Civil Denaturalization There are several reasons why a naturalized U.S. citizen could be denaturalized, as explained below. However, it is important to note that prior to the Trump administration, denaturalization was largely considered a last resort to be applied only against the worst of the worst, such as war criminals. These shifts in practice are explored in more depth in subsequent sections of this chapter, but it is important to recognize that regardless of the priorities and normative principles adopted within the executive branch, the law currently permits denaturalization on a wide variety of grounds and does not prioritize among those grounds. Concealment of a Material Fact or by Willful Misrepresentation USCIS has issued guidance on the meaning of this prong of the civil denaturalization statute. A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination. In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on this basis if: • • • • the naturalized U.S. citizen misrepresented or concealed some fact; the misrepresentation or concealment was willful; the misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material; and the naturalized U.S. citizen procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment.187 In practice, this provision requires a prediction as to what would have happened if information had been disclosed during the application process. If the information would have had no bearing on naturalization, then denaturalization is inappropriate. The Supreme Court has interpreted the civil denaturalization statute’s meaning and application. According to the court, the term “material” requires that concealment or misrepresentation must be shown by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence to have been predictably capable of affecting, i.e., to have had a natural tendency to affect, [the immigration agency’s] decisions.”188 “Materiality” means that the concealment or misrepresentation was “relevant to his qualifications for citizenship or that true information, if supplied, would predictably have disclosed other facts relevant to his qualifications.”189 However, the Supreme Court’s position is contradicted by current policy guidance from USCIS, which directs the agency to apply a broader concept of materiality. According to USCIS, “[I]t is not necessary that the information, if disclosed, would have precluded naturalization.”190 The government did not appear to adhere to the Supreme Court’s standards in a number of cases reviewed for this report. 52 UNMAKING AMERICANS