The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming the denial of naturalization for Ousmane Savane, a permanent resident who entered the United States through the Diversity Visa Program in 2012. In *Ousmane Savane v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security* (3d Cir. 2026), the appeals court upheld a district court ruling that supported the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' determination that Savane had made material omissions on his original immigration application.
Savane, who became a permanent resident in 2012 after winning the Diversity Visa lottery, applied for naturalization in 2020. However, USCIS denied his citizenship application after determining that he had omitted material information on his Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration when he first entered the United States. The agency's decision effectively called into question the validity of his original admission to the country.
The Diversity Visa Program, established as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, operates as a lottery system designed to increase immigration from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. The program requires applicants to meet strict eligibility requirements and provide complete and accurate information throughout the application process.
After USCIS denied his naturalization application, Savane pursued administrative appeals through the agency's internal review process. When those appeals failed to reverse the decision, he filed a petition for review in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the government's determination.
District Judge Wendy Beetlestone granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding that USCIS had properly denied Savane's naturalization application based on the material omissions in his original immigrant visa application. The district court's ruling supported the government's position that false or misleading information provided during the initial immigration process can serve as grounds for denying subsequent naturalization applications.
On appeal to the Third Circuit, Savane argued that his omissions were immaterial and should not have served as the basis for denying his naturalization application. His legal team, led by attorney Timothy P. Creech of Creech & Creech in Philadelphia, contended that the information he failed to disclose did not rise to the level of materiality required to justify the denial.
The government, represented by attorneys from the Department of Justice's Civil Division and Office of Immigration Litigation, defended USCIS's determination. Government counsel Zachary A. Cardin, Yaakov M. Roth, William C. Silvis, Michael Celone, and Marie Feyche argued that the omissions were indeed material and that the agency had acted within its authority in denying the naturalization application.
The case was argued before a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Arianna J. Freeman, and Cindy K. Chung on Oct. 21, 2025. Circuit Judge Hardiman authored the court's opinion, which was filed on Jan. 7, 2026.
In its decision, the Third Circuit disagreed with Savane's characterization of his omissions as immaterial. The court held that the information he failed to disclose was sufficiently material to justify USCIS's denial of his naturalization application. The appeals court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government.
The Third Circuit's designation of this case as precedential means that the decision will serve as binding authority for future cases involving similar issues within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. The precedential nature of the ruling suggests that the court viewed the case as establishing important legal principles regarding the materiality standard for omissions in immigration applications.
The decision highlights the ongoing scrutiny that immigration authorities apply to naturalization applications, particularly for individuals whose original admission to the United States involved any discrepancies or omissions. The case demonstrates that even minor omissions made years earlier during the initial immigration process can have lasting consequences for individuals seeking to become U.S. citizens.
For diversity visa recipients and other immigrants seeking naturalization, the ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of providing complete and accurate information throughout all stages of the immigration process. The case also illustrates how immigration authorities can revisit earlier applications when reviewing subsequent petitions for immigration benefits.
The decision represents a victory for the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS in their efforts to maintain the integrity of the immigration system. It reinforces the agencies' authority to deny naturalization applications based on material omissions made during the initial immigration process, even when those omissions occurred years earlier.
Savane's case adds to the body of circuit court precedent governing naturalization denials based on prior application omissions, providing guidance for both immigration attorneys and government officials handling similar cases in the future.