Hadwan v. United States Department of State

Background

Mansoor Hamoud Hadwan, whom the opinion describes as a man born in Yemen, sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the State Department’s decision to uphold revocation of his U.S. passport and cancellation of his Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA). The CRBA had been issued in 1998, and Hadwan received a U.S. passport in 2004 using the same name and parent information.

In 2013, at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, Hadwan signed a statement saying that his true name and biological parents differed from the information used for his passport and CRBA. The statement said that the document was read to him in Arabic, that he understood it completely, and that he signed it voluntarily without threats or coercion. The Department confiscated his passport, later revoked it, and canceled his CRBA on the ground that the documents had been obtained fraudulently.

The Department held a revocation hearing in 2014. Hadwan could not attend because he had been denied a limited-validity passport to travel to the United States. His administrative lawyer argued that Hadwan might not have understood the statement, but did not submit evidence or a written brief. The lawyer also did not submit the DNA evidence he had offered to obtain. The hearing officer recommended upholding the revocation, and the Department issued its final decision in 2015.

Claims and governing standard

Hadwan brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. The court reviewed the agency action under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard, which permits a court to set aside an agency decision if, among other things, the agency ignored an important issue, relied on improper factors, acted contrary to the evidence, or failed to provide a rational explanation connecting the facts to its decision. The court explained that review was limited to the administrative record and that it could not substitute its judgment for the agency’s.

The court stated that Hadwan had abandoned Counts One and Two, concerning the Department’s interpretation and application of 8 U.S.C. § 1504 and its use of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. Count Seven had previously been dismissed. The remaining claims were Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, and Eight.

Count Three: reliance on the sworn statement

Count Three alleged that the Department violated the Fifth Amendment by relying on a statement that Hadwan said was coerced, involuntary, and not the product of a free choice. The court held that Hadwan had not shown that the Department’s reliance on the statement was arbitrary and capricious.

The court noted that the only relevant argument presented during the administrative hearing was that there were no affidavits from the translator or the interviewing agent confirming that Hadwan understood the statement. The agency rejected the broader claim that Hadwan did not understand the statement because the statement itself said it had been read to him in Arabic and that he understood it. The court also emphasized that Hadwan submitted no evidence supporting his arguments. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on Count Three.

The court added that it would have been better practice for the translator to provide a sworn statement confirming that the entire document had been translated and understood. It nevertheless concluded that the absence of such an affidavit did not make the agency’s decision arbitrary or contrary to the record.

Count Four: notice and hearing

Count Four alleged that the defendants failed to provide written notice and a meaningful, prompt opportunity for a hearing. Hadwan focused on the period between the 2013 confiscation of his passport and the 2014 revocation decision. The defendants argued that they gave written notice of the revocation, explained the reasons, and held a hearing a little more than five months after Hadwan requested one.

The court held that Hadwan was raising the specific delay-and-notice argument for the first time in court. His administrative lawyer had not presented that argument to the hearing officer or supplied evidence about other alleged procedural deficiencies. Because judicial review was limited to the agency record and the reasoning presented to the agency, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Count Four.

Count Five: unsupported APA allegations

Count Five alleged generally that the Department’s conclusions were arbitrary and capricious. The court evaluated the defendants’ argument that this claim was inadequately pleaded under the standard for failure to state a claim. It held that Count Five merely repeated the legal standard for Administrative Procedure Act review without identifying a specific violation, agency conclusion, or supporting facts. The court dismissed Count Five.

Count Six: APA adjudication procedures

Count Six alleged that the Department failed to apply formal Administrative Procedure Act adjudication rules to the passport-revocation hearing. Hadwan did not respond to the defendants’ arguments on this claim. The court treated the claim as abandoned and dismissed Count Six with prejudice.

Count Eight: declaratory judgment

Count Eight sought a declaration that the defendants had failed to perform their official duties lawfully. The court explained that the Declaratory Judgment Act supplies a remedy but does not create substantive rights or require a court to issue a declaration. Because Hadwan had not established a substantive violation by the defendants, the court dismissed Count Eight.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court granted judgment to the defendants on Counts Three and Four, dismissed Count Five, dismissed Count Six with prejudice, and dismissed Count Eight. The opinion also stated that Counts One and Two had been dismissed after Hadwan expressly abandoned them and that Count Seven had previously been dismissed. The Clerk was directed to close the motion and terminate the case. The court did not decide Hadwan’s citizenship status, and noted the Government’s representation that it would consider DNA evidence, if submitted, showing that Hadwan was the child of Hamoud Hadwan.