Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

has  prescribed  specific  eligibility  standards  for  new  citi-
zens,  respecting  such  matters  as  length  of  residency  and 
“physical[ ]  presen[ce],”  understanding  of  English  and 
American  government,  and  (as  previously  mentioned)
“good  moral  character,”  with  all  its  many  specific  compo-
nents.  See  8  U. S. C.  §§1423(a),  1427(a);  supra,  at  8. 
Government  officials  are  obligated  to  apply  that  body  of
law  faithfully—granting  naturalization  when  the  appli- 
cable criteria are satisfied, and denying it when they are not.  
See  Kungys,  485  U. S.,  at  774,  n. 9  (opinion  of  Scalia,  J.); 
id.,  at  787  (Stevens,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    And  to 
ensure right results are reached, a court can reverse such
a  determination,  at  an  applicant’s  request,  based  on  its
“own  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law.”  8  U. S. C. 
§1421(c).  The  entire  system,  in  other  words,  is  set  up  to
provide  little  or  no  room  for  subjective  preferences  or
personal whims.  Because that is so, the question of what
any individual decisionmaker might have done with accu-
rate  information  is  beside  the  point:  The  defendant  in  a 
§1425(a)  case  should  neither  benefit  nor  suffer  from  a 
wayward  official’s  deviations  from  legal  requirements.
Accordingly,  the  proper  causal  inquiry  under  §1425(a)  is
framed in objective terms: To decide whether a defendant 
acquired citizenship by means of a lie, a jury must evalu-
ate how knowledge of the real facts would have affected a 
reasonable government official properly applying naturali-
zation law. 

If  the  facts  the  defendant  misrepresented  are  them-
selves disqualifying, the jury can make quick work of that 
inquiry.  In  such  a  case,  there  is  an  obvious  causal  link 
between  the  defendant’s  lie  and  her  procurement  of  citi-
zenship.  To take an example: An applicant for citizenship 
must  be  physically  present  in  the  United  States  for  more 
than half of the five-year period preceding her application. 
See 8 U. S. C. §1427(a)(1).  Suppose a defendant misrepre-
sented  her  travel  history  to  convey  she  had  met  that  re-