Home » Legislature & Courts » Briefs and Complaints » Secret Evidence Briefs and Complaints
Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance and for Immediate Release from Custody
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 99-3458-CIV-LENARD
MAZEN AL NAJJAR,
Petitioner,
vs.
JANET RENO, Attorney General,
United States Department of Justice;
DORIS MEISSNER, Commissioner,
Immigration and Naturalization Service;
PAUL SCHMIDT, Chairman, Board of
Immigration Appeals; ROBERT WALLIS,
District Director, Miami District of the INS; and
S. KENT DODD, Warden, Manatee County
Downtown Facility,
Respondents
____________________________________/
PETITIONER'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE AND
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE FROM CUSTODY
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Mazen Al Najjar seeks an order compelling the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to comply with this Court's May 31, 2000 Order and ordering his immediate from INS custody. In its May 31 Order, this Court ruled that the INS had detained Al Najjar unconstitutionally because it did so on the basis of secret evidence without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to confront the evidence. Al Najjar v. Reno, 97 F.Supp.2d 1329 (S.D.Fla. 2000). To remedy this ongoing constitutional violation, the Court vacated the administrative decisions that justified Al Najjar's detention, ordered a redetermination of bond by the Immigration Judge ("IJ"), and ordered that Al Najjar "shall remain in the custody of Respondents pending a redetermination of Petitioner's custody status by the Immigration Judge." Id. at 1362-63.
On October 27, 2000, the IJ issued a 56-page decision finding that in two weeks of public hearing the INS had presented no evidence supporting its assertions that Al Najjar was a threat to national security. Oct. 27, 2000 IJ Decision (Exhibit 1). On December 6, 2000, the IJ completed the second phase of the redetermination proceeding by ruling that the INS failed to offer sufficient notice to Al Najjar of its classified evidence, and that Al Najjar should therefore be released on $8,000 bond. Dec. 6, 2000 IJ Order (Exhibit 2)
Despite this Court's specific directive that Petitioner should remain in custody only "pending a redetermination of his custody status by the Immigration Judge," the INS did not release Al Najjar upon the IJ's ruling. Nor did it seek review in this Court. Instead, it sought to bypass this Court by seeking a stay of Al Najjar's release from the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA" or "Board"). INS Emergency Request for Stay Pending Appeal (Exhibit 3). On December 6, the BIA granted a temporary 24-hour stay of Al Najjar's release order. Dec. 6, 2000 BIA Order (Exhibit 4). On December 7, the BIA extended that stay indefinitely. Dec. 7, 2000 BIA Order (Exhibit 5).
Under the terms of this Court's May 31, 2000 Order, Al Najjar should be a free man. More than six months ago, the Court ruled that Al Najjar was being detained unconstitutionally. When the Court ordered a fair redetermination of Al Najjar's custody status, it could not have imagined that the process would take six months to complete. Yet that process is now over, and the IJ has determined that Al Najjar should be released on bond. Thus, under this Court's May 31 Order, Al Najjar should no longer "remain in ... custody." Al Najjar v. Reno, 97 F.Supp.2d at 1362-63.
The government's attempt to delay Al Najjar's release by seeking BIA intervention is inconsistent with the terms of this Court's May 31 Order. The Court contemplated one bond redetermination "by the Immigration Judge," and specified that Al Najjar should "remain in the custody of the Respondents" only until the IJ ruled. BIA review was not contemplated by the Court in its remand order, and is not authorized by immigration statutes or regulations under the circumstances of this case. Moreover, BIA bond appeals typically take many months to resolve. Al Najjar, who has already lost over three and one-half years of his life to an unconstitutional custody, should not be required to remain in custody any further.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Initial Bond Proceedings
The INS has detained Al Najjar since May 19, 1997. It has done so entirely on the basis of secret evidence that he has never had the opportunity to confront or rebut. When the INS initially presented secret evidence, in connection with Al Najjar's initial bond redetermination request, the in camera proceedings were not even recorded. Al Najjar, 97 F.Supp.2d at 1333. Al Najjar was provided a one-sentence unclassified summary of the classified evidence, which stated: "This Court was provided with information as to the association of Respondent with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." Id.. The IJ found that Al Najjar was "a well respected man, socially, religiously, and professionally [with] strong community and family ties," but denied bond, solely on the basis of classified evidence. 97 F.Supp.2d at 1334 (quoting IJ Bond Redetermination Order, June 23, 1997).
Al Najjar appealed to the Board. Because the IJ had kept no record of the in camera proceeding, the Board could not review the evidence upon which the IJ relied. However, without any notice to Al Najjar, the INS supplemented the record with a new presentation of classified evidence to the Board. Al Najjar was never notified of the presentation, nor offered any opportunity to rebut it. On September 15, 1998, the Board affirmed the detention order, again on the basis of secret evidence.
On October 26, 1999, the Board affirmed a separate deportation order against Al Najjar, denying his request for various forms of relief, including political asylum. Al Najjar's appeal of that decision is pending before the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
2. District Court Grant of Habeas Corpus
On December 22, 1999, Al Najjar sought a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, arguing that his detention on the basis of secret evidence violated the INA and due process, and that his detention based solely on allegations of association with the PIJ violated the INA and the First Amendment. On May 31, 2000, the Court granted relief. Al Najjar v. Reno, 97 F.Supp.2d 1329. It ruled that Al Najjar's detention based on evidence that he had no chance to confront or rebut violated his due process rights. And it ruled that his detention based on mere association with the PIJ violated the INA.
Having determined that Al Najjar was being detained in violation of federal law and the Constitution, the Court vacated the detention orders, ordered a custody redetermination by the Immigration Judge, and ordered that Al Najjar "shall remain in the custody of the Respondents pending a redetermination of Petitioner's custody status by the Immigration Judge." Al Najjar, 97 F.Supp.2d at 1362-63 (emphasis added). In other words, the Court fashioned a constitutional remedy that gave the INS one more chance -- before the IJ -- to show that Al Najjar should remain in detention. The Court explained that "the remedy ... is to afford [Al Najjar] the opportunity for his application [for bond redetermination] to be considered by the IJ in a fundamentally fair manner on remand." Al Najjar, 97 F.Supp.2d at 1357 (emphasis added).
Because the Court's order inadvertently remanded the matter to the INS rather than to the IJ, Al Najjar moved for clarification, asking the district court to make clear that it intended to remand the matter to the IJ rather than to the INS more generally. The INS opposed that motion, arguing that the IJ had no jurisdiction to entertain a bond redetermination proceeding on Al Najjar's behalf now that he was subject to an administratively final order of deportation. Resp. Reply to Pet's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification at 2-3 (filed June 27, 2000). On July 25, 2000, the Court made clear that it intended to remand the case solely to the Immigration Judge, and not to the INS more generally. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification (July 25, 2000).
This Court carefully detailed the procedures to be followed by the IJ on remand. Al Najjar, 97 F.Supp.2d at 1357-60. The Court ordered the IJ first to determine whether Al Najjar should be denied bond solely on the public record. Id. at 1357-58. If the INS failed to justify detention on the public record, the district court ruled that the Service could choose to present classified evidence again, but only if it did so subject to procedures that "preserve Petitioner's rights to notice, an opportunity to confront the evidence, and a fundamentally fair proceeding, that are the essence of procedural due process." Id. at 1359. Significantly, the Court order contemplated no involvement by the BIA, and specifically contemplated Al Najjar's release if the IJ concluded, in a fair proceeding, that Al Najjar did not pose a threat to national security. Id. at 1362-63.
3. Custody Redetermination Proceedings
On July 27, 2000, the IJ issued a decision and preliminary order in which it acknowledged that its remand proceeding would be conducted pursuant to this Court's order, and not pursuant to immigration regulations. Citing 8 C.F.R. ?236.1(d)(1), the IJ noted that in an ordinary immigration proceeding, the entry of a final order of deportation divests the IJ of jurisdiction to entertain bond re-determinations. Matter of Al Najjar, July 27, 2000 IJ Order at 2 (Exhibit 1 to Petitioner's Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance, filed Sept. 5, 2000). But the IJ found that Al Najjar's bond redetermination proceeding was not being conducted subject to the immigration regulations, but was authorized by the district court's order "as a matter of constitutional remedy." Id. at 3.
A. Phase One: the Public Proceeding
The IJ held a two-week public hearing in August and October 2000. At the close of the public hearing, on October 27, 2000, the IJ issued a 56-page decision, rejecting every aspect of the INS's claim that Al Najjar was a threat to national security. The IJ found that "[t]here is no evidence that Respondent engaged in fundraising for any organization," Oct. 27, 2000 IJ Order at 39, and that "the Court has not been presented with any evidence linking Respondent to the PIJ." Id. at 49.
The INS contended that two domestic groups with which Al Najjar was involved -- the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE) and the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP) were "fronts" for the PIJ, but the IJ found that there was "no evidence before the Court that demonstrates that either [ICP or WISE] was a front for the PIJ." Id. at 48. On the contrary, he found "that WISE was a reputable and scholarly research center and the ICP was highly regarded." Id. Moreover, he concluded that "[b]ased on the evidence presented to this Court, it appears that Respondent's involvement with WISE and ICP amounted to cooperation with the organizations in lawful activities." Id. at 49.
The INS contended that Al Najjar had raised money for the PIJ, yet the IJ again found no evidence to support the contention. The IJ noted that the INS's own principal witness, Special Agent William West "admitted that there is no open source evidence that Respondent ever sent money to a terrorist organization or that he ever advocated terrorism." Id.?at 39. Despite the fact that the INS had seized over 500 videotapes of activities by the so-called "front" organizations, and had presented a composite tape from those tapes, the IJ noted that not one excerpt "depicted Respondent engaged in fundraising for the ICP, the PIJ, or any terrorist organization." Id. The IJ found "no evidence that indicates that Respondent engaged in fundraising for the PIJ through WISE," id. at 41, through ICP, id. at 38, or indeed, "for any organization." Id. at 41.
The IJ also dismissed the allegations that WISE and ICP had facilitated the entry of members of terrorist organizations for fundraising purposes. Id. at 41-45. The INS offered no evidence that anyone who came to the United States for purposes of WISE or ICP activities came here illegally. Id. at 45. And more significantly, the INS offered no evidence that anyone who came here engaged in any fundraising activities (or indeed any other illegal activities) on behalf of any terrorist groups while here.
In conclusion, the IJ characterized the INS's evidence as "extremely insubstantial," id. at 40, found "the record ... devoid of any direct or indirect evidence to support the conclusion that Respondent was meaningfully associated, as required by the Act, with the PIJ," id. at 45-46, and concluded that "there are no facially legitimate and bona fide reasons to conclude that Respondent is a threat to national security.'" Id. at 49. Accordingly, the IJ ruled that the INS had failed to meet its burden under the terms of the district court's order. It gave the INS two weeks to decide whether it wanted to proceed by presenting classified evidence in camera, but noted that if the INS chose to do so, the IJ would demand that the INS satisfy this Court's directive that Al Najjar's due process rights be preserved. Id. at 54-56.
B. Phase Two: The Classified Evidence
The INS then presented classified evidence in camera and ex parte. In conjunction with that presentation, the INS produced a one-page "unclassified summary" of the secret evidence, and 16 pages of "unclassified extracts," presumably declassified excerpts from otherwise classified documents. This unclassified production was the only step the INS took to provide Al Najjar with notice of the evidence used against him. The IJ reviewed the classified evidence and the unclassified summary and extract pursuant to the dictates of this Court's May 31 order.
On December 6, 2000, the IJ ruled. As this Court directed, he balanced the INS's interests with those of Al Najjar. He found that the INS had not satisfied the district court's dictate that it present classified evidence in a manner that preserved Al Najjar's rights to notice of the evidence and a meaningful opportunity to confront the evidence. He found that like the initial summary deemed insufficient by this Court, the one-page summary did not provide Al Najjar with a meaningful opportunity to confront the evidence against him. And he concluded that the unclassified extract added nothing new. Accordingly, the IJ declined to rely on the classified evidence, and ordered Al Najjar's release on $8,000 bond.
4. INS Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals
The same day that the IJ ordered Al Najjar's release, the INS filed an emergency request for a stay pending appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. At 7:20 PM, the Board granted a temporary 24-hour stay of the bond order, "pending the Service filing an appeal, response by counsel for respondent, and further order of the Board." Dec. 6, 2000 BIA Order. On December 7, the INS formally filed its notice of appeal. Notably, while the appeal is addressed to the BIA, it focuses almost exclusively on whether the IJ followed this Court's May 31 Order. See Notice of Appeal (Exhibit 6). Al Najjar filed an opposition to the request for a stay, arguing, inter alia, that the Board had no jurisdiction over the appeal because the underlying proceeding was conducted not pursuant to immigration regulations, but as a constitutional remedy specifically ordered by this Court.
On December 7, a stay panel of the BIA extended indefinitely the stay pending appeal, referring the matter to the panel that will decide the INS's appeal. Dec. 7, 2000 BIA Order.
5. Time Frame for BIA Bond Appeals
An appeal of a bond determination to the BIA can and often does take many months to resolve. The BIA took more than a year to resolve Al Najjar's prior bond appeal. In the analogous case of Hany Kiareldeen, the IJ ordered Kiareldeen's release, the Board granted a stay of an IJ's release order pending the INS's appeal, and then did not decide the appeal for over six months. As a result, despite the fact that the only judge who had reviewed the entire record in Kiareldeen's case had ordered his release, Kiareldeen stayed incarcerated for an additional six months, at which point the BIA unanimously affirmed the IJ decision and ordered his release. Reported decisions confirm that delays on bond appeals are common. In Matter of Joseph, Int. Dec. 3398, 1998 BIA LEXIS 25 (May 28, 1999), the alien was ordered released in January 1999, the INS obtained a stay pending appeal from the Board, yet the Board did not decide the bond appeal for five months. In Matter of Melo-Pena, Int. Dec. 3313, 1997 WL 123907 (BIA Feb. 20, 1997), the Board took more than a year to decide the alien's appeal from a denial of bond, even though it required only a three-page decision.
ARGUMENT
I. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELEASE UNDER THIS COURT'S MAY 31 ORDER
When this Court concluded, in its May 31, 2000 Order, that Al Najjar had been unconstitutionally detained since May 1997, it could have ordered his immediate release. See Kiareldeen v. Reno, 71 F.Supp.2d 402 (D.N.J. 1999) (ruling that detention of alien based on secret evidence violated due process, and ordering alien's immediate release). However, the Court exercised its equitable discretion and adopted a remedy one step short of immediate release. It vacated as unconstitutional the administrative orders authorizing Al Najjar's detention, thus removing any independent legal basis for his detention. 97 F.Supp.2d at 1362. But instead of ordering Al Najjar's immediate release, it ordered a new custody determination by the IJ, and ruled that Al Najjar "shall remain in the custody of Respondents pending a redetermination of Petitioner's custody status by the Immigration Judge." Id.?at 1362-63 (emphasis added).
Thus, as of May 31, 2000, the only authority for Al Najjar's continued detention was this Court's May 31 Order itself. The Court had vacated the only administrative orders justifying Al Najjar's detention as unconstitutional. And it expressly contemplated that Al Najjar would remain in detention only until the Immigration Judge completed the redetermination ordered by the Court.
Thus, if either Al Najjar or the INS were dissatisfied with the IJ's actions, the proper recourse was to this Court, not to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Court's granting of Petitioner's prior Motion to Compel Compliance in September underscores this understanding. Order Granting Petitioner's Motion to Compel Compliance with May 31, 2000 Order (Sept. 12, 2000). In that motion, Al Najjar maintained that the IJ was violating his due process rights under the Court's order by agreeing to consider classified evidence before issuing a decision solely on the public record. In granting the motion to compel, the Court did not suggest that Al Najjar should first appeal to the BIA, because BIA involvement was never contemplated by the terms of the Court's May 31 Order.
II. THE BIA HAS NO JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, AND HAS NO POWER TO AFFORD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RELIEF ORDERED BY THIS COURT
The Board's order staying the release order is without lawful authority, because the Board lacks jurisdiction over this matter. As the INS itself argued and the IJ acknowledged, the IJ acted in the remand proceeding not pursuant to immigration statutes or regulations, but pursuant to a constitutional remedy ordered by this Court on habeas corpus. The Court's May 31 order found that Al Najjar had been detained in violation of his due process rights, vacated his detention orders, ordered a specific remedy to be afforded "by the Immigration Judge," and ruled that Al Najjar "shall remain in the custody of Respondents pending a redetermination of Petitioner's custody status by the Immigration Judge." 97 F.Supp.2d at 1362-63. The Court's order discusses in substantial detail the proceedings to be conducted on remand. Id. at 1357-60. The Court refers repeatedly and consistently to what the IJ must do to provide the remedy, and not once contemplates any role whatsoever for the BIA. Id. The IJ has now redetermined Al Najjar's custody status pursuant to the Court's order, and therefore under that Order there is nothing further to be done, and there is no further basis for his detention.
As an administrative tribunal, the BIA's authority is circumscribed by the immigration statute and regulations. Because the IJ custody proceeding was not conducted pursuant to immigration statutes and regulations, the BIA has no authority to review it. In an ordinary immigration case, the IJ would have no jurisdiction to rule on a bond redetermination request after an administratively final order of deportation has been entered. 8 C.F.R. ?236.1(d)(1). Thus, as the IJ acknowledged, its authority to hear Al Najjar's request at this time stemmed not from the INA or its regulations, but from this Court's habeas corpus order. Accordingly, this Court, and only this Court, has the authority to review whether the IJ acted consistently with the Court's order.
Moreover, because it has no statutory or regulatory authority to act, the Board simply cannot provide the relief that this Court ordered. The Board does not have the authority to rely on the Constitution to override INS regulations. Yet INS regulations do not provide for the redetermination proceeding ordered by this Court. Nor do INS regulations require that unclassified summaries be provided at all in secret evidence cases, much less that they be sufficient to provide notice of the classified evidence and a meaningful opportunity to rebut it.
III. THE IJ PROPERLY REDETERMINED AL NAJJAR'S CUSTODY AND ORDERED HIS RELEASE
The IJ properly redetermined Al Najjar's custody and ordered his release. This Court's May 31 Order instructed the IJ to conduct a two-part reconsideration hearing. The first phase was to be solely on the public record. In the second phase, the INS would be permitted to present classified evidence if it could do so pursuant to procedures that "preserve [Al Najjar's] rights to notice, an opportunity to confront the evidence, and a fundamentally fair proceeding."?97 F.Supp.2d at 1359. With a single intervention by this Court, the IJ carried out those dictates, and properly ruled that Al Najjar should be released on bond.
A. The Immigration Judge Correctly Found No Evidence that Al Najjar Poses a Threat to National Security on the Public Record
On October 27, 2000, the IJ issued a comprehensive 56-page decision wholly rejecting the INS's contentions that Al Najjar was a threat to national security. Notably, in its appeal to the BIA and in its stay papers, the government did not identify a single factual finding by the IJ as erroneous. As noted in the Factual Background supra, the IJ found that the INS had presented no evidence whatsoever to substantiate its assertions that Al Najjar had supported the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. On the contrary, the IJ found that Al Najjar's activities were lawful, and that he had never supported any terrorist activity or organization in any way. Thus, the IJ concluded that "there are no facially legitimate and bona fide reasons to conclude that Respondent is a threat to national security.'" Oct. 27, 2000 IJ Order at 49. As the INS has not challenged these findings, there is no basis for this Court to disturb them.
B. The Immigration Judge Correctly Found that the Unclassified Summary and Extract Failed to Provide Sufficient Notice to Satisfy Due Process
As contemplated by this Court, at the conclusion of the public record portion of the hearing the IJ invited the INS to present classified evidence, but maintained that he would consider it only if it satisfied this Court's dictate that Al Najjar be afforded notice of the evidence and a meaningful opportunity to rebut it. The Court then held an in camera ex parte session, balanced the INS's interests against Al Najjar's, and assessed the adequacy of the INS's unclassified summary and extract. On December 6, 2000, he concluded that the unclassified summary and extract failed to provide Al Najjar with notice and a meaningful opportunity to rebut the classified evidence, and therefore he declined to consider it in his custody redetermination. Dec. 6, 2000 IJ Order.
Al Najjar is at an obvious disadvantage in addressing this issue, as he has not been privy either to the classified evidence or even to the unclassified materials. The INS vigorously opposed producing even the unclassified summary to Al Najjar at every juncture, and Al Najjar has never seen it. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that the Service's unclassified materials could possibly meet this Court's requirement that Al Najjar be afforded notice of the classified evidence and a meaningful opportunity to confront it. At a minimum, to satisfy due process a summary would have to inform Al Najjar of each of the specific allegations made against him, of the sources for each allegation, and of the character of the evidence. As the INS's prior summary, deemed constitutionally deficient by the district court, illustrated, general allegations do not afford a meaningful opportunity to respond.
In light of the requisites of due process, the IJ correctly concluded that the INS's one-page summary did not meet due process requirements, particularly given that the summary merely "states conclusions regarding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Respondent's role in the organization." Dec. 6, 2000 IJ Order at 3. In addition, the IJ properly concluded that the "unclassified extract," which apparently consists merely of unredacted material from otherwise classified documents, "contains no new or additional information." Id.
IV. AL NAJJAR WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM EACH DAY THAT HE REMAINS IN CUSTODY
Al Najjar has been detained already for over three and one-half years on secret evidence. More than six months ago, this Court decreed that his detention was unconstitutional. Every day that he remains in custody does further irreparable harm to his constitutional rights. The Court undoubtedly did not expect the reconsideration it ordered in May to take six months to complete. But now that it has been completed, and Al Najjar has been cleared, he must be released immediately.
The federal government has been investigating the groups with which Al Najjar was associated ? WISE and ICP ? for over five years. For more than five years, the government has had, pursuant to a search warrant, the entire contents of the WISE and ICP offices, including computer files, financial records, and videotapes of all their activities. None of this information is classified, and all of it was available for submission in the public proceeding. Yet the INS never presented any evidence that a single penny raised by ICP or WISE ever went to the PIJ or any other illegal activity, nor has it ever filed a single criminal charge against anyone associated with either group.
The INS may claim that it will be irreparably injured by Al Najjar's release because he poses a threat to national security. But it had a full opportunity to establish precisely that in a fair proceeding, and it failed to support its assertions. Mere assertions do not justify the deprivation of a human being's liberty; they must be backed up by admissible and reliable evidence presented in a fair proceeding. Here, the INS was able to offer no such evidence to support its assertions. Mr. Al Najjar's release should not be delayed any further.
CONCLUSION
For all the above reasons, Al Najjar respectfully requests that the Court order his immediate release from custody.
Dated: Dec. 8, 2000
Respectfully submitted,
David Cole, Esq.
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-9078
(202) 662-9408 (fax)
Joseph C. Hohenstein, Esq.
Nationalities Service Center
1300 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 893-8400
(215) 735-9718 (fax)
Nancy Chang, Esq.
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway ? 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
(212) 614-6420
(212) 614-6499 (fax)
Ira J. Kurzban, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 225517
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger & Tetzell
2650 SW 27 Avenue
Miami, FL 33133-3003
(305) 444-0060
(305) 444-3503 (fax)
Randall C. Marshall, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 181765
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Florida, Inc.
3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215
Miami, FL 33137
(305) 576-2337
(305) 576-1106 (fax)
Martin B. Schwartz, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 880371
Law Office of Martin B. Schwartz
Premier North Executive Building
3816 West Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 401
Tampa, FL 33624
(813) 269-7421
(813) 269-7562 (fax)
Certificate of Service
I certify that a true and accurate copy of the forgoing document has been furnished by facsimile transmission, and by U.S. Mail (with copy of exhibits), postage prepaid, this 8th day of December, 2000, to the following counsel of record:
David W. Ogden, Esq.
Christopher C. Fuller, Esq.
Douglas E. Ginsburg, Esq.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division
P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
(202) 616-9777 (fax)
Guy Lewis, Esq.
Dexter Lee, Esq.
U.S. Attorney's Office
99 NE 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
(305) 530-7139 (fax)
