Could Murder Convict Naresh Bhatt Lose His U.S. Citizenship? What an Immigration Attorney Says
Naresh Bhatt. (Courtesy of Prince William County Adult Detention Center)
Naresh Bhatt’s conviction in the killing of his wife, Mamta Kafle Bhatt, has raised another question among Nepali Americans: Could the murder convict also lose his U.S. citizenship?
During his murder trial, Bhatt testified that he was born in New Delhi, India, even though his citizenship records reportedly list Nepal as his birthplace. The discrepancy could attract scrutiny from immigration authorities, but it does not automatically provide grounds to revoke his citizenship, according to immigration attorney Keshab Raj Seadie.
The central question, Seadie said, is whether the birthplace discrepancy affected Bhatt’s eligibility for the green card that allowed him to become a permanent resident.
Bhatt, 39, testified on Nov. 4, 2026, that he was born in New Delhi and lived there with his family for about two to two and a half years before moving to Nepal. He has ties to Nepal’s Kanchanpur region and grew up there.
During questioning, prosecutors raised the discrepancy between his reported birthplace in his citizenship application and his testimony. Bhatt responded that the difference was not a lie, describing it as a matter of “culture.”
A Murder Conviction Does Not Automatically Revoke Citizenship
Being convicted of murder does not, by itself, strip a naturalized American of citizenship or make that person deportable.
The government must pursue a separate legal process known as denaturalization, which can revoke citizenship if it was obtained illegally or through material misrepresentation or concealment of facts.
Under Section 1451 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Justice Department can file a civil lawsuit in federal district court seeking to revoke a person’s citizenship.
The government must establish its case through clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence, Seadie said.
There is no statute of limitations for a civil denaturalization case, he said. A separate criminal prosecution for naturalization fraud, however, is subject to a 10-year statute of limitations.
Not every false statement is sufficient to justify denaturalization. The misrepresentation must be material — meaning it influenced, or could have influenced, the decision to grant immigration benefits or citizenship.
The Green Card May Hold the Key
Bhatt came to the United States through the Diversity Visa lottery in 2017. He joined the Army Reserve in June of that year and received U.S. citizenship in October 2017 through provisions for military service.
He served as an automated logistics specialist in the Army Reserve.
The publicly available account of his immigration history does not establish the precise basis on which he obtained his green card or whether his birthplace was listed as Nepal in his original immigration application.
That distinction could be critical, Seadie said, because U.S. immigration visa limits are generally based on a person’s country of birth, not citizenship.
A person born in India who holds Nepali citizenship is generally counted against India’s visa allocation rather than Nepal’s.
Seadie outlined several possible scenarios, depending on the immigration category through which Bhatt obtained permanent residency.
Diversity Visa. Nepal is eligible for the Diversity Visa program, while India is generally excluded because of its high levels of immigration to the United States. If Bhatt obtained a green card by claiming he was born in Nepal when he was actually born in India, the government could argue that he was never eligible for the visa.
Seadie described this as potentially the strongest basis for a denaturalization case.
Employment-Based Immigration. Applicants born in India often face substantially longer waits for employment-based green cards than those born in Nepal. If Bhatt was charged against Nepal’s visa allocation despite having been born in India, the government could argue that he received a visa for which he was not eligible.
In that situation, the birthplace discrepancy could be considered material.
Family-Preference Immigration. Some family-sponsored immigration categories are subject to country-specific visa limits. Whether a birthplace discrepancy would be material would depend on the particular category and the dates involved, Seadie said.
Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens. Spouses, parents and unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens are not subject to the same numerical visa limits. If Bhatt obtained permanent residency through one of these categories, his birthplace generally would not determine his eligibility. The government would need to show that the false information concealed some other disqualifying fact.
Asylum or Refugee Status. If an applicant concealed a birthplace or nationality while seeking protection based on fear of persecution in Nepal, the discrepancy could be material because nationality and the underlying persecution claim are central to the decision.
Military Service. Some service members can obtain citizenship under special provisions of federal law. In those cases, birthplace is generally less likely to determine eligibility, although knowingly providing false information on an application could still be investigated.
Could He Lose Both Citizenship and Permanent Residency?
If the government establishes that Bhatt obtained his green card through a material misrepresentation, his permanent residency could be found to have been unlawfully obtained. That could, in turn, provide grounds to argue that his subsequent naturalization was also unlawful.
In such a case, he could lose both his citizenship and his underlying permanent resident status.
After denaturalization, immigration authorities could pursue removal proceedings against him. He could potentially face deportation after serving his criminal sentence, Seadie said.
But the outcome would depend on the evidence, including Bhatt’s original immigration applications and the legal basis for his permanent residency.
He may, in fact, have been born in Nepal, or he may have qualified for permanent residency under another immigration category, Seadie said.
Only the Justice Department Can Bring a Denaturalization Case
A citizenship revocation case cannot be initiated simply because a person has been convicted of a serious crime or because conflicting information has surfaced during a criminal trial.
The Justice Department must bring the case, and a federal judge must issue the order revoking citizenship.
There has been no publicly reported indication that the Justice Department or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has initiated denaturalization proceedings against Bhatt based on the birthplace discrepancy.
Bhatt was found guilty on Nov. 10, 2026, of first-degree murder, concealing a body and improperly handling human remains in connection with his wife’s death. His sentencing is scheduled for March 12, 2027. Mamta’s body has not been found.
(Immigration Attorney Keshab Raj Seadie’s comments were provided as general legal information. They were not based on a review of Bhatt’s individual immigration records.)