Abdulla Nagi Naser Daifullah v. United States

The question presented for review here is: 1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a)’s requirement that the United States Attorney for the respective district institute proceedings is a jurisdictional requirement? The Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have power ... to establish a uniform rule of naturalization … throughout the United States.” Article I, § 8, cl. 4. Accordingly, “Congress alone has the constitutional authority to prescribe rules for naturalization,” Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981) (quoting United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 474 (1917)). Exercising this power, “Congress has provided a special judicial procedure which must be followed, if a citizen is denaturalized. That procedure is contained in [8 U.S.C. § 1451]. It provides for canceling a certificate of naturalization on the ground that it was procured ‘by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.’ Suit may be brought by the United States Attorney in the District Court ‘upon affidavit showing good cause.’ The citizen whose citizenship is challenged has 60 days “in which to make answer to the petition of the United States.” United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 196 (1956) (Douglas, J. concurring) (citing current 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a)). Through § 1451 Congress has granted jurisdiction to “the district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of