- DOJ filed civil denaturalization complaints against two Connecticut residents as part of a seventeen-case national sweep.
- The administration aims to file two hundred fifty cases by October twenty twenty-six, targeting criminal and fraudulent conduct.
- Successful denaturalization results in immediate loss of citizenship, passport revocation, and potential deportation from the United States.
(CONNECTICUT) — The Trump administration filed civil denaturalization complaints against two Connecticut residents on June 8, 2026, as part of a 17-case nationwide sweep targeting naturalized citizens convicted of crimes ranging from sexual abuse to securities fraud. The filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut represent an escalation in denaturalization actions under what DOJ officials describe as a zero-tolerance policy for immigration fraud and criminal conduct.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated on June 8, 2026, that the Department of Justice “maintains a zero-tolerance policy for the abuse of this process.” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin echoed that framing, declaring that individuals who “break our laws, and lie in your immigration proceedings” forfeit the privilege of citizenship.
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate added that the government “will not turn a blind eye to those who unlawfully obtained U.S. citizenship.” The coordinated DOJ and DHS announcements signal a deliberate expansion of denaturalization beyond its historical use against war criminals and human rights violators.
Internal DOJ memos from June 2025 directed federal prosecutors to “prioritize and maximally pursue” denaturalization cases. Reports indicate the administration aims to file 250 cases by October 2026, a dramatic increase from the historical average of approximately 11 cases per year.
The Two Connecticut Cases
The two Connecticut cases illustrate the range of conduct the government now pursues as grounds for revoking citizenship. Tahir Lekaj, age 43, naturalized in May 2005 as a native of the former Yugoslavia. He faces allegations that he failed to disclose sexual abuse of a 10-year-old child committed in January 2003.
Lekaj was convicted in Connecticut state court for those offenses in 2022. The government contends he “illegally procured” his citizenship because his criminal conduct precluded him from satisfying the good moral character requirement during the statutory period under INA § 101(f).
Talman Anthony Harris, age 49, a native of Jamaica residing in Fairfield County, faces separate allegations. The complaint, Case No. 3:26-cv-00896, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. It accuses Harris of participating in a $39 million penny-stock securities fraud scheme spanning eight years.
That period includes 2012 through 2014, when his Form N-400 naturalization application was pending. The government asserts that Harris willfully misrepresented his involvement in the fraud during his naturalization interview and on his application materials.
Legal Framework for Denaturalization
Both cases proceed under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), the federal denaturalization statute. That provision authorizes federal courts to revoke citizenship obtained through “illegal procurement” or through “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” The Supreme Court established in United States v. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), that the statute requires proof that the misrepresentation was material.
Materiality means the misrepresentation had a “natural tendency to influence” the decision to grant citizenship. In Maslenjak v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1918 (2017), the Court further required the government to demonstrate a causal nexus between the misrepresentation and the naturalization decision.
INA § 101(f), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f), imposes a statutory bar on naturalization for applicants who committed certain acts during the statutory period. That period is typically the five years preceding filing. A conviction for sexual abuse of a minor constitutes an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(A), which permanently bars a finding of good moral character.
The government argues in Lekaj’s case that his pre-naturalization criminal conduct rendered his naturalization illegally procured. Even if the conduct was not disclosed at the time, he was statutorily ineligible for citizenship.
Operation Janus and Investigative Infrastructure
Operation Janus, the DHS initiative that began digitizing legacy fingerprint records from the 1990s and early 2000s, provides the investigative infrastructure for many of these cases. The program matches old paper-based immigration files against modern criminal databases and DHS records, including records of prior deportations under different names.
The cross-referencing enables prosecutors to identify discrepancies between information provided during naturalization and information available in law enforcement databases. The procedural consequences of a successful denaturalization are severe.
A court order revoking citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) results in the immediate loss of a U.S. passport. The individual’s status reverts to their prior immigration classification, typically Lawful Permanent Resident.
Because the underlying fraud or misrepresentation often also invalidates the original green card, denaturalized individuals frequently become immediately removable under INA § 237. That places them within the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for detention and deportation proceedings in immigration court.
⚠️ Critical: Denaturalization results in loss of U.S. citizenship, passport revocation, and potential detention and deportation. Naturalized citizens contacted by federal authorities regarding their naturalization should seek legal representation immediately before providing any statements or documents.
Community Impact and Legal Standards
Advocacy organizations including the MIRA Coalition and the National Immigration Law Center have noted rising anxiety among the estimated 24 million naturalized citizens in the United States. The expansion of denaturalization beyond war crimes to include state-level convictions and white-collar fraud raises legal questions.
Attorneys are scrutinizing the scope of government authority and the applicable standards of proof in these civil proceedings. The standard of proof in civil denaturalization cases is “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence,” as established by the Supreme Court in Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943).
That standard is higher than the typical civil preponderance standard but lower than the criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold. The government bears the burden of proving either that the naturalization was illegally procured or that it was obtained through material misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.
Key Differences in the Two Cases
The two Connecticut cases differ in their factual posture. The Lekaj case involves alleged concealment of criminal conduct that occurred before naturalization but was not prosecuted until 2022, nearly two decades after the act. The Harris case involves alleged misrepresentation during an active fraud scheme that overlapped with the naturalization process.
Both cases will require the government to establish that the conduct was material and would have affected the naturalization decision had it been known.
⚠️ No Right to Appointed Counsel: Civil denaturalization proceedings do not carry a right to appointed counsel. Respondents must retain private immigration attorneys at their own expense. The statute of limitations under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) is generally not a practical barrier; courts have permitted proceedings decades after naturalization.
Naturalized citizens with concerns about their naturalization history, including prior misrepresentations on immigration applications, should obtain legal counsel before taking any action. An attorney can assess the specific facts, evaluate potential exposure, and advise on available defenses.
The cases filed in Connecticut demonstrate that the government is actively pursuing denaturalization across a broad spectrum of conduct. The outcomes of these cases will likely shape the legal landscape for denaturalization in the years ahead.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
