I track pending denaturalization cases in federal court. In recent years, there have been very few. By my count, there are about 10 cases currently pending. But I just noticed this one today, and it's surprising because of how the government intends to serve the defendant - by publication. /1 - ThreadSky

hoppock.bsky.social • 16 days ago

I track pending denaturalization cases in federal court. In recent years, there have been very few. By my count, there are about 10 cases currently pending. But I just noticed this one today, and it's surprising because of how the government intends to serve the defendant - by publication. /1

Comments

hoppock.bsky.social•16 days ago

If they sue you to revoke your naturalization, they're supposed to sue you in the district where you live. But if you're not presently in the United States, they can sue you in Washington D.C. Here, the PACER record is locked, so I can't read the pleadings. But the case is in D.C. /2

hoppock.bsky.social•16 days ago

That likely means the defendant is out of the country. Perhaps forever. Perhaps just on vacation. In any event, in ten years of tracking these cases closely, I can't recall one where the government ever sought to serve the defendant with process by publication. Perhaps I'm just not remembering. /3

hoppock.bsky.social•16 days ago

So, the government published a notice in The Washington Post and The Daily Washington Law Reporter for a few weeks, and now he's served as of January 28, 2025. And if he doesn't file a response, his citizenship will be revoked without a response. Let's hope Mr. Naji reads the Washington papers /4

hoppock.bsky.social•16 days ago

Here's the notice they published in the Washington Post. Also, while searching this case on PACER I noticed that the DOJ's attorney is a defendant in a pending case in D.C. as well. Looks like a ticket for driving with a suspended license, but in D.C. those sometimes end up in federal court. /5

hoppock.bsky.social•16 days ago

By the way, the government takes the position that there is no statute of limitations on these cases. I disagree. But if they're right - one has to ask why the need to proceed on a case when the person isn't here to defend themselves? You could always file later when they come back from holiday? /6

hoppock.bsky.social•16 days ago

The legal notice does share the grounds for denatz (can't tell from PACER) - willful misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. That tells me it's not a case that arises from a criminal conviction. Those are, generally, the hardest for the government to prove (willfulness is tricky). /7

asgvisalaw.bsky.social•16 days ago

Is there a default judgment just for failing to reply? They still have to meet their burden ex parte, right?

hoppock.bsky.social•16 days ago

I believe they still have to meet their burden ex parte. At least one of the Operation Janus cases ended up that way, because I believe the defendant left the country after being served and didn't file an answer. So, yes it's not a win by default. But it will be easier for them.

bordertroubles.bsky.social•16 days ago

I’d been looking at denatz cases too, but not as closely as you as not my specialty. I wondered if we’d see anything similar to what you found during this term. I hope it’s an anomaly and not the norm.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply