The US Justice Department has filed a civil denaturalisation complaint against Hassan Sherjil Khan, a Pakistan-born physician convicted of sexually grooming and abusing a minor, alleging he fraudulently obtained American citizenship in May 2013 by concealing years of criminal conduct and lying under oath. The case represents one of the rare federal efforts to strip citizenship from a convicted sexual predator on grounds of wilful misrepresentation during the naturalisation process.

How Khan Groomed and Abused His Victim

According to court filings, Khan first made contact with the victim online in 2007, when she was just 11 years old. Over several years, he used internet chat platforms and video calls to coerce her into sending sexually explicit images and engaging in sexual activity — a pattern prosecutors describe as systematic, premeditated exploitation.

In April 2012, Khan travelled from the United States to England, where the victim resided, and engaged in sexual acts with her when she was 15 years old and he was 24. The Justice Department says he continued to contact and exploit the victim online until at least 2013, even after she explicitly asked him to stop.

Citizenship Obtained Through Concealment and False Oath

Despite this ongoing criminal conduct, Khan submitted a naturalisation application in August 2012. In both his written application and subsequent interview, he declared he had never committed a crime for which he had not been arrested — a claim prosecutors say was demonstrably false at the time it was made.

The government's complaint argues Khan lacked the "good moral character" legally required for naturalisation, having committed crimes involving moral turpitude and later lying under oath during the citizenship process. Prosecutors further allege he secured citizenship through "wilful misrepresentation" and deliberate concealment of material facts that would have rendered him ineligible.

Khan was arrested in 2015 after the victim came forward and reported the abuse. In January 2016, he pleaded guilty to coercion and enticement of a minor and was sentenced to 17 years in federal prison. He remains incarcerated, with a projected release date of July 2029. At the time of his arrest, he was practising as a licensed physician, according to the Justice Department.

What the Government Said

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate issued a stark warning alongside the filing: "Naturalization and US citizenship will not protect sexual predators from the consequences of their horrific acts. If you fail to disclose serious crimes while seeking naturalization, the government will discover your lies and revoke your ill-gotten US citizenship."

The statement signals a broader enforcement posture by the current Justice Department, which has publicly prioritised denaturalisation cases involving fraud, concealment of violent crimes, and immigration misrepresentation. This case fits squarely within that mandate.

Legal Stakes and Denaturalisation Framework

Denaturalisation proceedings in the United States are exceptionally rare and are typically reserved for cases involving fraud, war crimes, or serious criminal conduct deliberately hidden during the immigration process. Under federal law, courts are obligated to revoke citizenship if it is established that it was illegally obtained or procured through misrepresentation — there is no judicial discretion once the threshold is met.

The government has formally asked the court to cancel Khan's naturalisation certificate, revoke his citizenship entirely, and bar him from asserting any rights or privileges associated with US nationality. Importantly, the allegations in the civil complaint have not yet been adjudicated by a court.

Broader Implications for Immigration Fraud Cases

This case underscores a growing federal trend of using denaturalisation as a punitive and corrective tool against individuals who exploit the immigration system. Notably, the Department of Justice has in recent years pursued denaturalisation against individuals linked to war crimes in Bosnia, human trafficking, and child exploitation — reflecting a pattern of using citizenship revocation as a long-arm accountability mechanism.

For the Indian subcontinent diaspora and immigration policy observers, the case raises pointed questions about the adequacy of background verification during naturalisation interviews, particularly when criminal conduct spans international borders and involves digital exploitation that may not trigger traditional law enforcement flags.

As the civil case proceeds through the federal court system, legal experts will be watching whether the court sets a precedent on the standard of proof required for denaturalisation in cases where the underlying criminal conviction occurred after citizenship was granted — a nuanced legal question that could shape future prosecutions.