Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-01142/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-01142-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dragan Ubiparipovic
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dragan Ubiparipovic, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-04-1142-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Dragan Ubiparipovic has filed a motion for certification of records.

Dkt. #117. The motion concerns records allegedly in the possession of the International

Organization of Migration (“IOM”). Specifically, Defendant seeks to obtain contact

information for employees of IOM’s Belgrade office from January 1, 2000 through

December 31, 2002. The motion notes that IOM has refused to produce such records in

response to a subpoena duces tecum issued to IOM’s New York office. IOM apparently

responded to the subpoena by citing Executive Order 10355, signed by President Truman in

1952, granting immunity to IOM’s predecessor organization.

As a result of IOM’s assertion of immunity, Defendant asks the Court to certify to the

United States Secretary of State that the contact information for IOM-Belgrade employees

is needed in the interest of justice in this case. Defendant cites 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f)(1), which

states that certain records may, in the discretion of the Secretary of State, be made available

to a court which certifies that the information is needed in the interest of justice. Defendant

also asserts that the term “employee” in relevant regulations includes “contractors,” and that

Case 2:04-cr-01142-DGC Document 136 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

IOM-Belgrade employees are therefore deemed to be employees of the State Department.

See 22 C.F.R. § 172.1(b). 

The Government initially responded to Defendant’s motion by asserting that a copy

of the motion should be sent to the State Department for its response. Dkt. #121. The

Government also noted that 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f)(1) concerns records “pertaining to the

issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States” and does not include

contact information for individuals alleged to be employees or contractors of the State

Department. In response to this filing, the Court required Defendant to give notice of his

motion to the State Department. Dkt. #122. The Court ordered that any response from the

State Department be filed by September 22, 2006, with any reply being filed by Defendant

or the Government by September 29, 2006. Id. Defendant promptly sent a copy of his

motion to the State Department. Dkt. #123. At the Government’s request, the Court

extended the response time to October 27, 2006. Dkt. ##127, 129. 

The Government filed a supplemental response to Defendant’s motion on

October 27, 2006, setting forth the position of the State Department. Dkt. #132. The

Government asserts that the records sought by Defendant are not State Department records.

Although some employees of IOM’s Belgrade office between January 1, 2000 and

December 31, 2002 provided services in support of the State Department’s Refugee

Admissions Program, the Government asserts that these individuals remained IOM

employees under the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the State

Department and IOM and were not employees or contractors within the meaning of 22 C.F.R.

§ 172.1(b). The Government further asserts that the State Department is not in possession

of the information sought by Defendant and has no basis under the terms of the relevant

MOU to require IOM to provide the information. Id. The supplemental response further

asserts that only IOM has authority to waive immunity under Executive Order 10335, and

that the Secretary of State has no authority to waive immunity on behalf of an international

organization such as IOM. Id.

Case 2:04-cr-01142-DGC Document 136 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Finally, the Government asserts the following with respect to a potential waiver of

IOM immunity:

In its response, IOM further indicated that, if the Court wanted IOM to

consider waiving its immunity with regard to this subpoena, the Court should

send a copy of the subpoena, along with a written request that IOM waive its

immunity, to the U.S. Department of State, with a request that the Department

of State forward it to the Director General of IOM in Geneva, through the U.S.

Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva. To date, the Department

of State has not received such a request. 

Dkt. #132 at 2. 

Defendant has filed no reply to the Government’s response or supplemental response.

As a result, Defendant has not refuted the Government and State Department’s assertions that

the records sought by Defendant are not in the possession of the State Department, that IOMBelgrade employees are not employees or contractors of the State Department, that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1202(f)(1) does not apply to the information sought by Defendant, and that the Secretary

of State has no authority to waive IOM’s immunity under Executive Order 10355 or to

compel production of the requested information under the MOU. In addition, Defendant has

never requested that the Court seek a waiver of IOM immunity by the procedure outlined in

IOM’s response to the subpoena duces tecum as recounted in the Government’s supplemental

response. Because Defendant has not refuted the assertions in the Government’s response

or supplemental response, he has not carried his burden of demonstrating that the requested

certification should issue.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Certification of Records (Dkt. #117)

is denied.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:04-cr-01142-DGC Document 136 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 3