OUR IMMIGRATION SERVICESCitizenship and naturalisation in the USA

Author: Attorney Vitaly Malyuk. License: MO No. 73573

Arvian Law Firm | Updated October 20, 2026

N-400 Eligibility, Naturalization Interviews and Citizenship Denials

Most permanent residents may apply for U.S. citizenship after five years. Certain spouses of U.S. citizens qualify after three years. Applicants generally must be at least 18 and satisfy residence, physical presence, good moral character and other legal requirements.

Arvian Law Firm assists with N-400 preparation, complex travel histories, criminal-record concerns, USCIS interviews, naturalization denials and N-336 hearings. Attorney Vitalii Maliuk, Missouri Bar No. 73573, provides federal immigration legal services. We assess eligibility, identify potential grounds for denial and determine the evidence your application needs.

How a Naturalization Lawyer Can Help With Your N-400 Case

Not every naturalization application requires extensive legal work. An applicant with a straightforward residence history, no criminal or immigration complications and complete supporting records may have a relatively simple filing.

Legal representation becomes especially valuable when the case involves a disputed eligibility requirement, a possible ground for denial or a deadline that cannot safely be missed.

Arvian's Naturalization Services

  • N-400 eligibility assessment: determine the correct statutory category and appropriate filing date.
  • Residence and travel review: reconstruct international trips, calculate physical presence and assess possible breaks in continuous residence.
  • Criminal and immigration history: review court dispositions, prior immigration filings and potential good moral character issues.
  • N-400 preparation: prepare the application and evidence addressing the relevant statutory requirements.
  • USCIS interview support: prepare for questions involving eligibility, previous statements and disputed facts.
  • Naturalization denial: assess Form N-336, the option of a new N-400 and potentially available judicial remedies.

Attorney Vitalii Maliuk is admitted to practice in Missouri, Bar No. 73573. Arvian Law Firm handles federal immigration matters for clients across the United States. Representation in a particular federal district court is subject to that court's admission and procedural requirements.

Learn more about the attorney and the firm's practice on the Arvian Law Firm profile.

Who Qualifies for U.S. Citizenship Under the 5-Year or 3-Year Rule?

Most applicants qualify for naturalization under INA 316(a), which generally requires five years of continuous residence as a lawful permanent resident. Certain spouses of U.S. citizens qualify under INA 319(a), which generally allows naturalization after three years.

Both provisions contain additional eligibility requirements. The number of years printed on a green card is not enough to determine whether an application can be approved.

Standard Naturalization: 5-Year Rule

  • Generally, at least 18 years old when filing.
  • Five years of qualifying continuous residence as a permanent resident.
  • At least 30 months physically present in the United States during the five years before filing.
  • At least three months of qualifying residence in the relevant state or USCIS district before filing.
  • Good moral character during the required statutory period and through naturalization.
  • Compliance with applicable English, civics, constitutional attachment and oath requirements.

Naturalization Through Marriage: 3-Year Rule

Qualifying applicants generally must establish:

  • Three years of qualifying continuous residence as a lawful permanent resident.
  • At least 18 months of physical presence during the three years before filing.
  • A qualifying marriage to a spouse who has been a U.S. citizen throughout the required three-year period.
  • Living in marital union with the U.S. citizen spouse during the required three years immediately before filing.
  • Continued compliance with the applicable marriage and naturalization requirements.

Can You File Form N-400 90 Days Early?

USCIS generally allows eligible applicants under the standard five-year and qualifying three-year provisions to file N-400 up to 90 calendar days before completing the applicable continuous residence requirement.

This does not shorten every eligibility requirement by 90 days. Physical presence, the three-month state or district residence requirement and applicable marital-union conditions must be satisfied when the application is filed.

For example, a permanent resident applying through marriage cannot use the early-filing rule to excuse an incomplete three-year period of marriage to a U.S. citizen.

An applicant must also maintain continuous residence and satisfy applicable requirements after filing and through naturalization. A significant trip abroad while N-400 is pending can therefore create a new eligibility problem.

Official source: USCIS Instructions for Form N-400.

N-400 vs. N-600: Do You Need to Become a Citizen or Prove You Already Are One?

Some people seeking U.S. citizenship documentation may already be citizens under U.S. nationality law. This can occur through qualifying circumstances involving a U.S. citizen parent, including citizenship acquired at birth or automatically acquired after birth.

Form N-400 is used to apply for naturalization.

Form N-600 generally requests a Certificate of Citizenship documenting citizenship previously acquired under applicable law.

For example, someone who obtained permanent residence as a child and later lived in the legal and physical custody of a U.S. citizen parent before turning 18 may need an assessment of automatic citizenship under INA 320 rather than a routine N-400 application.

The outcome depends on the applicable law, dates, parental citizenship and custody history, and other statutory conditions.

Learn when Form N-600 may be the correct option.

Official source: USCIS Policy Manual — Automatic Acquisition of Citizenship After Birth.

Continuous Residence, Physical Presence and Long Trips Abroad

USCIS evaluates continuous residence and physical presence separately. A permanent resident may satisfy one requirement while failing the other.

Continuous Residence

Continuous residence concerns whether the applicant maintained the United States as their principal actual dwelling place during the required period. USCIS evaluates the applicant's circumstances, not merely whether the green card remained valid.

Absences of Six Months or Less

A single absence of six months or less generally does not trigger the statutory presumption that continuous residence was interrupted. Frequent travel or evidence of actually living abroad can still raise questions.

Absences of More Than Six Months but Less Than One Year

These absences generally create a rebuttable presumption that continuous residence was interrupted. Applicants may present evidence showing that U.S. residence was maintained.

Absences of One Year or Longer

An absence of one year or more ordinarily interrupts continuous residence. Limited statutory exceptions and qualifying residence-preservation arrangements may apply.

Example: Seven and a Half Months Outside the United States

Consider a five-year applicant who spent seven and a half months abroad caring for a family member. The applicant retained a U.S. residence, continued filing U.S. tax returns and returned to the same household.

The trip creates a presumption of interrupted continuous residence. USCIS may consider whether the applicant retained their U.S. home, employment and immediate family ties, along with other evidence explaining the absence.

The purpose of the trip alone does not resolve the issue. The question is whether the available evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption under the applicable legal standard.

Physical Presence

Physical presence is the amount of time actually spent in the United States during the required period before filing. Standard five-year applicants generally need at least 30 months; qualifying three-year applicants generally need at least 18 months.

For example, a five-year applicant could have several trips shorter than six months and still fall below the required physical presence threshold if the total time abroad is excessive.

USCIS generally counts the day of departure and the day of return as days of physical presence. When the applicant is close to the minimum, accurate travel dates are essential.

Does a Reentry Permit Protect Naturalization Residence?

A reentry permit does not automatically preserve continuous residence for naturalization. Its function differs from the residence requirement for U.S. citizenship.

Form N-470 may preserve continuous residence for certain permanent residents engaged in qualifying employment abroad. Approval is subject to separate statutory conditions and generally does not eliminate the physical presence requirement.

A person planning extended employment or residence abroad should assess these rules before departure rather than assuming that a valid reentry permit protects N-400 eligibility.

Official sources: USCIS — Continuous Residence and Form N-470.

Marriage-Based Naturalization: Separation, Divorce and the 3-Year Rule

A qualifying spouse of a U.S. citizen may use the three-year naturalization provision only if the statutory marriage and residence conditions are satisfied.

USCIS may review whether the couple lived in marital union during the required period. Evidence can include joint tax returns, leases, mortgages, insurance records, household documents and the circumstances of any separate residence.

What if the Spouses Live Apart?

Living at different addresses may raise questions about marital union. However, temporary separation for particular reasons is not necessarily equivalent to the breakdown of the marriage. The nature of the separation and the evidence matter.

What if the Couple Divorces Before the Oath?

Divorce generally prevents an applicant from qualifying under the ordinary three-year spouse-of-a-citizen provision. The applicant may still qualify under the five-year naturalization provision if its requirements are satisfied.

Certain special statutory provisions, including protections for qualifying applicants affected by battery or extreme cruelty, require separate analysis rather than mechanical application of the ordinary marital-union rule.

Official source: USCIS — Spouses of U.S. Citizens.

Good Moral Character: Criminal Records, Taxes, Child Support and Prior Immigration History

Good moral character is a statutory requirement for naturalization. The ordinary review period is five years, or three years for qualifying marriage-based applicants. The requirement continues through naturalization, and earlier conduct may be relevant in appropriate circumstances.

USCIS guidance issued in August 2025 emphasizes a broader evaluation of relevant positive and negative circumstances. Positive evidence can include consistent employment, family responsibilities, compliance with legal obligations and community contributions. Such evidence does not override an applicable statutory bar.

Arrests, Convictions and Expunged Records

Criminal history requires an assessment of the exact offense, applicable statute, disposition, sentence, timing and immigration consequences.

Potential concerns include certain crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled-substance offenses, aggravated felonies, repeated DUI convictions and other conduct relevant to good moral character.

An arrest without a conviction does not automatically disqualify an applicant. Nevertheless, the incident may require disclosure, certified dispositions or an explanation supported by records.

Applicants should not assume that an expunged or sealed case can be omitted from N-400. Federal immigration disclosure and conviction rules can differ from state criminal-record rules.

Unpaid Taxes and Filing as a Nonresident

USCIS may examine whether required federal and state returns were filed, whether outstanding tax obligations were addressed and whether the applicant's tax history is consistent with claimed residence in the United States.

Tax debt alone does not necessarily prevent citizenship. Relevant evidence can include tax transcripts, amended returns, payment agreements and records explaining why an obligation remains outstanding.

A permanent resident who filed tax returns as a nonresident may face additional questions concerning residence and the circumstances of those filings.

Child Support and Family Obligations

Failure to comply with court-ordered child support or alimony obligations may affect a good moral character determination. USCIS may consider the applicable order, payment history, actual ability to pay, modifications and circumstances surrounding nonpayment.

Selective Service

Many male applicants who lived in the United States between ages 18 and 25 were required to register with Selective Service, depending on their status and applicable exemptions.

When registration was required but did not occur, the applicant's age, relevant statutory period and whether the failure was knowing and willful can affect naturalization eligibility.

False Testimony and Misrepresentation

Knowingly providing false oral testimony under oath to obtain an immigration benefit may trigger the good moral character bar in INA 101(f)(6).

Not every incorrect statement qualifies as false testimony under that specific provision. Written misrepresentations, concealment of material facts and prior immigration fraud may nevertheless carry separate legal consequences.

USCIS may compare N-400 answers with earlier visa applications, adjustment filings, marriage petitions, asylum records and other information in the immigration file.

Previous Green Card Approval

During naturalization, USCIS may review whether the applicant was lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Holding a green card for many years does not necessarily correct a legal defect in the original permanent residence grant.

If prior immigration filings contain potentially material inconsistencies, the appropriate response is to identify the relevant records and legal significance before filing new sworn statements.

When a Pre-Filing Review Is Particularly Important

Legal review is especially useful where the applicant has unresolved criminal charges, a complicated immigration record, significant tax inconsistencies, unpaid court-ordered obligations, possible false claims to U.S. citizenship, unlawful voting concerns or a prior removal order.

Official source: USCIS — Good Moral Character Policy Memorandum, August 2025.

USCIS Background Checks in 2026: Neighborhood Investigations and Evidence Review

USCIS may evaluate more than the statements contained in Form N-400 and the results of ordinary background checks.

On August 25, 2026, USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2026-10, incorporating updated guidance on personal investigations into its Policy Manual. This followed a 2025 memorandum that had already ended the agency's longstanding general waiver of neighborhood investigations.

What Is a Neighborhood Investigation?

A neighborhood investigation under INA 335(a) can involve gathering information from people familiar with the applicant's residence, employment, conduct, reputation or community ties.

Depending on the case, inquiries may involve neighbors, landlords, employers, coworkers or other individuals with relevant knowledge.

The purpose is to corroborate facts that bear on naturalization eligibility, including residence history, character, credibility and other legally relevant circumstances.

Will USCIS Investigate Every Applicant's Neighborhood?

Not necessarily. USCIS retains discretion to waive a neighborhood investigation in an individual case or an appropriate class of cases. The policy does not mean every applicant will automatically receive a home visit or that officers must interview every neighbor.

USCIS may consider the application, existing agency records and additional evidence when deciding whether a neighborhood investigation should be conducted or waived.

Can Character Reference Letters Help?

Under the updated guidance, applicants may voluntarily submit testimonial or character reference letters, preferably from U.S. citizens who are not relatives. USCIS indicates that such evidence can be considered when deciding whether to waive a neighborhood investigation.

Submitting letters does not guarantee a waiver or approval of naturalization. Letters should describe genuine personal knowledge rather than repeat generic praise.

Useful information may include how the writer knows the applicant, the length of the relationship and concrete observations relevant to honesty, responsibility, community involvement or other matters within the writer's knowledge.

Applicants should also ensure that residence, employment and travel information is internally consistent and supported by records where appropriate.

Practical implication:

Naturalization preparation should address not only what is written on N-400 but also whether the statements can be corroborated. Evidence of actual U.S. residence, accurate employment history and truthful explanations is particularly important when the file raises questions.

Official source: USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part B, Chapter 2 — Background Investigation and Security Checks.

U.S. Citizenship Test in 2026: English, Civics and Available Exceptions

The civics test version depends on when Form N-400 was filed. Applicants should study for the version assigned to their filing date rather than assuming all citizenship interviews in 2026 use the same examination.

N-400 Filed Before October 20, 2025

The 2008 civics test generally applies. USCIS asks up to 10 oral questions from a pool of 100. At least six correct answers are required.

N-400 Filed on or After October 20, 2025

The 2025 civics test generally applies. USCIS asks up to 20 oral questions from a pool of 128. At least 12 correct answers are required.

Applicants preparing under the 2025 test should use the official USCIS questions and answers. Some answers involving elected or appointed public officials can change before the interview.

English Requirement

Unless an exception applies, the applicant must demonstrate basic English speaking, reading and writing skills.

The speaking assessment generally occurs while the USCIS officer reviews Form N-400 and asks questions about the applicant's background and eligibility.

Age-Based Testing Exceptions

50/20: Applicants age 50 or older with at least 20 years as lawful permanent residents may qualify for an English exemption.

55/15: Applicants age 55 or older with at least 15 years as lawful permanent residents may also qualify for an English exemption.

65/20: Applicants age 65 or older with at least 20 years as permanent residents may qualify for special civics consideration. Under the 2025 test, they study 20 specially designated questions and must answer six of 10 correctly.

Applicants exempt from English requirements generally remain subject to the applicable civics requirement and may use a qualified interpreter under USCIS procedures.

Medical Disability Exception: Form N-648

Form N-648 may support an exception from English, civics or both requirements where a qualifying physical or developmental disability or mental impairment prevents the applicant from satisfying the educational requirements.

The form must be completed by an authorized licensed medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy or clinical psychologist and explain the effect of the impairment. The condition must have lasted, or be expected to last, at least 12 months.

An N-648 exception does not automatically waive other naturalization eligibility requirements.

Official sources: USCIS 2025 Civics Test and Form N-648.

The N-400 Process: Application, Biometrics, Interview and Oath

Naturalization normally follows a defined sequence, although additional evidence requests, background investigations or continued examinations can affect an individual case.

01

1. Confirm Eligibility

Determine the applicable naturalization category, required residence period, physical presence and possible grounds for ineligibility.

02

2. Prepare and File Form N-400

Complete the current form accurately, provide required documents and submit the correct government filing fee or qualifying fee request.

03

3. Complete USCIS Processing Requirements

USCIS issues a receipt and may schedule biometrics, reuse existing biometrics, conduct additional verification or request evidence.

04

4. Attend the Naturalization Interview

The officer examines eligibility, reviews the sworn N-400 answers and administers applicable English and civics tests.

05

5. Receive the Decision

USCIS may approve, continue or deny the application. A continued case may require additional documentation or examination.

06

6. Take the Oath of Allegiance

Naturalization ordinarily becomes effective when the applicant takes the oath, unless an applicable statutory exception or waiver applies.

Processing times vary by office and case. A published estimate does not guarantee when an individual application will be decided.

Check current USCIS processing times.

N-400 and N-336 Government Filing Fees in 2026

As of October 20, 2026, the standard N-400 government filing fee is $710 online or $760 on paper. Eligible applicants may qualify for a $380 reduced fee or a complete fee waiver. Certain qualifying military applicants are exempt from the N-400 filing fee.

N-400 — Online

$710 standard filing fee

N-400 — Paper

$760 standard filing fee

N-400 — Reduced Fee

$380 for qualifying applicants with documented household income not exceeding 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines; paper filing required

N-336 — Online

$780 standard filing fee

N-336 — Paper

$830 standard filing fee

There is no separate standard N-400 biometrics fee under this schedule. Qualifying reduced-fee or fee-waiver requests must follow the applicable filing instructions. Attorney fees are separate from USCIS fees.

Government fees can change. Confirm the current amount and payment requirements before submitting an application or hearing request.

Official source: USCIS Form G-1055, Fee Schedule.

Naturalization Interview: Questions, Documents and Legal Preparation

The USCIS naturalization interview involves a sworn review of the applicant's eligibility and the applicable English and civics examination.

Officers may ask about residence, employment, international travel, family circumstances, taxes, arrests, previous immigration filings, constitutional attachment and other matters relevant to the N-400.

Documents to Bring

Applicants must follow their specific interview notice. Common documents include a green card, appointment notice, identification, relevant passports and evidence concerning issues raised by the application.

Depending on the case, additional records may include certified criminal dispositions, tax transcripts, marriage evidence, travel documentation, child support payment histories or an appropriate N-648 medical certification.

What Happens if You Fail the Citizenship Test?

An applicant who fails part of the English or civics examination generally receives a second opportunity to take the failed portion, normally within 60 to 90 days after the initial examination.

A second failure can lead to denial. Separate eligibility problems may also prevent approval even when the applicant passes the tests.

When Attorney Preparation Matters

For an applicant with a straightforward history, preparation may focus on reviewing N-400 answers and bringing the required documents.

For a more complicated case, legal preparation may require reconciling previous sworn statements, organizing criminal records, explaining long absences, documenting a qualifying marriage or addressing discrepancies in the underlying green card process.

An applicant should understand the questions and answer truthfully rather than memorize explanations that are inconsistent with the actual record.

Citizenship Denial: N-336 Hearing, Refiling or Federal Court Review?

A denial of Form N-400 does not automatically eliminate the possibility of becoming a U.S. citizen. The next step depends on why USCIS denied the application and whether the applicant can challenge the finding or establish eligibility in a future filing.

Form N-336: Request a Hearing

Form N-336 requests an administrative hearing after USCIS denies an N-400 application. A different immigration officer reviews the case and may consider relevant additional evidence or legal arguments.

N-336 Deadlines

30 days: USCIS generally requires a hearing request within 30 calendar days after the applicant receives the N-400 denial decision.

33 days when mailed: USCIS states that a 33-calendar-day period applies when the agency mailed the denial, under the relevant service rules. The actual deadline must be calculated from the decision and manner of service.

180 days: Under 8 CFR 336.2, USCIS must schedule a hearing within a reasonable period not exceeding 180 days after a timely hearing request is filed. This is not a guarantee that the hearing will result in approval.

A late N-336 request may be rejected. Under applicable rules, a late submission that independently satisfies the requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider may be treated as such a motion, but that is not equivalent to a timely hearing request.

Official sources: USCIS — Form N-336 and 8 CFR 336.2.

When Is N-336 More Appropriate Than a New N-400?

Example A: Incorrect Travel Calculation

USCIS denies an N-400 after concluding that the applicant lacked physical presence. The applicant's travel records indicate that the agency may have counted certain dates incorrectly. If the evidence supports the applicant's position, an N-336 hearing may offer an appropriate way to challenge the decision.

Example B: Genuinely Insufficient Physical Presence

An applicant did not actually spend enough time in the United States during the applicable statutory period. If the calculation is correct and no applicable exception changes the result, a later N-400 filing after satisfying the requirement may be more practical than contesting an accurate decision.

The same distinction applies to other denial grounds. A challenge is more meaningful when there is a credible basis to dispute USCIS's findings. A new application may be appropriate when a genuine deficiency can be corrected with time or changed circumstances.

Federal Court Review Under 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)

After USCIS issues a final denial following the administrative hearing process, judicial review may be available in the appropriate U.S. district court.

The court generally reviews the matter de novo, independently considering the relevant facts and law. Under 8 CFR 336.9(b), a petition for judicial review generally must be filed within 120 days following the final administrative determination.

A separate provision, 8 U.S.C. 1447(b), may apply when USCIS has not made a determination within 120 days after the naturalization examination. This is different from judicial review of a final denial.

Federal litigation requires examination of jurisdiction, procedural requirements, available evidence and counsel's admission to the relevant court.

Official source: 8 CFR 336.9 — Judicial Review.

Received a citizenship denial?

Preserve the complete denial notice, proof of delivery, previous N-400 filing, USCIS correspondence and supporting evidence. Identify the filing deadline before choosing between N-336 and another course of action.

For a detailed explanation of post-denial procedures, see Naturalization Denial: What to Do After USCIS Denies N-400.

Frequently Asked Questions About U.S. Naturalization

When can a green card holder apply for citizenship?

Most applicants qualify under a five-year continuous residence requirement. Certain spouses of U.S. citizens may qualify under a three-year provision. Both routes have additional age, residence, physical presence and good moral character requirements.

Can I apply for naturalization 90 days early?

Eligible applicants can generally file up to 90 calendar days before completing the applicable continuous residence requirement. Other requirements must still be satisfied at the relevant time.

Can a seven-month trip abroad cause citizenship denial?

An absence of more than six months but less than one year creates a rebuttable presumption that continuous residence was interrupted. Supporting evidence may overcome the presumption in an appropriate case.

Does a criminal arrest prevent me from


Testimonials about our services

Posted on Google Google
Sons profile picture
Sons
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Здравствуйте! Хочу от всей души поблагодарить команду Arvian Law Firm и Vitalii Maliuk за профессиональную помощь, благодаря которой мы смогли получить наши грин-карты по DV-2026! Как вы знаете, в этом году вокруг DV-2026 было очень много неопределённости: то паузы, то отмены, то новые ограничения. Мы консультировались с несколькими адвокатами, в том числе с теми, которых нам рекомендовали как самых дорогих и опытных. После консультаций с тремя адвокатами мы услышали одно и то же: шансов нет, подавать документы не стоит, во время паузы получить грин-карту не получится. Позже друзья порекомендовали нам команду Arvian Law Firm. Уже после первой консультации мы услышали совершенно другой ответ: всё реально, давайте начинать! Мы начали процесс в июле. Наш номер стал current в августе, а уже 31 июля все наши документы были поданы. Вся работа была выполнена на высочайшем профессиональном уровне. Особенно хочу отметить, насколько грамотно был подготовлен наш кейс и составлены все необходимые объяснения и обоснования, в том числе относительно того, почему мы решили пройти процесс изменения статуса внутри США, а не выезжать для прохождения консульского процесса. На собеседовании всё прошло настолько легко и спокойно, что первым вопросом, который нам задали, было: «Правильный ли у вас адрес, чтобы отправить грин-карты?» Никаких сложных вопросов, никаких проблем — интервью прошло очень легко. А уже на следующий день мы получили одобрение! Огромное спасибо Vitalii Maliuk и всей команде Arvian Law Firm за профессионализм, поддержку и проделанную работу!
Posted on Google Google
Bjorn Folsom profile picture
Bjorn Folsom
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Хочу выразить огромную благодарность адвокату Виталию Малюку за профессиональную помощь в моем иммиграционном деле! Мы выиграли иммиграционный суд по делу об убежище.На протяжении всего процесса Виталий проявлял высокий профессионализм, внимательно относился ко всем деталям дела, грамотно готовил меня к суду и всегда был на связи. Иммиграционный процесс был очень волнительным, но благодаря его знаниям, опыту и уверенной работе я знал что наше дело находится в надёжных руках. Искренне благодарен Виталию за проделанную работу и положительный результат. Однозначно рекомендую его как грамотного, ответственного и профессионального иммиграционного адвоката!
Posted on Google Google
Vlad Fisher profile picture
Vlad Fisher
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I would like to leave a positive review for attorney Vitalii Maliuk and the team at Arvian Law Firm. They worked professionally and competently, explained everything clearly and in simple terms. They responded in a timely manner without unnecessary pressure or excessive questions. In the end, we won the case, and the cost of services was reasonable. Overall, I am satisfied with the cooperation and can recommend them.
Posted on Google Google
Rustem Islamov profile picture
Rustem Islamov
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Добрый день. Хочу сказать спасибо адвокату Виталию и всей команде Arvian group. Мы вместе смогли выиграть моё иммиграционное дело. Обратился за помощью для решения моей проблемы и помощью в юридических тонкостей в сша. Моё дело было не простое, было много тонкостей и мелких деталей, но очень важных. плюс сложности с текущей действующей политикой администрации и статистикой судьи в 7% одобрения. Адвокат и его команда проявили глубочайшие знания американского иммиграционного законодательства, всегда были на связи и четко контролировали каждый этап подготовки документов. Благодаря их стратегии и вниманию к деталям, наше дело было разобрано на детали, предложены варианты решения острых тем . У нас был план и я понимал происходящие процессы. Для работы над моим делом был создан отдельный чат, где я мог оперативно задавать любые вопросы и получать развернутые консультации. Особенно ценными стали видеозвонки перед судебным слушанием , адвокат помог детально подготовиться, благодаря чему в суде я чувствовал себя уверенно и мы достигли полного взаимопонимания . Я абсолютно доволен сделанным выбором. Ещё раз огромное спасибо Виталию и всей команде Arvian Group за их колоссальный труд, поддержку и этот счастливый положительный результат в моей жизни! Вы — лучшие в своём деле!
Posted on Google Google
Alina Matiukhina profile picture
Alina Matiukhina
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Спасибо Arvian Law Firm за помощь в получении грин карты по EB1a. Подавалась с ними и i140 петицию (получила одобрение) и 485 форму. Адвокат проконсультировал по поводу интервью по 485 форме, какие могут быть вопросы и мы получили одобрение и свои грин карты!
Posted on Google Google
Aida Kolbasina profile picture
Aida Kolbasina
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Мы хотим от всей нашей семьи выразить огромную благодарность нашему адвокату Виталию Малюку и всей его команде. Наверное, ни одна семья не может заранее подготовиться к тому, что ей придется в один момент оставить свой дом и начать жизнь заново в другой стране. Когда мы приехали в США, мы искали не просто адвоката, а человека, который честно оценит наш кейс и будет готов бороться за нас, не предлагая придумывать или добавлять то, чего на самом деле не было. До встречи с Виталием Малюком мы общались с несколькими юристами, и некоторые из них советовали изменить или дополнить нашу историю. Но на первой же встрече Виталий честно сказал нам: «У вас не самый простой и не самый сильный кейс. Но я верю, что он заслуживает того, чтобы за него бороться, и я готов это делать». Именно тогда мы поняли, что нашли своего адвоката. Отдельно хочется отметить, что Виталий Малюк и вся его команда сами родом из Украины, а мы — семья из России. Несмотря на это, они с первой минуты отнеслись к нам с уважением, пониманием и без каких-либо предубеждений. Они сразу взялись помогать нам, потому что для них были важны правда, закон и человеческое отношение. Это дало нам понять, что все наши старания, наша честность и наша позиция были не напрасны. Мы еще раз убедились, что находимся на правильной стороне и что есть люди, которые готовы поддержать тех, кто действительно нуждается в помощи, независимо от того, из какой страны он приехал. На протяжении всего процесса мы чувствовали огромную поддержку не только со стороны Виталия Малюка, но и всей его команды. Отдельные слова благодарности хочется сказать его помощнице Кристине. Она всегда была на связи, терпеливо отвечала на наши вопросы, помогала разобраться в каждом этапе процесса и никогда не оставляла нас без внимания. Такое отношение придавало нам уверенности и спокойствия в очень непростое для нашей семьи время. Мы ни разу не пожалели, что доверили вам наше дело. Более того, мы уже рекомендовали вас многим своим друзьям и знакомым, и знаем, что вы помогаете им с таким же профессионализмом, вниманием и искренним желанием добиться справедливости. От всей души желаем Виталию Малюку, Кристине и всей вашей команде крепкого здоровья, благополучия, профессиональных успехов и всего самого доброго. Спасибо за вашу честность, человечность и огромный труд. Мы никогда не забудем вашу помощь. С глубоким уважением и огромной благодарностью, Семья Колбасиных.
Posted on Google Google
Masha Grygorian profile picture
Masha Grygorian
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Хочу поблагодарить Виталия и его команду от всей души. Мы выиграли кейс на политическое убежище на этапе интервью USCIS. Когда начинали процесс, мы даже подумать не могли, что это возможно! Но оказалось, что если вложить душу в этот процесс, работая с человеком, который знает свое дело - чудеса случаются! И даже в самые сложные иммиграционные времена. Также хочу отменить, что весь процесс от подачи заявления до получения одобрения занял 8 месяцев. Я знаю, что это скорее удача, нежели тенденция, но этим я хочу еще больше подчеркнуть, какую радость мы испытываем от этого события. И вдобавок скажу, что пока другие адвокаты поголовно твердили, что у украинцев нет оснований для прошения убежища, команда Виталия не только взялась за наше дело, а еще и собрала железный кейс. Рекомендую Виталия всем, кто хочет знать, что за его спиной стоит действительно адвокат-профессионал из Американских фильмов :) особенно рекомендую обращаться украинцам: в команде Arvian Group много людей, которые знают специфику вопроса, а это очень важно. Благодарим за исполнение нашей самой заветной мечты 🇺🇸 Желаем Виталию и всей его команде дальнейших успехов, процветания и множества побед!
Posted on Google Google
Vitalii Kalugin profile picture
Vitalii Kalugin
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Всем здравствуйте! Не реклама, а реально честный отзыв о команде «Arvian Law Firm LLC». Наша история. Семья приехала 2 апреля 2022г. Через мексиканскую границу. Получили гум.пароль. Затем перешли на TPS. Я приехал (прилетел в Нью Йорк) в марте 2023 года по U4U. Затем подался на TPS. Почти год ждал разрешительных документов, чтобы в законном порядке выехать из Украины. Ввиду того, что реально некуда возвращаться, решили на законных основаниях остаться в США. Обращались ко многим адвокатам. Оплачивали за консультации. Ушло реально много денег на порой совершенно пустые разговоры, как говорится ни о чем. Помнится ждали апоймента на консультацию с одной очень известной адвокатшей (имени не буду говорить, ибо не буду делать ей антирекламу). И какое же было разочарование, что, уплатив 450 долларов, мы не получили ничего. Ну совсем ничего. Порой казалось, что я знаю больше, чем она. Она просто (прошу прощения за высказывание) ну просто «распедаливала» нас на еще не один десяток долларов. Я, сидя там понимал, что меня «разводят» на деньги и нагло врут. Потом было еще с пять- восемь (точно уже и не помню) так называемых консультаций. За это время, изучил не мало сам законов и правил. И вот когда уже совсем потеряли надежду, обратились за консультацией к Arvian Law Firm LLC. Честно говоря, я уже был практически уверен, что будет очередной развод на деньги, без каких-либо гарантий. Понятно, что гарантий никто не может дать, тем более в это время. НО! Каково было мое удивление, когда я консультировался с Максимом. Как-то сразу и, по существу, начался КОНКРЕТНЫЙ разговор. Я почувствовал, что мы понимаем с полу слова друг друга. Я объяснил, что мне надо абсолютно законный путь легализации. Что-то придумывать, врать и т.д. не хотелось. Не та страна, все станет явным, даже спустя многих лет. Поэтому, проанализировав все законы и шансы, я твердо был убежден, что я подхожу под визу L1A. Да, это не иммиграционная виза, да она на прямую не ведет к грин карте. Но L-1A открывает прямой путь к петиции EB-1C, а та уже может привести к постоянному виду на жительство. Как говорится есть нюанс). Так же я не понимал, что все адвокаты говорят про одни и те же пути легализации. А некоторых порой спрашивал про эту визу, так они вообще ничего не могли ответить, и я понимал, что они по моему мнению, даже не знают о чем я спрашиваю. Так вот. Я точно понимал, что по всем параметрам и законам я подхожу под эту визу. И Максим мне много чего подсказал, в плане какие документы надо собрать, какие нужны, а какие бесполезны. Далее я консультировался с Кристиной. Очень грамотная и конкретная барышня. Даже не смотря, что я с ней, можно сказать поспорил, мы все равно сделали все правильно. Да, было трудно. Порой невыносимо собрать то, что у нас в стране вообще не учитывается, а тут, это важно. Но путем консультаций, переговоров, переписок и т.д., я получил-таки визу. И через неделю пришли документы и моей семье. Огромная Благодарность Алене! Всегда отвечала на все мои письма. Всегда, по существу, были ответы. Кристина консультировала и даже уже не по нашему делу. За что отдельная Благодарность. Если бы Максим тогда, как говорится не зацепил меня своей простотой и откровенностью, то я точно бы не обращался бы ни к кому. Да, забыл сказать. Мы подали все документы. Оплатили за ускоренное рассмотрение дела и нам пришло уведомление о намерении отказать (Notice of Intent to Deny). Я вообще был в шоке. Ну как так-то!? Все документы в наличии. Ничего не придумано, все честно и все отвечает правилам. Но группа адвокатов нас не оставила и поддержала. Нам дали ограниченное время на доказательства. И мы успели собрать еще документы. Так же, когда я прочитал, в какой форме был ответ от адвокатов, офицеру, то, честно говоря, немного даже насторожило, но мне понравилось. Никто не просил офицера, а можно сказать «утыкал носом» офицера, что тот не умеет считать сроки, и у нас все вовремя. Мне понравилась форма ответа. Да, немного дерзко (это ну очень понравилось!) и по фактам. И нам пришло одобрение. Еще раз Благодарю ВСЮ команду Arvian Law Firm LLC! С Уважением!


Explore Key Immigration Topics

CONTACT US

If you are located in the US, please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns you may have. We look forward to helping you.

Arvian Law Firm
California 300 Spectrum Center Dr, Floor 4 Irvine CA 92618
Missouri 100 Chesterfield Business Pkwy, Floor 2 Chesterfield, MO 63001
+1 (213) 838 0095
+1 (314) 530 7575
+1 (213) 649 0001
info@arvianlaw.com

Follow us:

CONSULTATION

Arvian Law Firm LLC

Vitalii Maliuk,

ATTORNEY AT LAW (МО № 73573)

Copyright © Arvian Law Firm LLC 2026