Hadwan v. US Dep’t of State: APA and Due Process Limits on Passport Revocation

Introduction

In the Second Circuit’s June 3, 2025 decision in Hadwan v. US Department of State, the court confronted a long-standing pro se citizen’s challenge to the State Department’s revocation of his Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and U.S. passport. Plaintiff-Appellant Mansoor Hamoud Hadwan, a natural-born U.S. citizen born abroad, had his CRBA and passport seized in 2013 at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, and formally revoked in 2014 on allegations of fraud. Unable to secure travel documents or attend his revocation hearing in person, Hadwan litigated through counsel, asserting (1) that the revocation decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and (2) that his Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated by a meaningless post-revocation hearing. The Department of State defended its process and its reliance on a signed “confession” statement. A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed the lower court and the Department’s denial, ordering return of Hadwan’s documents so he may reapply for a passport.

Summary of the Judgment

By a 2–1 vote, the panel held:

Under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)), the Department’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to address material, undisputed facts—most notably Hadwan’s inability to read or write English and the absence of any competent translation certification or live testimony about how the statement was explained to him.
By revoking Hadwan’s CRBA and passport without affording him a meaningful opportunity to be heard—he was stranded overseas, denied a limited-validity return passport, and barred from attending or effectively participating in his hearing—the Department infringed his Fifth Amendment due process right to travel and contest adverse action.

The Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Department of State, set aside the Department’s upholding of the revocations, and ordered return of Hadwan’s CRBA and expired passport so that he may reapply for a new passport.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): Establishes constitutional and statutory bases for birthright U.S. citizenship, including children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents.
Hizam v. Kerry, 747 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2014): Clarifies that a CRBA merely certifies citizenship at birth and does not confer or revoke citizenship itself.
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983): Sets forth the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review under the APA, requiring agencies to consider all important aspects and explain their reasoning.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976): Prescribes the three-factor due process balancing test (private interest, risk of erroneous deprivation, and governmental interest) to determine what procedural protections are due.
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981): Recognizes the constitutional right to travel and holds that post-revocation process need only include a statement of reasons and meaningful post-deprivation hearing.

Legal Reasoning

The opinion by Judge Pérez breaks down into two prongs:

APA Review (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A))
- The Department relied solely on a handwritten statement allegedly signed by Hadwan admitting fraudulent parentage. None of the facts regarding Hadwan’s limited English literacy, the lack of affidavit or sworn testimony by the interrogating agent or translator, or the questionable reliability of the statement were meaningfully addressed in the Department’s written decision or in the hearing record.
- Under State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, an agency cannot ignore undisputed record facts that “cast doubt” on its sole piece of evidence. By failing to consider how Hadwan’s literacy and the absence of a translation certification bore directly on the statement’s reliability, the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
Due Process (Fifth Amendment)
- Hadwan’s CRBA and passport revocations constituted a deprivation of his liberty interest in international travel (Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)); thus, due process applied.
- Although the Department may withhold a passport pending formal revocation, fundamental due process under Mathews v. Eldridge requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard—“a statement of reasons and an opportunity for a prompt postrevocation hearing” (Haig, 453 U.S. at 310).
- Here, Hadwan (stranded overseas) was denied a limited-validity passport to return, his hearing was scheduled in Washington, D.C., he could not be present, and he was effectively precluded from introducing new evidence (including DNA proof) or cross-examining the Department’s evidence.
- The Court held that such a skeletal hearing fell short of “meaningful time and meaningful manner,” violating the Due Process Clause.

Impact

The decision imposes two important checks on State Department consular adjudications going forward:

Enhanced APA Compliance: Agencies must explicitly address all material, undisputed facts that bear on the reliability of their evidence in passport and CRBA revocation cases. Reliance on a single signed statement requires detailed findings on voluntariness, translation, witness testimony, and corroborating evidence.
Strengthened Due Process for Stranded Citizens: When revoking travel documents of U.S. citizens abroad, consular officers and Passport Services must facilitate in-person or remotely meaningful hearings. This includes granting limited-validity return passports when justified, allowing witness affidavits or depositions, and holding proceedings at overseas posts where feasible (now codified in 22 C.F.R. § 51.71(b)).

Practitioners should advise clients overseas of their right to contest revocations, assist them in obtaining return travel documents, and preserve evidence (e.g., translation certifications, affidavits, DNA tests) to challenge Department findings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA): A document certifying U.S. citizenship at birth for children born overseas to U.S. parents. It does not itself “create” citizenship.
APA “Arbitrary and Capricious” Review: Courts defer to agencies but require that agencies: (a) examine relevant facts, (b) articulate a rational connection between facts and conclusions, and (c) explain how they considered all important aspects of the issue.
Due Process Balancing (Mathews v. Eldridge): Weighs (1) the private interest (here, the right to travel), (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under existing procedures, and (3) the government’s interest (national security and fraud prevention).
Limited-Validity Passports: Temporary travel documents issued to return U.S. citizens abroad to U.S. soil even if their full-term passport is under review or revoked.

Conclusion

Hadwan v. US Dep’t of State establishes that the State Department’s revocation of travel documents must satisfy both the APA’s reasoned‐decision requirements and constitutional due process when citizens are left stranded abroad. Agencies cannot rely on unsupported or unexamined evidence—particularly concerning literacy and translation—nor can they deny meaningful post-deprivation hearings. Going forward, consular officers and Passport Services must ensure that overseas citizens receive clear statements of reasons, facilitation of return travel, and genuine opportunities to contest revocations. The Second Circuit’s reversal and return order underscores the judiciary’s role in guarding against executive overreach in fundamental liberty interests such as international travel.