Fact check: Can ICE deport a legal immigrant with a pending citizenship application?

1. Why the question matters now: enforcement is changing and stakes are higher

Policy shifts in 2025 have expanded enforcement capacity beyond traditional ICE roles, including arming USCIS personnel and allowing arrests, which alters the practical risk that lawful permanent residents with pending N‑400s face while their applications are pending ^[3]. This change occurred alongside targeted enforcement actions and a reported surge in removal proceedings initiated by USCIS against tens of thousands of noncitizens, signaling that administrative boundaries between benefits adjudication and enforcement are blurring in practice ^{[2] [3]}. The consequence is that a pending citizenship application no longer reliably shields a green card holder from detention or removal processing under present policies ^[1].

2. The legal baseline: pending naturalization does not automatically suspend deportation

Under established immigration frameworks, a pending naturalization application does not create absolute immunity from removal; lawful permanent residents remain subject to grounds for deportation such as criminal convictions, misrepresentation, or abandonment of residency. Sources indicate that green card holders with risk factors — criminal history, certain international travel, or political activity flagged under enforcement priorities — can be targeted for detention and initiation of removal proceedings even while an N‑400 is pending ^{[1] [2]}. The guidance underscores that eligibility for citizenship and deportability are assessed under different statutory standards and administrative processes ^[5].

3. Who is uniquely vulnerable: victims and special-visa applicants face added uncertainty

Litigation filed by victims of domestic violence and human trafficking with pending U and T visas illustrates that groups once afforded procedural protections are contending with policy rollbacks that may strip deportation safeguards ^[4]. Plaintiffs argue that recent directives have narrowed access to protections and increased removals, directly affecting survivors who rely on pending applications for safety and status. This litigation is important because it highlights how administrative discretion—rather than changes in statute—can materially change deportation risk for vulnerable lawful applicants awaiting adjudication ^[4].

4. Administrative practice: USCIS enforcement and case initiation raise removal numbers

USCIS-initiated removal proceedings and consolidated federal guidelines indicate that administrative actors are increasingly initiating deportation processes, with reports of over 26,700 such actions in 2025, reflecting a broader enforcement posture ^{[2] [5]}. This trend shows that agencies charged with benefits processing can also serve as enforcement triggers; the presence of a pending application does not prevent agency-originated investigative or referral activity leading to detention. Practitioners warn that this administrative reality requires applicants to monitor interactions with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and other agencies closely ^[2].

5. Recent changes to naturalization standards complicate “good moral character” assessments

Revisions to the naturalization civics test and a stricter standard for demonstrating good moral character raise the bar for N‑400 applicants and can intersect with deportation risk when conduct triggers both citizenship denial and removal grounds ^{[6] [7]}. Sources note that neighborhood checks and heightened documentation demands could reveal conduct that prompts enforcement scrutiny; while these changes address eligibility for naturalization, they may also generate records that feed into removal considerations. The net effect is an increased administrative scrutiny environment where immigration benefits and enforcement operate in tandem ^[8].

6. Legal pathways and limits: when a pending application helps and when it doesn’t

A pending application can be relevant in certain procedural contexts—such as discretionary relief or stays—but it is not a categorical bar to arrest or removal. Several sources show that outcomes hinge on individual circumstances: visa category, presence of criminal convictions, government enforcement priorities, and the specific discretionary protections tied to visas like U and T ^{[4] [2]}. The litigation and policy documents emphasize that only targeted statutory protections or successful legal defenses will prevent removal; administrative pendency alone rarely suffices as a shield ^{[4] [5]}.

7. What advocates and applicants should watch: litigation, policy memos, and counsel

Given evolving guidance and active litigation, the most salient near‑term indicators are agency memos, court rulings, and enforcement statistics that reflect how broadly new authorities are being applied ^{[4] [2]}. Advocates note that changes to USCIS roles and naturalization adjudication practices could prompt further lawsuits and possible injunctions; applicants should therefore document interactions carefully, consult experienced immigration counsel, and monitor litigation trends that might restore or redefine protections. The convergence of enforcement and benefits processing makes legal strategy central to avoiding removal ^{[3] [8]}.

8. Bottom line: pending citizenship helps in some ways but does not guarantee safety

In sum, while a pending naturalization application demonstrates an intent to naturalize and may have procedural relevance, it does not guarantee protection from detention or deportation under the current enforcement posture evidenced in 2025. The combination of expanded USCIS enforcement functions, stricter naturalization standards, and litigation challenging the narrowing of protections means that lawful permanent residents with pending applications face real risks—especially if they fall into flagged categories or have adverse records. Seek immediate legal advice tailored to individual facts to assess defensibility and relief options ^{[3] [1] [2]}.