Is it possible to change your name while applying for a Green Card in the US? Is it possible to get a Green Card with a different name of your current name? Or change it as soon as getting the Green Card? I am on F-1 student visa in the US and want to apply for an EB-2/NIW/Green Card, but I'd like to also pick a new name and family name for myself.
Changing your name won't affect your immigration status. It may be more or less of a hassle if you do it before or after getting your green card. My guess is that the cost and hassle of replacing the green card would argue in favor of changing your name now, before you apply for the green card. You'll normally change your name through a state court where you reside, though, and then submit the court order with your subsequent submissions to USCIS, rather than effecting the change of name through the green card application itself. You'll probably also want to check whether this has legal effect in your country of citizenship. Detailed questions on practical aspects of the change belong on Expatriates, however. As far as this site is concerned, the answer is yes, it's fine.
Under US law, names do not matter, what matters is the citizenship of the parents. As a US citizen, your children are automatically also US citizens. Whether or not the child also gains citizenship in the father's country depends on the laws of that country. Under Kosovan citizenship law art. 6, if one parent is born outside of R. of Kosova and both parents agree in writing that the child shall acquire Kosovan citizenship (which does not preclude US citizenship). The child does not gain German citizenship (unless the other parent is a German citizen).
A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register for the time period required by law, or was otherwise insufficiently promulgated. The EO repeals other regulations currently in force in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The EO improperly disturbs the vested, albeit limited, rights of existing visa holders (or visa applicants) without due process of law, and/or in violation of unenumerated 10th Amendment rights. Refugee visa applicants under an already adopted regulation are entitled to an individualized consideration of their application as a matter of due process and the EO amounts to an ex post facto law as applied to people already in the application process under that regulation. The EO improperly deprives people who purchased non-refundable plane tickets in reasonable reliance of their visa rights which were not revocable under any law in place at the time those tickets were purchased of a property right in those plane tickets without compensation or due process of law under the 5th Amendment. The EO is void for vagueness as the ambiguities in its drafting makes it impossible to determine who is and is not affected by the EO and in what manner. There is a conflict in the immigration statutes between statutory provisions and treaty obligations related to refugees, and the regulation implementing a particular section of the immigration law's grant of regulatory authority, and the refugee protections must prevail. A person claiming to be a refugee has a due process right to individualized consideration of their circumstances, either by statute, by treaty, or under the constitution, which the EO does not respect. The treatment of dual citizens under the EO either is contrary to statutory immigration law or to a treaty or to the U.S. Constitution and customary international law. The EO violates one or more treaties between affected countries and the United States regarding immigration. The scope and terms of the EO exceed the authority granted to the President by the section of the immigration statutes relied upon for authority to pass the EO. The administration failed to articulate a rational basis for distinguishing between nations included in the ban and nations not included in support of the EO as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. There is no rational basis for distinguishing between nations included in the ban and nations not included as required by the U.S. Constitution (a much weaker test since it allows for post hoc rationalizations). Authority to implement the relevant section of the immigration law is vested in one or more officials at the United States Department of State, rather than the President directly, and none of those officials approved the EO. The military interpreters and their families may have a contract with the U.S. government as part of their employment that gives them a right to a visa, in which case the EO would be a law impairing contracts in violation of the U.S. Constitution, as applied to them. Some of the immigrants may need to accompany U.S. citizen children in order for the children to exercise the childrens' rights to enter the country and as applied the EO may violate the U.S. citizen childrens' rights. The CBP may be incorrectly interpreting the EO (which even the administration is not clear about) and therefore violating the law as applied because the EO does not actually authorize their action or because the way that they interpreted the EO was an abuse of their discretion. The manner in which the EO was implemented (e.g. long periods of time in handcuffs for civilians not accused of any crime and with no ability to foresee that they would be denied entry, separating young children from parents, etc.) may have been an unreasonable seizure as applied, even if detention per se was authorized. The 4th Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable in the manner that they are carried out even if the search or seizure is itself authorized by law. UPDATE February 2, 2017: A federal judge in California has found that at least some of these reasons have merit and has stayed the EO and set an expedited hearing and briefing schedule on whether the injunction against the EO should remain in force. UPDATE AND EPILOGUE June 28, 2018: The final version of the ban was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Trump v. Hawaii on June 26, 2018 in a 5-4 decision. Litigation of the version of the ban in the OP was dismissed as moot when it was withdrawn and replaced with a similar but newer version of the EO. The four justices in the dissent rely on the first reason given, as did lower courts in the case and in parallel litigation. A core distinction between the majority and the dissent is the weight given by statements made by President Trump about the policy, and how much deference to give to the government's reasons for the policy offered up in court. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who cast a deciding vote in the case, took office April 10, 2017, after this answer and the first update to this answer were written.
There are a couple of flaws in your hypothetical. Nobody, certainly not the state, represents the birth records as inerrant or complete. Birth records frequently have to be corrected. In fact the point of many paternity suits is to correct the official birth record. Sometimes the father, or even the mother will be listed as &quot;unknown&quot; on the birth record, so the absence of a birth record naming a person as a father is not dispositive. No government official would ever issue a legal document declaring that the man is not any child's legal father because the records don't establish that. At best they could issue a document stating that the man was not the father of record for any child in the state. Anyway, the exercise would be pointless. The only birth record the court would be interested in would be that for the child before them. None of the other birth records would be relevant to the case at hand. The court in a paternity case would ask for evidence, such as birth certificates, or statements acknowledging paternity. If the two parties continued to dispute paternity, the court would order a paternity test. Older blood typing tests sometimes left paternity ambiguous, but modern DNA paternity testing is can achieve 99.99% certainty, baring fraud or laboratory error.
The way "with intent to lose citizenship" works in US law is extremely demanding; it is very hard to establish it by doing anything short of appearing before a consular officer and formally renouncing citizenship. Other ways include serving in the military of a country at war with the US, being convicted of treason for committing one of the specified potentially expatriating acts (serving in an army at war with the US is sort of a trial-less special case of that, because engaging in a war against the US is treason), or serving in a "policy-level position" in a foreign government. The State Department says as much in the link. Obtaining citizenship is listed as a case where the administrative premise applies; so is swearing allegiance to a foreign state, serving in the military of a state at peace with the US, and serving in lower-level government posts of a foreign state. In those cases, the person retains US citizenship but at some point in the future may be asked by the State Department if they wanted to renounce it. Intent to renounce citizenship is established only by explicit declaration if you've only obtained citizenship in another country. With "policy-level posts" the premise doesn't apply, but then the State Department just decides on a case-by-case basis. You may well lose US citizenship (although the King of Thailand was born in the US, and I'm not sure if he's considered to have lost citizenship), but it's not automatic. Your senior ministers may lose citizenship, but it is likewise not automatic. But the normal citizens? The link explicitly says that the administrative premise covers that.
The case that you mentioned isn't an example of what you're talking about. One thing that immediately comes to mind is the Shamima Begum case. She fled her London home to join the Islamic state but now she wants to come back to the UK (after realizing), but UK's Home Office revoked her citizenship, claiming that she could claim Bangladesh citizenship by descent even though she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of revocation. No, they are claiming that Shamima Begum is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of revocation. According to section 5 of Bangladesh's Citizenship Act 1951, a child born abroad to a Bangladeshi citizen father is automatically (&quot;shall be&quot;) a Bangladeshi citizen by descent at birth. (Mothers were allowed to pass on citizenship after 2009, but that was after Begum was born.) Note that registration at a Bangladeshi consulate within 1 year of birth is only necessary in the case where the father is a Bangladeshi citizen by descent. I believe Begum's father was a Bangladeshi citizen otherwise by descent, in which case no registration or other action is necessary for her to be a Bangladeshi citizen at birth. It doesn't matter that she has never been to Bangladesh nor does it matter that she never claimed to be a Bangladeshi citizen. There were two men of Bangladeshi descent in a separate case who successfully fought their revocation of British citizenship, but the difference between their cases and Begum's case was that they were over 21, which she was under 21 at the time of revocation. Section 14 of Bangladeshi's Citizenship Act provides that someone with dual citizenship automatically loses Bangladeshi citizenship if they don't renounce their other citizenship, but this provision doesn't apply to those under 21. So these two men had Bangladeshi citizenship too, while they were under 21, but they lost it when they turned 21, before their supposed revocation of British citizenship, whereas for Begum, she hadn't lost Bangladeshi citizenship at the time of the revocation of her British citizenship, because she hadn't turned 21. (Perhaps you got the idea of &quot;claiming&quot; of citizenship from some report that one can &quot;claim&quot; Bangladeshi citizenship by descent while under 21, and these men failed to claim it, but Begum can still &quot;claim&quot; it. But if you read the text of the law, that is clearly not the case. For a child born to a father who was a Bangladeshi citizen otherwise than by descent, there is no &quot;claim&quot; of citizenship -- it is automatic and involuntary at birth.) As to your question, there are no universal restrictions to how a country can grant or take away citizenship. There is the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which countries may voluntarily join, but only a minority of countries of the world are party to the convention. Article 8 of the Convention does prohibit countries that are party to the Convention from depriving someone's citizenship if it would &quot;render him stateless&quot;, though there are several exceptions including if the citizenship was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The language seems to require that the person already have another citizenship, not just have the ability to acquire one, though I am not sure how much leeway countries have to interpret this. In the case of the UK, it is a party to the Convention, and it has largely implemented the provisions of the Convention in its domestic law. With respect to deprivation of citizenship, section 40 subsection (4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 prohibits a deprivation order if the Secretary &quot;is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.&quot; (Subsection (4A) has a looser restriction where British citizens by naturalization can be deprived of citizenship if the Secretary believes that the person is able to become the national of another country. I am not sure whether this is compatible with the Convention. In any case, this is not relevant to Begum's case as she was not a British citizen by naturalization.) So if the UK were to try to deprive citizenship of a British citizen otherwise than by naturalization like Begum, not on the basis that the person already has another citizenship but on the basis that they are &quot;eligible&quot; to &quot;claim&quot; one (which as I described above I do not believe is the case for Begum; I am talking hypothetically if such a case were to arise), that can already be challenged as a violation of British law, in British courts, without considering the UK's obligations under the Convention. If it's another country that's a party to the Convention, but their law expressly allows deprivation of citizenship for being &quot;eligible&quot; to acquire another citizenship even though the person doesn't have one (including, perhaps, British citizens by naturalization deprived citizenship under section 40(4A)), and a person in that situation is deprived of citizenship, they don't really have any recourse. A private party cannot &quot;sue&quot; a country over any violations of the Convention in an international court.
Your options are generally limited by where you have (or can establish) residency, along with where your communal property is held. There are (decreasing numbers of) jurisdictions known as "divorce mills" that have notoriously lenient rules for establishing residency and completing divorces.
You are already a British citizen. This will not impact your German nationality (I don't know anything about Spanish Nationality Law): (1) Prior to 2000, EC nationals were considered 'settled' when exercising Treaty rights in the UK. They did not have to apply for indefinite leave to remain to be considered settled. As you were born in the UK to at least one parent who was exercising Treaty rights in the UK and hence 'settled' for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981, you acquired British citizenship automatically at birth. You do not need to, and should not, apply for naturalisation or registration, but instead for confirmation of British citizenship OR a passport (or alternatively, a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode). NOTE: of course, the situation of EU/EEA nationals in the UK is now different under the 2006 Regulations, implementing Directive 2004/38/EC, which introduced the concept of "permanent residence". There was no equivalent to this at the time of your birth, in 1988, when all EC nationals exercising Treaty rights were 'settled'. (2) You will not lose your German nationality. First, you are already British anyway, as set out above. Second, the previous answers are all wrong as a point of law. The German 'option model' requires persons born in Germany to non-German parents to decide which citizenship they wish to keep once they come of age. This never applies where one of the parents is German. It is not true, therefore, that Germany never accepts dual nationality. Equally importantly, a German national who acquires the citizenship of another EU/EEA country will not lose their German citizenship (although, as set out under (1) above, this does not affect you anyway since you are already British, even if you may currently lack a document to prove your status as such).