Which 19 countries were included in the USCIS naturalization pause and what criteria were used to select them?
Executive summary
The USCIS pause initially targeted 19 countries identified as “high-risk” in the administration’s 2025 travel ban; those countries are Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela [1][2][3]. The agency says the selection flowed from the June 2025 Presidential Proclamation and security-screening concerns — citing national security, public safety, identity-verification gaps, high overstay or fraud rates and a need for enhanced vetting — but the memos provide limited operational detail and leave room for discretionary expansion [1][2][4].
1. The 19 countries named: a consolidated list from USCIS and legal alerts
USCIS’s December 2, 2025 policy memorandum, and contemporaneous legal- and industry briefings, consistently list the same set of 19 non‑European countries now subject to an adjudication hold: Afghanistan, Burma/Myanmar, Burundi, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Yemen [2][1][3]. Multiple law‑firm alerts and professional services summaries reproduced the list when describing USCIS’s “hold and re‑review” directive tied to Presidential Proclamation 10949 [1][5].
2. The stated legal hook: Presidential proclamations and USCIS memoranda
USCIS tied the pause to the June 2025 travel ban proclamations; the agency’s memo implements a hold on pending benefit requests by people who list one of the 19 countries as country of birth or citizenship and orders re‑reviews of previously approved benefits for entrants after January 20, 2021, per the agency’s national‑security guidance [1][2]. Notices from DHS and USCIS framed the pause as an operational extension of the proclamation’s entry restrictions into the adjudication realm [6][5].
3. The criteria USCIS cites publicly: security, identity verification, fraud, overstays
USCIS described its rationale in national‑security language: to “ensure aliens from high‑risk countries of concern who have entered the United States do not pose risks to national security or public safety,” and to address countries with “high overstay rates, significant fraud, or both,” together with gaps in identity verification and screening protocols [7][4][2]. That language appears across DHS and reporting about the agency’s directive and was echoed by legal alerts summarizing the agency’s priorities for re‑review [7][4][8].
4. How the policy is being operationalized — interviews, re‑interviews, and prioritization
USCIS instructed officers that interviews for nationals of the 19 countries cannot be waived and that reviews may involve enhanced terrorism‑ and criminal‑inadmissibility vetting, new or repeat interviews, and potential law‑enforcement referrals; USCIS also said it would identify priority cases within 90 days [1][8]. The agency’s guidance explicitly covers a broad set of applications — from naturalization and adjustment of status to certain ancillary benefits — and allows exceptions in narrowly defined litigation or extraordinary circumstances [2][3].
5. Critics, civil‑rights groups and legal practitioners: concerns and alternate readings
Legal groups and practitioners have raised alarms about sweeping impacts, citing cancelled oath ceremonies, blocked naturalizations, and unclear exception standards; immigrant‑rights advocates frame the move as an administrative extension of the travel ban that can disproportionately affect vulnerable communities and may lack individualized suspicion [9][10][11]. Industry advisories note operational chaos for employers and applicants while courts and advocates press for transparency on standards for exceptions and the scope of retrospective reviews [5][10].
6. What remains opaque: causal links, metrics, and potential expansion
USCIS memos and third‑party summaries name the policy drivers but stop short of publishing the data, metrics, or country‑by‑country evidence used to reach “high‑risk” designations, meaning the public record does not show how overstay rates, fraud incidents, or identity‑verification failures were measured or weighed [2][4]. Reporting links the policy’s timing to a June 2025 proclamation and subsequent national‑security concerns following specific incidents, but the memoranda themselves do not provide a transparent, itemized evidentiary trail — and several outlets report the list could be expanded pending ongoing reviews [8][4][12].