On September 14, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued Policy Alert PA-2026-13, “Revocation of Naturalization Referrals,” reorganizing the part of its Policy Manual that governs stripping citizenship from naturalized Americans — denaturalization — and promising “clearer guidance on the prioritization of cases for review of revocation.”

The headlines have alarmed naturalized citizens and their families, so be precise about what this policy does not do: it does not give USCIS the power to take away your citizenship. Only a federal court can revoke naturalization — and USCIS concedes this in the very guidance it just rewrote. What the update does do is signal a decision to look harder and refer more, tied to enforcement priorities set by executive order.

What the Update Actually Changes

The mechanical changes are organizational: PA-2026-13 renames Part L of Volume 12 to “Loss of U.S. Nationality and Revocation of Naturalization” and rewrites Chapters 1 and 2. USCIS states the update “does not otherwise change the existing guidance describing the circumstances under which a naturalized citizen is subject to revocation.”

The message is where the substance lives. The guidance affirms that for any pending or future petition “associated with a U.S. citizen,” USCIS determines whether the petitioner lawfully obtained citizenship — the line to watch. It also sets out the burden of proof, when cases are referred and prioritized, and USCIS’s authority to review forms a denaturalized person filed for a beneficiary — all “consistent with” Executive Orders 14148 and 14161. This is an enforcement posture, not a change in the rules.

The Part the Headlines Get Wrong: USCIS Cannot Denaturalize You

Revocation of naturalization can only happen in federal court. It is the duty of a United States Attorney — not USCIS — to institute proceedings in a federal district court, “upon affidavit showing good cause,” to revoke the order admitting a person to citizenship. USCIS may investigate and refer; DOJ decides whether to sue, and a judge decides whether citizenship is revoked.

That is USCIS’s own position: its revised Chapter 1 says revocation “can only occur in federal court” and that “USCIS has no statutory authority to administratively revoke naturalization.” So, a referral is not a revocation: you remain a full citizen unless and until a federal judge signs an order revoking your naturalization.

The Burden the Government Must Carry Is Enormous

The second guardrail is the standard of proof, one of the highest in American civil law. To revoke citizenship in a civil case, the government must prove its case by “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt” — far above the ordinary “preponderance of the evidence.” See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943); Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981). Courts construe the facts in favor of the citizen, and the burden is heaviest when the attack comes long after the certificate was granted.

If the government proceeds criminally instead — under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 — the burden is higher still: proof beyond a reasonable doubt, before a jury.

Not Every Mistake Costs You Your Citizenship: Materiality and Causation

There are only two civil grounds under INA § 340(a): that naturalization was illegally procured (the person was never eligible) or that it was procured by concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. Under Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988), a misrepresentation counts only if it had a “natural tendency to influence” the decision to grant naturalization — a forgotten parking ticket or an honest misreading of an ambiguous question is not the stuff of denaturalization.

In the criminal context, a unanimous Court held in Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), that the government must prove the illegal act or misrepresentation actually “played some role in” acquiring citizenship — and that genuine qualification for citizenship is a complete defense. No one loses citizenship over a trivial or innocent error.

Where We See Risk of Overreach

First — treating citizenship as an open question in ordinary cases. The Policy Alert affirms that “for any pending or future filed petition or application associated with a U.S. citizen, USCIS determines whether the petitioner lawfully obtained citizenship.” Read broadly, that invites an officer adjudicating a routine Form I-130 to second-guess whether the petitioner should have been naturalized at all. But until a federal court revokes it, citizenship is a legal fact. A suspicion strong enough to refer a case is far from proof strong enough to revoke citizenship.

Second — reopening approved petitions for family members. Collateral consequences are real, but bounded. Derivative citizenship is lost under INA § 340(d) only where the parent or spouse was denaturalized for concealment or willful misrepresentation — not for illegal procurement alone. And reopening an approved petition is not voiding it.

Third — prioritization is not permission to lower the bar. Tying referrals to executive-order priorities will increase volume, but volume changes nothing about the standard — the burden is heaviest when the government reaches back years to unwind a citizenship it once granted. Do not mistake an aggressive posture for an expanded power.

Who Should Pay the Most Attention

Denaturalization remains rare, and most naturalized citizens have nothing to worry about. But some situations warrant real care under a more aggressive referral posture:

Anyone whose naturalization application could be read as inconsistent with their earlier immigration history — an asylum claim, a prior removal, a criminal disposition, or a marriage-based petition.

Naturalized citizens now filing petitions for relatives — exactly where the “lawfully obtained citizenship” language could surface. A clean, well-documented petition is your best protection.

Green-card holders and others who derived status or citizenship through a naturalized relative, given the update’s focus on reviewing beneficiaries’ forms.

Anyone contacted by USCIS, DOJ, or a federal agent about their naturalization, or served with a complaint. Note the asymmetry: civil denaturalization has no statute of limitations, while criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 must be brought within ten years (18 U.S.C. § 3291).

What You Should Do Now

Do not panic — but do not ignore a notice, either. A letter, interview request, or complaint touching your naturalization is not a verdict; it is the moment to get counsel involved, before you respond in writing or in person. And know your status: you are a citizen until a court says otherwise.  

Keep your records — naturalization certificate, N-400, and prior filings. If you are about to file for a relative, file it clean: a thin or inconsistent filing invites exactly the second look this policy encourages. And if anything in your history leaves you unsure, get a confidential review before a problem finds you — everything you tell your attorney is protected.

Worried About Your Naturalization or a Family Petition? Talk to Us First.

Denaturalization is rare, the government’s burden is high, and no one can take your citizenship without a federal court order. But the posture has shifted, and the safest response to uncertainty is a confidential review — not a guess. At the Law Offices of Sabrina Li, we assess your immigration history for consistency, prepare family petitions to withstand a harder look, respond to USCIS inquiries, and defend against denaturalization referrals and proceedings.

You can reach the Law Offices of Sabrina Li at (213) 375-8096, on our Chinese-language hotline at (626) 800-4820, or by email at csteam@sabrinali.law. Learn more at sabrinali.law.