When Citizenship Is at Stake: Understanding Denaturalization in the United States

by Teodora (Teo) Purcell | Aug 25, 2025

Blue passport and judge gavel on USA flag background, closeup view. Immigration, United States of America visa concept

Naturalization has long been marketed as the final step on the immigration journey, yet a small—but growing—body of law allows the government to unwind that step and revoke U.S. citizenship. This blog post explains how denaturalization works, what triggers it, and why the process is both procedurally demanding and increasingly visible. Our goal is to help naturalized clients, human-resource professionals, and global-mobility teams evaluate the actual risks and prepare defensively.

What Denaturalization Means

Denaturalization is the legal act of canceling a certificate of naturalization and returning a person to the immigration status they held before becoming a citizen¹. Unlike most immigration matters, denaturalization can be ordered only by a federal judge, either in a civil lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) or after a criminal conviction for naturalization fraud[1][3]. Once citizenship is revoked, the person immediately loses the right to vote, carry a U.S. passport, or sponsor family, and may become deportable if no other status exists.²

Two Paths to Revocation

1. Civil Denaturalization

Filed under 8 U.S.C. §1451(a).
Government must prove the case by “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence”[1][5].  No statute of limitations applies, making conduct decades in the past fair game[3][6].

2. Criminal Denaturalization

Prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §1425.
Requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly procured citizenship unlawfully[1][7].
Subject to a 10-year limitations period, but conviction automatically triggers revocation[1][8].

1 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2
2 https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/denaturalization_pa.pdf

Common Triggers

Trigger	Statutory Hook
Illegal procurement (ineligibility at time of naturalization)	INA §340(a)
Concealment or willful misrepresentation of a material fact	INA §340(a) & Kungys materiality test
False testimony showing lack of good-moral character	8 U.S.C. §1101(f)(6)
National-security affiliations within five years of naturalization	INA §340(c)

Illustrative Cases

Fedorenko³—Nazi camp guard omitted wartime role
Kungy⁴s—false birth data deemed material
Maslenjak⁵—SCOTUS limited liability to lies that mattered[
Iyman Faris⁶—al-Qaeda plotter lost citizenship
Wartime service denials (other-than-honorable discharge <5 years)
INA §329(c) Rare, but military clients should note

Whether an omission is “material” depends on whether it would have influenced the adjudicator; small mistakes generally will not suffice, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Maslenjak v. United States in 2017[7].

How Feasible Is Denaturalization?

Historically the answer was “not very.” From 1990-2016, DOJ averaged only 11 cases per year⁷. But referrals surged after Operation Janus—a DHS project that matched digitized fingerprints with old deportation orders, unearthing 315,000 records with missing prints. DOJ filed 30 civil suits in 2017 and projected up to 324 referrals in FY 2019.

³ Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981)
⁴ Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988)
⁵ Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
⁶ United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Iyman Faris, Defendant-appellant, 388 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2004)
⁷ https://tracreports.org/tracker/dynadata/2016_10/OIG-16-130-Sep16.pdf

Figure 1 – Denaturalization cases were historically rare but spiked after 2017, with a sharp jump projected for 2019⁸.

The government also boasts a 95 percent success rate, largely because it files only when evidence is overwhelming[13][14]. That statistic illustrates feasibility from the government’s perspective—not inevitability for every naturalized citizen.

Recent Policy Shifts

Operation Janus & Operation Second Look: bulk record-digging initiatives focused on identity fraud and prior deportees⁹.
DOJ Civil Division memo (June 11, 2025): orders attorneys to “maximally pursue” denaturalization against ten priority categories, including gang members, human-rights violators, and anyone whose case is “sufficiently important”¹⁰
Creation, dissolution, and possible re-creation of a dedicated Denaturalization Section signal institutional commitment, regardless of administration.

⁹ Department of Justice press releases and Operation Janus litigation records (e.g., Baljinder Singh case)
¹⁰ DOJ announces plans to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship: NPR

These developments mean that denaturalization is no longer limited to egregious war-crime cases but may include more routine fraud or undisclosed criminal history¹¹.

Challenges and Defenses

High Evidentiary Burden: The “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” standard gives defendants a fighting chance[5].
Materiality: Under Kungys, DOJ must show the lie had a “natural tendency” to affect the original decision, a fact-intensive inquiry[10].
Constitutional Limits: Native-born citizens cannot be stripped involuntarily (Afroyim v. Rusk)[21]; courts are wary of unequal treatment of naturalized citizens (Schneiderman v. United States)[5].
Procedural Rights: Civil defendants lack an automatic right to counsel, but cases proceed in federal court with discovery, motions, and appeals[3][4].
Statelessness Risks: Removal of citizenship can leave individuals without any nationality, a violation of international norms and a litigation pressure point[22][23].

Real-World Illustrations

Baljinder Singh (India)
First Operation Janus win: Singh used two identities, failed to attend an early exclusion hearing, and later naturalized. A court revoked his citizenship in 2018 and restored him to green-card status, exposing him to removal[24].

Iyman Faris (Pakistan)
A 2003 terrorism conviction triggered civil revocation in 2020 because his al-Qaeda affiliation within five years of naturalization showed he lacked attachment to the Constitution[8][25].

Diana Maslenjak (Bosnia)
Convicted for lying about her husband’s military past, but the Supreme Court reversed because the lie had not actually influenced her naturalization—narrowing criminal denaturalization’s reach[7].

¹¹ Office of Public Affairs | The Department of Justice Creates Section Dedicated to Denaturalization Cases | United States Department of Justice

Nazi War-Crimes Litigation
From 1979-2010, DOJ stripped more than 100 former persecutors (e.g., Fedorenko) of U.S. citizenship, illustrating that government resources historically target the most egregious conduct[9][26].

A snapshot of notable cases appears below.

Practical Advice for Naturalized Clients

Audit Your File: Obtain a copy of your naturalization application and underlying immigration filings. Confirm that all answers were accurate and complete in light of later events.
Evaluate Criminal History: Even expunged or foreign convictions can matter if they were hidden. Seek counsel before filing any new immigration or passport paperwork.
Maintain Records: Preserve proof of name changes, military service, employment, and tax compliance to rebut future allegations.
Respond Promptly to Notices: If ICE or DOJ contacts you, engage qualified counsel immediately. Deadlines in federal court are unforgiving, and default can result in loss of citizenship.
Do Not Panic Over Headlines: The vast majority of the 24 million naturalized Americans face no realistic risk. Targeted reviews still focus on identity fraud, serious crimes, and national security issues.

Timeline of key denaturalization milestones in US history

Key Takeaways for Employers & Universities

Global mobility teams should verify that long-term employees working under U.S. passports also possess underlying I-9 work authorization if citizenship status is ever questioned.
HR should track DOJ policy memos; referrals often start with routine background checks performed during security clearance or visa renewal.
Universities sponsoring naturalized researchers on federal grants must document compliance with export-control rules—missteps can form a future denaturalization basis under national-security priorities[13].

Conclusion

Denaturalization remains a rare remedy, but policy changes and data-mining initiatives have made it a reality for a broader set of cases than at any time since the Red Scare. Even so, the government’s heavy burden of proof, materiality rules, and constitutional safeguards provide meaningful defenses. For most citizens, careful record-keeping and honest disclosure are enough. For the unlucky few facing investigation, early legal intervention and strategic litigation can still preserve the hard-won prize of U.S. citizenship.

Sources

Recent Updates

New Year, New Immigration Rules (January 2, 2025)

Jan 2, 2025

The new DHS rule enhancing H-1B program

New U.S. Immigration Reform Initiatives (June 18, 2024)

Jun 18, 2024

The White House has announced two innovative programs aimed at addressing the deficiencies in our current immigration laws. These programs are designed to provide undocumented spouses and children of U.S. citizens, who have lived in the U.S. for over a decade, with a...