Ahmed Ali Muthana v. Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, et al.

Petitioner served as a diplomat from October 1990 until June 1994; his position officially terminated no later than September 1994. His daughter Hoda Muthana was born in New Jersey in late October 1994. In 2004, Petitioner applied for a U.S. passport on her behalf. The State Department requested proof that his diplomatic position ended prior to her birth. Petitioner provided an official letter certifying that he was recognized as a diplomat and subject to accompanying immunities from 1990 until no later than September 1,1994. Satisfied, the State Department issued her passport and recognized her as a U.S. citizen. Ms. Muthana renewed her passport without issue in 2014, then traveled to Syria into ISIS-controlled territory. In 2016, the State Department sent a letter revoking Ms. Muthana’s passport, claiming she was not a U.S. citizen. During litigation the government produced a new official letter, tailored to assert that Petitioner’s diplomatic immunity continued until February 1995, when the State Department purportedly received notice of that termination. Both lower courts accepted the government’s assertion. Both courts also treated the 2019 letter as conclusive, giving no weight to the equally credible 2004 letter despite no new facts arising. Ms. Muthana lost her previously recognized citizenship status without due process of law, rendering her and her young son stateless. The question presented is: Is the U.S. State Department’s certification of an individual’s diplomatic status reasonably considered conclusive and unreviewable evidence, even where it conflicts with the Department’s own prior certification for the same individual, and creates legal inconsistency as to the validity of previously recognized U.S. citizenship?