Criminal Denaturalization: Alaska Trial Tests N-400 Answers

A criminal denaturalization trial that opened Oct. 19 in federal court in Anchorage asks whether a naturalized citizen who denied, on his citizenship application, crimes no one had yet charged him with obtained his citizenship unlawfully. The defendant is Brian Steven Smith, a South African-born man already serving 226 years in Alaska for the murders of two Alaska Native women, and a guilty verdict on either count would cancel his citizenship automatically, without the separate civil lawsuit the government usually has to win.

The facts are extreme; the legal mechanism is not. Border czar Tom Homan said on Fox News over the weekend that “if you lie during the naturalization process, there is a process to denaturalize somebody,” speaking about the federal investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar, who has called the probe political persecution, according to Fox News. The Smith trial shows what that process looks like when prosecutors take the criminal route.

What the government says Smith hid on Form N-400

A federal grand jury indicted Smith in April 2024 on two counts under 18 U.S.C. 1425: knowingly procuring naturalization contrary to law, and obtaining naturalization when he was not entitled to it. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Alaska, he applied for and obtained citizenship between June and September 2019, answering “No” to questions asking whether he had ever been involved in killing, badly hurting or sexually assaulting someone, and whether he had committed a crime for which he had not been arrested. Prosecutors say those answers were false because he had committed crimes that included two murders involving torture and sexual assault. A state jury convicted him of 14 charges in February 2024.

At trial, a USCIS immigration services officer testified that Smith lied under oath on several naturalization questions, and an FBI agent testified about his movements from Sept. 3 to 6 using cell phone and location data that eventually helped lead investigators to one victim’s body, Alaska’s News Source reported. The defense argued that without a recording of the naturalization interview, the accuracy of the answers on his form can be questioned. The government expected the trial to end Oct. 20.

Why the criminal route to denaturalization is faster

The government can take citizenship away in two ways. Under 8 U.S.C. 1451(a), a U.S. attorney files a civil suit to revoke naturalization that was illegally procured or obtained by concealment or willful misrepresentation, as in the civil case against a former H-1B worker accused of a sham job. The second path runs through criminal court. Under 8 U.S.C. 1451(e), when a person is convicted under section 1425 of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law, the court that convicts must revoke the naturalization and cancel the certificate. There is no second trial.

The trade-off is the burden of proof. A criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a defendant who acted knowingly, and a prosecution under section 1425 generally must be brought within 10 years under 18 U.S.C. 3291. Civil denaturalization has no limitations period. Smith’s indictment came less than five years after he naturalized.

The key legal limit comes from Maslenjak v. United States, the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision. The justices held that the government must show the illegal act “played some role” in the person’s acquisition of citizenship. A lie alone is not enough. Prosecutors can meet that test by showing the hidden facts were themselves disqualifying, or that the truth would have prompted an investigation that would predictably have uncovered a disqualifying fact. Proof that the person was actually qualified for citizenship is a complete defense.

That makes the second count important, because it charges that Smith was not entitled to naturalize at all. Good moral character must be shown through the statutory period and up to the oath, and the conduct prosecutors cite is the kind that would defeat it outright, whatever the defense makes of the interview record.

The N-400 question that reaches uncharged conduct

For ordinary applicants, the lesson is the question at the center of the indictment: whether they have ever committed a crime for which they were not arrested. It reaches conduct no police officer ever recorded, and a false “No” can resurface years later. The same pattern runs through the California voting cases that turn on what defendants told USCIS, where earlier conduct became a naturalization problem once applicants denied it under oath.

A guilty verdict would let the trial court itself cancel Smith’s citizenship, though with a 226-year sentence any later removal case is largely theoretical. The wider point is procedural: a section 1425 conviction is the shortest legal path from a false naturalization answer to lost citizenship. Whether the Justice Department leans on it more, including in the thousands of voting cases it says are under review or the inquiry behind the search of Rep. Omar’s home, is the open question.

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