The Justice Department Wants to Strip a Convicted Priest's Citizenship and Deport Him. Here Is What Survivors Should Know

Reviewed by Abuse Justice Center · Updated 2026-07-26

What the Justice Department Is Asking a Court to Do

The Justice Department has filed to denaturalize a former assistant pastor at the Shrine of the Sacred Heart in Washington, D.C., who was convicted in 2019 of sexually abusing two young girls, ages 13 and 9, at the parish. Prosecutors argue he obtained his U.S. citizenship in 2017 through willful misrepresentation, by concealing the abuse that had already occurred by the time he applied.

His case was included as one of ten described in a Justice Department action targeting naturalized citizens convicted of serious offenses, ranging from child sexual abuse to fraud. If a federal court agrees his naturalization was improperly obtained, his citizenship would be revoked and he would revert to lawful permanent resident status, setting up removal proceedings once his prison sentence ends.

A Second Conviction Involving an Adult Victim

Beyond the 2019 case involving the two girls, the priest was separately convicted in 2021 of inappropriately touching an adult woman during a 2017 confession at the same parish. He is currently serving a combined 15-year sentence tied to these convictions.

The timeline matters here: the abuse of the two children took place in 2015 and 2016, before he became a citizen in 2017, which is the basis for the government's argument that his naturalization application concealed material facts about his conduct.

Why a Denaturalization Filing Does Not Resolve a Survivor's Civil Options

A federal denaturalization case is about immigration status, not compensation. It does not award damages to the girls he was convicted of abusing, to the adult woman in the separate case, or to anyone else who may have had contact with him at the parish. Regardless of whether he is eventually deported, a civil claim against him personally, and potentially against the parish or the Archdiocese of Washington for how it supervised him, is a separate legal path.

Washington, D.C. law allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file a civil suit up to their 40th birthday, or within five years of realizing the connection between the abuse and their injuries, whichever comes later, and claims can reach beyond an individual perpetrator to the institution that employed or supervised him.

What This Means If You Had Contact With This Parish

If you or your child had any contact with this priest, or with anyone else at the Shrine of the Sacred Heart during his time there, a criminal conviction already on the record can actually make a civil claim more straightforward, since the underlying facts of the abuse have already been established in court.

An attorney experienced in clergy abuse claims can explain how D.C.'s filing deadlines apply to your specific situation and whether a claim against the parish or the archdiocese, not just the priest himself, may be available to you, confidentially and at no upfront cost.

5 Things Survivors Should Understand About This Kind of Case

Immigration and criminal proceedings against a convicted abuser can move forward for years without ever compensating the people he harmed. Here is what that means if this case, or one like it, involves you.

1. A denaturalization case is not a civil claim: It targets immigration status, not damages, and does not resolve or replace a survivor's right to sue.
2. A prior conviction can strengthen a civil case: When the underlying abuse has already been proven in criminal court, a related civil claim often has a clearer path forward.
3. The parish or archdiocese may share responsibility: Institutions can be sued for negligent supervision or hiring, separate from any claim against the individual.
4. D.C.'s filing deadlines are more generous than many assume: Survivors typically have until their 40th birthday, or five years from realizing the abuse caused their injuries, to file.
5. Deportation does not end a civil case: A defendant's immigration status or location does not automatically prevent a survivor from pursuing a judgment against him or the institution.

Related