Hadwan v. United States Dep't of State
| Decision Date | 03 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 17-CV-578 (VEC) |
| Parties | MANSOOR HAMOUD HADWAN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UNITED STATES EMBASSY, SANA'A, YEMEN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
This case stems from the Department of State's decision to revoke Plaintiff's United States passport and Certificate of Report of Birth Abroad.[1] Plaintiff seeks review of the agency's decision pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See Generally Third Am Compl., Dkt. 81 (“TAC”). On December 16, 2019 Defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Dkt. 96. On February 13, 2020 rather than oppose Defendants' motion, Plaintiff requested the Court to stay the summary judgment briefing schedule and to allow Plaintiff to move for supplemental discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Dkt. 101. On February 14, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request, Dkt. 102, and, on July 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed this motion. Dkt. 118. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record or otherwise conduct discovery is DENIED.
Plaintiff is a thirty-three-year-old United States citizen who was born in Yemen, but acquired United States citizenship at birth because his father, Hamoud Hadwan, is a naturalized United States citizen.[2] TAC ¶¶ 21-22. Plaintiff received a Certificate of Report of Birth Abroad (“CRBA”) and a United States passport in 1998. Id. ¶ 22.[3]
In June 2013, Plaintiff traveled to Yemen to apply for immigration benefits for his family. Id. ¶ 25. While at the United States Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, Special Agent David Howell of the Diplomatic Security Service, a unit within the Department of State, along with an Arabic interpreter, interrogated Plaintiff and allegedly coerced him to sign a statement affirming that Hamound Hadwan is his uncle, not his biological father. Id. ¶¶ 28-31; Admin Record, Dkt. 19 at 28. Plaintiff maintains that he did not understand the contents of the statement and only signed it because he was tired, hungry, scared, and believed that refusing to sign it would result in seizure of his passport. TAC ¶ 32. As a result of the signed statement, Embassy officials confiscated Plaintiff's passport. Id. ¶ 25.
On March 24, 2014, the Department of State revoked Plaintiff's passport and canceled his CRBA on the grounds that they were fraudulently obtained. Id. ¶ 37. The revocation notice stated, inter alia, that a “department investigation ha[d] revealed that [Plaintiff's] parents are not Hamoud Abbas Hadwan and Sabrah Saleh Hadwan, ” and that Plaintiff had “signed a sworn voluntary statement on June 9, 2013, at the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, admitting to these facts.” Id. The notice informed Plaintiff of his right to a hearing to contest the revocation and indicated that Plaintiff could submit a written brief in advance of the hearing. Id.; Admin. Record at 10.
On August 27, 2014, the Department of State held a revocation hearing in Washington D.C. TAC ¶ 40. Plaintiff could not attend the hearing because he was denied a limited validity passport to travel to the United States.[4] Id. Plaintiff's attorney appeared on his behalf and argued that Plaintiff did not sign the statement voluntarily. Admin Record at 107 ( ). Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged, however, that he had not actually spoken to Plaintiff about what transpired at the Embassy and had only communicated with Plaintiff's brother. Id. at 107-08. Plaintiff's counsel did not submit a written brief in advance of the hearing, nor did he submit any evidence before or during the hearing. Id. at 113. Although Plaintiff's counsel requested an opportunity to submit DNA analysis to prove that Plaintiff is the biological son of Mr. Hadwan, he failed to submit any such evidence after the hearing. Id.
On March 31, 2015, the hearing officer sent an “action memo” to the then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, recommending that the Department of State's decision to revoke Plaintiff's passport be upheld on the grounds that it was fraudulently obtained. Id. at 131-34. The hearing officer rejected Plaintiff's argument that he had not understood the contents of the statement he signed at the Embassy because the statement expressly provided that it was “read to [Plaintiff] in Arabic and [that Plaintiff] understood the contents completely.” Id. at 133-34. The hearing officer explained that while “the [plaintiff] may have considered Hamoud Abbas Hadwan ‘like a father' and may have made statements in his passport application without intent to commit fraud, ” his “passport was [nevertheless] issued based on false information.” Id. at 133. As such, the hearing officer concluded that the Department of State acted properly in revoking Plaintiff's passport and canceling his CRBA pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1504. Id. at 133-34.
On April 7, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Secretary approved the hearing officer's recommendation to uphold the Department's decision to revoke Plaintiff's passport. Id. at 131. On April 9, 2015, the Department of State mailed Plaintiff's counsel a notice of the decision upholding the revocation; the notice informed Plaintiff that the decision was “the final decision of the Department.” Id. at 130.
On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action, seeking judicial review of the agency's decision. Dkt. 1. In October 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of State released a report titled “Review of Allegations of Improper Passport Seizures at Embassy Sana'a, Yemen.” Dkt. 118-2 (the “OIG Report”). The OIG Report detailed shortcomings with the State Department's practice of tracking passport seizures and identified systemic failures to timely notify passport holders of the reasons for revocation and the right to appeal. OIG Report at 3-14. The OIG Report also analyzed 31 specific cases in which the State Department failed to follow notification requirements; Plaintiff's case is No. 31 in the OIG Report. Id. at 10-16; Pl. Mem. of Law, Dkt. 118-1 at 2.
On December 16, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 96. On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed this motion to supplement the administrative record. Dkt. 118.
Under the APA, a “person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action . . . is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Specifically, the APA authorizes a reviewing court to set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 267 (2d Cir. 2007). When courts review agency action under the APA the question presented is purely a legal one, which the district court can resolve on a motion for summary judgment. City Club of N.Y. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 246 F.Supp.3d 860, 864 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Ass'n of Proprietary Colls. v. Duncan, 107 F.Supp.3d 332, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) () (internal quotation omitted).
In reviewing a final agency decision, the court is generally “confined to the administrative record compiled by that agency when it made the decision.” Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 14 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138. 142 (1973) ( that the “focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.”); Comprehensive Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Sebelius, 890 F.Supp.2d 305, 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“It is the province of the agency to compile and submit the administrative record for review by the Court, and common sense dictates that the agency determines what constitutes the whole administrative record ….”) (internal citation omitted). Put differently, because the district court in an APA case “sits not as a fact-finder, but as a reviewing court, discovery is generally not permitted, ” Almaklani v. Trump, 444 F.Supp.3d 425, 430 (E.D.N.Y. 2020), and the Court must simply “apply the appropriate APA standard of review [] to the agency decision based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court, ” Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985); see also Henley v. FDA, 77 F.3d 616 (2d Cir. 1996) ().
“Requests by a party to put materials before the Court that are outside the administrative record filed by the agency fall into two distinct categories.” Sebelius, 890 F.Supp.2d at 309. First, a party may supplement the administrative record if the party can show that “materials exist that were actually considered by the agency decision-makers but are not in the record as filed.” Id. Such a showing requires the party to rebut the “strong presumption” that the agency properly designated the documents to be included in the record. Brodsky v. U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 507 Fed.Appx. 48, 52 (2d Cir. 2013) (); Pac. Shores Subdivision, Cal. Water Dist. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 448 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2006) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial