Desnaturalización seg. 340 (mecanismo) + Maslenjak/Kungys + 18 USC 1425

Denaturalization reaches only naturalized citizens (it cannot touch citizenship acquired at birth) and unwinds a grant that was defective from the outset. The government — not the individual — initiates the proceeding, alleging that the naturalization was illegally procured (the applicant did not meet a statutory prerequisite, such as good moral character, lawful admission for permanent residence, or the required residence/physical-presence) or was procured by concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. Civil revocation under INA sec. 340(a) = 8 USC sec. 1451(a) results in a court order cancelling the certificate of naturalization and restoring the person to their prior immigration status (often LPR, sometimes removable). Because denaturalization is the inverse of a benefit, the 'eligibility' inquiry is really the government's burden: it must establish the statutory ground by the heightened evidentiary standard the Supreme Court requires. There is no statute of limitations on civil denaturalization, so a defective naturalization can be challenged many years after the certificate issued.

Good moral character (GMC) is one of the most common 'illegally procured' predicates for denaturalization. Naturalization under INA sec. 316 = 8 USC sec. 1427 requires GMC during the statutory period, defined by reference to the per-se and conditional bars of INA sec. 101(f) = 8 USC sec. 1101(f) and 8 CFR sec. 316.10. If the government can show, by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, that the naturalized person actually lacked GMC at the time of naturalization — for example because of a concealed disqualifying criminal conviction, false testimony given to obtain an immigration benefit (INA sec. 101(f)(6)), or other conduct within a per-se bar — then the naturalization was 'illegally procured' and revocable under INA sec. 340(a) = 8 USC sec. 1451(a) even without a separate showing of willful misrepresentation. Concealment of the GMC-defeating fact can independently satisfy the 'concealment of a material fact' ground under the Kungys materiality test. GMC defects are thus a bridge between the underlying naturalization route (US-NAT-01) and this revocation mechanism.

The government's evidentiary burden in civil denaturalization is heightened: the Supreme Court has long required proof by 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that does not leave the issue in doubt' (a standard well above the ordinary civil preponderance), reflecting the gravity of stripping citizenship. To prove the 'concealment/willful misrepresentation' ground the government must show (1) the naturalized citizen misrepresented or concealed a fact, (2) the misrepresentation was willful, (3) the fact was material under Kungys's 'natural tendency to influence' test, and (4) the citizen procured naturalization as a result. To prove 'illegally procured,' the government shows the person did not in fact satisfy a statutory prerequisite (e.g., good moral character under INA sec. 101(f), lawful LPR admission, or the residence/physical-presence requirement) at the time of naturalization. In a CRIMINAL case under 18 USC sec. 1425, Maslenjak requires the additional causal showing that the illegal act contributed to obtaining citizenship, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Documentary records (the N-400, interview notes, the underlying immigration file) are central.

Civil denaturalization begins when the government (the U.S. Attorney for the district of the person's residence, or the DOJ Civil Division's Office of Immigration Litigation) files a complaint in U.S. district court under INA sec. 340(a) = 8 USC sec. 1451(a), accompanied by an 'affidavit showing good cause' as the statute requires. The defendant is served and answers; the case proceeds as an ordinary civil action with discovery, and the government must prove the statutory ground by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. If the court finds the ground established, it enters a judgment revoking and setting aside the order admitting the person to citizenship and cancelling the certificate of naturalization. The criminal track proceeds separately: an indictment under 18 USC sec. 1425, trial, and conviction, after which revocation follows automatically under 8 USC sec. 1451(e). Following revocation the person reverts to their prior status (typically LPR) and may face removal proceedings if independently removable. The same court that has exclusive naturalization jurisdiction (INA sec. 310 = 8 USC sec. 1421) handles revocation.

Denaturalization has no fixed timeline; it tracks federal civil (or criminal) litigation, which is inherently variable. Unlike a USCIS benefit application, it has no published processing-time figure — the egov.uscis.gov/processing-times tool (the live authority for USCIS benefit adjudications such as the N-400) does NOT track court-driven revocation, which is governed instead by the Federal Rules and each district court's docket. A civil action under INA sec. 340(a) = 8 USC sec. 1451(a) proceeds through complaint, service, answer, discovery, motions, and (if contested) a bench trial — a process that commonly spans one to several years depending on the complexity of the evidentiary record (often turning on decades-old immigration files), the court's docket, and any appeals to the circuit court and Supreme Court. Criminal cases under 18 USC sec. 1425 run on the criminal-trial calendar, with revocation following any conviction under 8 USC sec. 1451(e). Because there is no statute of limitations on civil denaturalization, the government may file many years after the certificate issued, and high-profile multiple-identity cases (Operation Janus-type) have arisen decades post-naturalization. As of 2026-06-01 (verify current) the 11 Jun 2025 DOJ Civil Division enforcement-priority memo increases case volume but does not alter the litigation timeline or the heightened evidentiary burden.

El estatuto civil es INA sec. 340 = 8 USC seg. 1451, promulgada con la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad de 1952 (Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 260) y que se remonta a la disposición de desnaturalización de la Ley de Naturalización de 1906 sec. 15. El artículo 340(a) autoriza la revocación de la naturalización 'obtenida ilegalmente o.. obtenida mediante la ocultación de un hecho material o mediante tergiversación intencionada' y la cancelación del certificado; el motivo "adquirido ilegalmente" fue agregado por Pub. L. 87-301 (1961). El artículo 340 también aborda la revocación basada en la membresía en organizaciones proscritas dentro de un período legal después de la naturalización (artículo 340(c)) y el efecto de la revocación en las personas que obtuvieron la ciudadanía a través de la persona desnaturalizada (artículo 340(d)). La contraparte criminal es 18 USC sec. 1425, que tipifica como delito obtener o intentar obtener, a sabiendas, documentación de naturalización o ciudadanía en contra de la ley; una condena bajo la sec. 1425 da como resultado la revocación automática según 8 USC sec. 1451(e).

Because civil denaturalization is itself a federal district-court proceeding, review runs through ordinary appellate channels: a judgment of revocation (or a judgment denying revocation) is appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the relevant circuit, and ultimately by certiorari to the Supreme Court (as in Kungys and Maslenjak themselves). A defendant in a civil denaturalization action enjoys the full panoply of civil-litigation protections, including the government's clear-unequivocal-and-convincing burden, and may raise as a defense that any misstatement was immaterial (Kungys) or, in a criminal case, that the illegal act played no causal role (Maslenjak). A person whose naturalization is revoked and who is then placed in removal proceedings may separately contest removability before the immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals, with petition-for-review jurisdiction in the courts of appeals under INA sec. 242 = 8 USC sec. 1252. The reversal/defense posture of this mechanism is documented as the complementary route US-RST-02.

Key boundaries limit denaturalization. (1) It cannot reach citizenship acquired at birth (jus soli under the 14th Amendment / INA sec. 301(a), or jus sanguinis under sec. 301/309) — only NATURALIZED citizenship is revocable; the constitutional protections of Afroyim apply to birthright citizenship. (2) An immaterial misstatement cannot support revocation: under Kungys (civil) the fact must have a natural tendency to influence, and under Maslenjak (criminal) the illegal act must have actually contributed to the grant — trivial or irrelevant falsehoods do not strip citizenship. (3) Good-faith errors lacking willfulness do not meet the 'willful misrepresentation' ground. (4) There is no statute of limitations on civil revocation, but the clear-and-convincing burden and materiality requirement are the principal practical limits. (5) Revocation of a parent's naturalization can extinguish citizenship that a child DERIVED through that parent (INA sec. 340(d) = 8 USC sec. 1451(d)), but does not affect a child who is a citizen on an independent basis (e.g., U.S. birth).