In Search of the Sworn Truth: Recent Developments in Oath Administration for Iraqi Witnesses
Testifying under oath is common practice in legal proceedings in the United States. However, in countries, such as Iraq, with specific “blocking statutes,” or laws designed to prevent another nation’s law from taking effect within the enacting country’s jurisdiction, the way an oath is administered can have implications in the defense of DBA claims.
The issue of whether an ALJ may administer a binding oath to any foreign witness testifying from a location in Iraq remains unanswered.
If you are managing DBA claims involving overseas witnesses, early planning around testimony and admissibility can materially impact exposure. Galloway’s Longshore and DBA team actively monitors and proactively advises clients on the issues around administering oaths to foreign nationals.
Administration of the Oath
While the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows parties an opportunity for the submission and consideration of facts and arguments, no Iraqi law expressly permits an Iraqi national to voluntarily participate in virtual testimony given under oath by a United States Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
Claimant’s argument in Al-Obaidi v. Acuity Int’l/SallyPort Glob. Holdings, Inc., 2023-LDA-05536 (April 10, 2026), highlights that the statute and regulations are devoid of language empowering ALJs to act with the same authority to administer legal oaths to anyone globally. Claimants argue that no current case law directly addressing this issue exists, and several ALJs have elected to administer the oath to witnesses in Iraq, while other ALJs have declined to do so.
Limits to Extraterritorial Oath Administration
In Jbur v. CSMI Tech. Servs., 2024-LDA-02957 (April 6, 2026), the ALJ held that DOL ALJs are not empowered with the authority to administer a valid testimonial oath to a foreign claimant seeking to testify from a foreign country. At this time, the only argument to allow the administration of a valid testimonial oath to a foreign witness—an Iraqi citizen physically located in Iraq during the testimony—is that there are allegedly “no laws” of Iraq prohibiting such an intrusion into their country’s sovereignty. The ALJ found this rationale problematic as this reasoning would allow for worldwide jurisdiction. Further, a “reasonable inquiry” into “all applicable laws” requires stating which laws counsel considered and what steps were taken to ensure claimant’s foreign evidence complied with those laws. However, this rarely happens in practice. While the ALJ recognized that a presiding ALJ is given “all powers necessary to conduct fair and impartial proceedings,” this may inherently include the authority to approve or deny a party’s request to present testimony by video conference or previously captured in a deposition.
The Jbur ALJ concluded the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) does not give the ALJ authority to administer a testimonial oath to a witness located outside of the United States. Further, the Department of Labor’s powers do not include a provision affording the agency extraterritorial or international jurisdiction. Despite the best efforts of ALJs, the challenge of presenting foreign testimony, especially for Iraqi claimants, remains.
Iraq’s refusal to sign the Hague Evidence Convention of 1970 contributes to the issue. In Barwees v. EOD Tech. Inc., 2025-LDA-01875 (April 6, 2026), the ALJ concluded that “Iraq has no law or regulation prohibiting or restricting the ability of its nationals to voluntarily participate in and provide testimony in a virtual legal proceeding in the United States.” No known Iraqi law expressly permits a foreign national in a foreign country to participate in virtual testimony under oath by a U.S. ALJ. Thus, ALJs are powerless to reach across foreign shores to compel testimony.
Without express authorization to administer an oath to an Iraqi citizen in Iraq, any ALJ doing so would be committing an unauthorized act that is null and void. By definition, an unsworn statement cannot be “testimony;” thus, the ALJ’s authority to “compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses” requires such “testimony” to be made under a valid oath or affirmation in the country from where the witness is testifying. If a valid oath or affirmation in the foreign country is not made, it is deemed null.
The Search for a Consistent Way Forward
The issue of whether ALJs can administer valid oaths with no limits of geography and citizenship is currently before the Benefits Review Board (“the Board’), and it is possible that the Board will provide a solution to the aforementioned challenges to ensure the written record can capture witness testimony under oath. As noted in the Order on Supplemental Briefing on Iraqi Oath issued in Al-Obaidi v. Acuity International, et al (2023-LDA-05536), “[p]erhaps the path of least resistance… would be to avoid the entire question of valid oaths by interpreting that parties may waive the regulatory requirement that hearing testimony be given under oath.”
Disclaimer: This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Galloway and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
