## Facts

- Frank Costello became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1925 after stating in his naturalization papers and testimony that his occupation was “real estate.”
- The United States later sought to revoke his citizenship, alleging it was procured by fraud because his true occupation at the time was large-scale bootlegging.
- In 1952, the government filed a denaturalization action under a predecessor statute; the litigation ended in dismissal because the government had not filed the required affidavit of good cause.
- After remand, the district court entered a dismissal order that did not specify whether it was with or without prejudice, and the government did not appeal that aspect.
- In 1958, the government filed a new denaturalization complaint under § 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, this time accompanied by a proper affidavit of good cause.
- The district court found Costello’s “real estate” statement was a willful misrepresentation; it concluded his true occupation was bootlegging and revoked his citizenship.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the government proved by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Costello willfully misrepresented his occupation in obtaining citizenship.
2. Whether Costello’s admissions about his true occupation were so tainted by illegal wiretapping that they were inadmissible in the denaturalization proceeding.
3. Whether dismissal of the earlier denaturalization action barred the later suit when the earlier dismissal was based on failure to file an affidavit of good cause.
4. Whether the government’s delay in initiating denaturalization proceedings barred revocation of citizenship.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment revoking Costello’s citizenship.
- The Court held the evidence met the clear, unequivocal, and convincing standard and supported findings that Costello’s occupation statement was factually false and willfully so.
- The Court held the challenged admissions were not so tainted by wiretapping as to require exclusion.
- The Court held the earlier dismissal for failure to satisfy the good-cause-affidavit prerequisite was not an adjudication on the merits and did not preclude a later properly filed action.
- The Court held the lapse of time between naturalization and the government’s institution of proceedings did not bar denaturalization on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Citizenship may be revoked under INA § 340(a) if naturalization was procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.
- Denaturalization requires the government to prove its case by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that leaves no doubt.
- A statement about “occupation” may be materially false when it misstates the applicant’s actual means of livelihood and conceals disqualifying conduct likely to have affected the naturalization decision.
- A dismissal for failure to file the statutorily required affidavit of good cause is procedural rather than merits-based and does not bar a subsequent action curing the defect.
- Absent a statutory limitations period, delay alone does not bar denaturalization where the government proves fraudulent procurement under the required heightened standard.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld denaturalization because the government proved, by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, that Costello obtained citizenship through a willful and material misrepresentation about his occupation; neither asserted wiretap taint, the earlier procedural dismissal, nor the government’s delay prevented the later, properly instituted revocation action.


Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961)