340 F. Supp. 3d 351
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Hadwan, a U.S. citizen, applied at the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a (June 2013); embassy officials confiscated his U.S. passport and Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA).
- He signed forms (in Arabic, per the record) that later were construed as admissions that his biological father was not a U.S. citizen and that he had lied on his passport/CRBA applications; Hadwan says the statements were coerced and that he did not understand what he signed.
- The State Department revoked Hadwan’s passport and CRBA (March 2014) and affirmed the revocation after a revocation hearing where Hadwan did not appear; his counsel argued the statements were involuntary.
- Hadwan sued under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the revocation and sought leave to conduct discovery and to supplement the administrative record with extra-record evidence alleging a broader State Department practice (a “proxy denaturalization program”) and coercive consular conduct.
- The Government opposed extra-record discovery, arguing Hadwan failed to rebut the presumption of administrative regularity or make the required strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.
- The court denied Hadwan’s motion to supplement or pursue discovery, holding he did not meet the high threshold for extra-record evidence or discovery in APA review and noting remand, not discovery, is the usual way to supplement an inadequate record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extra-record discovery / supplementation of the administrative record is warranted | Hadwan: the record lacks how/why Dept. decided he was not who he purported to be; claims coercion and systemic practice at Sana'a Embassy; cites similar materials produced in Ali | Govt: Hadwan failed to show particularized need or the narrow exceptional circumstances; materials from other cases do not prove they were considered here | Denied — Hadwan failed to rebut presumption of regularity and did not make the "strong showing" of bad faith or impropriety required for extra-record discovery |
| Whether alleged coerced statement establishes bad faith justifying discovery | Hadwan: statement was coerced and he did not understand it; surrounding Embassy conduct shows impropriety | Govt: allegations are conclusory; evidence at hearing supported voluntariness (sworn statement said read in Arabic and understood); coercion claim is a merits argument, not proof of bad faith | Denied — bare assertions of coercion insufficient; coercion, if true, can be raised on merits at summary judgment but does not justify discovery now |
| Whether documents from other revocation cases (e.g., Ali) show agency routinely relied on similar materials here | Hadwan: documents from Ali’s record indicate routinely relied-upon materials that are missing from his record | Govt: no evidence those same documents were before decisionmakers in Hadwan’s case; certification in Ali does not establish routine reliance | Denied — no evidence the same documents were actually relied upon here; similarity of other cases does not prove bad faith |
| Whether agency exercised discretion (e.g., not issuing a limited-validity passport) indicates bad faith | Hadwan: failure to issue a limited passport evidenced improper conduct | Govt: issuance of limited-validity passport is discretionary, not mandatory | Denied — discretionary choices do not, by themselves, demonstrate bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7 (2d Cir. 1997) (courts confined to the administrative record in APA review)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (focal point for review is the administrative record; remand typical remedy)
- Comprehensive Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Sebelius, 890 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (agency ordinarily determines what constitutes the administrative record; presumption of regularity)
- Estate of Landers v. Leavitt, 545 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2008) (courts should not ascribe nefarious motives to agency action as a general matter)
- Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (extra-record evidence may be considered as background, not as basis to substitute agency rationale)
- Tummino v. Von Eschenbach, 427 F. Supp. 2d 212 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (strong preliminary showing of bad faith is rare and facts-specific)
- Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F. Supp. 2d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (declining extra-record evidence based on bare assertions of discrimination or guilt by association)