EXCERPT FROM ORDER TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT: BALJINDER SINGH Plaintiff has submitted a laboratory report by the Homeland Security InvestigationsForensic Laboratory of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which compares a January 24, 1992 fingerprint card bearing the name Baljinder Singh to a September 25, 1991 fingerprint card bearing the name Davinder Singh. Based on a comparative analysis of the friction ridge details of each fingerprint, the report concludes that the fingerprints match and belong to the same individual. Plaintiff relies on this report to contend that Baljinder Singh and Davinder Singh are, in fact, the same individual…Having received no opposition to this motion from Defendant to impeach the credibility of this scientific fingerprint analysis, this Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to the fact that Davinder and Baljinder Singh are the same individual. There are multiple reasons why a person may not participate in their denaturalization proceeding after they have been served with notice. For instance, defendants may not speak or understand English well enough to understand the action that has been filed against them; they may be unaware of how to handle the situation or how to respond; they may lack the means to travel to the courthouse or afford counsel to help navigate the process. Moreover, given the current climate of fear permeating immigrant communities, even naturalized citizens may feel unsure if they should appear, especially if they do not fully understand that by not appearing they risk losing citizenship. Evidence Digitization of paper-based fingerprint cards and the gradual linking of immigration and law enforcement databases are central to immigration enforcement today, including enforcement through denaturalization. These trends did not begin under the Trump administration, but they have been enthusiastically embraced and scaled-up during his time in office. In Schneiderman v. United States (1943), the Supreme Court wrote that U.S. citizenship is “the highest hope of civilized men,” and it “would be difficult to exaggerate its value and importance.”442 The court also noted that after U.S. citizenship has been granted, this “right once conferred should not be taken away without the clearest sort of justification and proof.”443 Denaturalization cases stemming from Operations Janus and Second Look often rely solely on one piece of evidence, a digital fingerprint match, to support the government’s claim that the defendant acquired citizenship illegally. A closer examination casts doubt on the true nature and materiality of this particular store of fingerprint evidence, and reveals basic human 100 UNMAKING AMERICANS