Отмена денатурализации (Maslenjak/INA 340)

US-RST-02 covers two scenarios: (A) defense against a pending denaturalization proceeding under INA §340 = 8 USC §1451 (civil) or 18 USC §1425 (criminal), and (B) appeal or post-judgment vacatur of a completed denaturalization order. The reversal/defense route is entirely litigation-driven — there is no administrative application form or statutory 'reversal' procedure analogous to INA §324 resumption. The citizen must contest the government's action in U.S. district court (civil) or on direct appeal from a criminal conviction. A successful defense results in a finding that citizenship was lawfully obtained and was never forfeited; a successful appeal of a completed order may restore citizenship by vacating the judgment. The key distinction between RST-02 (reversal/defense) and XCT-02 (mechanism) is perspective: XCT-02 documents the government's powers and process; RST-02 documents the citizen's defenses, procedural posture, and restoration pathway.

Good moral character (GMC) is NOT a standalone re-evaluation criterion in the denaturalization-reversal posture. However, GMC historically played a role in naturalization proceedings: a misrepresentation about criminal history or foreign military service was material if it masked a GMC bar that would have prevented naturalization under INA §316(a)(3) = 8 USC §1427(a)(3) and 8 CFR §316.10. The defense strategy in RST-02 typically requires showing either (a) the citizen actually met GMC at the time of naturalization (so no misrepresentation was material), or (b) even if there was a misrepresentation, it did not relate to a GMC bar or any other disqualifier — therefore passing the Kungys/Maslenjak materiality test. A denaturalized person who successfully defends or reverses a denaturalization is restored to their naturalized citizen status with no new GMC inquiry; a person who actually lost citizenship and seeks re-naturalization under INA §316 must satisfy GMC anew.

The government bears the burden of proof throughout — the burden never shifts to the citizen to prove the naturalization was valid. In civil proceedings under INA §340(a) = 8 USC §1451(a), the Supreme Court has long required the government to establish the statutory ground 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 (the Schneiderman/Fedorenko line, carried through Kungys). This heightened civil standard is independent of Maslenjak (which governs the CRIMINAL track) and predates it; the earlier draft's 'clear and convincing' shorthand understated it and is corrected here. In the criminal track (§1425(a)), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 'knowingly procured or attempted to procure' citizenship 'contrary to law' AND that the illegality was causally linked to the grant of naturalization (Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (No. 16-309, 22 Jun 2017)). The citizen's defense evidence typically includes: (a) the original naturalization record and N-400 application to show what was disclosed; (b) USCIS or INS contemporaneous records showing what facts were material to the decision; (c) expert testimony about naturalization adjudication practices; (d) evidence that any misstatement was immaterial (would not have changed the result) under the Kungys 'natural tendency to influence' test. Denaturalization proceedings use the normal Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence.

Civil track (INA §340): (1) DOJ Civil Division files a civil complaint in U.S. district court seeking revocation; (2) defendant-citizen files an answer and may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim or on a Maslenjak/Kungys materiality ground; (3) discovery and summary judgment practice may resolve the case on materiality; (4) if proceeding, full trial before the court (bench trial — no jury in civil denaturalization); (5) district court judgment is subject to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals and ultimately certiorari to SCOTUS. Criminal track (18 USC §1425): (1) DOJ files criminal indictment; (2) if convicted, denaturalization is a mandatory collateral consequence of the §1425(a) conviction; (3) reversal of the criminal conviction (on direct appeal or habeas) automatically vacates the associated denaturalization. The DOJ Civil Division Memo of 11 Jun 2025 (AAG Shumate) expanded Office of Immigration Litigation capacity to pursue more civil denaturalization cases, so defendants should anticipate more aggressive prosecution of technical misrepresentations as the enforcement priority shifts. Specialists in the DOJ's Denaturalization Section within OIL handle these matters.

Denaturalization-reversal timelines are entirely litigation-driven and have NO statutory deadline; they are set by the Federal Rules and each court's docket, not by any 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 these court proceedings, because defense and reversal happen in federal court, not before USCIS. As an illustrative (not fixed) guide, as of 2026-06-01 (verify current) a contested civil case brought by DOJ under INA §340 = 8 USC §1451 commonly runs on the order of a few years from complaint to final district-court judgment, with appellate review adding further time; criminal §1425(a) proceedings run on the criminal-trial calendar. These ranges are descriptive of typical federal-litigation pacing and should not be treated as authoritative numbers for any particular case. Complex denaturalization matters (Operation Janus/Second Look pattern: large batches of old fingerprint-match cases) may move on different tracks depending on the strength of the government's evidentiary basis. The elevated enforcement priority established by the DOJ 11 Jun 2025 memo signals higher case VOLUME but does not change the litigation timeline or the governing standards. There is no statute of limitations on civil denaturalization under §1451(a); the equitable-laches doctrine may in principle apply in extreme-delay cases, but courts have rarely dismissed denaturalization actions on laches alone.

There are no USCIS or State Department administrative fees associated with defending or reversing a denaturalization. The proceedings are judicial, not administrative. Ordinary court filing fees under 28 USC §1914 apply (approximately $405 for a civil action in federal district court as of 2026). Attorney's fees are not recoverable by the defendant citizen unless the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA, 28 USC §2412) applies — which requires that the government's position was not 'substantially justified.' In complex cases involving hundreds of old immigration-fraud files (the Operation Janus pattern), the government's discovery and evidentiary obligations are substantial and can lead to dismissal for failure to establish materiality under Maslenjak before trial. There is no separate 'restoration fee' payable to USCIS following a successful vacatur — the citizenship record is administratively corrected as a consequence of the court order.

Гражданская денатурализация: INA §340(a) = 8 USC §1451(a) уполномочивает окружной суд США отменять натурализацию, которая была «незаконно получена или.. получена путем сокрытия существенного факта или умышленного введения в заблуждение». «Незаконно добытую» землю добавил Паб. Л. 87-301 (1961); Основание «сокрытие/введение в заблуждение» присутствует в INA с 1952 года. Правило места рассмотрения дела установлено в самом INA §340(a) = 8 USC §1451(a), которое направляет действие в судебный округ, в котором натурализованный гражданин проживает на момент подачи иска (тест по месту жительства). Уголовное лишение гражданства: 18 USC §1425 создает отдельный уголовный путь — §1425(a) («сознательно обеспечивает или пытается обеспечить.. в нарушение закона») и §1425(b) (ложные заявления или доказательства). Осуждение по уголовному делу согласно §1425(a) влечет за собой обязательное побочное последствие гражданской денатурализации. Оба варианта требуют подтверждения со стороны правительства; бремя доказательства действительности натурализации НЕ перекладывается на гражданина.

Civil denaturalization cases follow the standard three-tier federal appellate structure: U.S. district court (§1451(a) judgment) → U.S. Court of Appeals on all issues of law and law-applied-to-facts → SCOTUS certiorari. On appeal, the appellate court applies de novo review to legal issues (including the materiality standard under Kungys) and clear-error review to factual findings. The Maslenjak SCOTUS decision (2017) arose from a criminal §1425(a) conviction reversed on appeal, demonstrating that appellate courts actively police materiality. A successful appeal results in either dismissal (citizen keeps status) or remand for proceedings consistent with the correct legal standard. In criminal cases, reversal of the §1425(a) conviction on direct appeal or via 28 USC §2255 (collateral attack) eliminates the denaturalization collateral consequence. There is no administrative appeal path within USCIS once a federal court has ordered denaturalization — the only recourse is to the circuit courts.

A completed denaturalization under INA §340 = 8 USC §1451 results in complete loss of U.S. citizenship. The denaturalized individual's status reverts to that which they held before naturalization (typically LPR or other immigration status, though this may itself be subject to removal proceedings). INA §340(d) specifically provides that if the denaturalized person held nationality or citizenship by reason of derivation through a parent whose naturalization is subsequently revoked, the derivative citizenship is also invalidated — meaning a parent's successful denaturalization defense can have downstream effects on children. A successful reversal of denaturalization on appeal reinstates the citizenship record as though the denaturalization never occurred; the reinstated citizen does not need to be re-sworn or re-naturalized. Expatriation (INA §349 = 8 USC §1481) is doctrinally distinct from denaturalization and governed by Afroyim/Vance; the two should not be conflated.