U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has updated its Policy Manual Volume 8, Part K, Chapter 2, to incorporate more fully the application of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision in Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019). In that decision, the BIA held that the false claim of U.S. citizenship ground of inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) does not include an intent requirement. Prior DHS guidance had treated the person’s knowledge, age, or mental capacity as possible defenses to this ground. The update spells out when the person might still be able to show they did not have a subjective intent to obtain a benefit under state or federal law. It is effective immediately for cases pending or filed on/after Aug. 20, 2025.

INA and the Zhang Decision

INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) makes an applicant inadmissible if they falsely represented themselves to be a U.S. citizen for any purpose or benefit under the INA or any other federal or state law. This ground of inadmissibility went into effect on Sept. 30, 1996, and applies to false claims made on or after that date. The bar is typically permanent, and waivers/exemptions apply only in limited situations.

The BIA read the nearly identical ground of removal provision, INA § 237(a)(3)(D)(i), and held that the government does not have to prove an “intent to falsely represent” citizenship status. In other words, there is no separate “knowing” element for the falsity itself; whether the person believed they were a citizen is not a defense. USCIS has adopted that BIA interpretation for INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

Updated USCIS Policy

USCIS reorganized Chapter 2 of Vol. 8, Part K into a step-by-step analysis and clarified the following:

• A false claim to U.S. citizenship can be oral or written, and need not be made to a government official — claims to employers or other private entities can qualify if the person satisfies the “purpose/benefit” requirement.
• Officers must find direct or circumstantial evidence that the person made the false claim with subjective intent to achieve a purpose or a benefit under the INA or any other federal or state law, and that citizenship was material to the purpose/benefit sought.
• Examples of purpose/benefit include: applying for a U.S. passport, driver’s license, admission, a visa, federal loans; completing Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification; and avoiding negative legal consequences (like inspection or removal proceedings).
• While Zhang removes any requirement to prove the person knew the claim was false, USCIS clarifies that officers must still assess whether the person subjectively intended to achieve a qualifying purpose or benefit by making the claim. Age, education, mental capacity, understanding, and similar factors may be considered insofar as they bear on subjective intent to achieve the purpose/benefit — not as stand-alone defenses.
• A voluntary, timely retraction in the same proceeding — before the official challenges the accuracy — avoids inadmissibility.
• The false claim must be material to the purpose/benefit, although Eleventh Circuit case law provides some possible defenses to persons residing there.
• USCIS makes explicit that all prior DHS memos and opinions suggesting defenses based solely on lack of knowledge, age, or legal capacity are superseded. The agency will apply Zhang to all pending adjustment of status applications, even where the false claim predated the decision.

The USCIS also retitled Chapter 4 and added the following clarifying content:

• Special Immigrant Juvenile-based adjustment applicants and registry applicants are exempt from this ground.
• A statutory exception applies to post-9/30/1996 false claims only if: (1) each parent was a U.S. citizen; (2) the person permanently resided in the United States before 16; and (3) the person reasonably believed they were a citizen at the time.
• No age/mental capacity exceptions exist in the statute.
• Limited waivers exist for refugees, asylees, trafficking victims (T nonimmigrants adjusting status), and legalization applicants. Nonimmigrants may seek an INA § 212(d)(3) waiver.

Implications for Practitioners

False claims of citizenship present a serious challenge to try to overcome. The fact development will center on whether the person had a “subjective intent to achieve a purpose/benefit.” Practitioners will need to affirmatively build (or rebut) the record on what purpose or benefit the client sought — and why U.S. citizenship did or did not matter to obtaining it. Focus should be on the benefit sought, whether it was one governed by federal or state law, where the false claim occurred, and the client’s understanding and motives at that time. While age/mental capacity are no longer categorical shields, they still matter. Use them to argue lack of subjective intent (e.g., limited understanding or capacity to understand how citizenship status related to the purpose/benefit) rather than to contest the falsity element itself. Practitioners should rigorously vet clients for this often fatal ground of inadmissibility before applying for an immigration benefit and caution them on the risks of enforcement should the application be denied.