Opinion ID: 3009075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ASSE Representative Fei Jiang’s Email

Text: Second, ASSE points to the Department’s reliance on an email that the Department noted in its Imposition of Sanctions but did not reference in its Notice of Intent.17 In 16 ASSE also argues that the State Department relied on the fact that DHS had issued Amari a T Visa. ASSE argues that it did not have access to evidence presented to DHS and that the DHS proceeding was a “black box” it could not penetrate. But importantly, the State Department did not rely on any evidence submitted to DHS and withheld from ASSE. Rather the State Department relied only on the fact that DHS issued the T Visa and that the Department should not “ignore the fact that [DHS] considers Ms. Amari to have shown sufficient evidence of human trafficking while participating in ASSE’s exchange visitor program.” We find no error in relying on this fact. The State Department disclosed DHS’s issuance of the T Visa in its Notice of Intent to impose sanctions, so ASSE had ample opportunity to explain or rebut that fact. 17 ASSE also argued that it was deprived of a meaningful opportunity for rebuttal in an additional instance when the Department expanded its account of its interactions with Amari in its Imposition of Lesser Sanctions beyond what it relayed in the Notice of Intent to impose sanctions. In the Notice, the only detail about an interview with Amari on February 16, 2012 was that the Department representatives spoke to Amari “only through an interpreter.” But after acknowledging ASSE’s argument that the use of an interpreter “is not, standing alone, ‘evidence that [Amari] cannot speak English,’” the Imposition of Lesser Sanctions elaborated its account, stating that other government officials present at the meeting had confirmed “that their attempts to converse informally with Ms. Amari in English without the assistance of the interpreter were to no 32 ASSE INT’L V. KERRY the February 2012 email to the Department, ASSE representative Fei Jiang stated that Amari’s “English appeared to be not at an acceptable level for the purpose of this program,” and that ACO had been “negligent.” The State Department cites to this email in a footnote in its Imposition of Sanctions, concluding that Ms. Jiang “virtually admitted . . . that Ms. Amari should not have been selected.” The question of Amari’s English skills was a key dispute between ASSE and the State Department. And although ASSE’s claimed ignorance of this email, which was sent by one of its own employees involved in handling the State Department’s inquiry into Amari’s status, may trigger some skepticism, it is true that the State Department did not rely on or mention that email in the Notice of Intent. Including its reliance on the email would not be burdensome, and ASSE alleges that had it been given notice that the Department would rely on this statement, ASSE could have explained and rebutted Ms. Jiang’s statement. It argues that Amari’s apparent lack of English ability was more likely the result of “instructions by the anti-trafficking organization representing her not to speak with ASSE staff.” As the State Department failed to mention this piece of evidence in its initial Notice of Intent, ASSE was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to rebut the evidence.