Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi Denaturalization Case, DOJ Seeks to Revoke U.S. Citizenship More Than 15 Years After Naturalization

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in Illinois asking a judge to revoke the U.S. citizenship of Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi, a Nigerian-born Chicago man who took the Oath of Allegiance on June 8, 2011. According to reporting on the complaint, the lawsuit was filed on October 7, 2026. The government alleges he concealed an earlier identity and an immigration exclusion order when he applied for a new green card and later for citizenship.

These are allegations in a civil complaint. No court has found that Akinkunmi committed fraud, and he keeps his citizenship unless a federal judge enters an order revoking it. This article covers what was reported, the federal laws and Supreme Court cases that govern denaturalization, and what happens next.

Quick Facts: United States v. Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi

Detail	What Was Reported
Defendant	Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi, Chicago, Illinois; born in Nigeria
Plaintiff	United States of America (DOJ)
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Illinois federal court)
Filed	October 7, 2026, according to reports on the complaint
Type of case	Civil denaturalization action under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a); not a criminal case, class action or settlement
Relief sought	Revocation of naturalization and cancellation of the certificate of naturalization
Naturalized	June 8, 2011
Earlier name alleged	Ezekiel Aremu Adetayo
Core allegation	Concealment of the earlier identity and a prior exclusion order in later green card and citizenship applications
Status	Newly filed and pending; no ruling on the allegations has been identified

Why Does the DOJ Want to Revoke Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi’s Citizenship?

The government’s theory, as reported, is that Akinkunmi was never lawfully admitted as a permanent resident and so was not eligible to naturalize. It alleges he used a different name in earlier immigration proceedings, was ordered excluded from the United States, and then denied both facts in later applications under his current name.

The government is asking the court to set aside the 2011 naturalization order and cancel his certificate of naturalization. A complaint starts the case. It is not a judgment, and the government must prove its claims in court.

What Are the Allegations in the Akinkunmi Complaint? Timeline From 1993 to 2011

The timeline below reflects the government’s allegations as described in news reports on the complaint.

Year	Alleged Event
1993	Under the name Ezekiel Aremu Adetayo, Akinkunmi abandoned his lawful permanent resident (green card) status. An exclusion order followed.
1997	The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the exclusion order.
2000	Under the name Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi, he applied for a new green card. The government says the application stated he had used no other names and denied any prior exclusion. It was approved in 2000.
2010	He applied for naturalization and allegedly repeated the same denials about another identity and a prior exclusion or deportation order.
June 8, 2011	He took the Oath of Allegiance and became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

An exclusion order was an immigration decision barring a person from entering the United States. Before the 1996 immigration reforms, exclusion and deportation were separate proceedings. They have since been combined into “removal proceedings” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.

What Federal Law Allows the DOJ to Revoke Naturalization? 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) Explained

The main statute is Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). It directs U.S. Attorneys, on an affidavit showing good cause, to bring a civil action in the federal district court where the person lives. The court can revoke the order admitting the person to citizenship and cancel the certificate of naturalization if it was:

1. Illegally procured, meaning the person did not meet the legal requirements for naturalization when it was granted; or
2. Procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.

Both theories appear to be in play in the Akinkunmi case. The government says his earlier immigration history made his permanent residence unlawful (illegal procurement) and that he hid that history on his applications (concealment and misrepresentation).

Which Other Immigration Laws Are Relevant to the Akinkunmi Case?

Several other provisions explain how the government’s theory works.

Naturalization Eligibility: 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1429

To naturalize, an applicant generally must have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, have lived in the United States for the required continuous period, and be a person of good moral character (8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1429, an application cannot be considered unless the applicant was “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” in accordance with all applicable provisions of the immigration laws. This is the usual basis for an “illegally procured” claim built on an unlawful green card.

Definition of “Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence”: 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20)

This section defines the term as lawful admission for permanent residence in accordance with the immigration laws. Under the government’s theory, a green card obtained after a hidden exclusion order would not meet that definition.

False Testimony and Good Moral Character: 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6)

A person who gave false testimony under oath to obtain an immigration benefit cannot be found to be of good moral character if the testimony was given with the subjective intent of obtaining the benefit. This is a separate way a misrepresentation can defeat eligibility.

Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)

A person who seeks an immigration benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact is inadmissible. If a court finds a green card was obtained this way, that finding can undercut the later naturalization.

Exclusion and Removal Proceedings: 8 U.S.C. § 1229a

Exclusion proceedings of the type described in 1993 and 1997 were replaced by unified removal proceedings. Any removal case against Akinkunmi after a denaturalization judgment would be brought under current law, not the old exclusion framework.

What Must the Government Prove in a Denaturalization Case? Supreme Court Standards

The Supreme Court has set a demanding standard because loss of citizenship has severe consequences.

• Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943): Citizenship obtained by naturalization is not lightly revoked, and the government’s evidence must be strong.
• Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981): The government must prove its case by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence, and illegal procurement requires strict compliance with the statutory conditions for naturalization.
• Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988): A concealment or misrepresentation is “material” if it had a natural tendency to influence the decision on the naturalization application.
• Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017): To revoke citizenship as illegally procured because of a lie, the government must show the lie played a role in the person’s acquisition of citizenship, such as concealing a fact that would have led to denial. Trivial or immaterial errors are not enough.
• Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961): Confirms that the government may bring denaturalization cases without a statute of limitations on the civil action.

In short, a prior name, a mismatch on a form or a past immigration problem does not by itself end a person’s citizenship. The government has to prove that the concealed facts were material and mattered to the outcome.

Can the Government Revoke Citizenship More Than 15 Years After Naturalization?

Yes. Section 1451(a) has no general deadline for a civil denaturalization action. Akinkunmi became a citizen on June 8, 2011, so the October 7, 2026 filing came about 15 years and 4 months later.

Criminal prosecution is different. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1425, knowingly procuring naturalization unlawfully is a federal crime, but 18 U.S.C. § 3291 generally requires an indictment within 10 years. A civil case under § 1451(a) can still be brought after that period. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(e), a criminal conviction under § 1425 leads the sentencing court to revoke the naturalization. The Akinkunmi lawsuit is civil, and the reports describe no criminal charge.

Does Filing the Lawsuit Mean Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi Has Lost His Citizenship?

No. Akinkunmi remains a U.S. citizen unless and until a federal judge enters a final order revoking his naturalization and canceling his certificate. He has the right to answer the complaint, take discovery, file motions and contest the case at trial. Denaturalization cases are generally decided by a judge, not a jury.

If the court does revoke citizenship, the judgment is treated as if the naturalization was never validly granted, and the person returns to the immigration status he held before naturalization, or to no lawful status.

Could Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi Be Deported if the DOJ Wins?

Possibly, but revocation and removal are separate steps. A denaturalization judgment does not itself deport anyone. The Department of Homeland Security would have to start removal proceedings in immigration court, which can include grounds such as being inadmissible at the time of adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). In that case he could raise any available defenses or forms of relief. Any removal outcome would depend on the court’s ruling and later immigration proceedings, and nothing in the reporting establishes that he will be deported.

How Does the Akinkunmi Case Fit Into the DOJ’s 40-Case Denaturalization Push?

On October 5, 2026, the DOJ announced it had filed denaturalization complaints against 40 people across 19 federal districts between August 21 and October 2, 2026. Attorney General Todd Blanche called it “the largest denaturalization effort in modern history,” according to news coverage of the announcement. The department said the cases involve alleged concealment of criminal history, immigration fraud, false identities and other misconduct.

Akinkunmi’s case was reportedly filed on October 7, after the period covered by that announcement. It should be treated as a separate case, not one of the 40. For related coverage, see our Government & Civil Rights Lawsuits section, and for how federal civil cases move through court, read What Are the 5 Steps to Initiate a Lawsuit 2026 Guide.

What Happens Next in the United States v. Akinkunmi Case?

1. Service and answer: Akinkunmi will be served and can file an answer or a motion to dismiss. Early reports did not note a lawyer appearing for him.
2. Discovery: Both sides can exchange immigration files, naturalization records and other evidence, and take depositions.
3. Motions: Either side may ask for summary judgment before trial.
4. Bench trial: If facts remain disputed, a federal judge decides whether the government met the clear, unequivocal and convincing standard.
5. Appeal: Either side can appeal a final judgment.
6. Removal proceedings: If citizenship is revoked, DHS could start separate immigration court proceedings.

No trial date or briefing schedule has been publicly reported, and these cases can take many months or longer to resolve.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi Denaturalization Case

Who is Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi?

He is a Nigerian-born Chicago man who became a naturalized U.S. citizen on June 8, 2011. The DOJ is seeking to revoke that citizenship over alleged concealment of an earlier identity and a prior exclusion order.

Why is the DOJ trying to revoke Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi’s citizenship?

The government alleges that he used the name Ezekiel Aremu Adetayo in earlier immigration proceedings, was ordered excluded, and then denied both facts when applying for a new green card in 2000 and for naturalization in 2010.

Is the Akinkunmi denaturalization case a criminal case?

No. It is a civil action under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). Criminal procurement of citizenship is a separate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1425, and no criminal charge was reported.

Can the U.S. government take away citizenship after 15 years?

Yes, if it proves in federal court that naturalization was illegally procured or obtained through concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. There is no general time limit on a civil case under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).

What standard of proof applies in a denaturalization case?

The government must prove its case by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence under Fedorenko v. United States, a higher standard than in most civil cases.

Can a minor paperwork error lead to denaturalization?

Not by itself. Under Kungys and Maslenjak, the government must show the concealed or false information was material and played a role in the grant of citizenship.

Will Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi automatically be deported if the DOJ wins?

No. Revocation of citizenship and removal are separate steps. DHS would have to start removal proceedings, and he could raise defenses there.

Sources and References

1. Newsweek: Reporting on the Emmanuel Tayo Akinkunmi denaturalization lawsuit, published October 12, 2026, describing the complaint filed in federal court in Illinois.
2. U.S. Code: 8 U.S.C. § 1451, Revocation of Naturalization; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(20), 1101(f)(6), 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), 1227(a)(1)(A), 1229a, 1427(a), 1429; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1425, 3291.
3. U.S. Department of Justice: October 5, 2026 announcement of 40 denaturalization complaints filed August 21 to October 2, 2026, as reported by GMA Network.
4. U.S. Supreme Court: Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943); Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961); Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981); Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988); Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017).

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. The allegations in the complaint have not been proven, and the defendant is entitled to contest them in court. Anyone with questions about their own naturalization should speak with a qualified immigration attorney.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the reported civil complaint (Newsweek), the governing federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions, and the DOJ’s October 5, 2026 announcement, as of October 13, 2026. Last Updated: October 13, 2026.