Naturalization for Founders & Entrepreneurs

Successful founders can accumulate unusually complicated immigration histories before they ever become eligible for U.S. citizenship.

A technology entrepreneur may first enter as a student, work through OPT, form a startup, later obtain O-1 or H-1B status, raise venture capital, pursue EB-1A or a National Interest Waiver, and eventually become a lawful permanent resident.

Another founder may begin with an E-2 investment business, expand into several countries, use L-1 status for a related U.S. company, and later obtain employment-based permanent residence.

Still another entrepreneur may become a permanent resident through EB-5 after building substantial companies and investments abroad.

Most of these histories present no barrier to naturalization.

But a founder whose immigration, corporate, tax, employment, or travel history contains a known complication should consider one important question before filing Form N-400:

Is there anything in the historical record that USCIS could legitimately question, or misunderstand, when determining whether I qualify for citizenship?

Can a Founder or Entrepreneur Become a U.S. Citizen?

Yes.

Business ownership does not itself prevent naturalization.

A permanent resident may own:

a startup;
a closely held corporation;
an investment fund;
foreign companies;
multiple U.S. businesses;
real estate ventures;
intellectual property companies;
family businesses;
portfolio companies; or
other investments

and still qualify for U.S. citizenship.

The relevant questions concern whether the applicant satisfies the actual legal requirements for naturalization.

Why Can a Founder's Immigration History Be More Complicated?

Entrepreneurs frequently do not follow a single immigration pathway.

The business may evolve faster than the immigration history.

Over a period of ten or fifteen years, the applicant may have been:

a student;
an employee;
a company founder;
a controlling shareholder;
a minority shareholder;
an executive;
an investor;
a board member;
a consultant;
a self-petitioner;
a beneficiary of an employer petition; and
eventually a permanent resident.

Each immigration filing may describe a different stage of that business history.

USCIS Does Not Automatically Re-Adjudicate Every Prior Visa

A founder should not assume that filing Form N-400 causes USCIS to reopen every prior visa petition from the beginning.

For most applicants, prior immigration history is simply historical background.

The concern arises when a known fact, inconsistency, or unresolved issue causes USCIS to question an actual naturalization requirement.

The most important historical issue in many difficult cases is whether the applicant was lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Naturalization Requires Lawful Permanent Residence

An applicant for naturalization must establish lawful admission for permanent residence.

Current USCIS policy focuses this inquiry on the applicant's initial admission as a lawful permanent resident or initial adjustment to permanent resident status.

For a founder, that initial green card may have resulted from:

EB-1A extraordinary ability;
EB-1C multinational executive or manager;
EB-2 National Interest Waiver;
employer-sponsored EB-2 or EB-3;
EB-5 investment;
family-based immigration;
marriage;
another employment-based classification; or
another lawful immigrant category.

Prior Nonimmigrant Visas Can Become Relevant to the Historical Record

Before permanent residence, a founder may have held several different statuses or visas.

The government record may therefore contain:

B-1/B-2 applications;
F-1 student records;
OPT records;
E-2 filings;
L-1 petitions;
O-1 petitions;
H-1B petitions;
DS-160 applications;
consular interview records;
CBP inspection records;
employment authorization applications;
immigrant petitions; and
adjustment or immigrant visa records.

The existence of many filings is not itself a problem.

The question is whether an actual material inconsistency exists among them.

A Growing Startup Naturally Changes Over Time

A startup described in an immigration filing in its first year may look completely different five years later.

The company may have moved from:

two founders to 200 employees;
pre-revenue operations to substantial revenue;
one U.S. office to several countries;
founder ownership to institutional investment;
one corporate entity to a holding-company structure;
seed financing to multiple venture rounds;
private ownership to acquisition or public listing; or
one product to an entirely different business model.

Later business facts should not automatically be projected backward onto an earlier immigration filing.

Corporate Ownership Can Change Dramatically

A founder may begin by owning 80 percent of a company and own 12 percent after several financing rounds.

That does not mean an immigration filing accurately describing the original ownership structure became false later.

A proper chronology should distinguish:

ownership when the company was formed;
ownership at each immigration filing;
capital raises;
option grants;
stock issuances;
secondary sales;
mergers;
acquisitions;
reorganizations; and
the ownership structure when permanent residence was granted.

Different Immigration Filings May Describe Different Roles

A founder may have been a software engineer when the company began and later become its chief executive.

Or the person may have begun as CEO and later appointed a professional CEO while becoming executive chair.

Immigration filings prepared at different times can therefore contain different job descriptions without being inconsistent.

The correct questions are:

What period was each filing describing?
What role did the founder actually perform then?
What immigration classification was being requested?
Had the company changed?
Had the founder's responsibilities changed?
Was a new management layer created?
Did investment change the corporate governance structure?

Founder Titles Can Be Especially Misleading

The same entrepreneur may simultaneously be described as:

Founder;
Co-Founder;
CEO;
President;
Chief Technology Officer;
Managing Member;
Board Chair;
Director;
General Partner; or
Investor.

Those titles do not always describe separate jobs.

Nor do identical titles always represent identical duties.

USCIS should be given the historical business context when title differences actually matter.

Founders Who Began in F-1 or OPT Status May Have Older Employment Records

Some founders launch companies while studying or during periods of employment authorization associated with student status.

If a later naturalization issue concerns that period, the actual record should be reconstructed rather than relying on memory.

Potentially relevant documents may include:

Forms I-20;
SEVIS records;
employment authorization documents;
training plans where applicable;
company formation records;
payroll records;
employment records;
tax filings;
university communications;
corporate ownership records; and
contemporaneous communications concerning the applicant's role.

The immigration consequence depends on the authorization and rules that actually applied at the relevant time.

Do Not Assume Company Ownership and Employment Are the Same Thing

A person can own shares in a company without necessarily performing the same activities as an employee.

Conversely, a founder may be heavily involved in company operations.

When an older immigration issue concerns unauthorized employment or the scope of authorized activity, the factual record should distinguish:

passive ownership;
board activity;
company formation;
fundraising;
operational work;
compensated employment;
uncompensated activity;
management;
product development; and
other actual functions.

The labels alone should not substitute for the historical facts.

Prior B-1 or Visitor Travel Can Require Careful Reconstruction

Entrepreneurs commonly visit the United States before establishing long-term immigration status.

An old record may involve trips for:

meetings;
conferences;
negotiations;
investment discussions;
customer meetings;
corporate planning;
due diligence;
trade shows;
board meetings; or
other business activity.

If USCIS later alleges that the founder engaged in activity outside what was authorized, the analysis should focus on what the person actually did during the relevant trip.

E-2 Entrepreneurs Can Have Extensive Historical Business Records

An entrepreneur who previously used E-2 status may have submitted substantial documentation concerning:

company ownership;
investment capital;
business plans;
employees;
revenue;
operating expenses;
commercial premises;
corporate organization;
the applicant's role; and
the development of the enterprise.

A later immigrant petition may describe the same company at a much more advanced stage.

Differences should be evaluated chronologically rather than assuming the two filings necessarily conflict.

L-1 Founders May Have Corporate Relationship Issues

A founder who expanded a foreign enterprise into the United States may have used L-1 classification.

That history can involve:

foreign parent companies;
U.S. subsidiaries;
affiliates;
ownership records;
foreign employment;
managerial or executive duties;
new-office operations;
corporate restructuring; and
later EB-1C permanent residence.

O-1 Founders May Have Extensive Evidence About Their Career

A founder who previously held O-1 status may have an immigration file containing substantial evidence concerning professional achievements, companies, projects, compensation, publications, media coverage, awards, investment activity, and employment arrangements.

A later EB-1A petition may overlap with some of the same history.

Differences in how achievements or work were described should be evaluated in context rather than assumed to establish deception.

EB-1A Founders Can Have Large Self-Petition Records

Some entrepreneurs obtain permanent residence through extraordinary ability rather than through their company as a traditional sponsoring employer.

The historical record may include:

awards;
press;
judging activity;
original contributions;
authorship;
critical roles;
compensation;
letters from experts;
corporate achievements; and
evidence concerning continued work in the field.

If an N-400 officer later raises a question about the original green card, the correct issue is whether the applicant satisfied the immigration requirements applicable to that historical petition—not whether the founder's career subsequently changed.

NIW Founders May Have a Different Immigration Theory

Entrepreneurs may also pursue permanent residence through the employment-based second preference with a National Interest Waiver.

A NIW case is analytically different from a traditional permanent job offer case.

The founder's proposed endeavor, qualifications, evidence of prospective impact, and other elements of the applicable NIW standard may have been central to the immigrant petition.

A later business pivot does not automatically establish that the original NIW presentation was false.

Again, timing and actual intent matter.

Business Pivots Are Normal

Entrepreneurs often change direction.

A startup may abandon its first product, enter a different market, replace its technology, acquire another company, or sell its primary business.

The fact that the applicant's work in 2026 differs from a business plan submitted years earlier does not automatically establish that the earlier plan was fraudulent.

The relevant questions can include:

Was the earlier plan genuine when submitted?
What was the founder actually attempting to accomplish then?
What later events caused the business to change?
Were the changes ordinary commercial developments?
What contemporaneous evidence establishes the original plan?

A Failed Startup Does Not Automatically Mean Immigration Fraud

Businesses fail.

Investors withdraw. Products fail. Markets change. Competitors emerge. Founders disagree. Financing disappears.

An immigration filing predicting future business development is not necessarily false merely because the business ultimately performed poorly.

If USCIS questions an old business representation, the analysis should distinguish between:

a genuine prediction that proved wrong;
a business plan based on reasonable assumptions;
a later unexpected business failure;
information known at the time of filing; and
a knowingly false statement made to obtain an immigration benefit.

Successful Startups Can Create Their Own Immigration Complexity

Success can also complicate the historical record.

A rapidly growing company may experience:

multiple financing rounds;
major dilution;
acquisitions;
international expansion;
changes in control;
new executive management;
new boards;
secondary share transactions;
reorganizations;
public listings; or
sales to strategic buyers.

Old immigration documents should be interpreted according to the corporate reality that existed when they were created.

EB-5 Founders and Investors May Have Source-of-Funds Issues

An entrepreneur who obtained permanent residence through EB-5 may have a particularly large historical financial record.

Potential issues can involve:

sale of a business;
founder equity;
dividends;
company distributions;
loans;
gifts;
foreign assets;
tax documentation;
bank transfers;
source of funds;
path of funds; and
removal of conditions.

See: Naturalization for EB-5 Investors: Can USCIS Revisit Your Investor Green Card?.

Venture Capital Records Can Help Explain Ownership Changes

A founder whose ownership fell dramatically over time may be able to document that history objectively.

Potential evidence can include:

capitalization tables;
stock purchase agreements;
financing documents;
board approvals;
option plans;
share issuances;
SAFE or convertible financing records;
acquisition documents; and
corporate registries.

The objective is not to provide USCIS with every corporate document in existence. It is to resolve an actual disputed fact when necessary.

Founder Compensation Can Change Dramatically

Startup founders may receive minimal salary during the earliest years and substantial compensation after a financing round, acquisition, or successful expansion.

Changes in compensation should be evaluated in the context of:

company stage;
cash resources;
equity compensation;
outside investment;
role changes;
board decisions; and
the relevant immigration filing.

A later high salary does not establish that an earlier compensation statement was false, and the reverse is also true.

Tax Records Can Intersect With Immigration Records

Founders frequently have complicated financial lives.

Their tax records may include:

salary;
equity compensation;
stock options;
restricted stock;
capital gains;
foreign company income;
partnership interests;
investment funds;
foreign trusts;
company distributions;
multiple residences; and
international tax obligations.

Tax law and immigration law should not be casually merged.

But apparent conflicts between tax and immigration records should be understood before filing naturalization.

Nonresident Tax Filing Can Create a Separate Problem

An internationally mobile founder who filed a U.S. return as a nonresident or took a treaty-based residency position should analyze that issue carefully.

It can become relevant to whether permanent resident status was maintained and whether the applicant satisfies naturalization residence requirements.

See: Can Filing Taxes as a Nonresident Jeopardize Your Green Card or U.S. Citizenship?.

Frequent International Travel Is Common for Founders

A founder may travel constantly for:

investor meetings;
international customers;
foreign offices;
manufacturing;
board meetings;
acquisitions;
fundraising;
conferences;
family obligations; and
other business activity.

That travel can affect continuous residence and physical presence for naturalization.

Many Short Business Trips Can Matter Even Without a Six-Month Absence

A founder may carefully avoid remaining abroad for six continuous months while still spending a large majority of each year outside the United States.

That can create a mathematical physical-presence issue and, in a more extreme record, questions concerning actual residence.

See: Can Frequent International Travel Prevent U.S. Citizenship? A Guide for Executives & Investors.

Foreign Companies and Homes Do Not Automatically Prevent Citizenship

A globally successful entrepreneur may maintain:

a U.S. company;
several foreign companies;
homes in multiple countries;
foreign board positions;
investment entities;
family offices;
international trusts;
foreign employees; and
substantial overseas investments.

Those facts do not automatically prevent naturalization.

The applicant still must satisfy the applicable U.S. residence, physical presence, permanent residence, and other naturalization requirements.

International Founders Should Separate Business Residence From Personal Residence

A company may have its headquarters in Singapore while the founder lives primarily in California.

Another company may be incorporated in Delaware while its founder lives most of the year abroad.

Corporate domicile does not necessarily establish the founder's personal residence.

Naturalization analysis should focus on the applicant's own facts.

What If the Founder Sold the Company?

Selling the business after becoming a permanent resident does not automatically create a naturalization problem.

The sale might involve:

a strategic acquisition;
private-equity buyout;
public offering;
founder liquidity;
replacement by professional management;
retirement; or
a move into a new venture.

If the original green card was based on employment or business activity, the timing and circumstances of the later transaction may become relevant only if they genuinely bear on facts or intentions existing when permanent residence was granted.

Later Wealth Does Not Rewrite the Earlier Immigration Record

An entrepreneur may be dramatically more successful when applying for citizenship than when the original visa or green card petition was filed.

Current wealth, company value, reputation, or influence should not be used to reconstruct what the business looked like years earlier.

Historical eligibility should be evaluated using historical evidence.

Prior Immigration Lawyers May Have Prepared Different Parts of the History

Founders frequently use several immigration firms over time.

One firm may handle student or employment status.

Another may prepare an O-1.

A third may file EB-1A or NIW.

Corporate counsel may handle the founder's company petitions, while personal immigration counsel later handles naturalization.

No single lawyer may ever have reviewed the complete record.

Should a Founder Obtain a FOIA Before Filing N-400?

Not automatically.

A straightforward applicant with complete records should not delay naturalization merely to conduct an unnecessary investigation.

A FOIA request may be useful where:

important old immigration filings are missing;
several law firms handled the history;
the founder does not know what was submitted previously;
a former company controlled the immigration records;
an old employer no longer exists;
there were prior government investigations;
USCIS issued serious RFEs or NOIDs;
there is a known inconsistency;
there were difficult CBP inspections; or
the applicant already suspects an issue with lawful permanent residence.

Do Not Conduct a Massive Historical Audit Without a Reason

The purpose of pre-filing review is not to manufacture naturalization problems.

A founder with:

a clean immigration record;
lawfully obtained permanent residence;
ordinary travel;
consistent tax filings;
no significant criminal history;
no known immigration discrepancies; and
no prior USCIS concerns

may not need a forensic reconstruction of every visa application ever filed.

Review should be proportional to actual risk.

When Is a Detailed Pre-Filing Review Worthwhile?

A deeper review may make sense when the founder:

has used many immigration classifications;
has founded several companies;
has extensive international travel;
owns substantial businesses abroad;
has filed complex international tax returns;
used Form 1040-NR;
changed employment shortly after permanent residence;
has missing immigration records;
has prior immigration inconsistencies;
has criminal or regulatory history;
has been investigated by a government agency;
had a difficult green card adjudication;
received a significant RFE or NOID;
has a complicated EB-5 history; or
already knows of a fact that could cause USCIS to question the original green card.

Regulatory and Securities History Can Matter Too

Successful founders may have encountered:

SEC investigations;
civil securities litigation;
regulatory settlements;
FTC proceedings;
foreign regulatory investigations;
corporate fraud allegations;
shareholder litigation;
criminal investigations;
sanctions issues; or
other governmental proceedings.

The existence of a civil or regulatory matter does not automatically prevent naturalization.

But the underlying conduct, any resulting criminal case, statements made to government agencies, and effect on good moral character may require review.

Founders Should Review Criminal History Like Any Other Applicant

Business success does not change the criminal-history rules.

The applicant should disclose and analyze relevant:

arrests;
charges;
convictions;
dismissals;
diversion;
expungements;
sealed cases;
foreign criminal matters; and
other responsive criminal history.

See: Criminal History and Naturalization.

Founders Should Also Review Good Moral Character Issues Outside Criminal Law

Naturalization good moral character is not limited to conventional criminal convictions.

Depending on the record, issues may include:

tax compliance;
support obligations;
false testimony;
unlawful conduct;
fraud;
misrepresentation;
controlled-substance issues; and
other conduct within the applicable statutory framework.

See: Good Moral Character for Naturalization.

What If USCIS Questions the Founder's History During the N-400 Interview?

The applicant should first identify the specific issue.

Is USCIS questioning:

authorized employment?
a prior visa application?
company ownership?
a corporate relationship?
a claimed achievement?
the original immigrant petition?
tax filings?
international travel?
lawful permanent residence?
criminal or regulatory history?
good moral character?
or something else?

The answer determines what evidence actually matters.

Historical Questions Need Historical Evidence

Suppose USCIS asks how many employees a startup had when an immigration petition was filed eight years earlier.

The current company website or present-day headcount may prove very little.

Better evidence may include:

historical payroll;
old organizational charts;
tax filings;
corporate records;
investment presentations;
employment agreements;
contemporaneous emails;
board records; and
the original immigration filing itself.

A Chronology Can Be Essential

A complicated founder case should often be reduced to a chronological sequence.

For example:

Company founded.
First U.S. entry.
First immigration status.
Employment authorization.
First outside financing.
New immigration petition.
Change in ownership.
New executive role.
Immigrant petition.
Adjustment or immigrant visa processing.
Permanent residence.
Later company transaction.
International expansion.
Substantial foreign travel.
N-400 filing.

That chronology helps prevent later events from being used incorrectly to infer earlier facts.

What If USCIS Denies N-400 Because of the Founder's Immigration History?

The denial should be analyzed against the original record.

Determine:

What exact fact does USCIS say was wrong?
What historical filing contained that fact?
What was the correct fact?
Was the disputed statement actually false?
Who supplied the information?
What did the applicant know at that time?
Was the alleged issue material to the immigration benefit?
What legal requirement did USCIS say was not met?
Does the evidence actually establish that requirement was missing?
Could the issue affect permanent resident status?

An Error Does Not Automatically Establish Fraud

Founder immigration files can be produced by many different people:

the applicant;
corporate immigration counsel;
personal immigration counsel;
human resources;
chief financial officers;
company administrators;
investors;
accountants;
foreign subsidiaries; and
outside service providers.

If USCIS identifies an inaccurate statement, the analysis should not skip directly to intentional fraud.

The evidence concerning knowledge, authorship, intent, and materiality must be examined under the applicable law.

Can Form N-336 Be Used After a Founder Receives an N-400 Denial?

Yes.

An applicant whose naturalization application is denied may request administrative review through Form N-336.

A complicated founder case may require:

the historical immigration file;
corporate records;
capitalization records;
tax documents;
travel records;
declarations;
foreign-language evidence;
expert evidence where genuinely useful;
FOIA records;
a detailed chronology;
analysis of the applicant's knowledge at the relevant time; and
legal argument directed at the actual reason for denial.

See: N-336 Strategy for Complex Naturalization Denials: How to Build the Record.

What If USCIS Maintains the Denial After N-336?

A qualifying applicant can then consider federal district court review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c).

The review is de novo.

For a founder whose case turns on a disputed historical immigration record, an incorrect legal standard, or a demonstrably false factual premise, independent judicial review may become particularly important.

See: Federal Court After an N-336 Denial: When Should You Sue USCIS Over Naturalization?.

Citizenship Can Have Particular Value for Globally Mobile Founders

A founder who remains a lawful permanent resident must continue considering the immigration consequences of substantial international travel.

For a globally mobile entrepreneur, citizenship can materially simplify future immigration-related mobility because the person is no longer maintaining LPR status.

That can become particularly important when the founder expects to:

open major operations abroad;
live overseas for substantial periods;
lead a multinational company;
manage international investments;
join foreign boards;
undertake extended international assignments;
move family members internationally; or
divide time among several countries.

But the applicant must first satisfy the naturalization requirements.

Questions Founders and Entrepreneurs Should Ask Before Filing N-400

What immigration statuses have I held?
Do I have copies of the major prior applications and petitions?
Did I start or operate companies while in temporary status?
Was my work properly authorized during each relevant period?
Do old visa applications accurately describe what I was doing?
Have my company ownership percentages changed substantially?
Can those changes be documented?
Did my role change from technical founder to executive or investor?
Do different filings describe different time periods or genuinely conflict?
How did I obtain my green card?
Was that immigrant case difficult or unusual?
Did USCIS issue significant RFEs or NOIDs?
Did I change businesses or employment soon after permanent residence?
Why did that change occur?
Do I own significant companies abroad?
How much international travel have I had?
Have I had absences exceeding six months?
Have I filed unusual U.S. tax returns or claimed treaty residence abroad?
Do my tax, corporate, and immigration records tell a consistent historical story?
Have I had criminal, securities, regulatory, or civil fraud issues?
Is there anything in my immigration history I would not want to encounter for the first time during an N-400 interview?

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a startup founder become a U.S. citizen?

Yes. Business ownership does not itself prevent naturalization. A founder who is a lawful permanent resident may naturalize by satisfying the applicable citizenship requirements.

Will USCIS review all my old visas during naturalization?

USCIS does not automatically re-adjudicate every prior nonimmigrant petition merely because an applicant files Form N-400. Historical records can become relevant when they bear on an actual naturalization requirement or reveal a material unresolved issue.

Can starting a business while on a temporary visa affect citizenship later?

Potentially, depending on what activities occurred, what status and employment authorization existed, and whether the issue affects the applicant's later immigration history. The actual historical record should be reviewed rather than relying only on the fact that a company was formed.

Can USCIS question my EB-1A or NIW green card during N-400?

Naturalization requires lawful initial admission or adjustment to permanent resident status. If a specific issue legitimately calls that requirement into question, USCIS may examine the relevant historical immigrant record. That does not mean every approved EB-1A or NIW petition is automatically re-adjudicated.

Does selling my startup after getting a green card create a problem?

Not automatically. Later business transactions do not by themselves establish that representations made in the original immigration case were false. Timing, the applicable immigrant classification, the founder's intent at the relevant time, and contemporaneous evidence may matter.

Do foreign companies prevent naturalization?

No. A permanent resident may own foreign companies. Extensive foreign business operations can, however, contribute to complicated travel, residence, and tax records that require separate analysis.

Should a wealthy founder obtain FOIA records before N-400?

Not merely because the applicant is wealthy or has a long immigration history. FOIA can be particularly useful where material filings are missing or a known issue needs to be reconstructed.

What if USCIS denies my N-400 over an old business or immigration issue?

The denial should be compared with the historical record and governing law. Form N-336 provides administrative review, and qualifying cases may later be eligible for de novo federal district court review.

The Bottom Line

Entrepreneurship itself is not a naturalization problem.

A successful founder can own valuable companies, raise venture capital, sell businesses, hold foreign investments, travel internationally, and still qualify for U.S. citizenship.

The reason some founder cases deserve greater attention is that entrepreneurial careers can produce unusually complicated historical records involving multiple visas, evolving companies, changing ownership, different employment roles, self-petitions, substantial international travel, complex tax planning, and immigration filings prepared by different lawyers over many years.

Where those records are straightforward, there is no reason to create a problem that does not exist.

Where a genuine issue is already known, however, the best time to determine what happened, what USCIS was told, what the applicant knew, and whether the issue actually matters under naturalization law is before Form N-400 is filed.

For founders with substantial businesses, investments, or international mobility, a focused pre-filing review can be far more valuable than discovering an old immigration problem for the first time during the naturalization interview.

Official Legal Resources

For USCIS's overview of immigration pathways for entrepreneurs, see USCIS — Options for Entrepreneurs to Work in the United States .

For permanent immigration pathways available to qualifying entrepreneurs, see USCIS — Immigrant Pathways for Entrepreneur Employment in the United States .

For USCIS guidance concerning lawful admission for permanent residence as a naturalization requirement, see USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part D, Chapter 2 — Lawful Permanent Resident Admission for Naturalization .

For current Form N-400 information, see USCIS — Form N-400, Application for Naturalization .

For continuous residence, see USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part D, Chapter 3 — Continuous Residence .

For physical presence, see USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part D, Chapter 4 — Physical Presence .

Naturalization for Founders and Entrepreneurs: Prior Visas, Business History & N-400 Risk