USCIS Announces New Civil and Criminal Enforcement Policies for Revoking U.S. Citizenship

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has rewritten the portion of its Policy Manual that governs how the agency identifies, evaluates, and refers cases that could lead to the revocation of someone’s naturalized citizenship, a process generally known as denaturalization. The revised guidance took effect immediately on Sept. 14, issued as Policy Alert PA-2026-13, though the agency is still accepting public feedback on it. USCIS originally set Sept. 25 as the deadline for comments but later pushed that back to Oct. 14.

The changes fall within Volume 12 of the Policy Manual, the section devoted to citizenship and naturalization, and specifically within Part L, now retitled “Loss of U.S. Nationality and Revocation of Naturalization.” According to USCIS, the update reorganizes and expands its internal instructions covering when a case can be flagged for review, how that review proceeds, and which categories of cases the agency will treat as priorities when referring them onward. The agency has stressed that this is a procedural clarification rather than a legal one: the rules determining who can actually be denaturalized have not changed.

The central point to understand is that a USCIS referral, a flagged file, or a case marked as a priority is not itself a revocation of citizenship. That can only happen through a final order in an actual federal court proceeding, never through an internal policy update alone.

Why the Change is Happening Now

USCIS connects the revision to two executive orders issued under the Trump administration. Executive Order 14148 rescinded a 2021 order from the prior administration, while Executive Order 14161 addresses foreign terrorist threats along with broader national security and public safety concerns. The agency describes the guidance as intended to strengthen enforcement of immigration law, deter fraud in the naturalization process, and address national security and public safety risks more generally.

How citizenship can actually be lost

The policy is careful to spell out that denaturalization happens through one of two court paths, and both require the government to meet a real evidentiary standard rather than simply making an administrative determination. A criminal case is brought by a U.S. Attorney’s Office in federal district court, where the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and where federal law imposes a ten-year statute of limitations. A civil case, by contrast, is brought by the Department of Justice, also in federal district court, and requires the government to establish the grounds for revocation through what the guidance calls clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence, a demanding standard in its own right. Unlike the criminal route, civil denaturalization carries no statute of limitations at all, meaning a case too old to prosecute criminally can, in principle, still move forward civilly if the facts support it.

The Two Main Legal Grounds for Revocation

Civil denaturalization generally rests on one of two legal theories. The first is illegal procurement, which applies when a person simply did not meet a legal requirement for citizenship at the time naturalization was granted, whether that involves lawful permanent resident status, required periods of residence or physical presence, good moral character, or attachment to the principles of the Constitution. Notably, the guidance states that this ground does not necessarily require proof that someone intentionally deceived immigration officials; failing to have actually met a requirement can be sufficient on its own. The second theory is willful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, which covers lies or omissions made on the naturalization application, during the interview, or in supporting documents, provided the conduct was willful, the fact was material, and citizenship was granted as a result. The policy notes that a fact can be considered material if it had a tendency to influence the government’s decision, even if disclosing it would not necessarily have changed the outcome.

Two narrower grounds round out the framework. One applies to a person who, within five years of naturalizing, joins or becomes affiliated with an organization whose membership would have barred naturalization in the first place. The other applies specifically to people who naturalized on or after November 23, 2003 through qualifying military service, and who later receive an other-than-honorable discharge before completing five years of honorable service.

Revocation is Not The Same as Canceling a Certificate

The guidance draws a sharp distinction between two things that can sound similar but carry very different consequences. Revoking naturalization strips a legitimately naturalized citizen of citizenship through a court proceeding. Canceling a Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship is a separate action that applies when the document itself was fraudulently obtained or created, and on its own does not affect the underlying citizenship status of the person it was issued to. The policy also addresses a related edge case: someone who fraudulently obtained a certificate without ever actually completing the naturalization process never became a citizen in the first place, regardless of what the document says. In that situation, USCIS can move to cancel the certificate and pursue criminal or removal proceedings separately, since the person’s citizenship status was never genuinely established.

How a Potential Case First Comes to Light

According to the guidance, a case can surface in several ways. An officer may come across it while reviewing an individual’s immigration file, or while examining a separate application or petition, such as a family-based petition or a certificate of citizenship request, in which U.S. citizenship is itself a relevant factor. Cases can also emerge through automated screening tools designed to catch signs of fraud, national security concerns, or public safety risks, through a review or investigation initiated by USCIS or the Department of Homeland Security, or through a request from another federal agency, including the State Department.

Which Cases The Agency Will Prioritize

The revised guidance lays out, in far more detail than before, the categories of cases USCIS intends to prioritize when referring matters to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for possible civil or criminal action. These include cases touching on national security, such as suspected terrorism or espionage, along with serious public safety concerns, allegations of torture, war crimes, or other human rights violations, and links to criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, or drug cartels. The list also covers cases flagged through Interpol notices, felonies that went undisclosed during the naturalization process, human trafficking, sex offenses, violent crime, certain kinds of financial fraud including fraud committed against private individuals or organizations, government corruption, and material misrepresentations more broadly. Rounding out the list are cases involving false identities, false claims to U.S. citizenship, unlawful voting in federal elections prior to naturalization, and marriage fraud. If Immigration and Customs Enforcement declines to take up a case, or if a criminal referral is barred by the statute of limitations, USCIS says it may in some circumstances send the matter directly to the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation to be considered for civil action instead.

When evaluating a potential case, officers are authorized to draw on a fairly broad range of records, among them arrest records, court dispositions, recorded interviews, sworn statements, marriage and divorce records, membership documentation, social media accounts and associated platforms, news reporting, immigration entry documents, DNA reports, and biometric comparisons. If an officer believes a case meets one of the grounds for revocation, the matter is directed to a supervisor and the USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel for further review, and may also be routed to the agency’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate for additional investigation.

What Happens If a Court Does Revoke Citizenship

When revocation is ultimately ordered, it takes effect retroactively, as of the person’s original date of naturalization, and the individual reverts to whatever immigration status they held before becoming a citizen. USCIS updates its own records accordingly and notifies Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the State Department, and other relevant agencies. The person is required to surrender their Certificate of Naturalization, which the court’s order also cancels.

The consequences can extend well beyond the individual whose citizenship was revoked. USCIS may go back and review petitions or applications that person filed on behalf of others to determine whether those beneficiaries remain eligible, or were ever properly eligible, for the immigration benefits they received. In some circumstances, a spouse or child who obtained citizenship through that person’s naturalization can also be affected, though the outcome depends on the specific legal basis for the original revocation and, in certain cases, on whether the spouse or child was living in the United States at the time.

What The Update Does Not Do

USCIS has been explicit on this point: the policy itself does not revoke anyone’s citizenship. A referral, an investigation, or a case marked as a priority is an internal administrative step, not a legal outcome in itself. Denaturalization still requires a completed court proceeding in which the government meets its burden of proof, whether that means beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case or clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence in a civil one.

What has changed, in practical terms, is largely procedural: a more detailed roadmap for how USCIS staff identify, document, and escalate potential cases internally, along with a clearer sense of which categories of conduct the agency now treats as priorities for referral to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Justice Department. The public comment period on the revised guidance remains open through October 14, 2026.

Legal Disclaimer and Contact Information

The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice. Reading this material does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts, and individuals seeking guidance on their case should consult an experienced attorney for legal advice. For a free phone consultation with Attorney Thomas Lee, please call (213) 251-5533.