Opinion ID: 3009075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary of Amari’s Interview with the State

Text: Department First, ASSE argues that the Department relied almost exclusively on Amari’s own ex parte testimony and that such testimony was never disclosed to ASSE. ASSE argues that the Department failed to produce any evidence underlying the third-party harassment of Amari alleged and cited by the State Department in the Notice of Intent. ASSE contends that due process required the Department to give ASSE an opportunity to confront Amari’s testimonial evidence in some form, and that the summary the State Department provided was inadequate.15 The Notice of Intent explains: Specifically, after a two hour interview on February 16 with Ms. Amari (speaking only through an interpreter), the Office determined that Ms. Amari was being harassed by third parties – The Cream Pot (host organization), American Career Opportunity (domestic and foreign third party), and Global Associates (foreign third party). Ms. Amari told of having endured almost 30 separate instances of harassment, threats regarding her 15 In its Imposition of Lesser Sanctions, the Department noted that “ASSE does not address this harassment in its Statement.” The Department might have argued that ASSE had waived this argument about the third-party harassment claims by “not address[ing] this.” But the Department did not make this argument in its brief and has thus forfeited its waiver argument. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 952 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); United States v. Garcia-Lopez, 309 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 2002). 30 ASSE INT’L V. KERRY immigration status, and threats to her family if she did not remain silent about the working conditions imposed by the three third parties. A summary of evidence may, in certain circumstance, provide sufficient notice to allow a meaningful opportunity to respond. See Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546 (in some circumstances, due process will be satisfied by an “explanation of the . . . evidence” and opportunity to respond). Moreover, unlike other cases where we have found a summary of testimony inadequate, the State Department’s summary of the interview did provide many crucial details about the identity of the interviewee, involved parties, and the content of the allegations. See, e.g., Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957, 960–62 (9th Cir. 2009) (summary stating only that “reliable, confidential sources have reported that [the alien] has conspired to engage in alien smuggling; has attempted to obtain fraudulent documents; and has engaged in immigration fraud by conspiring to supply false documents for others” was insufficient); see also Greene, 360 U.S. at 496, 508 (failure to provide information regarding the identity or source of confidential informant/evidence did not “comport with . . . traditional ideas of fair procedure”). Yet, in this case the government does not assert that the actual interview notes, or transcript, if it exists, from the interview, are confidential. Thus, the government’s interest in relying on a summary, rather than providing interview notes or a transcript, is minimal. On the other hand, had the Department given ASSE more details about Amari’s accusations, ASSE claims it may have been able to produce evidence refuting them. Such evidence may have affected the Department’s decision as to the severity of sanctions, or whether to even impose sanctions at all. Furthermore, the ASSE INT’L V. KERRY 31 Department’s evidence of harassment came solely from Amari—with no record of any supporting evidence.16 Thus, the risk of an erroneous decision was heightened, and the State Department should have provided ASSE with complete interview notes so it would have an opportunity to rebut the details of the harassment.