USCIS Issued New Denaturalization Referral Guidance on September 14, 2026: What It Says, What It Does Not Do, and What a Texas Lawyer Can Review

What Changed, and When

On September 14, 2026, USCIS published a policy alert titled “Revocation of Naturalization Referrals” (PA-2026-13). The agency’s Policy Manual updates page describes it this way: USCIS “is issuing policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual on referring cases for revocation of naturalization (commonly referred to as ‘denaturalization’) under section 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).” The affected section is Volume 12, Part L, Loss of U.S. Nationality and Revocation of Naturalization, which now carries a “Current as of September 14, 2026” stamp.

The guidance took effect on the day it was issued. The American Immigration Lawyers Association, which tracks USCIS policy alerts for its members, recorded the alert on September 15 and noted that public feedback is due October 14, 2026. Reporting on September 16 noted that USCIS had initially set September 25 as the feedback deadline and later extended it to October 14.

What the update does is reorganize and expand one chapter: how officers spot a potential case, which categories of case USCIS says it prioritizes for referral, what records may be gathered, and what happens afterward if a court revokes someone’s citizenship. The chapter itself frames the referral power as an existing one: “Consistent with its existing authority, USCIS may refer potential cases for revocation of naturalization where there is sufficient evidence the person unlawfully naturalized.” USCIS states that the revised guidance was issued in connection with Executive Order 14148 and Executive Order 14161, and that the revisions are intended to support enforcement of the immigration laws, deter immigration fraud, and address national security and public safety concerns.

Who in Texas This Reaches

This is federal guidance and it applies the same way in every state. It is relevant in Texas for a specific and verifiable reason: when the Policy Manual lists example court decisions to illustrate the grounds for referral, five of those examples are Texas federal cases. The manual cites United States v. Ekpin, 214 F. Supp. 2d 707 (S.D. Tex. 2002); United States v. Tarango-Pena, 173 F. Supp. 2d 588 (E.D. Tex. 2001); United States v. Mwalumba, 688 F. Supp. 2d 565 (N.D. Tex. 2010); United States v. Ledesma, 33 F. Supp. 3d 734 (S.D. Tex. 2012); and United States v. Almallah, 244 F. App’x 584 (5th Cir. 2007), the federal appeals court whose decisions bind Texas. Texas district courts and the Fifth Circuit are part of the case law the manual points officers to.

The guidance also has a timely Texas overlap. Among the categories USCIS lists as prioritized for referral are “cases that involve unlawfully voting in U.S. elections prior to naturalization” and “cases that involve false claim to U.S. citizenship.” That list was published one day before federal prosecutors in Fort Worth announced charges against seven non-citizens over voting, which we covered in our September 16 post. The two matters are legally distinct — that case involves people who were not citizens, while this guidance concerns people who already naturalized — but they run along the same fault line, and a lawyer can explain which set of rules applies to which set of facts.

Two further points in the manual reach beyond the individual. First, if a court revokes someone’s naturalization, USCIS states that it then reviews pending or previously approved petitions and applications that the person filed for other people, to assess whether those beneficiaries were or are eligible. Second, the manual includes a table on when a spouse or child who obtained citizenship through that person may also lose it: where the revocation rests on concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation, the manual says the spouse’s or child’s citizenship is lost whether or not they live in the United States; where it rests on illegal procurement, the manual says it is not lost; and for the membership and military-discharge grounds, the manual says it is lost if the spouse or child is living outside the United States at the time of revocation. These are the manual’s own summaries of INA 340(d), and how any of them would apply to a real family is a question for a lawyer with the file in hand.

What This Changes Legally

It does not change the grounds, and it does not revoke anyone. The manual is explicit that revocation happens in only two ways, both of them in federal district court. In a civil case, the Department of Justice files the action under INA 340(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), and the manual describes the government’s burden as “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt,” citing Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 767 (1988). In a criminal case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office files charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 and must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. A USCIS referral, an investigation, or a priority designation is not a revocation.

The manual states the four grounds. A person may be subject to revocation if naturalization was illegally procured, meaning a legal requirement — residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, attachment to the principles of the Constitution — was not actually met at the time; if there was concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation that was willful, material, and the reason citizenship was granted; if within five years of naturalizing the person becomes a member of or affiliated with an organization barred under INA 313; or, for someone naturalized on or after November 23, 2003 through military service, if the person is discharged under other than honorable conditions before five years of honorable service.

One sentence in the new chapter is worth reading closely, because it narrows the picture that headlines can leave: “It is important to note that the government generally cannot initiate revocation of naturalization proceedings against an individual who was eligible for naturalization when it was granted but committed crimes after naturalization.” The manual also distinguishes revoking naturalization from cancelling a certificate under INA 342: cancelling the document affects the document, not the citizenship of a person who lawfully completed the naturalization process. And it preserves a narrow safety valve, saying that “under very limited circumstances” USCIS may consider prosecutorial discretion where USCIS itself inadvertently approved an application early on residence or physical presence, the person was otherwise eligible, and no other ground applies.

On timing, the manual states that there is no statute of limitations for civil revocation under INA 340, while criminal denaturalization carries a ten-year limit under 18 U.S.C. § 3291 — and it adds that a criminal case past that ten-year mark may still be referred for civil action.

What Kind of Option Might Apply

Nothing here tells any individual reader where they stand, and this page cannot. What it can do is name the questions an immigration attorney looks at, so a person knows what a first conversation is about.

• Is there actually a ground here? The manual’s grounds are narrow and specific. Whether a fact was material, whether an omission was willful, and whether citizenship was procured as a result are contested legal questions, not clerical ones, and a lawyer can assess how the record looks against them.
• What is in the A-File? USCIS says officers may identify potential cases through review of an Alien Registration File, including a Form I-130 relative petition, a Form N-600 or N-600K certificate application, or any other filing where U.S. citizenship is an eligibility criterion — as well as through automated screening tools, a USCIS or DHS review, or a request from another agency such as the Department of State. An attorney can request and review that file.
• Is this a criminal exposure question too? Because one of the two paths runs through 18 U.S.C. § 1425 in federal criminal court, some situations call for a criminal defense lawyer alongside an immigration lawyer, and counsel can advise on whether that applies.
• What would the downstream effects be? The manual says revocation is effective as of the original date of naturalization and that the person returns to the immigration status held before naturalizing, which is why removal defense is often part of the same conversation.
• Who else is on the file? Petitions filed for a spouse, child, or parent may be reviewed after a revocation, so the analysis frequently covers more than one person.

It is best to talk to a lawyer before responding to any request for information, signing anything, or giving a recorded statement. The manual lists the kinds of records that may be gathered for a referral — arrest records, court dispositions, video-taped interviews, affidavits and sworn statements, marriage and divorce records, membership documents, social media identifiers and the platforms tied to them, news reports, entry documents, DNA reports and biometric comparisons — and an attorney can explain what a person is and is not required to provide.

Why Acting Quickly Can Matter

Two dates sit in this story, and they do different things.

September 14, 2026 is the date the guidance took effect. There is no filing window attached to it and nothing an individual is required to file because of it.

October 14, 2026 is the date USCIS has set for public feedback on the updated guidance, according to AILA’s record of the alert and reporting on the extension. It is a comment deadline for anyone who wishes to respond to the agency, not a deadline that affects an individual’s status.

The practical reason not to wait is different from a deadline. Because there is no statute of limitations on civil revocation, the relevant records can be decades old — a naturalization interview, a marriage certificate, an old court disposition in a county that has since changed its records system. Those are easier to locate and explain early than late. And if a government agency does make contact, the window to respond is usually short and set by the letter itself, so having a lawyer already reading the file is a practical advantage rather than a legal requirement.

Sources

1. USCIS, Policy Alert PA-2026-13, “Revocation of Naturalization Referrals” (September 14, 2026) — the alert itself, its date, and the affected Policy Manual sections. (Primary document.)
2. USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part L, Chapter 2, Revocation of Naturalization (current as of September 14, 2026) — the civil and criminal paths, the burdens of proof, the four grounds, the identification and referral process, the prioritized categories, the records table, the example decisions including the Texas cases, and the effects on spouses and children. (Primary document.)
3. USCIS Policy Manual, Updates (September 14, 2026 entry) — the agency’s own one-paragraph description of the alert. (Primary document.)
4. American Immigration Lawyers Association, “USCIS Policy Alert on Denaturalization Referrals” (September 15, 2026) — the alert number and the October 14, 2026 feedback deadline.
5. NepYork, “USCIS Revises Guidance on Cases That Could Lead to Citizenship Revocation” (September 16, 2026) — the extension of the feedback period from September 25 to October 14 and the executive orders USCIS cited.
6. INA 340, 8 U.S.C. § 1451, INA 313, 8 U.S.C. § 1424, INA 342, 8 U.S.C. § 1453, 18 U.S.C. § 1425, and 18 U.S.C. § 3291 — the statutes described above. (Primary documents.)
7. Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) — the materiality standard and the civil burden of proof the Policy Manual cites. (Primary document.)