Opinion ID: 431955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Koziy's Constitutional Claims

Text: 27 Koziy contends that at the time he obtained citizenship, the statutory provisions for denaturalization failed to include illegal procurement. Koziy argues, therefore, that the district court's reliance on illegal procurement as a basis of denaturalization violated the due process clause of the fifth amendment and the ex post facto clause. Although Koziy is correct in contending that the statutory provisions for denaturalization did not include illegal procurement at the time he obtained citizenship, we find that the district court's utilization of illegal procurement as a basis for denaturalization did not violate Koziy's constitutional rights. 28 In Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 32 S.Ct. 613, 56 L.Ed. 1066 (1912), the Supreme Court was faced with a similar challenge in a denaturalization proceeding. When Johannessen was admitted to the United States, the statute did not include illegal procurement as a basis for denaturalization. Johannessen contended that the utilization of illegal procurement as a basis for denaturalizing him violated the ex post facto clause. The Court disagreed and declared the usage of illegal procurement did not violate Johannessen's constitutional rights. Johannessen, at 242-43, 32 S.Ct. at 617. The Court stated: The act imposes no punishment upon an alien who has previously procured a certificate of citizenship by fraud or other illegal conduct. It simply deprives him of his ill-gotten privileges. Johannessen, at 242-43, 32 S.Ct. at 617. 29 In the present dispute, the government's utilization of illegal procurement as a basis for revoking Koziy's citizenship did not violate Koziy's constitutional rights. It only deprived Koziy of his ill gotten gains. The utilization of illegal procurement deprived Koziy of a privilege that was never rightfully his. See Johannessen, at 241-43, 32 S.Ct. at 616-617. 30