is to assist with completion of the I-912, something that GBCI has been successful at. The 187 I-912s that GBCI has assisted with have saved applicants over $127,000, and this does not include legal fees that applicants would have had to pay an attorney had GBCI’s free assistance not been available. However, such a process does not reduce the general burden on applicants, particularly those who are unable to pay the application fee but do not qualify for a fee waiver. One possible option for these applicants would be to create a fund from which they could receive money to pay the fees, either as a loan or an outright gift. With the economy still slowly coming out of recession and donor budgets stretched thin, this is an unrealistic solution at this time. Outside of direct services, efforts are underway to advocate for a reduction in N-400 application fees and therefore make citizenship more accessible to a wider range of eligible LPRs. LACK OF AWARENESS The survey also asked eligible applicants about their basic awareness of the application process. For immigrants still trying to come to grips with the American legal system, navigating the complex immigration system on the way to becoming US citizens can be an incredibly daunting task. Learning which application to use, what the basic eligibility requirements are, where to send the application, and what documentary evidence is required is a major hurdle for many LPRs to overcome. The depth of information needed for a successful application, combined with the high fee and constant risk of deportation that hangs over immigrants, discourages many applicants from seeking citizenship on their own without legal guidance. Unsurprisingly, lack of awareness proved to be one of the top obstacles to those wishing to apply for US Citizenship, with 33 respondents (35.5%) saying that it was a problem, though only 3 respondents said it was a serious problem. Without a federal integration program that guides newcomers along the path to citizenship, immigrants are left to rely on state and local programs and non-profit agencies to provide the necessary information and support. However, with the extended economic downturn, state and local governments have continually cut or eliminated funds geared towards integrating immigrants. In 2000, the Massachusetts General Court provided $2 million in grants for citizenship work every year, but later completely eliminated those grants due to the recession that followed the crash of the tech bubble. The General Court restored these grants in the mid-2000s, but at the much reduced level of $650,000/year, and the slow recovery from the most recent recession has meant that those funds have been slowly Page | 6

whittled down to just $250,000/year. To further aggravate the problem, the vast majority of these resources are devoted to direct assistance with applications, rather than on community education. In order to improve knowledge of the citizenship processes, resources need to be devoted to targeted community outreach aimed at educating community members about the basics of the naturalization process. CIVICS/US HISTORY EXAM In order to obtain US Citizenship, an applicant must pass an exam on US History and Civics. The exam, administered during an applicant’s citizenship interview, consists of 10 questions taken from a publicly available list of 100 possible questions; in order to pass, an applicant must answer at least 6 questions correctly. Numbers related to the citizenship exam are stunning. In surveys of native-born American citizens, testers have found that one-third would fail the exam. A 2011 poll of 1,000 US Citizens by Newsweek found that 38% failed the exam.7 In 2012, a survey of 1,000 native-born US Citizens by the Center for the Study of the American Dream at Xavier University found that 35% would fail the exam, with a surprisingly low level of knowledge regarding basic principles and features of American government.8 In contrast, 97.5% of US citizenship applicants passed the citizenship exam in 2010.9 Despite the low failure rate, 31 respondents (33.3%) stated that the civics exam was an obstacle to applying for citizenship, placing it among the most serious potential barriers uncovered by the survey. At this point, one can only speculate why there is such a large discrepancy between the rate at which eligible LPRs perceive the exam as an obstacle and the rate at which applicants actually fail the exam. One possible explanation is that applicants have not looked at the exam prior to attending a citizenship clinic, and are unaware of what is expected of them. Indeed, many applicants feel great anxiety about the exam even when they are well prepared, and some fail because they freeze up and are unable to answer any of the questions. Another possibility is that the citizenship exam is a relatively easy obstacle to overcome in a short amount of time without additional resources. Citizenship applicants usually have at least three months between mailing in the application to USCIS and attending a naturalization interview, giving them ample time to study the list of 100 questions. Moreover, USCIS study materials are widely available and easy to use. Civics flash cards, published by USCIS and available for free, are the most popular study item available at GBCI clinics. USCIS also posts the questions on their website and provides CD-ROMs and other materials for applicants to study from. To combat applicants’ concerns regarding this exam, any outreach aimed at reducing the lack of awareness should also incorporate comprehensive information regarding the citizenship exam and provide study materials to those interested.

7

Romano, Andrew. “How Dumb Are We?” The Daily Beast. March 20, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/03/20/how-dumb-are-we.html. 8 “U.S. Naturalization Civics Test.” Center for the Study of the American Dream. March 2012. http://www.xavier.edu/americandream/programs/documents/5CivicTestpowerpointfinalPDF.pdf 9 “US Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Records Study on Pass/Fail Rates for Naturalization Applicants.” ICF International. July 30, 2011. http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/files/Records_Study_for_the_Naturalization_Test.pdf.

Page | 7

LACK OF RESOURCES/ASSISTANCE The GBCI survey revealed that another major barrier to citizenship was a lack of resources available to help those interested in applying. Resources include not just application assistance, such as that provided at GBCI Citizenship Clinics, but also assistance with ESOL and other forms of guidance that applicants need to navigate the complex immigration system. The lack of a federal integration program, combined with cuts in state funding for citizenship services, has meant that fewer resources are available to provide eligible LPRs with the assistance they need. At the same time, the country’s slow recovery from the recession has meant more and more potential applicants who are un/underemployed and unable to afford fees charged by attorneys. This not only prevents many eligible LPRs from applying, it also drives many to notarios and others who make lofty promises, but who are not qualified to provide reliable assistance. USCIS has been greatly concerned by this danger, and in response recently initiated its Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law campaign to provide better information to members of the community. The GBCI survey found that 30 respondents (32.3%) said that a lack of resources posed a problem for them, with 3 (3.2%) saying it was a serious problem. GBCI clinics are meant to directly counter this obstacle by providing the resources and assistance that eligible LPRs need to start the process of becoming a US Citizen. Greater outreach to immigrant communities would provide a pathway through which immigrants can learn about and access these and other available resources. ENGLISH REQUIREMENT One of the most complicated obstacles hindering naturalization is the requirement that individuals be able to speak basic English in order to become a US Citizen. Unlike the civics requirement, English proficiency is not something that applicants have the time to achieve between filing an application and attending the naturalization interview; applicants need to be able to speak English sufficiently well at the time of application. However, in the group processing context, it can be difficult for volunteers to gauge whether an applicant’s English skills are sufficient to pass the exam, and even more difficult to achieve consistency in this regard from one volunteer to another. Applicants without sufficient proficiency in English might qualify for an exemption or waiver. If the applicant qualifies for an exemption, there is no application to be approved and no discretion on the part of USCIS to deny the exemption. LPRs will be automatically exempt from the English requirement if they meet one of two circumstances: (1) the applicant is at least 50 Page | 8

years old and has had their green card for at least 20 years or (2) the applicant is at least 55 years old and has had their green card for at least 15 years. If an applicant meets one of these conditions, they can skip the English portion of the exam and take the civics portion in their native language with an interpreter they bring with them. The other option for applicants is to apply for a waiver of the English requirement based on a disability that prevents them from learning English. In order to obtain this waiver, the applicant must file an N-648, Certification of Medical Disability which is then adjudicated by the interviewing officer. There are two major complications with this form. One, this form must be filled out by a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, or clinic psychologist licensed to practice in the United States. However, these medical professionals are generally unfamiliar with the form and how to fill it out to USCIS’s satisfaction. Second, the adjudication happens when the applicant arrives for their citizenship exam, meaning that applicants will not know beforehand whether or not USCIS will require them to take the English exam until they first meet the interviewing officer. Interestingly, applicants who came to GBCI clinics seem to have more confidence in their English skills than expected. Of the 93 people who responded to the survey, only 27 (29.0%) of them listed the language requirement as a problem, with 8 saying it was a serious obstacle. However, of the 141 people at clinics who failed to complete their applications and for whom GBCI has detailed information, 90 (63.8%) failed because of their lack of sufficient English skills. This is by far the most common reason for GBCI attendees to fail to complete the N-400. Of the 593 who did complete their applications, 44 (7.4%) completed with an N-648 and another 80 (13.5%) qualified for the exemption. COMPLEXITY The general complexity of the naturalization process proved to be another obstacle in the path of eligible LPRs wishing to apply for citizenship. Immigration law is widely considered second only to tax law in terms of its complexity, and this complexity is aggravated by the many different ways in which the Immigration and Nationality Act interacts with state law. Even without taking this interaction into account, the long list of basic requirements, the detailed tenpage application, and the very serious and real risk of deportation if the process is not properly followed all combine to make many eligible LPRs wary of the application process, leading them to hold off on the application unless/until they are able to obtain guidance. While not one of the top five barriers, 20 of the 93 survey respondents (21.5%) responded that they found the entire process too overwhelming, complex, or intimidating, leading them to put off their applications. By providing group processing clinics for eligible applicants, GBCI has managed to help many LPRs to overcome this barrier by providing a safe and comfortable venue for people to seek not only assistance with their applications, but also information and guidance on eligibility and other issues around their immigration status or that of a family member. These efforts could be further bolstered with greater community outreach and education to present such complex issues in a simple, understandable format that responds to the concerns of community members. This is not to say that people should be encouraged to apply on their own; the citizenship process is not easily accessible to the layman, and even trained attorneys can run into unusual issues that they are not equipped to handle. However, the information should be Page | 9

presented to eligible LPRs in a way that cuts through the complexity and reduces the intimidation factor, while still encouraging LPRs to seek out reliable legal assistance rather than filing on their own. BENEFITS Another issue preventing eligible LPRs from applying for US citizenship has been a lack of awareness of the benefits of being a US citizen – why go through the long, expensive, and potentially risky process of applying for citizenship if you see no tangible benefits to doing so? In truth, becoming a US citizen confers many important benefits, including: Being able to vote in elections; Traveling on a US passport; Broader range of relatives for whom one can apply for an immigration visa; Shorter wait times for obtaining immigrant visas for family members; Derivative citizenship for minor children; Ability to apply for certain federal jobs; Protection from deportation; and Eligibility for certain grants, scholarships, and government benefits. In all, 20 (21.5%) respondents said that the perceived lack of benefits to naturalization had been a barrier to them applying. However, 4 of those 20 had actually applied within one year of becoming eligible and another respondent was still a few months shy of being eligible to apply. 10 had applied between one and five years of becoming eligible. The remaining 5 respondents applied more than 5 years after becoming eligible, one of whom had been eligible for over 20 years and another for over 25 years. Despite this data, measuring an eligible LPR’s perception of the benefits of naturalizing is extremely difficult to accomplish at group processing events. Because of the nature of such events, only those who see some potential benefit of US citizenship, if not actual tangible benefit, are likely to attend. Those who see no benefit to applying for citizenship are much less likely to actually attend such an event. It is surprising, therefore, to see that as many as 21.5% of respondents cited lack of benefits as a barrier to naturalizing. It is clear that community outreach needs to emphasize the very real benefits of naturalization in order to reach those who have been reluctant to naturalize. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Similar to the issue of the complexity of the process, the detailed nature of the N-400 Application to Naturalize can be a major hindrance for those wishing to become US citizens. Page | 10

Applicants are asked to provide a lot of biographical information including: where they have lived, worked, and gone to school for the last five years; details regarding all foreign travel since becoming an LPR; and basic biographical information about their spouse, ex-spouse, spouse’s ex-spouse, and all their children. For many applicants, much of this information is not readily accessible. At group processing events, GBCI staff has encountered applicants who have been estranged from family members who often still live in their home countries and cannot provide the necessary information. Other applicants have serious difficulties providing travel information: of the 200 applicants who completed applications at three clinics, 70 (35.0%) had been LPRs for at least 10 years, 52 (26.0%) had been an LPR for at least 15 years, 33 (16.5%) for at least 20 years, 16 (8%) for at least 25 years, and 7 (3.5%) for at least 30 years. For these people, listing all travel since becoming an LPR is a daunting task; many do not keep their old passports with stamps from such trips, making it difficult if not impossible to complete the application. Eighteen (19.4%) survey respondents said that providing such detailed biographical information was a problem in applying for citizenship, with 4 saying that it was a serious problem. This is an issue that is not easily overcome; no amount of outreach or education can bring back a passport that has been lost or destroyed or bring estranged family back together. GBCI does not turn such people away; rather it provides these applicants with their application and a list of missing information for them to obtain before sending the application to USCIS. Outreach can help to overcome this obstacle by encouraging applicants to apply as soon as they are eligible so that they still have the necessary biographical information handy. Although this approach cannot help people who have already waited decades to apply for citizenship, one can hope to avoid similar problems with newly eligible LPRs. ILLITERACY Illiteracy has been an issue that GBCI members and others have been concerned about for many years now, and something that we encountered at a number of GBCI group processing events. In the past, this issue has arisen in the context of refugees who were about to lose Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, because as LPRs they were only eligible for SSI for five (later extended to 7) years. Many of these refugees were elderly and illiterate in their native language, making it extremely difficult for them to satisfy the requirement that they be able to read and write English in order to naturalize. For the majority of people in this situation, there was no waiver or exemption available; illiteracy on its own does not excuse a lack of English proficiency. For a small few, there was the option of filing an N-648, Certification of Medical Disability, if they could demonstrate, through accepted medical practices, that their illiteracy was related to a mental disability that qualified them for a waiver. However, this exception is so narrow as to be useless to the vast majority of illiterate LPRs. Through the survey conducted at group processing events, GBCI encountered 17 (18.3%) respondents who stated that illiteracy was a problem for them, 3 of whom said it was a serious problem. Of those, 9 were able to successfully complete the application, indicating that their lack of language skills was not as severe as they had feared. Despite GBCI’s success, illiteracy remains a far more complex issue than most of the other challenges facing eligible LPRs. Community education and outreach by themselves will not be able to overcome this problem, and many ESOL programs are not designed to provide appropriate services to those who are Page | 11

illiterate in their native language. In order to overcome this burden, government agencies and community organizations should work together, preferably as part of a larger national integration program, to provide targeted outreach and services to immigrants who are illiterate. LEGAL ASSISTANCE A small group of respondents also had legal concerns with their citizenship applications. As with those who said that the lack of resources was a barrier, this group included people seeking direct assistance with their applications. However, these applicants were seeking legal assistance because of concerns with a specific issue in their case (e.g. questions around residency or good moral character), rather than looking for general assistance with their applications. For the GBCI survey, 13 respondents (14.0%) stated that legal assistance was a problem in applying for citizenship, with 3 saying that it was a serious problem. However, 12 of those 13 respondents were able to complete their applications at a GBCI clinic, indicating that group processing is an effective way to handle many specific legal issues that might otherwise dissuade eligible LPRs from applying for naturalization. For those applicants with legal issues that cannot be handled appropriately in a clinical setting, GBCI refers to not-for-profit legal service providers to review. RESIDENCY Residency requirements for naturalization are rather complex. While most applicants are aware that, in most cases, an individual must have been an LPR for at least 5 years, there are exceptions to this requirement as well as other residency requirements that must be fulfilled prior to applying for citizenship. For example, someone who has had LPR status for only 3 years might still be able to apply for citizenship if (a) they have been married to a US citizen for those 3 years and (b) their spouse has been a US citizen for those 3 years.10 In addition to time as an LPR, applicants must meet certain physical presence requirements. One such requirement is that an LPR must have been physically present in the United States for at least half of the required residency period – 2½ years for most, 1½ years for someone applying as the spouse of a US citizen. A second requirement is that a person must have resided continually in the US during that period; that is, they cannot have had any long interruptions in their physical presence during 10

LPRs who have served honorably in the US Armed Forces have different residency requirements as well. However, because the military provides information and free assistance with naturalization applications, LPRs who would qualify under military service see far fewer obstacles in their way and have little need to turn to non-profit agencies for assistance with the process.

Page | 12

the residency period. Generally, this means that an applicant cannot have been out of the United States for more than 6 months at a time. For those who are out of the country for between 6 months and one year, there is a rebuttable presumption that they have violated this requirement, and must therefore wait at least 4 years and 1 day from returning before they can apply (2 years and 1 day for someone applying on the basis of marriage to a US Citizen). An individual can rebut this presumption if they can demonstrate good reason for their prolonged absence, the most common example being that they were caring for a sick relative. Absences for over 365 days are generally considered to have broken the continuous residence requirement unless the applicant has filed an N-470, Application to Preserve Residence of Naturalization Purposes prior to reaching the one year mark. Despite the complexity of the residency issue, GBCI has found that few of the applicants we surveyed were concerned with meeting the residency requirements. In all, only 12 (12.9%) respondents reported that the residency requirements had posed a potential problem for them, and all but one of those succeeded in completing an application at one of the group processing events. We have encountered a handful of enthusiastic LPRs who were a few months short of meeting their eligibility requirements. These people were not turned away from group processing, rather they were able to complete the process and given specific instructions on when they could submit their application to USCIS. DUAL CITIZENSHIP While the United States allows for naturalizing immigrants to retain their prior citizenship, thus making them dual citizens, applicants must also look to what the laws of their own country say on the subject. GBCI served applicants from 64 countries, and each country has its own laws on whether a person must relinquish their citizenship upon becoming a US Citizen. While we know that 10 (10.8%) respondents stated that the issue was a concern to them, it is difficult to measure the true impact that losing one’s original citizenship has on one’s willingness to naturalize. Those who refuse to naturalize due to the fear of losing their original citizenship are unlikely to even come to a naturalization clinic, meaning that we cannot measure their numbers or the impact that loss of citizenship may have on deterring one from applying for citizenship. Clearly, this is an issue that can be dealt with in outreach by providing eligible LPRs with information on which countries do and which countries do not recognize dual citizenship. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER The requirement that eligible LPRs have Good Moral Character (GMC) in order to naturalize is one of the most complex issues in immigration law, and the questions surrounding GMC take up almost one-third of the 10-page N-400. GMC covers a number of criminal and other matters that may have been committed during the required residency period, yet USCIS can and often does look beyond the residency period to determine an applicant’s moral character. Moreover, the risk to the applicant is exceedingly high; many crimes would not only prevent someone from becoming a US citizen, they would lead to the applicant being deported regardless of when the offense was committed. In the clinical context, working with GMC issues is extremely difficult; the complexity of the issue requires more time and research than can be devoted to it in group processing. Addressing this issue is particularly complicated in Massachusetts where federal and state law do not Page | 13

necessary match. In Massachusetts, for instance, there exists a criminal disposition known as a Continuance Without a Finding, which for state purposes is not a conviction. However, because of the way that immigration law is worded,11 it is considered a conviction for immigration purposes. This means that someone who thinks their case was dismissed might actually have a criminal conviction on their record, a conviction that might result in their deportation. For this reason, any and all criminal issues are referred out to attorneys who can take the time and have the resources available to properly handle the case. Despite, or perhaps because of, the dire consequences, criminal issues were not a major concern for those attending GBCI citizenship clinics. Of the 93 survey respondents, only 4 (4.3%) listed criminal issues as an obstacle to obtaining citizenship. Similarly, only 22 (3.3%) of those attending clinics were unable to complete their applications due to a criminal issue. One possible explanation is that LPRs are familiar enough with the law to know that criminal convictions are an issue that could get them into serious trouble. In which case, many of these individuals would be screening themselves out of the process. Such data indicates that criminal convictions are not a major issue for those attending GBCI clinics. That does not mean, however, that those running the clinics should not be concerned about criminal records. Experience has shown that applicants are often times reluctant to admit to criminal behavior, either because they do not think it is a substantive issue that will impact their application or because they are embarrassed to admit to their past misdeeds. It is extremely important that volunteers at the clinics repeatedly emphasize the risks of not coming forward with these issues, or the clinics risk doing more harm than good.

IV.

CONCLUSION

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s 2011 Immigration Yearbook, just over 30,000 people in Massachusetts have become LPRs every year for the last 10 years.12 However, during that same period, only around 20,000 immigrants in the state have naturalized every year during that same period.13 This leaves an estimated 10,000 immigrants in Massachusetts every year who are eligible to naturalize but fail to for one reason or another. From the data collected at GBCI clinics, four primary obstacles stand out as impacting broad swaths of the immigrant community: English ability, high fees, lack of resources, and lack of knowledge. GBCI’s clinics have been able to address two of these issues in a reliable manner by providing the resources to complete and file N-400s while also assisting with the I-912. However, it is clear from the data that stronger outreach needs to be conducted within immigrant communities to address the lack of knowledge. A coordinated community outreach campaign must involve more than just media outreach; it needs to include speaking to immigrant communities directly and being able to answer questions about the process and the benefits of applying for citizenship. Those who are interested in applying for citizenship must be able to find the resources they need to guide them through the process, and those who are not interested 11

INA §101(a)(48)(A)

12

“2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics”, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf, p.16. 13 Ibid, p. 57.

Page | 14

should be shown how their lives could improve if they become US citizens. This is a difficult task, since immigrant communities can vary significantly from one community to another, requiring different outreach strategies. Outreach efforts need to be tailored by community-based organizations to address their communities in the most effective and efficient way possible. The lack of English skills among many immigrants seeking to apply for citizenship is a more difficult issue to address. In part, this can be addressed in outreach efforts; in addition to resources for application assistance, outreach should stress the requirement that applicants be able to speak English and include information on ESOL classes. However, resources in Massachusetts for ESOL classes are severely lacking, and many immigrants seeking such classes are placed on waiting lists for up to two years. Clearly, there is a need for increased funding from state and local stakeholders – government, businesses, and foundations – to provide ESOL classes. GBCI should also develop its outreach efforts in a way that gets to LPRs before they are eligible for citizenship so that they can get on the waiting list for ESOL classes early and be prepared for the English exam once they are eligible to apply for citizenship.

Page | 15

Appendix Barriers to Naturalization Survey Form (B-Natz)

Basic Information: INTAKE NUMBER:

__________________________

What year did you arrive in the U.S.?

____________

What is the date you received your Green Card?

____________ (mm/dd/yyyy)

What is your highest level of education? (please select one):

Educated in U.S.? (circle yes or no)

 Elementary or primary school (grades 1-5)

YES / NO

 Middle school or junior high (grades 6-8)

YES / NO

 High school (grades 9-12)

YES / NO

 Attended community college

YES / NO

 Graduated from community college

YES / NO

 Attended 4-year college but did not graduate

YES / NO

 Received bachelor’s degree from 4-year college

YES / NO

 Attended graduate school

YES / NO

 Received master’s degree

YES / NO

 Received Ph.D.

YES / NO

What is your level of English proficiency? (please select one): None Beginning Intermediate Advanced Fluent

Page | 16

Below are commonly identified barriers to becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States. Please identify whether each of these issues has presented a serious barrier to your becoming naturalized: Rating 0 = not a barrier

1 = barrier

2 = serious barrier

X = does not know / not applicable / declines to answer/does not understand question

1. Complexity of the Process / Bureaucratic Barriers Is the complexity of the naturalization process a serious barrier to naturalization? 2. Language Barriers Is lack of English proficiency a serious barrier to pursuing naturalization? 3. Lack of Awareness Is lack of awareness regarding the process a serious barrier to naturalization? 4. Financial Hardship / Fees Does lack of financial means pose a serious barrier to naturalization? 5. Dual Citizenship Does giving up citizenship in your land of birth pose a serious barrier to naturalization? 6. Lack of Interest Do you think there are no significant benefits to naturalization? 7. Legal Issues Did you feel you needed to see a lawyer or seek legal help to complete the citizenship application? 8. Travel Restrictions/Residency Requirements Do residency requirements pose a serious barrier to naturalizing? 9. Criminal History Were legal troubles or criminal history a serious barrier to naturalization? 10. Lack of Information About Biographical History Did gathering your personal information (e.g., travels, documentation, birth certificates, etc.) pose a barrier to naturalization? 11. Lack of Resources / Assistance Does not having resources, or help with the process, pose a barrier to naturalization? 12. Civics and History Test Preparation Do difficulties in preparing for Civics and History tests pose a barrier to naturalization? 13. Illiteracy Do difficulties in reading or writing pose barriers to naturalization? 14. Family Involvement / Consensus in Making Decision Does lack of agreement among your family members pose a barrier to naturalization?

Page | 17

Top 3 barriers to naturalization: Read out the titles of all questions you have rated as ‘2 – serious barrier’ and rank the top 3 barriers 1. 2. 3. List other barriers to naturalization here:

Page | 18

Suggest Documents