Costello v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Background

The dispute involves a man born in Italy who came to the United States as a child, became a naturalized citizen in 1925, and was convicted in 1954 on two counts of income tax evasion. His criminal convictions were ultimately affirmed by this Court. In 1959 his naturalization certificate was canceled because it had been procured by willful misrepresentation, and that judgment was also affirmed. In 1961 the immigration agency started deportation proceedings under the law that authorizes removal of any alien who is convicted after entry of two crimes involving moral turpitude; lower immigration authorities and the Court of Appeals held him deportable.

Reasoning

The Court’s question was whether the removal rule applies when the crimes were committed while the person was a citizen but he was later denaturalized. The majority found the statute ambiguous on the tense “is” and the phrase “at any time after entry,” distinguished an earlier case (Eichenlaub), and relied on an internal provision that allows a sentencing court to recommend against deportation. Applying the rule that doubts in deportation statutes are resolved in favor of the individual, the Court concluded Congress did not clearly intend to make people deportable for convictions that occurred when they were then citizens. The Court also rejected the argument that the denaturalization statute’s relation‑back made the person legally an alien at the time of conviction.

Real world impact

This ruling means people who were citizens at the time of certain convictions cannot automatically be removed under the two‑conviction deportation rule after later denaturalization. It preserves the sentencing‑court recommendation as a meaningful protection and leaves it to Congress to change the rule if it wishes.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented, arguing the statute’s text and history favor deportation and that the denaturalization relation‑back shows the person was always an alien for deportation purposes; he would have affirmed deportability.