Alzokari v. Pompeo, 973 F.3d 65

Ahmed Ali Alzokari, born in Yemen (1955), naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1979 under the name "Ahmed Ali Alzokari" and used that name on successive U.S. passports.
In March 2013 at the U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, consular investigators detained Alzokari, and after a several‑hour interrogation he signed a statement (which he later said he did not understand) claiming a different name and birth year and admitting other misconduct.
The Department of State revoked Alzokari’s passport in 2015 based solely on that March 2013 statement, concluding the passport had been fraudulently obtained.
An administrative hearing upheld the revocation; the district court dismissed Alzokari’s APA and Due Process claims and sustained the agency.
The Second Circuit reversed, holding the revocation arbitrary and capricious because Alzokari had applied for and been issued passports using the uncontested name and birthdate on his certificate of naturalization, and the Department could not revoke the passport on that basis instead of pursuing denaturalization.
The court ordered return of Alzokari’s expired passport and allowed him to apply for a new U.S. passport; it also held remand to the agency unnecessary on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether passport revocation was arbitrary and capricious under the APA	Revocation rested on an unreliable March 2013 statement and ignored uncontested naturalization records showing his legal name and DOB	The March 2013 statement constituted sufficient evidence of fraud to revoke the passport; agency discretion to prevent fraud	Reversed: revocation arbitrary and capricious because applicant used the name/DOB on his unchallenged certificate of naturalization; Dept. cannot "look behind" certificate to revoke passport absent denaturalization
Whether the court should remand the matter to the agency	No remand needed; legal error can be resolved on the record and relief ordered	Remand appropriate for agency reconsideration	No remand: court resolved legal issue as matter of law and ordered return of passport
Whether allocation of burden in post‑revocation proceedings violated Due Process	Government should bear burden to justify deprivation; procedural defects alleged in administrative process	Regulations place burdens on applicant; agency procedures permitted allocation to applicant	Court did not base decision on burden issue; held allocation questions unresolved but unnecessary because revocation was improper as a matter of law

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 658 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard for arbitrary and capricious review)
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) (executive interest in passport decisions and national security/foreign policy consideration)
Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981) (denaturalization for fraud and standards for attacking naturalization)
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943) (citizenship should not be revoked without the clearest justification)
United States v. Sprogis, 763 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1985) (civil denaturalization burden: clear, unequivocal, and convincing proof)
Islander E. Pipeline Co. v. McCarthy, 525 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) (application of arbitrary and capricious standard)
Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. UGI Utils., Inc., 423 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005) (when remand is unnecessary)
Guertin v. United States, 743 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2014) (declining to remand where record compels relief)