## Facts

- Feodor Fedorenko, a Ukrainian-born former Red Army soldier, was captured by German forces during World War II and later served as an armed guard at Treblinka, a Nazi extermination camp in occupied Poland.
- In 1949, Fedorenko obtained admission to the United States under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (DPA) by representing that he had been a Polish farmer deported for factory work, while concealing his Treblinka guard service.
- In 1969, Fedorenko again failed to disclose his concentration-camp guard service in his naturalization application; he was naturalized in 1970.
- The United States brought a civil denaturalization action under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 340(a), alleging his citizenship was illegally procured and also procured by concealment or willful misrepresentation of material facts.
- The DPA authorized admission of certain displaced persons but excluded persons who had “assisted the enemy in persecuting” civilian populations (and separately referred to those who had “voluntarily assisted” enemy forces).
- At trial, survivor testimony described Fedorenko shooting at escaping prisoners and beating prisoners; Fedorenko admitted lying on his visa application but asserted he served only under coercion and did not commit atrocities.
- The district court found his guard service was involuntary and concluded that involuntary service did not constitute DPA-disqualifying assistance in persecution; it denied denaturalization.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Treblinka guard service made Fedorenko ineligible for a DPA visa as a matter of law and required revocation of citizenship.

## Issues

1. Whether service as an armed guard at a Nazi concentration or extermination camp constitutes “assisting the enemy in persecuting” civilians under the DPA, regardless of voluntariness or proof of personal atrocities.
2. Whether a person’s naturalization is “illegally procured” under INA § 340(a) when the person’s underlying DPA visa was statutorily invalid because of ineligibility for admission.
3. Whether courts may deny denaturalization on equitable grounds once the statutory requirements for revocation of citizenship are satisfied.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering Fedorenko denaturalized.
- Service as an armed guard at Treblinka constituted “assisting the enemy in persecuting” civilians within the DPA’s meaning; the statute contained no duress exception and did not require proof of specific atrocities.
- Because Fedorenko was ineligible for a DPA visa, his visa and ensuing entry were unlawful; his later naturalization was therefore “illegally procured” under INA § 340(a).
- Fedorenko’s concealment and false statements were material because truthful disclosure would have resulted in visa denial.
- Courts lack equitable discretion to overlook statutory ineligibility; once illegal procurement is established under the statute by the required evidentiary standard, revocation is mandatory.

## Legal Principles

- Under the DPA, participation in the operation of a Nazi concentration or extermination camp as an armed guard constitutes assistance in persecution, triggering statutory ineligibility for admission.
- The DPA’s persecution-assistance bar does not turn on voluntariness and contains no duress exception.
- Lawful naturalization requires strict compliance with congressionally imposed prerequisites; statutory ineligibility for the underlying visa or admission renders later citizenship “illegally procured” under INA § 340(a).
- A misrepresentation or concealment is material in denaturalization if truthful disclosure would have made the applicant ineligible for the immigration benefit sought.
- Denaturalization requires clear, unequivocal, and convincing proof, but once the statutory grounds are met, courts may not deny revocation based on equitable considerations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that armed guard service at a Nazi death camp categorically constitutes assistance in persecution under the DPA, making the person ineligible for a DPA visa; because lawful admission was a prerequisite to citizenship and the ineligibility was concealed, Fedorenko’s naturalization was illegally procured and had to be revoked without equitable exception.


Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981)