Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2016 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MASLENJAK v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 16–309.  Argued April 26, 2017—Decided June 22, 2017 

Petitioner  Divna  Maslenjak  is  an  ethnic  Serb  who  resided  in  Bosnia 
during the 1990’s, when a civil war divided the new country.  In 1998, 
she  and  her  family  sought  refugee  status  in  the  United  States.    In-
terviewed  under  oath,  Maslenjak  explained  that  the  family  feared 
persecution from both sides of the national rift: Muslims would mis-
treat  them  because  of  their  ethnicity,  and  Serbs  would  abuse  them
because Maslenjak’s husband had evaded service in the Bosnian Serb 
Army by absconding to Serbia.  Persuaded of the Maslenjaks’ plight,
American officials granted them refugee status.  Years later, Maslen-
jak  applied  for  U. S.  citizenship.    In  the  application  process,  she
swore that she had never given false information to a government of-
ficial while applying for an immigration benefit or lied to an official to
gain entry into the United States.  She was naturalized as a U. S. cit-
izen.  But it soon emerged that her professions of honesty were false:
Maslenjak had known all along that her husband spent the war years 
not secreted in Serbia, but serving as an officer in the Bosnian Serb
Army.  

The  Government  charged  Maslenjak  with  knowingly  “procur[ing], 
contrary  to  law,  [her]  naturalization,”  in  violation  of  18  U. S. C. 
§1425(a).  According to the Government’s theory, Maslenjak violated
§1425(a)  because,  in  the  course  of  procuring  her  naturalization,  she 
broke  another  law:  18  U. S. C.  §1015(a),  which  prohibits  knowingly
making a false statement under oath in a naturalization proceeding. 
The District Court instructed the jury that, to secure a conviction un-
der  §1425(a),  the  Government  need  not  prove  that  Maslenjak’s  false
statements  were  material  to,  or  influenced,  the  decision  to  approve
her  citizenship  application.    The  Sixth  Circuit  affirmed  the  convic-
tion,  holding  that  if  Maslenjak  made  false  statements  violating