A Lawyer’s Guide to Revocation of Naturalized Citizenship

This article provides a working guide to revoking the Certificate of Naturalization of U.S. citizens when it is discovered that they failed to meet the requirements. 

“[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Declaration of Independence para. 2 U.S. 1776).  America’s founders did not include citizenship among the country’s unalienable rights.  Indeed, U.S. citizenship has always been conditional and revocable. 

Naturalized United States citizenship occupies a distinctive position in American law.  While citizenship is rhetorically treated as a fundamental and enduring status, naturalized citizenship has never been irrevocable.

Unlike citizenship acquired by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalized citizenship exists only insofar as it is lawfully conferred in accordance with statutory requirements. When those requirements are later shown not to have been satisfied, the grant of citizenship may be declared void ab initio.

From the earliest federal naturalization statutes to modern enforcement regimes, Congress has conditioned citizenship on strict statutory compliance and has authorized its revocation when those conditions are later shown not to have been met.  To understand the process, it is important to examine how the government revokes citizenship, a process known as denaturalization. 

1790:  Becoming a Naturalized Citizen When America was Founded

Congress first established a national framework for naturalization through the Nationality Act of 1790.  American citizenship at its founding was limited to:

1. Free persons (no slaves or indentured servants)
2. White persons (no Native Americans, African Americans, etc.)
3. Two years of residence within the United States and under U.S. jurisdiction
4. Having completed the application process within a common law court of record
5. Possessing good character
6. Having taken an oath or affirmation to support the U.S. Constitution

Naturalization Act of 1790, ch. 3, § 1. 

Although many aspects of the 1790 Act are now obsolete or unconstitutional, certain structural concepts endure. In particular, the requirements of good moral character and allegiance to the Constitution remain foundational components of naturalization law.

The Current Requirements to Become a Naturalized Citizen

An evolution of laws and regulations has enriched the United States naturalization process since 1790.  Modern naturalization law rests on three principal legal authorities:

1. U.S. constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 (establishing a “uniform Rule of Naturalization”)
2. Immigration and Nationality Act §316 (8 U.S.C. §§ 1427, 1430)
3. General Requirements for Naturalization (8 C.F.R. Part 316)

Together, these authorities establish eligibility criteria for naturalization, the procedural steps applicants must follow, and the standards by which citizenship may later be revoked.

There is Strict Enforcement of Naturalized Citizen Requirements

The Supreme Court has long supported strict enforcement of naturalization requirements, ruling that no individual has a right to naturalization “unless all statutory requirements are complied with.” United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 474-75 (1917).  Decades later, the Court reaffirmed that principle, emphasizing, “[t]here must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship.” Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981).

Courts declare a citizenship “illegally procured” and revoke Certificates of Naturalization when the persons fail to comply with all naturalization prerequisites.  Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981).  Indeed, when the government establishes that the defendant procured citizenship illegally or by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, “district courts lack equitable discretion to refrain from entering a judgment of denaturalization.” Id. at 517; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). 

Three Agencies Oversee U.S. Citizenship Naturalization

Although denaturalization actions are adjudicated in federal court, several executive agencies play central roles in administering and enforcing naturalization law.  Following the dissolution of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2003, its functions were divided among three components of the Department of Homeland Security.  These entities are:

1. ICE – Immigration and Customs Enforcement, handling intelligence, investigating, and enforcing inland immigration and deportation),
2. CBP – Customs and Border Protection, handling border security, Border Patrol, immigration inspectors, and customs inspectors, and
3. USCIS – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, handling asylum, refugees, permanent residents

Becoming a Permanent Resident is a Necessary First Step to Naturalization

To qualify for naturalization, a person must first be lawfully admitted to the United States as a permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1429.  An individual never lawfully admitted as a permanent resident is ineligible for naturalized citizenship.

There is an application process to become a U.S. permanent resident.  This application process flows into the process of becoming a naturalized citizen.  The permanent resident application process includes:

1. Application for Naturalization Form N-400
2. needs to be completed and processed
3. Biographic information
4. needs to be submitted per Form G-325C.
5. Fees must be paid via Form N-400, N-600, or I-912
6. $760 typical
7. $710 online
8. $380 for reduced fee qualifiers
9. Free for active-duty military or veterans
10. Biometrics
11. fingerprints, photograph, signature
12. An interview needs to be passed
13. 8 U.SC. 1446, 8 C.F.R. 312, N-400
14. The Civics and English tests need to be passed
15. INA 332, 335, 8 C.F.R. 335.2, but see N-648
16. The Oath of Allegiance needs to be taken
17. Form N-445, INA 337, 8 U.S.C. 1448, 8 C.F.R. 337.1

Applicants should consult Form M-477 for a more complete list of permanent resident forms. 

Importantly, “lawfully admitted” requires not only procedural compliance but also substantive eligibility under immigration laws.  This permits retroactive invalidation of citizenship when later-discovered evidence shows the individual was inadmissible at the time permanent residence was granted.

When Naturalized Citizenship Can Be Revoked

Naturalized citizenship may be revoked when it is established that the individual failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites or obtained citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation. 

Common revocation grounds include:

1. Committing a “serious criminal offense” in the country of origin, in the United States, U.S. passport fraud, etcetera
2. Lying to a court of law, on citizenship application forms, the naturalization interview, or to a government official to gain entry into the United States
3. Omitting (lies of omission), information or documents relating to entry forms, permanent resident forms, or citizenship application forms 
4. Submitting false documents, photographs, identification, residence documents, travel records, tax records, criminal records, marriage documents, passports
5. Failing the “Good Moral Character” test

These grounds often come to light through criminal investigations, administrative audits, or subsequent immigration proceedings.

“Good Moral Character” as a Citizenship Requirement

Possessing a “good moral character” has been a requirement of naturalization since 1790 and remains mandatory today.  Compare Naturalization Act of 1790, ch. 3, § 1 with 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3)(2022).  The United States bans people from becoming naturalized citizens if they fail the “good moral character” test.  8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3).  

There is a time requirement to the “good moral character” test.  It begins five years before the naturalization application date, and continues until the applicant takes the Oath of Allegiance. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(1). 

Congress did not define “good moral character” for naturalization purposes.  However, Congress has given guidance.  The Immigration and Nationality Act lists classes of persons who fail the “good moral character” test. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f).  

Failures include:

• A habitual drunkard
• Engaging in prostitution within ten years of the application
• Being involved with the importation of prostitution into the United States within ten years of the application
• Coming into the United States to engage in “commercial vice”
• Gamblers (illegal)
• Perjurers as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6).
• Prisoners who served an aggregate period exceeding 180 days
• Felons (aggravated)
• Nazis
• Genocide participants
• Torturers
• Assassins
• Severe religious persecutors as defined by 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(2)(G)

Thus, the “good moral character” requirement, in practice, focuses on the absence of named vices within 8 U.S.C. § 1101, rather than affirmatively evidence of positive morality, ethics, conscientiousness, or other character traits. 

There are Classes of People Who Are Ineligible to Become Naturalized U.S. Citizens Because They are Ineligible to Enter the United States. 

A person must have been lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence to qualify for naturalization.  8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a)(1) and 1429.  “[L]awfully admitted” requires more than procedural compliance, it demands satisfaction of substantive legal requirements. Turfah v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 845 F.3d 668, 672 (6th Cir. 2007).

U.S. federal statutes contain a list of classes of persons who are ineligible to be admitted into the United States.  8 U.S.C. §1182.  People who may not be admitted into the United States may not become naturalized U.S. citizens.  8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).  This is because one cannot become a naturalized citizen if one cannot become a permanent resident, and one cannot become a permanent resident if one cannot be admitted into the United States.  8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a)(1) and 1429.  Interestingly, this logical progression may be used in reverse to revoke naturalized citizenship. 

Ineligible aliens include the following types of persons:

• Communicable disease sufferers when there is a public health significance
• Unvaccinated persons for mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus, diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza type B, and hepatitis B
• Physical or mental disorder sufferers whose behavior may pose a threat to property, safety, or welfare
• Previous physical or mental disorder sufferers whose behavior may recur and pose a threat to property, safety, or welfare
• Drug users
• Drug addicts
• Drug convicts as defined by 21 U.S.C. §802
• Convicts of non-political crimes of moral turpitude
• Human traffickers as defined by 22 U.S.C. §7102
• Money launderers
• Spies – Espionage
• Terrorists as defined by 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)
• Spouses or children of terrorists
• “Foreign policy consequence” persons as designated by the U.S. Secretary of State
• Communists
• Nazis
• Totalitarian political party members
• Genocide participants
• Child soldier recruiters as defined by 18 U.S.C. §2442
• Persons likely to be a “public charge”
• Liars who have falsely declared they are United States citizens
• Stowaways
• Smugglers
• Student Visa abusers
• Draft dodgers
• Aliens who have been previously deported
• Polygamists
• Child abduction participants
• Unlawful voters

A Person Can Have Their Naturalized Citizenship Revoked If It Is Later Discovered They Lied During the Naturalization Process or Fall Within An “Ineligible” Person Category

Naturalized citizenship can be revoked by combining two types of laws; one requiring disclosure of eligibility status, and the second requiring candor.  These two law types include:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1427:              The general requirement test for naturalization
• 8 U.S.C. §1182:               The Ineligible list for admission into the United States
• 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a):      Prohibiting knowing false statements regarding naturalization
• 18 U.S.C. § 1425:            A felony crime to “knowingly procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person”
• INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i):   Banning fraud or willful misrepresentation to obtain a Visa or other documents.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a):        Revoking naturalization if there was “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”

The Lie or Omission Must Be Material to Denaturalize – Influence is Key

Not every false statement or omission supports denaturalization.  The Supreme Court has ruled that a naturalized citizen can only be stripped of their citizenship based on a “material false statement.”  Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017); Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 772 (1988).  Thus, it is important that the lie must be (1) told as part of the naturalization process, and (2) material. 

The capacity to influence is key to determining whether the lie or omission is material.  Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a statement is “material” if it has the capacity to influence a government function or agency.  Under 31 U.S.C. § 3729, a statement is “material” if it has natural tendency to influence or be capable of influencing.  Thus, arguments and evidence in denaturalization hearings should focus on whether the lie or omission influenced the government’s decision. 

Consequences of Denaturalization

The initial court case to revoke naturalized citizenship typically seeks the following:

• A declaration that Defendant procured his citizenship illegally
• A declaration that Defendant procured citizenship by concealment of material facts and by willful misrepresentation
• Revocation of the person’s Certificate of Naturalization
• A Judgment requiring the person to surrender and deliver their Certificate of Naturalization
• A Judgment forever preventing the person from claiming any rights, privileges, benefits, or advantages they obtained from their United States citizenship
• A Judgment requiring them to surrender and deliver any indicia of United States citizenship, including U.S. passports and other relevant documents

Denaturalization does not automatically result in deportation from the United States.  The legal status to remain in the United States of a denaturalized citizen must first be assessed.  Some people may stay in the United States even though they are no longer citizens.  Other persons face deportation proceedings when they lack the legal right to remain in the country. 

Interpreting Denaturalization Judgments and Case Summaries

It is said that “hard facts make bad law.”  The phrase means that when a case has emotionally charged facts, judges may bend established legal principles to reach a “fair” outcome, risking a poor or unworkable precedent for future cases.  Denaturalization of citizenship is an area where this phrase may apply.  A judge may wish to spare someone of denaturalization for extraneous issues when the law would otherwise revoke their naturalized citizenship.  Alternately, a judge may denaturalize a citizen in a weak case for reasons other than what is written in the pleadings.  Neither of these scenarios is a likely outcome. 

A practical litigator’s approach to evidence will be the common approach in denaturalization is more likely.  Consider an extreme example for illustration.  Imagine an Assistant United States Attorney is attempting to denaturalize a known genocide participant who profited through child prostitution and forced military service.  Admissible evidence in an American court of the genocide and crimes against children may have a weak foundation. 

However, that same United States Attorney may prove the defendant evaded the draft, voted unlawfully, or arrived in the United States as a stowaway.  The AUSA will admit all the evidence available to denaturalize the criminal.  The Judge, not wanting to be overturned on appeal, may order revocation of the Certificate of Naturalization, citing the most solid evidence.  Outsiders may then report on the denaturalization with a “straw man” summary to support their agenda.  However, neither the judgment nor a summary gives a full understanding of what occurred. 

I advise skepticism for those who might only read a case summary and make conclusions based upon it.  Denaturalization is part of the United States legal system and will remain so.  A fuller understanding of its process will benefit those involved with it.