DOJ seeks to revoke citizenship of 12 foreign born Americans over alleged fraud and crimes

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed civil denaturalization actions against 12 naturalized Americans born outside the United States, marking a major expansion of the Trump administration’s use of a rarely invoked legal process to revoke citizenship obtained through alleged fraud, concealment or unlawful procurement. The cases were filed in federal district courts across the country and involve allegations ranging from material support for terrorist groups and espionage to war crimes, sexual abuse of a minor, immigration fraud, identity fraud and financial fraud.

The Justice Department said the cases are based on the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows a naturalized citizen’s citizenship to be revoked and the certificate of naturalization cancelled if citizenship was illegally procured or obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. The department also said the claims remain allegations and that no determination of liability has been made in the civil cases.

Why is the Trump administration using denaturalization against 12 foreign born Americans now?

The May 8, 2026, filings show that the Trump administration is treating denaturalization as a central enforcement tool rather than a marginal remedy reserved for rare cases. The Justice Department framed the actions as an effort to protect the integrity of the naturalization process by targeting people it says should not have become United States citizens because of undisclosed criminal conduct, terrorist support, false statements or immigration fraud.

The cases include people born in Iraq, Colombia, Morocco, Somalia, The Gambia, Bolivia, Uzbekistan, Kenya, India, China and Nigeria. The group includes Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, Oscar Alberto Pelaez, Khalid Ouazzani, Salah Osman Ahmed, Baboucarr Mboob, Kevin Robin Suarez, Abduvosit Razikov, Abdallah Osman Sheikh, Debashis Ghosh, Pin He, George Oyakhire and Victor Manuel Rocha. The Justice Department said the cases were prosecuted by the Office of Immigration Litigation, Affirmative Litigation Unit, with assistance from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and multiple United States Attorney’s Offices.

The broader significance is that denaturalization affects people who already hold United States citizenship, not only noncitizens seeking immigration benefits. That makes the policy legally and politically sensitive because citizenship is typically treated as a secure legal status once granted. CBS News reported that the United States government filed just over 300 denaturalization cases between 1990 and 2017, averaging about 11 per year, which places the new batch of cases in a wider escalation of enforcement activity.

What legal standard allows the United States Department of Justice to seek citizenship revocation?

The legal foundation for the cases rests on federal denaturalization law. Under 8 United States Code Section 1451, naturalization may be revoked when it was illegally procured or obtained through concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. The statute also gives the person facing denaturalization notice and an opportunity to respond in court.

The Justice Department’s theory in these cases is not simply that the individuals later committed wrongdoing. In several filings, the department argues that alleged conduct before or during the naturalization process made the person ineligible for citizenship, or that the person concealed facts that would have mattered to the citizenship decision. That distinction matters because denaturalization is not supposed to function as a general punishment for post naturalization misconduct unless the government can tie the misconduct to unlawful procurement, fraud, concealment or statutory ineligibility.

The Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Maslenjak v. United States is an important reference point because the court rejected an overly broad approach to stripping citizenship based on immaterial false statements. The court held that when false statements are used as the basis for criminal denaturalization, the government must show a meaningful connection between the falsehood and the grant of citizenship.

Which terrorism, espionage and war crimes allegations are central to the denaturalization filings?

Several of the 12 cases involve national security or conflict related allegations. Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, a native of Iraq, is accused in the Justice Department filing of having lied about his criminal and family history when entering and later naturalizing in the United States. Iraq had requested his extradition in 2019 to face charges related to the alleged premeditated murder of two Iraqi police officers in 2006.

Khalid Ouazzani, a native of Morocco, pleaded guilty in May 2010 to bank fraud, money laundering and providing material support to Al-Qaida. The Justice Department alleges that his oath of attachment to the United States Constitution was false because he was already involved in planning support for Al-Qaida before and around the time of his naturalization. Salah Osman Ahmed, a native of Somalia, pleaded guilty in 2009 to providing material support to terrorists after joining al-Shabaab.

Baboucarr Mboob, a native of The Gambia, is accused of concealing involvement in the 1994 execution of six Gambian military officers while he was serving as a military police officer. The Justice Department said he later admitted before The Gambian Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission that he participated in the executions. Victor Manuel Rocha, a Colombia native and former United States diplomat, was convicted of serving as an unregistered agent for Cuba, with prosecutors saying he admitted that his espionage activity began before he naturalized in 1978.

How do the sexual abuse, firearms, fraud and identity cases expand the policy beyond terrorism?

The 12 cases also show that the Trump administration’s denaturalization push is not limited to terrorism or espionage. Oscar Alberto Pelaez, a Colombian Roman Catholic priest, was convicted in 2002 of 13 counts of sexual assault against a child. The Justice Department alleges that he lied about the crimes during the naturalization process and lacked the good moral character required for citizenship.

Kevin Robin Suarez, a native of Bolivia, pleaded guilty in 2020 to conspiracy related to false statements made to federally licensed firearms dealers. The Justice Department said the conduct was linked to a gun trafficking network from South Florida to Bolivia and other Latin American destinations. Abdallah Osman Sheikh, a Kenya native and former United States Marine, is accused of concealing conduct involving indecent digital images of minors before naturalization and of failing to meet honorable service requirements tied to military based naturalization.

Debashis Ghosh, a native of India, is accused of conspiring to defraud investors of $2.5 million linked to an aircraft maintenance facility. Pin He, a native of China, is accused of obtaining citizenship after concealing a prior removal order under another identity. George Oyakhire, a native of Nigeria, is accused of naturalizing under a false identity. Abduvosit Razikov, a native of Uzbekistan, is accused of using sham marriages to secure immigration benefits.

Why does this denaturalization push matter for immigration policy and citizenship security?

The immediate impact is legal: the 12 individuals must now defend their citizenship in civil proceedings. If the government succeeds, they could lose United States citizenship and return to a prior immigration status, which may make them vulnerable to removal depending on the underlying facts and criminal history. CBS News noted that people who lose citizenship also lose the legal benefits that come with being American citizens.

The policy impact is broader. Denaturalization cases can signal how aggressively the federal government intends to review past naturalization files, particularly where criminal convictions, alleged false statements or national security issues are present. KTVU reported that Department of Homeland Security officials had been told to refer 200 denaturalization cases a month, citing reporting on the administration’s wider escalation.

For naturalized citizens, the key legal question is not whether the government can reopen every past mistake, but whether the government can prove that citizenship was unlawfully obtained or that a material fact was concealed or misrepresented. That proof burden remains central to the cases now before federal courts. The Justice Department’s announcement is therefore both an enforcement action and a test of how far courts will allow the administration to expand denaturalization as an immigration policy instrument.

What are the key takeaways from the Trump administration’s denaturalization cases?

• The United States Department of Justice filed civil denaturalization actions against 12 naturalized Americans on May 8, 2026.
• The cases involve allegations of terrorist support, war crimes, espionage, sexual abuse, firearms trafficking, fraud, sham marriages and false identities.
• The Justice Department is relying on the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits revocation when citizenship was illegally procured or obtained through material concealment or willful misrepresentation.
• The targeted individuals were born in Iraq, Colombia, Morocco, Somalia, The Gambia, Bolivia, Uzbekistan, Kenya, India, China and Nigeria.
• The Justice Department said the claims in the complaints are allegations only and that no liability determination has been made.