In almost every area of the law (tax evasion, securities fraud, etc.), a lie is illegal only if it's "material," meaning it had some potential to influence the other side's decision-making.
If I tell you to buy my company's stock because we just discovered oil on land we own, and that's not true, I've committed securities fraud. If I'm trying to sell you stock and I tell you that I love the suit you're wearing, when I really think it's ugly, I haven't committed securities fraud.
This decision just applies that same basic rule to citizenship revocation proceedings. Which is why the case was decided 9-0.
I will warn you and every other FReeper.
If you purchase something from another person, based on promises made, you need to be very careful how you conduct the transaction.
You must do everything above board and according to the law.
If something goes sideways with the item you have purchased, you must not have done anything that could be construed as fraudulent associated with the “deal”.
Folks pulling a fraud will draw you into some sort of side agreement if they can. Why?
If they can get you to do it, they will have an out that will prevent you from obtaining relief in court.
Lets say they claimed a certain important fact about the item, that is later found to be a complete misrepresentation and materially contributes to a loss on your part.
If you have acted improperly, you will not be able to obtain relief.
In this case, a person committed a fraud to obtain entry and citizenship. That fraud was discovered, and the party was deported. (I believe I read that they were already outside the nation, so I am addressing it this way.)
Now this party wants relief so they can keep their citizenship. Since they committed a fraud to get it in the first place, they have no standing before the court.
They do not have clean hands. If the court protects them, it is in effect become a party to the fraud.