ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

26-003-NOT · Secretary of State · 2026-05-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Barbara Youssef

Arizona Secretary of State

No. 26-003-NOT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 24, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Petitioner: Barbara Youssef

AZ Secretary of State: Kyle Cummings, Assistant Attorney General

Diana Ogaz

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: State’s Exhibits 1-15.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

procedural history

On an unspecified date, Barbara Youssef (Petitioner), submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State (Secretary), an application for a notary public commission.

Along with her application, Petitioner attached a letter of explanation regarding a prior felony conviction and the following supporting documents: Indictment (initial), Fugitive Warrant for Arrest, Case Summary, U.S. District Court Plea Agreement, U.S. District Court Judgment in a Criminal Case, Order releasing Petitioner from supervised probation, a letter from the U.S. District Court Probation Office advising Petitioner she was released from supervised probation, Certification of Identity, a case history from Superior Court, Application to Restore Civil Rights, and the order granting restoration of her civil rights.

On January 9, 2026, Diana Ogaz, Notary Compliance Director, issued a letter denying Petitioner’s application for Notary Public Commission because Petitioner’s conviction was “a felony or another crime involving fraud, dishonesty, or deceit.” The letter advised Petitioner of her right to appeal within 30 days.

Petitioner subsequently requested a hearing regarding the denial of her application for Notary Public Commission.

On February 19, 2026, the Secretary issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing for April 8, 2026, to be held by the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency.

On March 9, 2026, the Secretary requested a continuance due to a scheduling conflict. On March 13, 2026, the parties were advised the hearing was reset, to convene on April 24, 2026.

The hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings on April 24, 2026.

hearing evidence

Petitioner’s Letter of Explanation provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

[Petitioner] worked for the Motor Vehicle Division of Arizona from 2001 to 2004. This was a position of trust that I did not value. I really regret my actions because they affected so many of the important people in my life not just myself.

Early in 2004 I met Mr. Magdi Youssef, he knew I worked in the MVD. He asked if he qualified for an identification from the MVD. He showed me a driver’s license from Egypt a passport and a letter from immigration showing he was in [the process] of seeking asylum.

I told him he could come to the MVD and get the identification from me at my work. On about December of 2004 I issued him a six-month ID. When I issued the ID, I accidentally selected a pseudo record that belonged to someone else with almost the same name. (A pseudo record at the MVD are records created to house a driving ticket issued by the police department, they hold no identifiable value). I did not have a supervisor sign the application. This made the ID invalid. Mr. Youssef has been deported, and I served one year in federal custody with 3 years’ probation. I now have a permanent mark on my record.

On September 15, 2004, an Indictment was filed charging Petitioner with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) (Unlawful Production of False Identification) Count 1 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 982 and 1028 (Forfeiture Allegation). The Indictment provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

Count 1

On or about January 6, 2004, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, [Petitioner], did knowingly and without lawful authority produce a false identification document in the name of Magdi Youssef, which document is or appears to be an Arizona identification card.

. . . .

THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL SENTENCING FACTORS ALSO APPLY:

The offense involved the unlawful use of a means of identification, specifically the Arizona driver’s license record of Maged Metry Youssef, to produce another means of identification, specifically the fraudulent Arizona identification card.

[Petitioner] abused a position of public trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense.

On October 5, 2005, Petitioner signed a Plea Agreement in the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. The Plea Agreement provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

PLEA

[Petitioner] will plead guilty to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment, alleging Production of a False Identification Document in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1028(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), a Class C felony offense.

. . . . AGREEMENT TO DISMISS OR NOT TO PROSECUTE

. . . . the United States will not prosecute [Petitioner] for any other offenses committed by [Petitioner], and known by the government, in connection with the facts underlying the Second Superseding Indictment, including violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, False Statements, and will dismiss Counts Two and Three.

The United States will not prosecute [Petitioner] for any offenses committed by the defendant, and known by the government, in connection with the preparation of an application for permanent residence status for Magdi Youssef on or about February 24, 2004.

. . . .

ELEMENTS AND FACTUAL BASIS

I understand that the crime to which I am pleading guilty, Production of a False Identity Document . . . requires the government to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

[Petitioner] knowingly produced an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;

. . . .

I further agree that if this matter were to proceed to trial, the United States could prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt:

On or about January 6, 2004, in the District of Arizona, I knowingly and without lawful authority produced a false identification document in the name of Magdi Youssef, which document is or appears to be an Arizona identification card.

For sentencing purposes, I admit that the offense involved the unlawful use of a means of identification, specifically the Arizona driver's license record of Maged Metry Youssef, to produce another means of identification, specifically the fraudulent Arizona identification card in the name Magdi Youssef.

For sentencing purposes, I further admit that I abused a position of public trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. I was an employee of the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, and I used that position to produce this fraudulent ID card.

On March 8, 2006, the United States, through counsel, submitted to the United States District Court a Sentencing Memorandum. The United States’ Sentencing Memorandum provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

Relevant Background

On October 4, 2005, the day her trial was scheduled to begin, [Petitioner] pled guilty to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment . . . . [Petitioner] is a former employee of the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (MVD). On January 6, 2004, she accessed the Arizona motor vehicle license record of Maged Metry Yousef and changed that record to unlawfully produce an identification card for Magdi Youssef. Magdi Youssef is an alien who was in deportation proceedings at the time and could not lawfully obtain an identification card.

PSR CALCULATION

. . . .

During the investigation of this offense, [Petitioner]obstructed justice by lying repeatedly to Special Agent Karalee Smith of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). For example, when interviewed on August 24, 2004, [Petitioner] told Agent Smith that she never made any changes to her husband’s motor vehicle record. When interviewed on September 8, 2004, [Petitioner] told Agent Smith that Magdi Youssef was just a customer on January 6, 2004, and she did not know him (despite the fact that she married him on January 13, 2004). [Petitioner] also told Agent Smith that the first time she accessed Magdi Youssef’s motor vehicle record was January 6, 2004, when MVD records show that to be false. . . .

hearing testimony

Diana Ogaz testified on behalf of the Secretary that she reviewed Petitioner’s application and supporting documentation and determined that because the nature of Petitioner’s conviction was fraud, dishonesty, or deceit, and the felony was committed while Petitioner was in a position of trust, specifically an employee of the State of Arizona, that her application could not be approved. Ms. Ogaz stated that notaries were public officials trusted to properly conduct acknowledgements and oaths and to verify the identity of an individual signing a document. Thus, notaries were held to a high ethical standard. Of the supporting documents Petitioner submitted, Ms. Ogaz testified she gave significant consideration to Petitioner’s Letter of Explanation, the Indictment, the Plea Agreement, and the Judgment in Criminal Case.

Specifically, Ms. Ogaz testified she gave significant consideration to Petitioner’s Letter of Explanation, because it was an explanation in Petitioner’s own words of the circumstances that led to her conviction. Ms. Ogaz noted that the letter did not mention that Petitioner was married to Mr. Youssef at the time of the incident.

Ms. Ogaz testified that the Indictment was given significant consideration because it contained the factual basis of the charged felony—unlawful production of a false identification document. Ms. Ogaz further testified she gave the Plea Agreement significant consideration because it contained all the background information, the terms and summary of Petitioner’s admissions, as well as any dismissed counts. In particular, the Plea Agreement documented that Petitioner pleaded guilty to the crime of Production of a False Identity Document because she agreed that the United States could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly and without lawful authority produced a false identification document by unlawful use of another means of identification, and she abused a position of public trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. On questioning, Ms. Ogaz stated that the Plea Agreement and Petitioner’s letter were contradictory because the letter stated she selected the wrong record by mistake and added that she did not have a supervisor sign the application which invalidated the identification. However, in the Plea Agreement, Petitioner swore that she knowingly and without lawful authority produced the false identification by unlawfully using another means of identification to do so.

On further questioning, Ms. Ogaz testified that at the time the Secretary was determining whether to grant or deny Petitioner’s application it was not known to the Secretary that Petitioner and Magdi Youssef married just one week after Petitioner produced the false identification card for Mr. Youssef. Ms. Ogaz testified that had the fact been known, it would have further supported the basis for denial because issuing a fraudulent document to a known individual not only constituted abuse of position, but also confirmed the act was intentional rather than a mistake as stated in Petitioner’s letter.

Petitioner testified that she had been an abusive relationship at the time she met Mr. Youssef. He offered to protect Petitioner and asked her to marry him “right away.” Petitioner testified that because he was already in immigration proceedings for asylum, she did not believe he was trying to get status through marriage. Petitioner testified that although she signed the Plea Agreement it was because she was young and scared and she knew she had issued a fake identification even if it wasn’t intentional and with a purpose to gain anything. Petitioner testified that she served one year in prison and three years’ probation and regretted signing a Plea Agreement. Petitioner testified that she was not aware when she submitted her application that she should have disclosed her subsequent marriage to Mr. Youssef. She further stated she filled the application out as quickly as possible to follow procedure.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that the denial of her application for a notary public commission should be reversed.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

A.R.S. § 41-271 provides:

The secretary of state may deny, refuse to renew, revoke, suspend or impose a condition on a commission as notary public for any act or omission that demonstrates the individual lacks the competence or reliability to act as a notary public, including any of the following:

. . . .

3. A conviction of the applicant or notary public of any felony or a crime involving fraud, dishonesty or deceit. A conviction after a plea of no contest is deemed to be a conviction for the purposes of this paragraph.

The preponderance of the evidence supported that Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of Production of a False Identity Document. The crime involved fraud, dishonesty, or deceit, and the underlying conduct substantially relates to the duties and responsibilities of a notary public. Additionally, inconsistency in material facts found between Petitioner’s Letter of Explanation, testimony, and the submitted supporting documentation further supports the Secretary’s determination to deny Petitioner’s application. The tribunal applauds Petitioner’s growth and continued work to better her life since the conviction and her subsequent release.

Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Secretary’s denial of her application should be reversed.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED upholding the Secretary’s decision to deny Petitioner’s application for a notary public commission.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, May 14, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Adrian Fontes, Notary Public Complaint Coordinator

Secretary of State - Notary Public

Barbara Youssef

[email redacted]

Kyle Cummings, Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

[email redacted]

Diana Ogaz

Secretary of State

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff