Naturalization Denial Reversed: Good Moral Character and the Difference Between Owing Taxes and Failing to Pay Them
The Situation
My client had done everything right. He had filed his income tax returns every year during the statutory period. He owed taxes — for several years he had owed them, and for several years he had been paying them in installments under IRS-approved payment agreements, which he had never violated. He passed his naturalization interview. Then USCIS denied his application.
The ground for denial was lack of good moral character. Specifically, USCIS contended that he had failed to pay his income taxes — an unlawful act, the denial said, that adversely reflected on his moral character. His explanation had not established extenuating circumstances. Case closed.
And just like that, they ruined my client’s day.
Why the Denial Was Wrong
The USCIS examiner made a fundamental error — one so basic it is worth stating plainly before getting into the law: owing income taxes is not the same as failing to pay them.
The denial’s entire argument rested on the false premise that owing and failing to pay are equivalent. They are not. Owing taxes is not unlawful per se. It is not a crime in any U.S. jurisdiction. Millions of taxpayers owe taxes in any given year — because of insufficient payroll deductions, self-employment income, investment gains, or any number of legitimate reasons. The question under the good moral character provisions is not whether the applicant had a debt to the IRS. It is whether his conduct with regard to his tax filings and payments violated the law.
His conduct did not. He had filed every return. He had entered into IRS-approved payment agreements. He had complied with their terms without exception. The USCIS policy manual itself provides that inconsistencies in the record pertaining to income taxes may be resolved by documentation showing that the applicant has filed the appropriate forms and returns and has made arrangements for payment in accordance with the tax authority’s requirements. The record contained exactly that documentation. The examiner either did not read it or did not understand it.
There was a second, independent ground for reversal. This case arose in the Ninth Circuit, where USCIS is required — under Hussein v. Barrett, 820 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016) — to consider and weigh all factors relevant to the good moral character determination, including education, family background, employment history, financial status, and lack of criminal record. The examiner had done none of this. The denial contained no weighing of counterbalancing factors. That omission alone constituted an abuse of discretion requiring reconsideration.
There was also a third point the examiner had overlooked entirely. My client was married and had filed his returns as married filing jointly throughout the statutory period. Tax liability under a joint return is shared equally by both spouses. The debt to the IRS was not his alone — it belonged to both him and his spouse. He may have owed taxes for reasons entirely outside his personal control. The denial had treated the liability as if it were his individual failing. It was not.
By the time I filed the motion to reconsider, my client had paid his outstanding tax liabilities in full. He owed nothing.
The Result
The denial was reversed in four months. My client was sworn in as a U.S. citizen.
Suggested Reading