US DOJ’s Memo Prioritizing Denaturalization Cases

 

On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum directing its Civil Division to prioritize the prosecution of civil denaturalization cases against certain naturalized U.S. citizens. This marks a significant development in immigration enforcement policy, signaling a more aggressive approach to revoking citizenship from naturalized citizens.

Under Section 1451(a) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the Department of Justice can file a civil lawsuit to take away a person’s U.S. citizenship, if that person got naturalized either illegally or by hiding important information or lying on purpose.  The recent DOJ memo is significant in several ways.

Civil Denaturalization

First, the DOJ now emphasizes civil denaturalization proceedings, which are handled in federal court and do not require a criminal conviction. This lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) contrasts with criminal denaturalization, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The DOJ encourages re-evaluation of old naturalization cases, especially where post-naturalization criminal convictions might uncover fraud or misrepresentation during the original application process.  Further, U.S. Attorneys and DOJ trial lawyers are instructed to coordinate with DHS, particularly USCIS and ICE, in identifying and litigating these cases.

Targeted Criteria for Denaturalization

The memo outlines three primary categories of individuals who may be targeted:

1. National Security Risks – Those suspected of terrorism, espionage, or other threats to U.S. security.
2. Human Rights Violators – Individuals involved in war crimes, genocide, or torture abroad.
3. Fraudulent Naturalization – Cases where applicants allegedly lied or concealed material facts during their naturalization process, such as undisclosed criminal records or immigration fraud.

Under this new policy, a broad range of cases are covered, including naturalized citizens who obtained their green cards through family-based and employment-based immigrant visa categories. Individuals who have had questionable marriages or concealed material facts regarding their marital status could be targeted.  Employment-based cases can be reopened if the bona fides of the job opportunity is questioned. USCIS has interpreted the applications of laws such as AC-21's portability provisions quite generously, but this could change under the Trump Administration.  

Individuals who committed fraud can also be targeted.  This includes: financial fraud against the United States (including Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan fraud and Medicaid/Medicare fraud); fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations.  

Individuals who acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations, not otherwise addressed by another priority category.  

Affected Naturalized Citizens

The criteria listed under the DOJ memo is so broad that any naturalized citizen's case could be reopened for review.  There is also no time limit for civil denaturalization. The following individuals are likely to be targets: 

• Naturalized U.S. Citizens with past undisclosed criminal conduct, immigration violations, or misstatements on N-400 forms.

• Individuals from conflict regions where the U.S. suspects involvement in war crimes or terrorism may face revived scrutiny.

• Individuals who committed fraud or failed to disclose material facts and information in their green card and/or naturalization applications.

Final Note

Denaturalization remains a rare and legally complex process. While denaturalization is legal under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), courts have historically limited it to egregious cases involving clear fraud or criminality. The DOJ’s memo signals a renewed institutional focus on stripping citizenship in specific cases — especially those implicating national security or material misrepresentation. Naturalized citizens with prior legal issues should consult qualified immigration counsel to evaluate potential exposure and ensure their naturalization records are in good order.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)  

False Statements Need to be Material to Support Denaturalization

Mrs. Maslenmjak made incorrect statements when she applied for political asylum in the United States. Her application was approved and she eventually became a naturalized U.S. citizen.  Years later, based on these incorrect statements, the U.S. government initiated legal actions to "de-naturalize"  her.  In her defense, Mrs. Maslemjak argued that she can be denaturalized only if her false statements had made a difference in the government's decision to grant her refugee status. The United States Supreme Court agreed. 

In 1998, Mrs. Maslenjak and her husband, both ethnic Serbian, lived in Bosnia during the war between Bosnia and Serbia. She successfully applied for asylum based on her family's fear of persecution. In her application, she stated that her husband had failed to serve in the Bosnian Serb army.  Based on the approval of her asylum application, she became a permanent resident of the United States.  Subsequently, DHS discovered that her husband did serve in the Bosnian Serb army and prosecuted him for making false statements. Mrs. Maslenjak applied for naturalization immediately and was granted citizenship.  She testified in her husband's court hearings and admitted that she lied when she said that her husband did not serve in the Bosnian Serb army. 

The U.S. Government prosecuted Mrs. Maslenjak for making these false statements and also stripped her citizenship.  She appealed to the Sixth Court of Appeals, arguing that she should be allowed to keep her citizenship since the untruthful statements that she made were immaterial to her asylum claim - which was based on fear of persecution by Bosnian Muslims.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, by holding that any false statements are sufficient to support denaturalization pursuant to 18 USC §1425(a), the relevant Federal statute. 

Undaunted, Mrs. Maslenik appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which sided with her.

By using the most natural way of understanding the statue, the Supreme Court held that in order to use any false statements by application for denaturalization, they must be material and have somehow contributed to the approval of citizenship.   In other words, there must be a direct causal relationship between the false statements and the eventual award of citizenship in order to strip away somebody's citizenship under §1425(a).  And whether or not there is such as causal link should be decided by the jury.  

Here, during the trial of Mrs. Maslenik, the jury instructions did not specify that her false statements must have been material and contributed to the outcome of her asylum application.  Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit decision and remanded the case to the lower court to provide proper instructions to the jury. 

The Supreme Court decision applied a balancing test between the need to prosecute false statements and the rights of naturalized citizens.  To protect the rights of naturalized citizens, denaturalization should be based on some very strong reasons but not just any illegal conduct during the naturalization process.  It should be noted that Mrs. Maslenik might still lose her citizenship at the end.  A jury could conclude that her asylum application was granted partially based on her false testimony that her husband did not serve in the military as required,  If so, her false statements were material in the asylum decision and, according to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, she would be stripped of her citizenship.