US denaturalization: What risks Indians face from OCI loss, statelessness?

As US expands citizenship revocation, Indians risk OCI loss, statelessness, and fresh immigration hurdles

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) on March 26 said it revoked the naturalisation of a convicted gun trafficker and a healthcare fraud conspirator.

 

The move comes as the administration of Donald Trump steps up efforts to strip citizenship from some naturalised Americans.

 

This has raised concerns for Indians in the US who could face serious legal and residency consequences if such action is taken against them.

 

The Justice Department, under current guidance, has made denaturalisation a priority, and immigration agencies have reassigned staff to identify more potential cases, according to reports from NBC News and NPR.

 

Former US Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who was relieved of her duties on Friday, said in a release, “American citizenship is a sacred privilege, not a cheap status that can be obtained dishonestly.”

 

What is naturalisation?

 

Naturalisation is the process by which US citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident after meeting the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

What happens when citizenship is revoked?

 

According to the immigrant advocacy non-profit National Immigration Forum, the federal government may revoke US citizenship through denaturalisation on two primary grounds:

 

• Fraud or misrepresentation during the naturalisation process, where an individual deliberately lied or concealed a material fact that influenced the decision to grant citizenship

• Illegal procurement of naturalisation, where the individual was not legally eligible at the time, including failure to meet requirements such as lawful permanent residence, physical presence, good moral character, or attachment to constitutional principles

 

“Denaturalization is an extraordinary process and, in the past, has been very rare. There are criminal and civil procedures for denaturalization, but each of these involve the federal court system and not the immigration law system, which is a critical difference. The Constitutional protections against stripping a naturalized citizen of his citizenship are high, naturally, because taking someone’s citizenship away is a solemn and serious event,” Russell A Stamets, partner at Circle of Counsels told Business Standard.

 

He said the grounds remain narrow and largely tied to misrepresentation. “Mere lying is not enough – the lie or misrepresentation has to have basically constituted a fraud on the citizenship process,” Stamets said.

 

He added that past cases focused on extreme instances. “So, in the past, denaturalization has focused on obvious cases, such as former Nazi camp guards who concealed their past, persons who fail to report criminal convictions, people who use false or misleading identities. The DOJ issued a paper in 2025 stating that it was broadening its denaturalization activities beyond the usual scope of such blatant cases to include more ordinary misrepresentations,” he said.

 

“The reality is that the denaturalization process is slow and methodical, governed by the rules of federal court, and not the sham proceedings that are increasingly seen in the overburdened immigration law courts. Immigration courts are, in reality, not part of the federal judiciary established under Article III of the Constitution. This is a significant difference; we have seen federal courts asserting their independent judgment and not simply rubber stamping the Trump administration’s lawyers. But even winning in court can be an expensive affair, and the threat of denaturalization is nearly as grave as the reality of it,” he added.

 

Why this matters for Indians in the US

 

Shivalika Midha, Advocate at Jotwani Associates, said the implications can be severe for people of Indian origin.

 

“When a person of Indian origin acquires citizenship of the United States, they are required to relinquish their Indian citizenship in terms of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Such individuals are, however, eligible to obtain Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status, which functions as a lifelong visa and confers certain residency and economic rights, though it does not amount to full citizenship,” she told Business Standard..

 

“Upon naturalisation as a US citizen, the individual may continue to hold OCI status. However, in the event that such US citizenship is subsequently cancelled or revoked, the OCI status being contingent upon the existence of foreign citizenship would be directly impacted and is liable to be rendered invalid or cancelled. Consequently, the individual may be left without any recognised citizenship, i.e., effectively stateless,” Midha said.

 

She added that such individuals would need to apply again if they wish to return to India as citizens. “In such circumstances, since the individual had earlier renounced Indian citizenship upon acquiring US nationality, they would be required to seek entry or residence in India or any other country in accordance with the applicable immigration laws of that jurisdiction. If the individual intends to reside in India as a citizen, they must apply afresh for Indian citizenship under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as India does not permit dual citizenship,” she said.

 

Under the OCI scheme introduced in 2005 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, a person registered as an OCI cardholder may apply for Indian citizenship under section 5(1)(g) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 if they have held OCI status for five years and have resided in India for twelve months before applying.

 

“In my opinion, denaturalisation by US authorities may reasonably constitute a ‘special circumstance’. Accordingly, a person of Indian origin whose US citizenship is revoked would be required to apply for Indian citizenship afresh through registration under the applicable provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955,” Midha said.

 

Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner at KS Legal & Associates, said the process can leave individuals in a legal vacuum.

 

“Post-denaturalisation the individual does not seamlessly revert to being an Indian citizen and may, in fact, fall into a condition of de facto statelessness unless India, in its sovereign discretion, permits re-acquisition of citizenship or grants entry through visa or OCI mechanisms, which themselves are not rights but privileges subject to scrutiny,” she told Business Standard.

 

“Consequently, deportation from the U.S. is not guided by the individual’s preference but by the willingness or legal obligation of another state to accept them, typically the country of prior nationality or origin, and in the absence of such acceptance, the individual may remain in prolonged legal and administrative limbo,” Chandwani said.

 

Instances involving Indians

 

2025 case: Gurdev Singh Sohal, an Indian-origin man, lost US citizenship after 20 years for using a different name to naturalise in 2005 after a 1994 removal order

2018 case: Baljinder Singh lost citizenship for failing to disclose a prior deportation order under a different identity

 

What is changing now?

 

According to internal instructions obtained by The New York Times, the administration is increasing the pace of such actions.

 

• US Citizenship and Immigration Services field offices have been directed to supply 100–200 denaturalisation cases per month during fiscal year 2026

• By comparison, just over 120 cases were filed between 2017 and early 2026

 

There are around 26 million naturalised Americans, with more than 800,000 new citizens sworn in last year, mainly from Mexico, India, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam. Those stripped of citizenship often revert to lawful permanent resident status.

 

Recent case detailed by DOJ

 

According to the US Department of Justice, a court on March 23 revoked the citizenship of Vladimir Volgaev, a native of Ukraine.

 

Authorities said he concealed his involvement in smuggling more than 1,000 firearm components overseas and defrauding a federal housing programme before becoming a citizen in 2016, making him ineligible during the required good moral character period.

 

Volgaev was convicted in 2020 of smuggling goods from the US and theft of government property, and the court found he gave false testimony about his criminal history, the department said.