Significant Increase in DOJ Denaturalization Lawsuits
On May 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially announced that it had simultaneously filed denaturalization lawsuits against 12 naturalized citizens in federal district courts nationwide. The reason cited was the intentional concealment of serious crimes, such as material support for terrorist organizations, war crimes, espionage, and child sexual abuse, at the time of naturalization. The Department of Justice stated that it is pursuing these 12 cases at a record pace, and multiple media outlets reported that the DOJ is considering a large-scale review of additional denaturalization lawsuits. Prior to this, multiple media outlets reported that in December 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued internal guidance instructing field offices to refer 100 to 200 denaturalization-eligible cases per month to the DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation during fiscal year 2026. This amounts to up to 2,400 cases annually. For naturalized citizens, it is helpful to understand basic legal principles regarding how these changes might affect them.
◆ How much has it changed from the past – Changes seen in numbers
“From 1990 to 2017, the U.S. government filed a total of 305 lawsuits for denaturalization over 27 years, averaging approximately 11 cases per year.” — Based on public data from the National Immigration Forum and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)
From 1990 to 2017, over a 27-year period, the U.S. government initiated a total of 305 civil denaturalization lawsuits, averaging approximately 11 cases per year. The primary targets were limited to a very small number of cases where individuals concealed serious crimes at the time of naturalization, such as Nazi war criminals or those involved in specific human rights abuses. Although the number of cases slightly increased during the first Trump administration, the process remained limited. However, the current administration is pursuing up to 2,400 cases annually, with a target of 100 to 200 cases per month. It is clear that the scale of enforcement related to denaturalization has significantly expanded compared to the past. According to official Justice Department announcements, over 380 individuals have already been included in the initial group of targeted lawsuits. This shift demonstrates that denaturalization is no longer a procedure applied only in extremely exceptional cases, like those involving Nazi war criminals, but is transforming into a broader tool for immigration enforcement. The rapid expansion of this procedure in a short period presents a new legal reality for naturalized citizens. While it was extremely rare in the past to face denaturalization lawsuits decades after naturalization, the environment has now changed to a point where such a possibility can no longer be entirely ruled out.
◆ On What Grounds Is Citizenship Revoked? — Federal Law § 1451
“8 U.S.C. §1451(a) states that a person may, upon original admission to citizenship, be deprived of all rights and privileges of citizenship, and that the decree of naturalization shall be set aside and the order and certificate of citizenship shall be canceled, if it appears to the Court that such order of admission and certificate of citizenship were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willfully and knowingly making a material misrepresentation.” — Original text of U.S. federal law
The legal basis for denaturalization is found in Title 8, Section 1451 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which encompasses both immigration and citizenship law in the United States. This section permits denaturalization in two scenarios: First, when the acquisition of citizenship through naturalization was unlawful from the outset, meaning the applicant did not meet the legal requirements at the time of naturalization. Second, when the applicant intentionally concealed or misrepresented material facts during the naturalization process. The key concept here is the requirement of “materiality.” Not every inaccuracy is grounds for denaturalization. In the 2017 case of *Maslenjak v. United States*, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that minor falsehoods that did not have a causal relationship with the outcome of citizenship acquisition cannot be grounds for denaturalization. The government must not only prove that a false statement was made but also demonstrate that the false statement had a direct causal relationship with the approval of naturalization. However, intentional omissions of information that, had the immigration officer known, would have led to further investigation or a review of eligibility, such as details about the circumstances of entry, arrest records, past criminal history, affiliation with armed groups, or participation in persecution, can satisfy this requirement. This includes not only concealing serious crimes but also intentional omissions regarding the manner of entry or past immigration violations.
◆ The Difference Between Civil Rights Deprivation in Civil Law and Criminal Law — Which is More Threatening
“There is no statute of limitations on civil denaturalization lawsuits. The government can file a lawsuit even decades after naturalization. – Based on public information from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)
Denaturalization lawsuits can proceed in two ways: civil denaturalization and criminal denaturalization. Criminal denaturalization has a 10-year statute of limitations, and the government must prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has the right to appointed counsel. On the other hand, civil denaturalization has no statute of limitations. Even 20 or 30 years after naturalization, there are no legal restrictions on the government filing a lawsuit. There is also no guarantee of appointed counsel. For this reason, the government has long preferred the civil route, and the current administration is maintaining the same direction. If a denaturalization judgment becomes final, the individual will, in principle, revert to Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status, which they held before naturalization. However, if the actions that led to denaturalization also constitute grounds for removal, the removal proceedings can commence immediately. While denaturalization does not necessarily mean automatic removal, it is important to note that it can lead to removal depending on the criminal record or the nature of the offense. The lack of a statute of limitations in civil proceedings means that the passage of time since naturalization does not shield individuals from this process. With reports of the Department of Justice allocating separate teams and personnel to review relevant cases, the scope of cases that may lead to civil denaturalization lawsuits is likely to expand in the future.
◆ Things Naturalized Citizens Should Actually Check
“The N-400 Application for Naturalization requires disclosure of all arrests, charges, convictions, as well as dismissals, acquittals, and sealed or expunged records.” — USCIS Policy Manual
Among naturalized Korean-American citizens who are first-generation immigrants, there may be cases where minor criminal records or old arrest histories were inaccurately stated or omitted due to forgetting the details at the time of their N-400 application decades ago. USCIS verifies applicants' past histories through fingerprint collection and federal database checks. If there were misrepresentations or significant omissions in the N-400, and if these facts could have influenced the naturalization outcome, it could pose a risk in the current climate of expanding citizenship revocation campaigns. The 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk established the constitutional principle that Congress cannot unilaterally revoke citizenship without the citizen's consent. However, denaturalization is different. Denaturalization is a process where the government proves in court that the naturalization itself was unlawfully obtained; thus, the court confirms that citizenship was never validly established in the first place. This is consistently interpreted in case law as not conflicting with the aforementioned constitutional principle. Because of this legal reasoning, even naturalized citizens' application details and histories at the time of naturalization can retain legal significance even after naturalization. The N-400 application is not a completely closed chapter of the past even after obtaining naturalization, which has practical implications in the current enforcement environment.
Things to check now
With the expansion of this denaturalization campaign, there are things naturalized citizens can check for themselves.
First, if you have a copy of your N-400 application submitted at the time of naturalization, please review your answers from that time. It is particularly important to check if your answers to questions about arrest and conviction history match your actual history. Even if an old, minor record was omitted at the time, it can be helpful to understand the situation with an immigration attorney.
Second, even if an individual is convicted of a serious crime after naturalization, that fact alone does not automatically revoke citizenship that was validly obtained. However, the act on which the conviction is based, if it constitutes misrepresentation, omission of material facts, or lack of good moral character before naturalization or during the naturalization review, may be grounds for revocation.
If it relates to character judgment, it may be related to the denaturalization process, so legal review is necessary.
Third, if you receive court documents stating that denaturalization proceedings have been initiated, contact an immigration attorney immediately. The filing of a lawsuit is not a final decision, and the government must present evidence that meets strict legal requirements in court. You are guaranteed the opportunity to object and present your case according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Naturalization has long been considered the final destination of the immigration process. However, honesty, eligibility, and the disclosure of material facts during the naturalization process can have lasting legal implications, a point that is again being emphasized in the current policy landscape.
Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.
Law Offices of Jin Dong Cho
NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354
(t) 718-353-2699 (f) 718-353-8132
NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(t) 201-449-0009
