A Second Name and a 1997 Exclusion Order: New Chicago Denaturalization Suit Follows the Government's Most Common Fraud Theory

The federal government has sued to revoke the citizenship of a Chicago man who, it alleges, obtained a green card and later naturalized under a new name after an immigration judge had ordered him excluded under his original one. The complaint against Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi, a Nigerian-born man who took the oath in 2011, is a single case, but it rests on the ground that federal court records show the government uses more than any other when it tries to take citizenship away: a concealed earlier identity.

Newsweek, which reviewed the complaint, reported that it was filed in Illinois on Oct. 7. According to the filing as Newsweek described it, Akinkunmi, under the name Ezekiel Aremu Adetayo, gave up his permanent resident status in 1993 and was then ordered excluded, an order the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld in 1997. He then applied for a new green card as Akinkunmi, allegedly stating that he had used no other names and had never been excluded. That application was approved in 2000. His 2010 naturalization application allegedly repeated the same denials, and he became a citizen on June 8, 2011. The government says he “procured his naturalization unlawfully” and “willfully misrepresented and concealed material facts.” These are allegations only. Newsweek reported that no attorney was listed for him, and so far it is the only outlet to report the case.

The ground the government leans on most

The case lands amid an unusual surge. TRAC at Syracuse University identified 166 civil denaturalization complaints from January 2008 through June 12, 2026. It counted eight in all of 2025, at least 15 in May 2026 and 18 in the first 12 days of June alone. On Oct. 5 the Justice Department announced 40 more, filed between Aug. 21 and Oct. 2 in 19 district courts, which Attorney General Todd Blanche called “the largest denaturalization effort in modern history.” For scale, the Brennan Center for Justice counted about 11 such cases a year between 1990 and 2017, Newsweek reported.

Across those filings, false identity and immigration fraud is the most common basis TRAC could find: eight of the 34 pre-May cases where it located the grounds, plus four labeled fraud or misrepresentation, and six of 28 in the May-to-June wave. The reason, in our reading, is that these cases are largely documentary: a prior order sits in a government file, and a fingerprint match can tie two names to one person, with little of the dispute over intent that marks marriage-fraud cases.

The legal structure favors the government, too. Naturalization requires that the applicant was lawfully admitted for permanent residence (8 U.S.C. 1429). The complaint alleges Akinkunmi never was, supporting a claim of illegal procurement under 8 U.S.C. 1451(a), a ground that does not depend on his intent. Under Fedorenko v. United States (1981), the government must prove its case by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence, but once illegal procurement is shown, a court has no discretion to let the person keep citizenship. The separate concealment claim turns on materiality, which Kungys v. United States (1988) defines as a natural tendency to influence the decision. An undisclosed exclusion order plainly meets that test.

The template recurs. In August, prosecutors in Kansas sued Harinder Singh of Olathe, alleging he was ordered deported in 1995 as Rushpal Singh, became a permanent resident under his new name in 2000 and later naturalized. That case, too, is unproven.

Why decades-old files are reopening now

In 2016 the DHS inspector general found that at least 858 people had been naturalized despite final removal orders under another identity, largely because older fingerprint cards had never been digitized; at the time, fingerprint records for roughly 148,000 people with final orders still had not been uploaded, Senate Judiciary Committee members said in releasing the findings. As such records are converted, matches can surface decades later. Newsweek’s account does not say how Akinkunmi’s earlier identity came to light, so whether his case fits that pipeline is unknown.

For naturalized citizens, the practical line is between variation and concealment. Transliterated spellings, married names and clerical errors are common; the cases described here involve an entire earlier identity, tied to an adverse order, allegedly hidden on green card and citizenship forms. The civil statute sets no filing deadline, which is why a 2011 naturalization, or one far older, can be challenged. Under 8 U.S.C. 1451(b), Akinkunmi has 60 days’ personal notice to answer. If a court revokes his citizenship, he returns to noncitizen status, and because the government’s theory is that his 2000 green card was itself unlawful, removal proceedings could follow.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts