Omar v. Kerry et al
Filing
69
ORDER by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 55 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 56 Motion for Summary Judgment. (jsclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
MOSED SHAYE OMAR,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
Case No. 15-cv-01760-JSC
ORDER RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
JOHN KERRY, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 56
Defendants.
15
16
17
This lawsuit presents the question of whether the United States government may revoke a
18
United States citizen’s passport based solely on a purported “confession” that the citizen did not
19
write, dictate, read, or have read to him, but did in fact sign. On the record before the Court, the
20
answer is no.
21
Plaintiff Mosed Shaye Omar, a United States citizen, challenges the revocation of his
22
passport following his interrogation and detention at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen.
23
Plaintiff was stranded in Yemen for 13 months before he was provided written notice of the basis
24
for his passport revocation and granted a temporary passport to return home to the United States.
25
Plaintiff challenges the passport revocation and the constitutionality of the post-revocation
26
proceedings wherein he sought return of his passport. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s
27
motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the government to return Plaintiff’s passport.
28
The now pending cross-motions for summary judgment followed. Having considered the parties’
1
submissions, including their supplemental briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument on
2
December 17, 2015, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES
3
the government’s cross-motion. The government’s revocation of Plaintiff’s passport predicated
4
solely on his “confession” was arbitrary and capricious. The matter is therefore REMANDED for
5
a new hearing within 60 days.
6
7
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
Plaintiff was born in Yemen in 1951, but immigrated to the United States in 1972 through
8
his uncle who adopted him following the death of Plaintiff’s parents. (Administrative Record
9
(“AR”) at 155-160 ¶¶ 1-2 (Declaration of Mosed Shaye Omar).) Plaintiff became a United States
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
naturalized citizen on April 10, 1978. (Id. at ¶ 3; AR 148 (Certificate of Naturalization).)
In July 2012, Plaintiff traveled to Yemen to assist his youngest daughter K.O. in obtaining
12
a U.S. Passport. (AR 155 at ¶ 4.) He attended an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a in
13
August 2012, but did not hear anything regarding the status of the application for several months
14
during which time he remained in Yemen. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff is a diabetic and has high
15
blood pressure, and he takes several medications for these conditions, medications which he could
16
not obtain in Yemen. (Id. at ¶ 1.) By December 2012, Plaintiff had run out of medication and his
17
health had deteriorated. (Id. at ¶ 5.) He therefore contacted the U.S. Embassy to follow up on the
18
application’s status and advised officials that he intended to return to the United States for health
19
reasons. (Id. at ¶ 6.) He purchased a return flight for late January 2013. (Id.)
20
A few days before he was due to depart, Plaintiff received a call from the U.S. Embassy
21
regarding his daughter’s passport and requesting that he visit the Embassy. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Upon
22
arriving at the Embassy early the next morning, Plaintiff was asked by a consular officer to
23
provide his passport, which he did. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Shortly thereafter, he was taken from the waiting
24
room to another “more secure area” and another building with armed and uniformed U.S. military
25
personnel. (AR 155-56 at ¶ 9.) To enter the second building, he was escorted through two locked
26
doors which required a special code to open. (Id.) Plaintiff was then escorted into an
27
interrogation room with two Americans and an interpreter. (AR 156 at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff had
28
difficulty understanding the interpreter given his dialect, and at times, he could not tell if the
2
1
interpreter was one of the interrogators. (Id. at ¶ 12.) He was not advised of his right to remain
2
silent or his right to consult an attorney, nor did he know he had the right to remain silent or to
3
leave and consult with an attorney. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiff believed he had to participate in the
4
interview to obtain his daughter’s passport and his own. (Id. at ¶ 15.) He was questioned for an
5
hour regarding his parents and other family members and then he was returned to the general
6
waiting room and told to wait. (AR 157 at ¶ 18.) He did not feel he could leave without
7
permission and the Embassy officials had his passport which he needed for his flight home in a
8
few days. (Id.)
9
After about an hour and half of waiting, he was returned to the interrogation room where
he was questioned for another hour. (Id. at ¶¶ 19, 21.) During this time, he began to feel sick and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
weak as he had not had any food or water, and he did not have his medication with him. (Id. at ¶
12
20.) His vision also started to blur which is a symptom of his diabetes. (Id. at ¶ 21.) After an hour
13
of questioning, Plaintiff was again escorted back to the waiting room and told to wait. (Id. at ¶
14
21.) He was unable to contact his family or friends because his cell phone had been taken and
15
there were no phones for public use. (Id. at ¶ 22.) After several hours of waiting, everyone started
16
leaving the Embassy and at 4:00 p.m. he was “feel[ing] desperate and very afraid” so he told the
17
guard he would do anything to get his passport back and be allowed to leave. (Id. at ¶ 24.)
18
Plaintiff was then escorted to the interrogation room by two individuals, because his vision
19
had become so blurry he could not tell if it was the same two individuals as before or different
20
individuals. (AR 157-58 at ¶¶ 24-25.) He was handed a piece of paper and told to sign it to get
21
his passport returned. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Plaintiff could not read the paper because his vision was so
22
blurry and the interpreter did not read the document to him or tell him what the document was.
23
(Id. at ¶ 27.) After he signed it, he was returned to the waiting room and after half an hour he was
24
told that he would not have his passport returned because he had another name. (Id. at ¶ 28.)
25
Plaintiff was not told that the document he signed was a statement admitting that he had used a
26
false name and committed various other acts, nor was he advised as to why his passport had been
27
confiscated or how he could get it back. (Id. at ¶¶ 29-30.) Plaintiff was thereafter escorted out of
28
the waiting room and as a result of the stress and lack of food, water, or medication, he had to be
3
1
taken to a doctor that night. (Id. at ¶¶ 31, 33; Dkt. No. 14-31 at 4.)
2
Plaintiff missed his flight home because he did not have a passport. (AR 159 at ¶ 35.)
3
Although he repeatedly contacted the Embassy, he was unable to discover anything about his
4
passport until 11 months later, in December 2013, when he received a call from the Embassy
5
advising him to come in. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-39.) When he visited the Embassy on December 15, 2013,
6
he was given a letter which stated that his passport had been revoked pursuant to 22 C.F.R. §
7
51.62(a)(2) based on his “sworn statement admitting that [his] true identity is Yasin Mohamed Ali
8
Alghazali” which meant that he made a “false statement of material fact” in obtaining his passport
9
application under the name Mosed Shaye Omar. (Id. at ¶ 39; AR 111-12 (Dec. 15, 2013 letter).)
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
The letter also advised Plaintiff of his right to a hearing upon written request. (AR 364.)
In January 2014, Plaintiff contacted the Embassy to advise that his health condition had
12
become dire and he needed to return to the United States for treatment. (AR 159.) In February, he
13
was granted a temporary passport and he returned home on February 21, 2014. (Id. at ¶¶ 41-42.)
14
His temporary passport was confiscated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection when he landed at
15
San Francisco International Airport. (Id. at ¶ 41.) About two weeks after he returned home, he
16
had a heart attack and had a stent placed in his heart. (Id. at ¶ 42; Dkt. No. 14-38 at ¶ 2.)
17
Plaintiff sought administrative review of his passport revocation pursuant to the provisions
18
set forth in the December 15, 2013 letter. On August 6, 2014, he was notified that his passport
19
revocation hearing was scheduled for September 22, 2014. (AR 35-36 (Aug. 6, 2014 letter).)
20
The letter advised that the “only issue for consideration and decision will be whether or not the
21
Department satisfied the requirements or conditions of the applicable passport regulations cited as
22
the basis for its adverse action, not your citizenship status.” (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently obtained
23
counsel who attempted to postpone the hearing to allow additional time to prepare, but no
24
postponement was allowed, although the government granted a seven-day extension of the
25
briefing schedule. (AR 44-90.)
26
On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff and his counsel appeared for the hearing via video link
27
with Bennett S. Fellows, Division Chief of the Office of Adjudication, serving as the hearing
28
officer. (AR 450-503 (Transcript of Sept. 22, 2014 hearing).) A month later, Plaintiff was
4
1
advised that Deputy Assistant Secretary Brenda Sprague had approved Hearing Officer Fellows’
2
October 17, 2014 recommendation affirming the revocation of Plaintiff’s passport because his use
3
of the name “Mosed Shaye Omar” to obtain a passport constituted a fraud in violation of 22
4
C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(2). (AR 635-640 (Oct. 17, 2014 letter).)
5
Plaintiff filed this civil action on April 20, 2015 seeking return of his passport and a
6
declaration that Defendants—the United States Department of State, John Kerry as the Secretary
7
of State, Brenda Sprague as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Passport Services, and Michele
8
Bond as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, (collectively “Defendants” or “the
9
government”)—violated his rights under the Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act
(“APA”), and 8 U.S.C. § 1504. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges six causes of action under the APA:
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(1) Defendants interpretation and application of 8 U.S.C. § 1504 is unconstitutional and exceeds
12
their statutory authority; (2) Defendants failed to apply the proper “clear and convincing evidence”
13
standard of proof at his passport revocation hearing; (3) Defendants improperly relied on an
14
involuntary statement obtained in violation of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights to revoke his
15
passport; (4) Defendants failed to timely provide Plaintiff with written notice or a prompt hearing
16
following revocation of his passport in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights; (5) Defendants’
17
actions were arbitrary and capricious; and (6) Defendants failed to comply with APA rules of
18
adjudication with respect to Plaintiff’s passport revocation hearing. (Complaint ¶¶ 120-155.)
19
Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking the return of his
20
passport. (Dkt. Nos. 14 & 23.) The Court granted the motion and ordered the government to
21
return his passport. (Dkt. No. 52.) The government has since filed the administrative record and
22
the parties submitted the now pending cross-motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 41-45,
23
55, 56.)
24
25
LEGAL STANDARD
The APA provides for judicial review of final agency decisions. 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.
26
Courts routinely resolve APA challenges to agency administrative decisions by summary
27
judgment. Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1481 (9th Cir. 1994).
28
However, courts do not utilize the standard analysis for determining whether a genuine issue of
5
material fact exists. See Occidental Eng’g Co. v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 766, 769–70 (9th Cir. 1985).
2
Instead, the administrative agency serves as factfinder, and “the function of the district court is to
3
determine whether ... as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the
4
agency to make the decision it did.” Id. The court thus considers the “legal question of whether
5
the agency could reasonably have found the facts as it did.” Id. at 770. “Because the presence of
6
the administrative record, which the parties have stipulated to, usually means there are no genuine
7
disputes of material fact, it allows the Court to decide whether to set aside the agency
8
determination on summary judgment without a trial.” Sodipo v. Rosenberg, 77 F. Supp. 3d 997,
9
1001 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973) (per curiam)); Hunter v.
10
Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1994) (“The motion for summary judgment is simply the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
procedural vehicle for asking the judge to decide the case on the basis of the administrative
12
record.”)).
13
Under the APA, a district court may overturn an agency decision that is “arbitrary,
14
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Family Inc. v. U.S.
15
Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 469 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 5 U.S.C. §
16
706(2)(A)). The agency’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Monjaraz-
17
Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir. 2003), amended by 339 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003); see
18
also Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. v. Espy, 58 F.3d 1367, 1374–75 (9th Cir.1995) (“When the
19
arbitrary and capricious standard is performing that function of assuring factual support, there is
20
no substantive difference between what it requires and what would be required by the substantial
21
evidence test.”) (internal quotation marks omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 521 U.S. 457, 117
22
(1997). The court will not disturb the agency’s findings under this deferential standard “unless the
23
evidence presented would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result.” Id. at 895
24
(citation omitted). Credibility determinations are likewise subject to the substantial evidence
25
standard, which although deferential, requires “specific, cogent reasons for disbelief”—“a passing
26
reference to insufficiency or disbelief cannot constitute an adequate credibility determination.”
27
Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 661 (9th Cir. 2003).
28
6
DISCUSSION
1
2
A. Substantial Evidence Does Not Support the Passport Revocation
3
The government revoked Plaintiff’s passport pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(2) which
4
allows the State Department to revoke a passport if “[t]he passport has been obtained illegally,
5
fraudulently or erroneously; was created through illegality or fraud practiced upon the
6
Department; or has been fraudulently altered or misused.” (AR 111.) The Court “must defer to
7
the agency’s finding on these matters unless the record shows that the agency’s findings were not
8
supported by substantial evidence—i.e., unless the evidence in the record would compel a
9
reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result.” Ursack Inc. v. Sierra Interagency Black Bear
10
Grp., 639 F.3d 949, 958 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
It is undisputed that the sole basis for Plaintiff’s passport revocation was the statement that
12
Plaintiff signed at the Sana’a Embassy on January 23, 2013, and in particular, Plaintiff’s purported
13
acknowledgement that his name is not Mosed Shaye Omar—the name under which he was
14
naturalized and the name on his passport—but instead, Yasin Mohamed Ali Alghazli. At the
15
passport revocation administrative hearing the statement was the only evidence the government
16
offered to support its contention that Plaintiff had used a false name on his passport application. 1
17
Plaintiff, for his part, submitted a sworn declaration attesting that his name is “Mosed Shaye
18
Omar.” (AR 155.) Plaintiff further attests to the circumstances surrounding the signing of the
19
statement:
20
•
the government asked him to come to the Embassy under false pretenses,
21
•
he signed the statement after being at the Embassy for nine hours without food, water, or
the medication that he needs for his serious medical condition,
22
23
•
no one advised him of his right to leave, to be silent, or his right to consult an attorney,
24
•
after nine hours, he was handed a piece of paper and told to sign it so he could get his
25
26
27
28
1
AR 496 at 47:4-12 (Hearing Officer Fellows: “Ms. Mody, does the Department have any other
documentary evidence other than the signed statement to show that Mr. Omar is actually someone
else or is the Department conceding that this, the man here, is Mr. Omar but it’s not his birth
identity?” Ms. Mody: “So the basis for the Department’s revocation was based solely on the
sworn statement that it was provided.”)
7
passport back and obtain his daughter’s passport,
1
•
2
he did not read the paper because his vision was blurry due to his medical condition and
3
his knowledge of English is not strong, the paper was not read or explained to him, nor was
4
he provided a translated copy, and
•
5
he signed the statement in the name Mosed Shaye Omar.
(AR 155-160.) Accordingly, the only evidence in the record regarding the statement—other than
7
the statement itself—is Plaintiff’s declaration attesting that he had no knowledge of what he was
8
signing and that he was coerced into signing the statement based on the government’s false
9
representation that if he did so he would obtain his and his daughter’s passports. The government
10
does not offer any other evidence, including any evidence as to how the statement came about. On
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
this record the statement itself is not substantial evidence supporting the government’s revocation
12
decision.
In Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1960), for example, the Ninth Circuit
13
14
concluded that the petitioner’s statement was involuntary based on his unchallenged testimony
15
that the statement was made after authorities made threats of criminal prosecution and deportation
16
over a period of seven hours, which stretched into the early morning. 279 F.2d at 644–47. The
17
court concluded that “[a] statement obtained by the government by inducing fear through official
18
threats of prosecution is not voluntarily given” and therefore did not support the government’s
19
deportation of the petitioner. Id. at 647. 2 The statement at issue here is of even less evidentiary
20
value than in Choy. In Choy, there was no dispute that the petitioner knew what he was admitting,
21
only whether he was coerced into making the confession. 279 F.2d at 647. Here, in contrast, the
22
undisputed evidence is that Plaintiff had no knowledge of the statement’s content and that he was
23
coerced into signing it. Thus, just as the coerced confession could not support the deportation in
24
Choy, the statement of which Plaintiff had no knowledge cannot support the revocation of his
25
26
27
28
2
Likewise, in Navia-Duran v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 568 F.2d 803 (1st Cir. 1977),
the petitioner’s statement was found involuntary where she was “[i]solated from her friends,
inexperienced in American justice, taken from her home to a strange office late at night” and told
by the immigration agent that she had “no choice.” 568 F.2d at 810.
8
1
passport.
The government’s insistence that the Court should afford the declaration “little”
2
3
evidentiary weight despite the government’s failure to offer any evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s
4
declaration renders the Court’s review meaningless. There must be some basis in the record for
5
the Court to determine that the statement constitutes “substantial evidence,” that is, some evidence
6
that the statement is true. See Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795, 799-800, 804 (9th Cir.
7
2013) (discounting petitioner’s declaration attesting that he was pressured into admitting that he
8
had smuggled his niece because it was clearly contradicted by a videotaped interrogation
9
statement—in his native Spanish language—that “he had been treated ‘fine’ since arriving at the
immigration station and agreed that he had given his statement ‘voluntarily,’ not having been
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
forced or threatened in any way” and the immigration officer who took the statement testified at
12
the administrative hearing); see also In Re: Francisco M. Gonzaga-Ortega, 2007 WL 4182332, at
13
*1 (BIA Oct. 22, 2007) (noting that the interview was videotaped). Here, there is none. To the
14
contrary, Plaintiff has repeatedly disputed the veracity of the statement by declaring that his name
15
is Mosed Shaye Omar. 3 (AR 155 at ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 14-38 at ¶ 1.)
The Agency’s revocation decision rejects Plaintiff’s challenge to the alleged confession
16
17
because (1) Plaintiff signed the statement, and (2) Plaintiff should have known he was not signing
18
routine paperwork to have his passport returned because the document included photos of adult
19
men and capitalized names. Neither basis is reasonable. First, it ignores Plaintiff’s testimony that
20
his medical condition had deteriorated to the point that he “could not read the paper because my
21
vision was so blurred.” (AR 158 at ¶ 27.) Second, it ignores the evidence that the signature was
22
coerced. Plaintiff told the embassy employee in the waiting area that “I was sick and I would do
23
anything they wanted so I could leave the Embassy and get my passport back.” (AR 157 at ¶ 24.)
24
When he entered the room he was told “just sign this, then go get your passports from the consul.”
25
26
3
27
28
Plaintiff has also offered uncontested evidence that the statement was not true and he is in fact
Mosed Shaye Omar. See, e.g., AR 604-605 (sworn affidavits from four individuals who attest that
they knew the Plaintiff (identified via photograph) by the name Mosed Shaye Omar, and no other,
prior to his entry to the United States).
9
1
(AR 158 at ¶ 26.) As in Navia-Duran, Plaintiff was “induced to believe that [Embassy officials]
2
controlled [his] fate.” Navia-Duran, 568 F.2d at 810; see also United States v. Chan-Jimenez, 125
3
F.3d 1324, 1326 (9th Cir. 1997) (“When a law enforcement official retains control of a person’s
4
identification papers, such as vehicle registration documents or a driver’s license, longer than
5
necessary to ascertain that everything is in order, and initiates further inquiry while holding on to
6
the needed papers, a reasonable person would not feel free to depart.”); United States v. Black, 675
7
F.2d 129, 136 (7th Cir. 1982) (describing the retention of identification documents “beyond the
8
interval required for the appropriate brief scrutiny” as a “watershed point” for purposes of
9
determining whether a stop constitutes a non-coercive police-citizen encounter). Finally—and
most tellingly of all—Plaintiff signed the statement purportedly confessing to being Yasim
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Mohamed Ali Alghazali in the name Mosed Shaye Omar. The Agency’s decision fails to
12
acknowledge any of this.
13
Given Plaintiff’s undisputed declaration disavowing knowledge of the contents of his
14
alleged confession, Plaintiff’s “confession” is not evidence of anything let alone substantial
15
evidence that Plaintiff committed fraud by using a false name to obtain his passport. The
16
government’s use of this statement to revoke Plaintiff’s passport was arbitrary and capricious in
17
violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
18
B. Plaintiff’s Due Process Rights At the Revocation Hearing
19
This case presents a question of first impression as to the burden of proof for passport
20
revocations. Both parties agree that neither the applicable statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1504, nor the
21
regulation, 22 C.F.R. § 51.70 et seq., specify the appropriate standard of proof for a passport
22
revocation. However, given the severe consequences associated with a passport revocation,
23
Plaintiff contends that the revocation must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The
24
government suggests that the proper standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.
25
Plaintiff counters that even if this were the correct standard of proof it was not followed here.
26
Before the Court can reach this question, however, it must resolve the threshold question of who
27
bears the burden of proof as the parties have sharply different theories in this regard as well.
28
1) The Government Bears the Burden of Proof
10
Under APA, “the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.” 5 U.S.C. § 556(d).
1
2
Thus, the government—as the proponent of the decision revoking Plaintiff’s passport—bears the
3
burden. See Bosma v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 754 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 1984). The government
4
nonetheless argues, without citation to any statute or regulation, that Plaintiff bears the burden at
5
the administrative hearing stage. At oral argument, the government postulated that it only bore the
6
burden as to the initial passport revocation which occurs when someone in Washington DC
7
reviews the evidence and determines whether a passport should be revoked; thereafter, the burden
8
shifts to the party challenging the determination—here, Plaintiff. The government’s unsupported
9
theory contradicts the plain language of the APA as well as its own conduct in this case.
The APA provides that the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. 5 U.S.C. §
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
556(d). There is no “order” for the government to be a proponent of until after it issues its order
12
of revocation; thus, its suggestion that it only bears the burden of proof when deciding whether to
13
issue an order of revocation contradicts the statute’s plain language.
Further, the government’s communications concerning the administrative hearing stated
14
15
that it bore the burden at the hearing stage. The letter responding to Plaintiff’s request for a
16
hearing, stated:
17
the sole purpose of the passport revocation hearing is to establish in
a formal setting, the basis for the Department’s action and to
determine whether the appropriate procedures were followed in
revoking the passport. The only issue for consideration and decision
will be whether or not the Department satisfied the requirements of
conditions of the applicable passport regulations.
18
19
20
(AR 6 (emphasis in original).) That is, the issue at the hearing was whether the Department
21
satisfied the requirements, not whether Plaintiff can disprove the conclusion that he used a false
22
name to obtain his passport. 4 The letter Plaintiff received 13 months after the Embassy officials
23
confiscated his passport stated that the passport was revoked because “an investigation revealed
24
that you are not Mosed Shaye Omar” as admitted in a “signed sworn statement” and the passport
25
26
27
28
4
See also AR 104 (the pre-hearing written submission of the Department of State) (“[t]he scope of
the hearing is limited to a determination of whether the Department acted properly in revoking Mr.
Alghazali’s passport”...“the scope of the hearing is limited to whether in fact the Department acted
properly in determining that Mr. Alghazli’s passport was obtained illegally, fraudulently or
erroneously.”).)
11
1
was revoked “[b]ecause you made a false statement of material fact in a passport application.”
2
(AR 111.) However, Plaintiff was not provided any information regarding this investigation and
3
only received a copy of the signed statement a week before his passport revocation hearing—after
4
he had already filed his pre-hearing statement. In declining to grant Plaintiff an extension of the
5
hearing date once he obtained counsel, the government stated that there was no requirement for
6
pre-hearing written submissions, but that it would provide him with a copy of its pre-hearing
7
statement a week prior to the hearing “as a courtesy.” 5 (AR 69-71.) It is inconceivable that
8
Plaintiff would bear the burden of proving that he did not use a false name in obtaining his
9
passport where he had no right to know the evidence against him in advance. Such a practice
would run afoul of the fundamental nature of our system of justice. It is thus unsurprising that the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
government presented its evidence first at the passport revocation hearing. (AR 455 at 6:11-14
12
(“Counsel for the Department will present their evidence on which the passport was revoked. And
13
then the petitioner and his counsel will follow with a statement and/or evidence in his defense.”).)
14
The party who bears the burden on a particular issue presents its evidence first.
The government—as the proponent of its order revoking Plaintiff’s passport—bears the
15
16
burden of proof as the government all but conceded in connection with Plaintiff’s administrative
17
hearing.
2) The Applicable Standard of Proof
18
“The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process
19
20
Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of
21
confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a
22
particular type of adjudication.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 (1979) (internal citation
23
and quotation marks omitted). “At one end of the spectrum is the typical civil case involving a
24
monetary dispute between private parties” wherein the “plaintiff’s burden of proof is a mere
25
26
27
28
5
Plaintiff, through his counsel, repeatedly asked for a copy of the statement upon which his
passport revocation was based; however, the government refused to provide it until the parties
exchanged simultaneous briefs seven days before the hearing. (AR 83-90.) The government
similarly declined counsel’s request for a continuance of the hearing to allow counsel to prepare as
they were only retained a month before the hearing. (AR 52-55.)
12
1
preponderance of the evidence [and] [t]he litigants [] share the risk of error in roughly equal
2
fashion.” Id. At the other end of the spectrum, in a criminal case, the beyond a reasonable doubt
3
standard applies because “the interests of the defendant are of such magnitude that historically and
4
without any explicit constitutional requirement they have been protected by standards of proof
5
designed to exclude as nearly as possible the likelihood of an erroneous judgment.” Id. An
6
intermediate “clear” and “convincing” standard applies where the interests at stake “are deemed to
7
be more substantial than mere loss of money” or where “particularly important individual
8
interests” are at stake. Id. at 424.
9
Clear and convincing evidence requires evidence that could “place in the ultimate
factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are highly probable.”
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984) (internal citation and quotation marks
12
omitted); see also United States v. Yi, 704 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Clear and convincing
13
evidence creates a conviction that the factual contention is highly probable.”). In contrast,
14
evidence satisfies the preponderance of the evidence standard if it is “reliable and thoroughly
15
tested.” United States v. Mezas de Jesus, 217 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation and
16
quotation marks omitted).
17
While the preponderance of evidence standard generally applies in ordinary civil cases, the
18
Supreme Court has applied the clear and convincing evidence standard when certain fundamental
19
rights are at stake. See, e.g., Cruzan by Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261,
20
286 (1990) (cessation of life support); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760-70 (1982)
21
(termination of parental right); Addington, 441 U.S. at 433 (civil commitment); Woodby v.
22
Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 385 U.S. 276, 286 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United
23
States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization). Plaintiff, relying Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116
24
(1958), contends that an individual’s right to travel internationally is likewise a fundamental right.
25
In Kent, the Supreme Court held that Congress had not authorized the Secretary of State to inquire
26
of passport applicants as to any affiliation with the Communist Party finding that “[t]he right to
27
travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of
28
law under the Fifth Amendment.” Id. at 125. In so holding, the Court observed that “[t]ravel
13
1
abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the
2
heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is
3
basic in our scheme of values.” Id.
4
The government counters that the “right to travel” was limited by Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S.
5
280, 306 (1981). In Haig, a rogue CIA agent conceded that he had engaged in a campaign to drive
6
the CIA out of countries in which it operates, including by publicly exposing CIA undercover
7
agents and divulging classified information. Id. at 283-85. He nonetheless challenged the
8
government’s authority to revoke his passport for such conduct. Id. at 287. The Supreme Court
9
found that “[r]evocation of a passport undeniably curtails travel, but the freedom to travel abroad
with a ‘letter of introduction’ in the form of a passport issued by the sovereign is subordinate to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
national security and foreign policy considerations; as such, it is subject to reasonable
12
governmental regulation.” Id. at 306. “The Court has made it plain that the freedom to travel
13
outside the United States must be distinguished from the right to travel within the United States.”
14
Id. Indeed, while “[t]he constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified,” “the
15
‘right’ of international travel has been considered to be no more than an aspect of the ‘liberty’
16
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S.
17
170, 176 (1978). “Thus, legislation which is said to infringe the freedom to travel abroad is not to
18
be judged by the same standard applied to laws that penalize the right of interstate travel, such as
19
durational residency requirements imposed by the States.” Id. at 176-77.
20
Neither Haig nor Califano substantively diminished the fundamental nature of the right to
21
travel. The Haig Court explicitly noted that it had considered a different question in Kent;
22
namely, whether the Secretary of State could deny a passport based on someone’s political beliefs
23
and not “whether the Executive had the power to revoke the passport of an individual whose
24
conduct is damaging the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” Haig, 453
25
U.S. at 304; see also Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222, 241 (1984) (distinguishing Kent from cases
26
addressing national security issues noting that the “the Fifth Amendment right to travel, standing
27
alone, [was] insufficient to overcome the foreign policy justifications supporting [a] restriction” on
28
all travel to Cuba). The government undoubtedly has greater leeway in enacting regulations aimed
14
1
at national security. Further, the salient inquiry in Haig was the level of judicial scrutiny, not, as
2
here, the level of proof required (in Haig the agent conceded the conduct for which his passport
3
was revoked). Moreover, recent cases emphasize that the right to travel—including the right to
4
international travel—remains a firmly entrenched right of an American citizen. See Vartelas v.
5
Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479, 1488 (2012) (“Loss of the ability to travel abroad is itself a harsh penalty,
6
made all the more devastating if it means enduring separation from close family members living
7
abroad.”); Nguyen v. I.N.S., 533 U.S. 53, 67 (2001) (describing “the absolute right [of a citizen] to
8
enter [the United States’] borders”); Eunique v. Powell, 302 F.3d 971, 973 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It is
9
undoubtedly true that there is a constitutional right to international travel.”).
10
The Court is thus persuaded that a citizen’s right to travel is a fundamental right and that
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
revocation of a passport, particularly when it occurs while the individual is outside the United
12
States, significantly infringes upon that right. The question then is what standard of proof is
13
required when that right is implicated. While neither party points to a case defining the standard
14
of proof applicable to a passport revocation or even a travel restriction generally, the government
15
contends that any liberty interest Plaintiff may have in international travel must be balanced
16
against the government’s interest in ensuring the integrity of the passport and protecting the
17
passport system from fraud. The case the government cites in support of this proposition—In re
18
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum (Passports) Dated June 8, 1982, 544 F. Supp. 721, 726 (S.D.
19
Fla. 1982), is inapposite as it addressed whether an individual could be compelled to produce his
20
passport or whether this would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
21
In holding that it would not violate the Fifth Amendment, the court noted that given the “unique
22
function of a passport,” the government has a “strong interest” in it, and it was not a “private
23
paper.” Id. This reasoning does not shed any light on the government’s interest in restricting
24
international travel when weighed against a citizen’s right to travel abroad and return home. The
25
government’s citation to Haig is likewise not dispositive for, as the Court previously noted, the
26
government unquestionably has a heightened interest where issues of national security are at stake,
27
but there has been no such allegation here.
28
Plaintiff compellingly posits that the government’s interest in preventing the issuance of
15
1
false passports is at least as great as the government’s interest in preventing undocumented
2
individuals who have no legal status in the United States from remaining here and the Supreme
3
Court has held that clear and convincing burden applies to those proceedings. See Woodby, 385
4
U.S. at 285 (“[t]his Court has not closed its eyes to the drastic deprivations that may follow when
5
a resident of this country is compelled by our Government to forsake all the bonds formed here
6
and go to a foreign land where he often has no contemporary identification.”). The analogy is
7
especially apt where, as here, the practical effect of the revocation of Plaintiff’s passport was to
8
prevent him from returning home to the United States for 13 months.
9
There is of course a temporal nature to the infringement caused by revocation or denial of a
passport that must be considered. The government asserts that, compared to termination of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
parental rights or civil commitment, a passport revocation does not pose a prolonged or permanent
12
change in status. While the temporary nature of the revocation may be true when a passport is
13
revoked for failure to pay child support, the circumstances here are different. The government
14
claims Plaintiff applied for his passport in a false name. There is nothing about such a finding that
15
Plaintiff can easily fix; to the contrary, as the Court previously noted, such a finding places the
16
Plaintiff in a untenable legal position. If he continues using his name under which the United
17
States granted him citizenship he runs the risk that the government will then accuse him of a using
18
a false name in other contexts, such as paying social security taxes or obtaining a driver’s license.
19
Thus, in these circumstances, the proceedings are more akin to a permanent deprivation requiring
20
a clear and convincing standard.
21
The Court, however, will not finally rule on this issue. As the parties note, it is—
22
somewhat surprisingly—a matter of first impression and is not an issue that the Court must resolve
23
to adjudicate this case. The Court has already decided that the government’s decision cannot
24
survive Plaintiff’s APA challenge. Moreover, as is discussed below, the government did not even
25
apply the lower preponderance standard at the hearing level and, in any event, the evidence does
26
not satisfy that standard.
27
28
3) Plaintiff’s Revocation Hearing
The hearing transcript demonstrates that the hearing officer did not apply any particular
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
standard of proof.
[GOVERNMENT COUNSEL] MS. MODY: It’s my understanding
that there is no stated burden of proof, and that because this is an
informal hearing, there are not very many rules governing the
hearing itself, particularly because the hearing officer makes a
recommendation to the Deputy Assistant Secretary to make a final
determination.
COMMISSIONER FELLOWS:
As Ms. Mody said, as an
administrative hearing and as I sort of laid out at the start, it’s very
informal. So the same burdens that you might face in a courtroom
don’t necessarily apply in this hearing.
And as Ms. Mody said, after the hearing, I will make a
recommendation to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport
Services, and she will consider all the relevant submissions, as well
as my opinion.
(AR 492 at 43:5-21.) Nor does it appear that Defendant Sprague, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Passport Services, applied a particular standard of proof to her review as she merely signed her
12
name in the approved line on the hearing officer’s recommendation. The government argues that
13
notwithstanding a complete lack of evidence that either the hearing officer or Defendant Sprague
14
applied a particular standard of proof, the Court should defer to the presumption of regularity in
15
government officials’ performance of their duties citing Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v.
16
Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971) abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99
17
(1977). Even were such a presumption to apply here, it would not shield the decision from a
18
“thorough, probing, in-depth review.” Id.
19
Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the government’s decision to revoke
20
Plaintiff’s passport must have been supported by evidence that was “reliable and thoroughly
21
tested.” Mezas de Jesus, 217 F.3d at 644. The agency’s factual findings and credibility
22
determinations are subject to a substantial evidence standard; that is, they must be upheld unless
23
there is “evidence in the record [that] would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary
24
result.” Ursack Inc. v. Sierra Interagency Black Bear Grp., 639 F.3d 949, 958 (9th Cir. 2011)
25
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
26
As explained above, in light of Plaintiff’s undisputed evidence, the statement itself—the
27
only evidence upon which the government relies—is not reliable. To the contrary, on this record,
28
17
1
and, in particular, in light of Plaintiff’s unchallenged declaration and supporting documentation, a
2
reasonable finder of fact would be compelled to find that he did not use a false name. The
3
government now attempts to fault the declaration for not being subject to cross-examination. Yet
4
the government never sought to cross-examine Plaintiff. The government suggests that this was
5
because Plaintiff could not be compelled to testify; however, there is no suggestion in the record
6
that the government even asked if he would testify. Instead, the record reflects that Plaintiff’s
7
counsel asked if an interpreter would be provided for the hearing and the government responded
8
that it was Plaintiff’s obligation to furnish one. (AR 91.) Further, regardless of whether Plaintiff
9
testified, nothing prohibited the government from offering evidence as to how the statement came
10
about. Yet it offered none.
The hearing officer’s determination that Plaintiff did not produce documentary evidence
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
rebutting the government’s contention that he was not Mosed Shaye Omar is inaccurate. 6 Despite
13
being given only 23 days to do so, Plaintiff’s counsel did in fact obtain additional documentation
14
from Yemen at the hearing officer’s request. (AR 505, 588-612.) Following the hearing, counsel
15
supplemented the record with a copy of Plaintiff’s vaccination record from Yemen from 1972 and
16
the sworn statements of four individuals from Yemen who attested that “they know the person
17
whose photo appears above and that his name is Mosed Shaye Omar, and that they know him by
18
this name prior to this entry to the United States of America, and that they do not know of any
19
other name for him.” (AR 598-605.) The hearing officer inexplicably ignored the sworn
20
statements of the four individuals, and only referenced the immunization record which he
21
discounted as “created immediately before [he] came to the United States.” (AR 640.) Plaintiff
22
thus not only obtained additional documentary evidence from Yemen from over 40 years ago, but
23
he did so despite the fact that government counsel noted at the administrative hearing that she had
24
been unable to obtain additional evidence from Yemen in support of the government’s allegation
25
26
27
28
6
In his decision, the hearing officer stated: “petitioner was provided with an opportunity to submit
additional documentary evidence of identity after the conclusion of his hearing and was unable to
produce a single document from the 20 years he lived in Yemen prior to applying for an
immigrant visa. The one document provided was created immediately before Mr. Alghazali came
to the United States.” (AR 640.)
18
1
that Omar was not Plaintiff’s true identity because “the situation in Yemen is very dire right now,
2
and it is very difficult to get any documentation.” (AR 496 at 47:13-15.)
3
The government’s insistence that the level of detail in statement is evidence of its
4
authenticity because “it contains a level of detail that an investigator could not have fabricated” is
5
unpersuasive. (Dkt. No. 56 at 23:23-24.) As Plaintiff points out, the information in the statement
6
could well have been derived from Plaintiff’s passport and visa applications.
7
Finally, the government’s mantra that Plaintiff has never denied that he told Agent Howell
8
that his true identity is Alghazali or otherwise disavowed that he is in fact Alghazali lacks
9
substance. There is no evidence that Plaintiff ever told Agent Howell that he is Alghazali in the
first place. And Plaintiff has repeatedly declared under penalty of perjury that his name is Mosed
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Shaye Omar. (AR 155 at ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 14-38 at ¶ 1.) That the declaration Plaintiff submitted
12
prior to the hearing did not “wholesale” recant the statement he signed at the Embassy is most
13
likely because the government did not permit him to see the statement until after he submitted his
14
declaration.
15
On this record, the government has not satisfied and cannot satisfy its burden of proving
16
that Plaintiff applied for his passport with a false name by, at a minimum, a preponderance of the
17
evidence. There is thus no reasonable basis to uphold the government’s decision revoking
18
Plaintiff’s passport. Peck v. Thomas, 697 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Agency action is
19
presumed to be valid and must be upheld if a reasonable basis exists for the agency decision.”) “A
20
reasonable basis exists where the agency considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational
21
connection between the facts found and the choices made.” Id. (internal citation and quotation
22
marks omitted). Such analysis did not occur here.
23
C.
Remand is the Appropriate Remedy
24
The final question for the Court is the remedy. Generally,“[i]f the record before the
25
agency does not support the agency action, if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, or
26
if the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the
27
record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for
28
additional investigation or explanation.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744
19
1
(1985); UOP v. United States, 99 F.3d 344, 351 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The general rule is that when an
2
administrative agency has abused its discretion or exceeded its statutory authority, a court should
3
remand the matter to the agency for further consideration.”). Plaintiff nonetheless contends that
4
the Court can exercise its authority “as a court of equity conducting judicial review under the APA
5
[with] broad powers to order mandatory affirmative relief.” Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville
6
Power Admin., 477 F.3d 668, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2007)(citation and internal quotation mark
7
omitted). The Court disagrees.
8
9
The case upon which Plaintiff relies, Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir.
1981), was decided under the Social Security Act and concluded that remand was unnecessary
because the record had been thoroughly developed such that the Court could conclude that there
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
was essentially no basis for the Administrative Law Judge’s decision separate and apart from the
12
procedural error so remand would just delay the receipt of benefits. The same cannot be said here
13
as the opposite is true: the record is not fully developed; indeed, there are gaping holes. The
14
remainder of Plaintiff’s argument—that remand would improperly give the government a second
15
bite at the apple and reward the government for its procedural improprieties and that fail to serve
16
as a deterrent for future improprieties—is likewise unpersuasive as Plaintiff has failed to cite any
17
case, outside of the social security context, which authorizes the Court to ignore the general rule
18
regarding remand.
19
The Court thus remands for a new hearing within 60 days. 22 C.F.R. § 51.70(c). As
20
noted above, the government shall bear the burden of establishing that Plaintiff’s passport was
21
properly revoked pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(2). Both parties agree, and indeed request, that
22
the Court retain jurisdiction following remand. Because it is within the Court’s discretion to do
23
so, the Court agrees to retain jurisdiction pending the remand. See, e.g., Marceau v. Blackfeet
24
Hous. Auth., 540 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[b]ecause of the lengthy course of this litigation,
25
the district court should stay, rather than dismiss, the action against the Housing Authority while
26
Plaintiffs exhaust their tribal court remedies.”); Marsh v. Napolitano, No. C 11-03734 LB, 2012
27
WL 3877675, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2012) (remanding to the Administrative Appeals Office
28
and retaining jurisdiction); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Evans, No. C 04-04496 WHA, 2005
20
1
WL 1514102, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) (granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,
2
remanding to the agency for further proceedings, and retaining jurisdiction); Bonnichsen v. U.S.,
3
Dep’t of Army, 969 F. Supp. 628, 645 (D. Or. 1997) (remanding to “to fully reopen this matter, to
4
gather additional evidence, to take a fresh look at the legal issues involved, and to eventually reach
5
a decision that is based upon all of the evidence, that applies the relevant legal standards, and that
6
provides a clear statement of what the agency has decided, and the reasons for that decision.”). 7
CONCLUSION
7
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
8
and DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This matter is remanded to the State
10
Department for proceedings consistent with this Order, including a new hearing within 60 days
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
under 22 C.F.R. § 51.70(c). The Court’s preliminary injunction remains in effect and Plaintiff
12
shall retain possession of his passport during these administrative proceedings, and until he is
13
afforded a full and fair hearing regarding the government’s allegation that Plaintiff’s passport is
14
subject to revocation under 22 C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(2). 8 Within 30 days of the conclusion of the
15
administrative proceedings, the parties shall provide a joint status report detailing how they wish
16
to proceed.
17
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 55 & 56.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: February 16, 2016
20
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
The Court declines to decide whether Plaintiff is entitled to a formal hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
554. Such issue is better left decided after remand, if necessary.
8
This order does not foreclose the government from revoking Plaintiff’s passport on other
grounds, but it is enjoined from doing so on the same basis that it did so in the revocation
proceedings at issue in this case.
21
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?