The following excerpt is from Singh v. Cissna, Case No. 1:18-cv-00782-SKO (E.D. Cal. 2019):
plaintiff notice of its intent to deny his petitions, (2) invited the plaintiff to submit rebuttal evidence, (3) reviewed the documents the plaintiff submitted for review, and (4) issued a "well-reasoned, five-page decision" in response). Cf. Hassan v. Chertoff, 593 F.3d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding the plaintiff's procedural due process challenge based on lack of sufficient information to respond failed because the plaintiff "was aware of the information against him. He was questioned about his involvement in the terrorist organization. He was given the opportunity to explain his association during the course of that questioning. The regulation that [the plaintiff] cites requires no more of the government.").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.