If your spouse or parent is a U.S. permanent resident and you have been waiting to file for your green card, April brings you good news.

The visa bulletin

The Visa Bulletin uses two charts. The Final Action Dates chart controls when USCIS can actually approve and issue a green card. The Dates for Filing chart governs when you may submit your I‑485 Adjustment of Status application ahead of final action. 

When F2A is current on the Dates for Filing chart, any qualified spouse or unmarried child under 21 of a lawful permanent resident may file an I‑485 regardless of priority date — provided USCIS authorizes that chart for the month.

The good news

For April 2026, F2A is current for all countries of chargeability, including India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines. That means no priority date cutoff is blocking eligible applicants this month if USCIS permits use of the Dates for Filing chart. Always confirm authorization at www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo before submitting.

Who benefits

This applies to F2A beneficiaries such as spouses and unmarried children under 21 of green card holders. If the sponsoring relative has filed an I‑130 (approved or pending), you may now be able to submit your I‑485 depending on your facts. This does not apply to F2B beneficiaries (unmarried sons and daughters 21 or older), which follows a separate schedule.

Timing and strategy 

USCIS processes adjustment cases in the order received, but filing now lets you obtain employment authorization (EAD) and advance parole earlier. Concurrent filing, which means submitting Form I‑130 and Form I‑485 together, can streamline cases when an immigrant petition has not yet been approved. If your priority date is current, don’t wait for further bulletin updates. Assemble a complete application and file. Missing documents or errors delay adjudication.

The Department of State cautioned that advances in several immigrant visa categories reflect slower visa issuance for some countries under current policies. Because demand and issuance can shift, dates that are current now may retrogress later in FY2026. In addition, USCIS must explicitly authorize the Dates for Filing chart each month. That authorization is not automatic.

Act now 

If you or a family member fits F2A and hasn’t filed, this is a key month. With F2A current in April 2026, eligible spouses and children can move forward now. Filing Form I‑485 gives families access to work authorization and a clearer path to lawful permanent residence.

Prepare carefully, follow USCIS instructions precisely, and consult a qualified immigration attorney.

A client called me this week worried about the new mandatory biometric checks for all non‑U.S. citizens, including green‑card holders. He’s planning a quick two‑week trip abroad and fears the policy might make returning to the U.S. more complicated.

Of course, knowing what to expect helps you prepare in advance. Avoid getting tangled in complications at the airport or when reentering the U.S. Prevention is always better than cure.

So here’s what you need to know

The Department of Homeland Security rolled out biometric entry‑exit screening for all foreign travelers nationwide. The rollout that began in December 2025 and builds on pilots at select airports and land ports. It aims to make identity checks more accurate, curb fraud, and better track visa overstays. Quick scans. Shorter lines.

What’s changing at the border under the expanded program, most foreign nationals arriving or departing the United States will have their biometric data captured and checked. That means a quick fingerprint scan or a touchless facial image at many ports of entry.

If you’ve been traveling lately, you’ve probably noticed touchless facial‑recognition gates at many airports, and more facilities are adding scanning lanes. So you know what I am talking about.

My December flight

I’d already noticed touchless biometric gates at many major airports. Last December I flew to Washington, D.C., running late. Picture me sprinting through the terminal with a suitcase and a backpack, silently praying the security line won’t be unbearably long. I was racing to make the flight with ten minutes to spare.

Reaching the checkpoint felt like finding an open checkout lane at the grocery store. Pure bliss. For some reason I felt proud, as if I’d just won a game. Anyway, the point is that the line was short and moving fast. I handed my driver’s license to the officer, was told to look at the camera for the facial scan, and that was it. No questions, no delay. I hadn’t even decided whether to smile for the camera before the scan finished. Oh, well. Not that it mattered. 

What DHS is saying

DHS says automation and increased processing capacity have kept wait times from growing even as biometric screening expands. So overall lines should move faster. 

Officials say the system improves identification accuracy, helps prevent identity fraud, and aids efforts to identify people who overstay visas or otherwise violate entry conditions. 

DHS also expects the program to strengthen public‑safety screening by matching travelers against criminal and national‑security databases more reliably.

What travelers should be thinking

The change means routine biometric scans at arrival and departure in addition to the usual passport and visa checks. Travelers should bring all travel documents, keep digital and paper copies of passports and visas, and allow extra time at the airport in case of crowds or unexpected delays.

Why are we talking about this

Biometrics raise reasonable privacy concerns. DHS says it operates under existing privacy and data‑protection rules, but questions remain about data retention, who can access the data, and oversight. 

For complex issues, like prior immigration complications, questions about data sharing, or legal sensitivities, get legal advice before you travel.

Recently I’ve received many inquiries about naturalization from people who cannot speak English. They mainly ask how this affects their eligibility to naturalize. The surge in questions may stem from the new naturalization test rules that took effect for applications filed on or after October 20, 2025. The rules expanded the civics question bank from 100 to 128, require 12 correct answers out of 20 (up from 6 out of 10), and add more U.S. history and principles content. The English requirement itself did not change, but these updates have created uncertainty.

Many lawful permanent residents worry the English requirement could change. Let’s review the current rules. I’ll explain the existing requirements and the limited exemptions available to applicants who file before any changes take effect.

The English test

During initial consultation, I pay particular attention on the applicant’s ability to speak and understand English. That matters because, at the interview, a USCIS officer will assess the applicant’s ability to speak, read, and write basic English.

The English test has three parts that measure language skills. Speaking comes first. The officer assesses your ability to understand and respond to questions about your application and eligibility throughout the interview. For reading, you will see sentences on a digital tablet and must read aloud correctly. For writing, an officer reads a sentence aloud and you must write it correctly on the tablet.

Who must demonstrate English ability

Generally, most applicants for naturalization must demonstrate an ability to read, write, and speak basic English during the naturalization interview. The civics test is generally given in English as well, although exceptions for language exist.

You are exempt from the English language requirement but must still take the civics test if you meet either of these conditions: first, you are age 50 or older at the time of filing and have been a permanent resident for at least 20 years (the “50/20” exception), or second, you are age 55 or older at the time of filing and have been a permanent resident for at least 15 years (the “55/15” exception).

50/20 Rule 

Scenario: María is 62 and received her green card in 1999. When she files her application for naturalization, she qualifies under the “50/20” rule (over 50 and LPR at least 20 years). She cannot speak English well. At her interview, USCIS allows her to take the civics test in Spanish with an interpreter. She prepares for the civics test in Spanish and passes. USCIS waives the English-speaking requirement.

55/15 Rule

Scenario: Li is 56 and became an LPR in 2010 (14 years). He doesn’t meet the 55/15 rule but is close. Li has chronic severe hearing loss. His audiologist completes Form N-648 explaining that written and spoken English testing would be inappropriate, and Li submits medical records. USCIS evaluates the medical evidence. Depending on the documentation, USCIS may grant accommodations or a full exemption. If granted a medical exemption from civics but not English, Li may still need to show basic English speaking ability or receive reasonable testing modifications.

65/20 Rule

Even if you qualify for the “50/20” or “55/15” English exemptions, you still must take the civics test. You may take that test in your native language, but you must bring an interpreter to your interview. The interpreter must be fluent in both English and your native language. Applicants who are 65 or older and have been permanent residents for at least 20 years at the time of filing receive special consideration for the civics requirement.

Consult an immigration attorney

Not speaking English does not automatically block naturalization. Many applicants qualify for exemptions based on age plus years as an LPR or medical disabilities.

Can family members interpret for me? Yes, a family member may interpret if they meet USCIS rules for interpreters, but USCIS often prefers a qualified, neutral interpreter. If you are seeking the age-based exemption, USCIS typically allows the civics test in your language via an interpreter. Check local field office procedures.

Exemptions are not automatic. USCIS reviews each claim and may request additional evidence or a medical re-evaluation. Consult an immigration attorney to help determine your eligibility for exemptions and to assist with preparing and filing your naturalization application.

“Is it true they’re no longer admitting anyone with diabetes? What about my brother, I think he’s obese?” a U.S. citizen client asked during a recent consultation about filing an immigration petition for her brother.

Familiar story? I’ve heard this question repeatedly since the administration issued guidance directing consular and immigration officers to broaden how they apply medical inadmissibility rules. The guidance requires officers to consider applicants’ health during visa reviews. It applies to most visa categories but will mainly affect people seeking permanent residence in the United States.

Traditionally, officials barred applicants only for communicable diseases of public-health significance or conditions that made them likely to become a “public charge.” There are more to consider now. The new administration guidance instructs consular officers to scrutinize more health conditions when deciding admissibility.

The new approach directs officials to weigh a wider range of health conditions, including chronic, treatable, and noncommunicable illnesses such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes and metabolic disorders, neurological disorders, and mental health conditions. They must also consider whether those conditions might require medical treatment or use public resources in the United States. The applicant bears the burden of proof. They must show they are unlikely to become primarily dependent on government assistance for subsistence.

How it works

Consular officers review medical exams and case files when determining admissibility. Under the new guidance, they must consider whether an applicant’s condition could foreseeably burden public-health programs, emergency services, or the healthcare system. Officials may also weigh an applicant’s financial capacity and access to insurance. As a result, more applicants with disabilities, chronic conditions, or otherwise manageable illnesses could face visa denials if those conditions are judged likely to generate significant public costs.

Medical Exam

Applicants undergo a medical exam where a doctor assesses their health and notes conditions like obesity.

Consular Office Review

The officer considers the exam results, the applicant’s financial situation, and the new guidance to decide if they’re likely to need public assistance.

Potential impact

While not an automatic denial, obesity can raise red flags, prompting deeper questions about treatment costs and employment prospects, potentially affecting visa approval. 

Why people are concerned

Advocates and health groups say the policy risks excluding many immigrants who pose little contagion risk and who could live, work, and obtain care in the U.S. They warn it could separate families, deter migrants from seeking preventive care, and stigmatize disability and illness. Civil-rights and immigration lawyers predict lawsuits challenging the guidance’s legal basis and its application, arguing that it expands inadmissibility beyond Congress’s intent and lacks clear standards.

What supporters say

Proponents argue the guidance protects public resources and ensures that immigration decisions account for foreseeable costs to government-funded health programs.

What public needs to watch

Because the guidance gives officers greater discretion, the public must watch how they use it. A narrow interpretation would limit denials to extreme cases. A broad one could bar many people with manageable conditions. To prevent abuse, officials should publish clear criteria, track outcomes, and implement safeguards so discretion doesn’t become a blunt instrument that harms vulnerable people.

When a U.S. petitioner dies, the beneficiary’s immigration route can suddenly collapse. The law automatically revokes the immigrant petition at the petitioner’s death, stopping a pending case or wiping out an approved one. That sudden revocation throws beneficiaries into uncertainty, risking family separation and the loss of critical immigration benefits. The law is severe, but the story doesn’t always end there.

Let me tell you a story. I attended a concert and was lucky enough to be seated in the front row. It was a full house. After the show, it’s common for a few people to approach me with quick questions. One question, however, stayed with me and kept me thinking on the drive home.

The lady asked, “Attorney, may pag‑asa pa ba yung petition ng tatay ko sa kapatid ko? Kasi namatay na yung tatay ko. Pero namatay siya after ma‑approved yung petition sa kapatid ko.” Translation: “Attorney, is there still hope for my father’s petition for my sibling? My father has passed away, but he died after my sibling’s petition was approved.”

I gave the same measured reply any attorney would.

It depends.

Once, if a petitioner died while a petition was still pending, the case typically stopped there. However, beneficiaries may qualify for relief through INA 204(l) reinstatement or humanitarian reinstatement.

INA 204(l) Reinstatement

In 2009, the Congress enacted INA 204(l), which gives certain beneficiaries a second chance to obtain immigration benefits through a deceased qualifying relative.

Under INA 204(l), USCIS may approve an adjustment application or specified immigrant petitions adjudicated on or after October 28, 2009, when three conditions are met. First, the applicant was residing in the United States when the qualifying relative died; second, the applicant still resides in the United States on the date USCIS decides the pending application; and third, the applicant falls into one of the qualifying beneficiary categories.

INA 204(l) also preserves priority dates in appropriate cases. If the petitioner died while the petition was pending or after approval, a qualified substitute sponsor – a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (for example, a family member) – can step in, file the required paperwork, and seek to retain the original priority date, provided the beneficiary still meets the petition’s eligibility criteria.

Humanitarian Reinstatement

Humanitarian reinstatement gives USCIS the authority to revive an approved Form I‑130 when the automatic revocation caused by a petitioner’s death would produce severe hardship or when exceptional humanitarian circumstances demand mercy. Think of it as an emergency lifeline. It’s not automatic, and it’s not for every case. USCIS uses discretion, which means weighing the human impact alongside the legal factors, and will grant reinstatement only in narrowly defined, compelling situations where restoring the petition clearly serves a humanitarian purpose. Because this relief is limited, strong, timely documentation and a persuasive presentation of hardship or unusual circumstances are essential to make the lifeline hold.

A substitute sponsor must step forward to support the request. The sponsor must be at least 18 years old and must be a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or lawful permanent resident. The sponsor also must be a qualifying relative, for example, a spouse, parent, parent‑in‑law, sibling, child, son‑ or daughter‑in‑law, sister‑ or brother‑in‑law, grandparent, grandchild, or legal guardian.

Who can request humanitarian reinstatement

Only the principal beneficiary named on an approved Form I‑130 may file a request for humanitarian reinstatement after the petitioner’s death. Derivative beneficiaries such as spouses or children who were included on the original petition, do not have standing to file for reinstatement independently. However, if USCIS grants humanitarian reinstatement to the principal beneficiary, eligible derivative beneficiaries listed on that approved petition can benefit from the reinstatement as well and continue to pursue their immigration process under the restored petition.

Practically, this means the principal beneficiary must take the lead. This include preparation and submission of the humanitarian reinstatement request. Next, gather the required evidence. Then, secure a qualified substitute sponsor if a Form I‑864 Affidavit of Support is necessary. Derivatives should remain prepared to provide supporting documents (birth certificates, marriage certificates, identity documents) and any evidence showing their eligibility. If the principal beneficiary’s request succeeds, USCIS will typically extend relief to those derivative beneficiaries who still meet the qualifying requirements, preserving family unity to the extent allowed by the restored petition.

Timing and Documentation

Timing and documentation matter. The petitioner’s death must have occurred while the petition was pending or after approval. The substitute sponsor must qualify and provide evidence of the relationship or qualifying basis, the petitioner’s death (typically a death certificate), the beneficiary’s continued eligibility under the original petition, and any humanitarian or hardship factors that support reinstatement. Acting quickly and assembling a clear, persuasive file increases the likelihood of relief.

If you plan to apply, consider filing within 30 days of the notice (published September 18) and consult an immigration attorney to confirm which test will apply to your interview. Applicants who submit their naturalization application 30 days or more after the notice’s Federal Register publication on September 18 will take the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test.Test.

Key details of the 2025 Civics Test

Effective date

USCIS will implement the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test on October 20, 2025. USCIS will apply the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test to applicants who file their naturalization applications on or after October 20, 2025.

Test format:

USCIS will administer the civics portion orally. Officers will select 20 questions from a published pool of 128 questions.

Passing standard:

Applicants must answer at least 12 of the 20 questions correctly to pass. USCIS will stop the test once an applicant answers 12 correctly or 9 incorrectly.

Question pool and study materials:

USCIS published the full 128‑question set and accompanying study materials in the Federal Register notice and on its website. Applicants should use those official materials to prepare.

Applicability and transitional guidance:

USCIS will notify applicants scheduled for interviews whether the 2025 test applies to their case. The agency also provided transitional guidance for officers to ensure consistent administration and scoring during the roll‑out.

Policy context and agency goals

USCIS framed this implementation as part of a multi‑phase effort to ensure naturalization applicants meet statutory requirements, including knowledge of U.S. government and history and basic English proficiency. The agency emphasized that the updated test complements other policy changes such as enhanced vetting, stricter review of disability exceptions to English and civics requirements, and clarified guidance on assessing good moral character.

What applicants should do

Check interview dates:

Applicants with interviews on or after October 20, 2025 should confirm with USCIS or their legal counsel which test will apply.

Use official study materials:

Study the 128‑question pool and any USCIS study resources published with the Federal Register notice to prepare for the new format and content.

Seek clarification if needed:

Applicants who rely on disability or age exceptions should review USCIS guidance on exceptions and submit necessary documentation in advance.

Next steps

USCIS indicated the 2025 test implementation marks an initial phase; the agency will monitor outcomes, train officers, and continue with further refinements. The Federal Register notice records the agency’s actions and provides official documentation of the question pool, scoring rules, and implementation timeline. USCIS invited public feedback and will publish additional updates and training materials as it phases in other changes.

For the full Federal Register notice, the official 128‑question pool, and implementation guidance, see the Federal Register entry (Docket No. 2025–18050) and the USCIS website. If you plan to file a naturalization application and have questions about the 2025 Naturalization Civics Test implementation, consult an immigration attorney.

I recently handled a case that stayed with me. A young girl arrived in the United States, raised and supported by her father who petitioned for her. She finished school here and, while in college, applied for naturalization, passing the tests and interview with confidence. Then USCIS told her the green card she had relied on for years was ‘unlawfully obtained’ after a DNA test pushed by her step-mom excluded biological parentage. One lab result wiped out the legal basis for her permanent residence and abruptly derailed her path to citizenship.

As an immigration attorney, I see how easily loving family relationships collide with rigid statutory definitions. This case forced me to confront difficult questions: What can I do to help her save the life she built here in the U.S.? What remedies exist when someone honestly believed their status was secure?

Case snapshot

Jean (not her real name) arrived in the United States at a young age after her U.S. citizen father successfully petitioned for her. She received a lawful permanent resident card, finished high school here and, while in college, applied for naturalization. She passed the required tests and interview, but her application for citizenship was denied.

Immigration officials ruled she had “unlawfully obtained” permanent resident status because she could not prove she was the biological child of the U.S. citizen who petitioned for her. A DNA test showed she was not the petitioner’s biological offspring, a fact neither Jean nor the petitioner knew. To Jean, the man had always been her father. He raised her, supported her and she recognized him as her parent. But under immigration law, lacking a biological, adopted or step-parent relationship meant she did not meet the child-based requirement of the IR2 immigrant classification.

Because she couldn’t prove the qualifying parent–child relationship, authorities treated her original permanent residence as improperly obtained and disqualified her from using it to pursue naturalization. Worse, the officer told her that, as a result, she had been working unlawfully, a conclusion I strongly dispute and vigorously challenged.

Immediate practical concerns 

Jean’s story isn’t unique. Many people raised as children by a parent who later sponsors them confront the same painful shock when genetic tests contradict long-held family bonds. For Jean, the emotional blow was profound, and the legal consequences now threaten her future in the country she grew up in.

The  now adult child in this position face urgent questions: Can she still naturalize? Can she lawfully work? Does the denial mean she is now unlawfully present? These are frightening issues for someone who lived their life believing the petitioner was their parent. In Jean’s case, she had no reason to know about any biological discrepancy, the petitioner raised, supported, and cared for her abroad. That reliance and the child’s long-term, lawful presence in the U.S. are important factual and legal points when seeking relief.

Can USCIS revisit prior approvals? 

An approved I-130 and the issuance of a consular immigrant visa are important administrative findings, but they do not create an irrebuttable bar to later review. USCIS and the Department of State make fact-based decisions. If later evidence or credibility concerns arise, adjudicators can reexamine earlier findings. Matter of Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 1988), shows that the agency may revisit previously accepted facts when new evidence undermines them.

How much weight does DNA evidence carry? 

DNA evidence is highly probative of biological parentage. A conclusive exclusion is powerful, but it is not always dispositive of immigration or citizenship eligibility. Immigration law defines “parent” and “child” in statutory and legal terms that can include legitimation, adoption (INA § 101(b)(1), (b)(2)), acknowledged parentage, or lawful custody. Thus, even when DNA excludes biological parentage, a child may still meet the statutory criteria for acquisition or derivation of citizenship through these legal pathways.

Timing is key

Whenever USCIS decides a case, it issues a notice. This notice is crucial: it explains why your case was denied and describes any relief available to you. The notice also specifies when those remedies must be sought. In Jean’s case, the notice stated she could request a hearing on the naturalization decision within 30 calendar days of service (33 days if the notice was mailed). She missed that deadline.

When love doesn’t equal legal status

A child raised from infancy by a non‑biological parent who petitioned for them can grow up believing that person is their parent. They may attend school, work, pay taxes, and prepare for citizenship. But if a later genetic test shows no biological link and there’s no legal adoption, immigration authorities can treat the original admission as improperly obtained, even if neither party knew the truth.

Citizenship and permanent residence unlock basic rights: to live, work, travel, and access benefits. Losing those rights because a legal definition wasn’t met, despite decades of parental care, can upend lives. It can cause job loss, deportation risk, an inability to sponsor relatives, and severe emotional strain.

When love saved the day

Like a modern Cinderella, Jean’s story ended happily ever after. A father’s love was not enough to meet the legal test. True love’s kiss did. Prince charming stepped in and saved the day. The experience didn’t erase the pain, but what once looked like a legal dead end became a fresh start for Jean.

If you face this situation, contact an experienced immigration attorney immediately. Time limits and procedural rules can be tight; prompt legal advice is essential to preserve options and seek possible relief.

She planned a two‑week trip home to help after her mother fell ill, and came back to find her green card under scrutiny. Flights were delayed, care stretched on, and what began as a short visit turned into a year abroad. At the airport, an agent asked why she’d been gone so long. Without a reentry permit on file, she faced the real prospect of consular processing to regain her status. A single missed form had turned a family emergency into a fight to keep the life she’d built in the U.S.

A permit to reenter the United States can mean the difference between preserving lawful permanent resident status and facing the loss of a life built over years. 

As an immigration attorney, I’ve seen how routine travel, family emergencies, and professional commitments can unexpectedly trigger a serious status risk when permanent residents remain outside the U.S. for more than one year. 

What a reentry permit does 

A reentry permit (Form I‑131) serves as evidence that a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or conditional permanent resident intended to maintain U.S. residence before leaving the country. It protects against the presumption that an absence of more than one year disrupted continuous residence and resulted in abandonment of lawful permanent residency. With a valid reentry permit, an LPR can typically return to the United States without needing a returning resident visa.

When to apply

An LPR should apply for a reentry permit before departing the United States if they expect any single absence to exceed six months or if they anticipate staying outside for up to two years. USCIS must receive the application while the applicant is physically present in the U.S., and generally the applicant must complete biometrics here as well. Because processing can take months, file early and account for travel that could interfere with USCIS appointments.

Can you relate

The stakes are real. Here are some situations I’ve heard in client consultations:

There was a mother who left the U.S. to care for an ailing parent expected to be away a few weeks, but the parent’s condition deteriorated and her care stretched beyond a year. Because she had not filed for a reentry permit before departing, she faced an immigration officer’s presumption of abandonment at the port of entry and potential referral for a returning‑resident visa.

On one occasion, a startup executive accepted a twelve‑month client deployment abroad, but the contract extended to 18 months. Although she maintained U.S. ties, she lacked a reentry permit and encountered difficulty reentering: the airline flagged her documents, and Customs and Border Protection questioned whether she intended to abandon U.S. residence.

Recently, a father returned to his home country for what he thought would be a short stay when his partner’s childbirth complications required extended family support. The absence exceeded a year; without a reentry permit, his reentry was at risk despite clear family ties to the United States.

Final thought 

A reentry permit is not merely bureaucratic paperwork. It could be your insurance against the loss of a home and legal status. Avoid years of separation and costly consular proceedings by applying in time and doing it right. If you are a permanent resident facing travel beyond six months, talk with counsel and act before you leave. Preparation can preserve both your residence and your peace of mind.

On September 1, 2025, Texas made a sharp move to curb a predatory tactic that preyed on routine trips to the bank: following someone from an ATM or branch with the intent to steal. House Bill 1902 now treats that conduct- commonly called “jugging” – as its own felony, letting police and prosecutors act before a theft is completed. This change reframes a familiar cautionary tale about vigilance into a formal criminal offense, raising urgent questions about how officers will prove intent, what counts as the required “criminal instruments,” and how the law will affect everyday banking habits. The answers will shape not only prosecutions but also how Texans protect themselves when they withdraw cash.

Jugging Law

Texas enacted House Bill 1902, which creates a standalone felony for “jugging.” The law targets people who follow bank or commercial customers after they leave a financial institution or business with the intent to steal, and it allows police to charge that preparatory conduct earlier than before. The law took effect on September 1, 2025.

What is jugging

House Bill 1902 defines jugging as knowingly traveling the same path or route as another person after that person leaves a financial institution or commercial business, with the intent to commit theft. The statute also requires that the suspect possess two or more “criminal instruments,” items that can be used to facilitate theft, such as tools for breaking into vehicles or disabling locks. By defining this conduct as a discrete offense, the law lets authorities intervene based on the preparatory conduct and possession of instruments, rather than waiting for a completed theft.

Jugging – ATM follow-follow-and-burglary. A man arrived at the bank as customers left the ATM area and lingered at the edge of the lot, watching them. When one customer walked away, he fell in step behind her and kept pace until they reached a quieter stretch of road, where he robbed her.

Jugging – Drive‑by follow and attempted robbery. A suspect parks a short distance away, watches people withdraw cash, then follows a man who walks to his car. The suspect keeps just behind him until the victim reaches a quieter alley between buildings. The suspect approaches with a weapon displayed, demanding money; the victim fights back, and the suspect flees before taking anything.

 Jugging – Multiple-target surveillance. Two suspects scout the ATM area and compile notes on customers who withdraw cash. One follows a customer partway, but is interrupted when a security guard approaches. The suspects retreat to their vehicle; officers later stop the car and find masks, bolt cutters, and lists of intended targets.

How the law changes policing and prosecution

Previously, prosecutors could charge only completed offenses such as burglary, theft, or robbery. HB 1902 permits intervention and charging at an earlier stage, aiming to prevent thefts before they occur.

Penalties

Penalties under Texas jugging law The felony level depends on aggravating facts:

• State‑jail felony: The baseline jugging offense is a state‑jail felony, punishable by 180 days to two years in state jail and/or a fine up to $10,000.
• Third‑degree felony: The offense elevates to a third‑degree felony if it involves burglary of a vehicle.
• First‑degree felony: If the conduct escalates into a robbery, the offense becomes a first‑degree felony, punishable by five to 99 years or life in prison and a fine up to $10,000.

What We Should Do

To reduce the risk of jugging, law enforcement and banks recommend several practical steps. Stay alert to people near ATMs, bank entrances, and parking areas. Vary your routine by using different branches or visiting at different times to avoid predictable patterns. Conceal transactions: use drive‑thru services when available, put cash away immediately, and avoid counting money in public. Secure valuables by never leaving cash, bank bags, or envelopes visible in your vehicle. If you think someone is following you, drive to a police station or a well‑lit, populated area and call 911.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rewrote a key part of the naturalization playbook, and the change could shift who gets to call themselves American. The new policy tells officers to look beyond simple criminal disqualifiers and make a holistic judgment about an applicant’s “good moral character,” weighing both positive contributions and a wider range of everyday behaviors. 

Supporters call it a move to restore integrity. Critics warn it could inject vagueness and subjectivity into decisions, potentially deterring eligible immigrants and increasing denials. Which will it be? A smarter, more complete review or a new barrier for would‑be citizens?

New USCIS Policy 

On August 15, 2025, USCIS issued a policy memorandum that broadens how officers evaluate whether lawful permanent residents meet the “good moral character” requirement for U.S. naturalization. The move shifts the evaluation from a largely checklist-based screen for statutory disqualifiers toward a broader, holistic assessment that weighs positive contributions and a wider range of conduct, including some otherwise lawful behavior.

What the new policy says

USCIS now requires a holistic assessment of an applicant’s moral character. Adjudicators are to review an individual’s behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions as part of a comprehensive evaluation, rather than limiting their review to the presence or absence of statutorily disqualifying offenses. For example, an officer might consider whether an applicant regularly volunteers at a local food bank or participates in neighborhood safety meetings as evidence of positive civic engagement.

The guidance identifies several positive factors that officers should weigh. These include community involvement, family caregiving and ties, educational attainment, stable and lawful employment, the length of U.S. residence, and consistent payment of taxes. Here are some practical examples: a record of 200+ volunteer hours with a nonprofit, letters from supervisors confirming steady employment for several years, school transcripts or diplomas showing completion of a degree or certification, tax returns demonstrating timely filing and payment, and statements from family members documenting long-term household caregiving responsibilities.

At the same time, the policy expands the kinds of negative conduct that may be considered. Beyond statutory disqualifiers, such as murder, aggravated felonies, controlled-substance offenses, or being a “habitual drunkard,” adjudicators are instructed to consider conduct that, while legally permissible, might be “contrary to the average behavior of citizens” or “inconsistent with civic responsibility.” USCIS cites examples including reckless or habitual traffic infractions and harassment or aggressive solicitation.

The memo also emphasizes rehabilitation and mitigating factors. Officers are directed to consider evidence that an applicant has reformed or addressed past misconduct, for example through compliance with probation, payment of overdue taxes or child support, and submission of letters of support from community members.

Finally, the policy memorandum revises the evaluation standard used in naturalization interviews and decisions and offers guidance intended to promote consistent application of these factors across cases. In practice this may mean officers request a broader set of documents up front – tax returns, employer letters, volunteer logs, or probation completion certificates – or issue requests for additional evidence when applications lack information about community ties or rehabilitation steps.

Comments and Reactions

USCIS said the policy is intended to restore integrity to the naturalization process and to ensure applicants demonstrate a commitment to U.S. civic life. Agency leaders described U.S. citizenship as the “gold standard” that should be awarded only to those who meet higher standards of conduct and contribution.

Supporters argue the change gives adjudicators better tools to distinguish applicants who make demonstrable contributions and who act responsibly in their communities. They say a broader review lets officers recognize positive civic engagement that statutory checklists may miss.

Critics, including former officials and immigration advocates, contend the guidance is vague and open-ended, potentially giving officers too much discretion to deny applications over minor or noncriminal conduct such as traffic citations. They warn the policy could discourage eligible legal immigrants from applying for citizenship and introduce greater subjectivity into decisions that historically relied on clearly defined statutory disqualifiers.

What about you?

What do you think about this change, and how will it affect you or someone you know? Have routine citations, unpaid taxes, or volunteer work ever influenced an application? Would the new focus on “everyday behavior” feel like a fairer, fuller review or like an uncertain hurdle?

Moving Forward

USCIS now expects a fuller, evidence‑based picture of “good moral character,” weighing positive contributions and a wider range of noncriminal conduct. That change hands more power to adjudicators, which could help applicants whose service, steady work, and community ties strengthen their case, but it also makes outcomes less predictable and raises the real possibility of more denials and longer waits. If you plan to naturalize, don’t leave this to chance. Gather proof of volunteer work, employment records, tax returns, school credentials, and any documents showing rehabilitation (probation completion, paid debts, letters of support). Getting that material together now, and consulting an immigration attorney to present it effectively, is the best way to protect your application and reduce the risk this policy creates.