Immigration Law
Short Answer: Yes, the U.S. government can take away citizenship obtained through naturalization, but only a federal court can order it. Under INA § 340(a), the government must prove the person was never eligible to naturalize, or obtained naturalization by willfully concealing or misrepresenting a material fact. In a civil case, the proof must be "clear, unequivocal, and convincing," and there is no time limit. A criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and generally must be brought within 10 years. USCIS cannot revoke citizenship itself, but it investigates and refers cases for prosecution.
On September 14, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rewrote its internal rules on referring naturalized citizens for denaturalization. The update is Policy Alert PA-2026-13, and it took effect immediately. It arrives as the federal government pursues citizenship revocation at a pace not seen in decades.
As an immigration attorney at SG Legal Group, I am often asked about the risks of losing U.S. citizenship once it has been granted. This article explains:
Only a federal court can revoke U.S. citizenship obtained through naturalization. USCIS, ICE, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) can investigate and bring a case, but a judge decides it. This process is called denaturalization, or "revocation of naturalization."
Denaturalization is different from renunciation, which is a voluntary choice to give up citizenship. It also applies only to people who became citizens through naturalization, and in some cases to family members who derived citizenship through them. It does not apply to people who were U.S. citizens at birth.
A civil denaturalization case begins when a U.S. Attorney files a complaint in federal district court, based on an affidavit showing good cause. The case is filed in the district where the naturalized citizen lives. Under INA § 340(b), the person is entitled to 60 days' personal notice to answer, unless they waive it.
Criminal denaturalization works differently. If a naturalized citizen is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law, INA § 340(e) requires the court to revoke the naturalization and cancel the certificate.
INA § 340(a) sets out two main grounds for civil denaturalization. The first is that naturalization was "illegally procured." The second is that it was obtained by concealing a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.
Both grounds come from the same statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1425 is not a separate ground; it is the criminal route to the same result.
Illegal procurement means the person did not meet every legal requirement for naturalization when they became a citizen. Those requirements include:
In a civil case, this ground does not require proof of intent to deceive. The USCIS Policy Manual states that naturalization can be illegally procured even if the person made no willful misrepresentation.
The Supreme Court has also held that once the government proves its case, the court has no discretion to excuse the problem. That holding comes from Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981).
This ground requires deliberate deception. Under Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988), the government must prove four elements:
A fact is "material" if the misrepresentation had a natural tendency to influence the naturalization decision. The government does not have to show that telling the truth would have led to a denial.
This ground covers omissions as well as outright false statements. It also covers both the written application and what the applicant said under oath at the naturalization interview.
Two narrower grounds also exist:
Civil and criminal denaturalization cases both end in loss of citizenship. They differ in the standard of proof, the time limits, and the other penalties involved.
Civil denaturalizationCriminal denaturalizationLegal basisINA § 340(a)18 U.S.C. § 1425, with revocation under INA § 340(e)Standard of proofClear, unequivocal, and convincing evidenceBeyond a reasonable doubtTime limitNoneGenerally 10 years (18 U.S.C. § 3291)Additional penaltiesNone beyond loss of citizenshipFines and prison: up to 10 years for a first or second ordinary offense, and up to 15, 20, or 25 years in other circumstancesGovernment-appointed lawyerNoYes, as in any federal criminal case
The missing time limit in civil cases matters. Under the updated USCIS guidance, a case that is too old for criminal prosecution may still be referred for civil denaturalization.
The Supreme Court's most recent denaturalization decision, Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), was a criminal case under § 1425(a). The Court held unanimously that the government must show the illegal act played some role in the person obtaining citizenship. When the illegal act is a false statement, the lie must concern facts that would have mattered to an immigration official. A lie about something irrelevant to eligibility is not enough.
USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-13, effective September 14, 2026, reorganizes Volume 12, Part L of the USCIS Policy Manual. The main changes are:
USCIS states that the update does not change the grounds for revocation. What changes is how USCIS identifies, prioritizes, and refers cases.
The alert cites Executive Order 14148, which revoked a 2021 order that had directed agencies to review denaturalization practices. It also cites Executive Order 14161, a January 2025 order on national security and public safety threats. The alert follows PA-2026-10, which resumed neighborhood investigations of naturalization applicants under INA § 335(a).
Under the new guidance, a USCIS officer may identify a potential denaturalization case during an ordinary case review, examination, or investigation. The officer consults a supervisor and USCIS's Office of Chief Counsel. The case may then go to USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate for further investigation.
If USCIS concludes the evidence meets the threshold for revocation, it may refer the case to ICE for civil or criminal action. If ICE declines, USCIS may now refer the case directly to DOJ, as long as the case fits DOJ's own priorities.
The Policy Manual now lists categories of cases that USCIS prioritizes. They closely track the Civil Division enforcement memo DOJ issued on June 11, 2025. The categories include individuals who:
Priority categories affect which cases get attention first. They do not lower the legal standard. A person in a priority category still cannot lose citizenship unless the government proves one of the statutory grounds in court.
The updated guidance recognizes one narrow situation where USCIS may use prosecutorial discretion instead of referring a case. All three of these conditions must apply:
The Policy Alert says that for any pending or future petition or application tied to a U.S. citizen, USCIS determines whether that petitioner lawfully obtained citizenship. USCIS describes this as affirming its existing practice rather than creating a new power.
In practical terms, filing a family petition such as Form I-130 or Form I-129F gives USCIS an occasion to look back at how the petitioner became a citizen.
Revocation of naturalization is retroactive. Under INA § 340(a), it takes effect as of the original date of naturalization.
According to the USCIS Policy Manual, the person returns to the immigration status they held before becoming a citizen. Depending on the facts, they may then face removal proceedings. The Certificate of Naturalization is canceled and must be surrendered.
Denaturalization can also affect family members who became citizens through the denaturalized person. Under INA § 340(d), the rule depends on the ground for revocation:
This area is highly fact-specific. Any family in this situation needs an individual analysis.
After a court revokes naturalization, USCIS updates its systems to show that the person no longer has any citizenship-based right to live in the United States. USCIS then reviews every pending or previously approved petition the denaturalized person filed for a relative or other beneficiary.
USCIS checks whether each beneficiary is, or ever was, eligible for the benefit. If not, it may deny the pending case or revoke, terminate, or rescind an approved benefit.
This is one reason marriage-based cases deserve special care. A green card later found to rest on a fraudulent marriage can undermine the citizenship built on it, and then every petition that citizen filed.
Denaturalization was historically rare, but filings have increased sharply since 2025. The Migration Policy Institute reports:
DOJ's June 11, 2025 memo directs Civil Division attorneys to prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization wherever the law and evidence allow. In June 2026, USCIS announced it had partnered with DOJ on denaturalization filings against 17 individuals in a single set of actions. The alleged conduct ranged from sexual abuse of a minor to fraud.
Several news reports describe internal targets that do not appear in PA-2026-13 or the Policy Manual:
As of the date of this article, these figures come from press reporting, not published agency guidance. Treat them as reported, not confirmed policy.
Congress is considering bills that would expand denaturalization. The most prominent is the SCAM Act (S. 3674), introduced in the Senate on January 15, 2026. It would expand civil denaturalization grounds for people who, within 10 years of naturalizing, defraud government programs, affiliate with terrorist organizations, or commit certain crimes.
As of the date of this article, the SCAM Act has not been enacted. It does not change the current grounds for denaturalization.
The legal standards for civil denaturalization remain demanding, even with more referrals:
These cases also take time, often years from filing to judgment.
The protections have limits, however. Civil cases have no statute of limitations, and defendants have no right to a government-appointed lawyer. Once the government proves a statutory ground, the court cannot excuse it. The high legal standards and burdens of proof still act as safeguards against mass revocations. Naturalized citizens should not treat those safeguards as a reason to ignore the issue.
Denaturalization is not new in the United States. After Congress placed naturalization under federal control in 1906, the government revoked more than 22,000 naturalizations between 1907 and 1967, according to research cited by the Migration Policy Institute. Many targets were people viewed as political enemies.
The Supreme Court gradually narrowed the practice. In Schneiderman v. United States (1943), it required "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" evidence. After 1967, denaturalizations fell to a small fraction of their earlier levels.
History shows that citizenship has long been used as both a reward and a punishment. That history makes it important to watch carefully when our own government discusses expanding the use of denaturalization.
Most naturalized citizens have nothing to fear from these developments. Denaturalization requires proof that citizenship was obtained unlawfully, not merely that the person is disfavored.
Still, a few points deserve attention:
As an attorney, I emphasize that naturalized citizens should be truthful and thorough during the naturalization process. If mistakes were made, consult an experienced immigration attorney before pursuing further immigration benefits.
If you need guidance on citizenship or naturalization issues, contact me at SG Legal Group. My team and I will help you navigate the process with confidence. Consultations are available in English, Russian, or Romanian. Call 410-618-1288 or visit our contact page to schedule a consultation.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration laws and policies are subject to change, and individual circumstances vary. For advice specific to your situation, please consult with a qualified immigration attorney.
Oleg Gherasimov, Esq.
Stay informed with our latest articles and resources.
