Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Government in Denaturalization Case
Cases of Denaturalization require the federal government to prove that a naturalized citizen obtained their citizenship illegally in some way. What that specifically means is that the naturalized citizen became a citizen even though he or she did not truly legally qualify for citizenship status and did not meet the legal requirements to become a citizen. One way to prove this is to try to show that the naturalized citizen illegally procured citizenship or procured citizenship by concealment of a material fact or by some sort of willful misrepresentation to the government relating to obtaining citizenship.
ORIGINAL CASE DETAILS
The case of Maslenjak v. United States is a landmark denaturalization case that made its way all the way to the United States Supreme Court in 2017. The case originally started as a criminal prosecution against Divna Maslenjak, a refugee from the former country of Yugoslavia due to false statements made by Maslenjak during the naturalization process. Maslenjak and her family fled civil war in Yugoslavia and came to the United States as refugees in 1998. Maslenjak became a United States citizen in 2007 and was later stripped of her citizenship and deported along with her husband for the false statements she admittedly made during the naturalization process.
When Maslenjak met with United States immigration officials in 1998, she told the officials that she and her family would be in danger if they went back to the area in Bosnia where they had previously lived before the civil war in Yugoslavia. She falsely told these officials that her husband had not returned to the specific area in Bosnia because he was afraid that he would be forced to join the Bosnian Serb army. Maslenjak’s husband had in fact served in the army, in a specific brigade that took part in a massacre of over 5,000 Bosnian Muslims some three years earlier. The federal government later learned of her husband’s participation in this brigade and initiated proceedings to deport him. When Maslenjak learned of this, she admitted to United States officials that she had lied about her husband’s whereabouts and activity during that time. The federal government then charged Maslenjak with violating a federal law that makes it illegal to knowingly procure U.S. citizenship contrary to any law with an eye towards denaturalization.
The jury in Maslenjak’s criminal trial had been instructed that it did not actually matter whether her lie on her on citizenship application was “material” or not because the criminal statute did not specifically address it issue. A material issue is one that would have made a difference in determining Maslenjak’s eligibility for citizenship. Maslenjak admitted that she had lied but argued that she should keep her naturalized citizenship because the lies would not have mattered in deciding whether to grant her citizenship in the first place. Maslenjak was convicted, stripped of her citizenship, and deported to Serbia in 2016. Maslenjak appealed her case, and the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January of 2017.
SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF MASLENJAK
In June of 2017, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Maslenjak stating that if someone is prosecuted for a false statement to government officials during the naturalization process, a jury must decide whether that false statement would have influenced the decision and awarding of citizenship to that individual. The false statement made would have to be “material” to the decision made of awarding citizenship. The Court then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the erroneous jury instruction was harmless error. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit ruled in late 2019 that the jury instruction error was not harmless and remanded the case back to District Court for a new trial.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?
The Supreme Court soundly rejected the government’s argument and reasoning and was very concerned that the government was trying to overreach and too broadly define what a material lie is. This ruling means that not all lies would qualify someone to be denaturalized. A typo or other mistake should not stand as ground for denaturalization. If you are facing the possibility of a denaturalization action due to a misstatement or lie, it is important to seek the advice of a qualified and experienced denaturalization attorney immediately.
