FACTS:

Our client, a Moroccan lawful permanent resident, applied for U.S. citizenship but encountered a significant issue: she had remained outside the United States for more than six months during the COVID-19 pandemic.

USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE), asserting that her prolonged absence may have broken her continuous residence, placing her eligibility for naturalization at risk. Given that a break in continuous residence can delay eligibility by several years, the stakes were high.

She retained our office to prepare a detailed legal and evidentiary response.

THE LAW:

Naturalization applicants must satisfy both continuous residence and physical presence requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations.

Under INA § 316(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(a), an applicant must demonstrate:

• Continuous residence in the United States for at least five years (or three years in certain cases); and
• Physical presence in the United States for at least half of that period.

“Continuous residence” is further defined in 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(a) as maintaining a principal dwelling place in the United States for the statutory period.

Critically, under INA § 316(b) and 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(c)(1)(i), an absence from the United States of more than six months but less than one year creates a rebuttable presumption that continuous residence has been interrupted.

To overcome this presumption, the applicant must provide evidence that they did not abandon their U.S. residence during the trip. USCIS evaluates factors outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(c)(1)(i)(A)–(E), including:

• Whether the applicant maintained employment in the United States;
• Whether immediate family members remained in the United States;
• Whether the applicant retained access to a U.S. residence; and
• Whether the applicant did not obtain employment abroad.

Additionally, 8 C.F.R. § 316.5(c)(1)(ii) confirms that absences of one year or more generally break continuous residence as a matter of law, making the “6–12 month” category particularly important as it allows for rebuttal.

In practice, applicants must also demonstrate that their trip abroad was temporary in nature, a standard supported by case law and USCIS policy guidance—particularly relevant in situations involving extraordinary circumstances such as global travel disruptions during COVID-19.

THE RESULT:

We prepared a comprehensive RFE response addressing both the legal standard and the evidentiary burden. Our submission demonstrated that the client’s extended absence was temporary and largely driven by COVID-related travel limitations, and that she maintained strong ties to the United States throughout her time abroad.

We provided documentation showing continued residence, ongoing ties, and a clear intent to maintain the United States as her principal home.

USCIS accepted our arguments and evidence, concluding that the client had successfully rebutted the presumption of a break in continuous residence.

Her naturalization application was approved, and she is now scheduled for her Oath Ceremony to become a U.S. citizen.

DISCLAIMER: All Case Results published here depend on specific facts and legal issues unique to the case. It is impossible to guarantee any results.