Petitioning for Removal from the OFAC Sanctions List: Why Years of Correspondence Fail to Deliver Results

Years of correspondence with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) do not, in themselves, bring delisting any closer. If a new petition reproduces earlier arguments without presenting new facts or evidence, the petitioner risks the same outcome, even if the submission has grown considerably in volume. The key question for a renewed petition is not whether the file has become larger, but whether it now contains new, legally significant substance.

Before resubmitting, three narrower questions must be answered: which specific ground for delisting the petitioner is seeking to establish, which criterion the original designation rested on, and what has changed since the previous petition. For businesses, this means that the work begins not with drafting yet another letter, but with reconstructing the case and testing the evidentiary record.

Since June 2026, this approach has taken on additional practical importance. OFAC has launched its Reconsideration Portal and expressly encourages petitioners to provide the required information and documents as completely as possible at the initial stage. By contrast, a stream of supplemental submissions may delay rather than expedite the review.

Two Grounds for Delisting and What Must Be Proven

The administrative reconsideration procedure is set out in 31 C.F.R. § 501.807. In its current guidance, OFAC identifies two principal grounds for removal from a sanctions list. The first is a change in circumstances since the designation. The second is insufficient basis, i.e., the absence of a sufficient basis for the designation as of the date of the original decision.

These two lines of argument call for different evidentiary approaches. Under the first, the petitioner must show which circumstances have changed since the designation and why those particular changes have eliminated the basis for maintaining the sanctioned status. Under the second, the petitioner must demonstrate that the facts as they stood at the time of the decision did not provide a sufficient basis for the designation. OFAC permits both lines of argument to be pursued simultaneously where this is consistent with the facts.

Separately, OFAC allows petitioners to propose remedial steps — for example, a corporate restructuring, an exit from a particular ownership or corporate structure, or other actions that could remove the basis for the sanctions. The regulator makes clear, however, that such measures are no substitute for evidence that circumstances have in fact changed. A promise to change the situation in the future carries less weight than an established fact that the basis has already been removed.

One further caveat is particularly important for petitioners. Where a person is designated under several sanctions authorities, or under several criteria within a single program, rebutting only one of them is not enough. A reconsideration petition must address every operative criterion on which the sanctioned status is maintained. Otherwise, even a compelling argument on one ground will not resolve the matter as a whole.

Why Repeat Petitions Often Fail

Resubmission after a denial is permitted. However, FAQ 1261, updated by OFAC on 29 June 2026, expressly requires new arguments or evidence capable of leading the regulator to a different conclusion. Absent such material, OFAC may deny the petition by reference to its earlier decision. The practical implication is straightforward: before resubmitting, the petitioner must establish that something genuinely new has emerged in the case, rather than simply presenting a new version of the old position.

Factual inconsistencies also create risk. OFAC warns that inconsistent, misleading, or false information may constitute grounds for denying a delisting request. Knowingly false statements or the concealment of a material fact may even give rise to liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The petitioner’s task, therefore, is not to assemble the maximum volume of material, but to ensure that it is internally consistent, authentic, and truthful.

Before filing a renewed petition, it is advisable to consolidate all previous letters, exhibits, OFAC responses, and the regulator’s requests into a single chronology. Such a review usually reveals the weak point quickly: whether it lies in the legal characterization, in the evidence of changed circumstances, in the failure to address one of the designation criteria, or in the fact that the new material does not actually differ from what has already been considered.

Timing, Supplemental Materials, and the Reconsideration Portal

OFAC does not set a short procedural deadline for deciding a petition on the merits. In its guidance on potential delisting, the regulator states that it aims to complete an initial completeness review within 7–10 business days. If the submission appears complete, the petitioner is assigned a Petition ID. If required information is missing, OFAC contacts the petitioner and requests additional information and documents.

Once the case is opened, a full reconsideration review of the materials begins. OFAC emphasizes that the timeframe may be substantial and depends on the circumstances of the case, the completeness of the initial submission, the promptness and good faith of the petitioner’s responses, and the need to consult other government agencies. Where further clarification is needed, OFAC generally aims to send its first request within 90 days of the petition being registered. This is a benchmark for the regulator’s work, not a guaranteed procedural deadline.

Additional documents may be submitted after the case is opened, but doing so may slow the review down rather than speed it up. OFAC expressly warns that each new supplement must be reviewed and incorporated into the reconsideration process, so supplemental materials may delay the review. In its Best Practices quick-reference guide, the regulator further notes that voluminous submissions can also slow the review. Consequently, a strategy of continually submitting documents without a clear evidentiary purpose may work against the petitioner.

Since 29 June 2026, OFAC has been accepting petitions through the Reconsideration Portal. According to the regulator, the portal is intended to reduce the number of follow-up rounds of questions and answers by collecting much of the necessary information at the initial submission stage. This raises the cost of mistakes at the outset: an incomplete or poorly structured submission may set the entire subsequent review on a problematic course.

Through the same portal, the petitioner or its representative may request a courtesy document. OFAC describes it as a courtesy list of exhibits, i.e., a reference list of the unclassified information underlying the designation. It is not the full administrative record: some information may be withheld due to classification, law enforcement sensitivity, or other grounds. A broader set of materials may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but such a request, too, may result in only partial disclosure.

In practical terms, the courtesy document and FOIA are useful tools for deepening the evidentiary analysis, but they are no substitute for the petitioner’s own reconstruction of the case. If the petitioner does not understand which basis it is trying to rebut, obtaining an additional body of documents will not, in itself, produce a workable strategy.

The Litigation Perspective: What a Court Can Actually Review

Judicial review does not function as an automatic appeal from OFAC’s decision. Depending on the circumstances, a challenge may be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), a court may compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; under § 706(2)(A), it may set aside agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Pejcic v. Gacki, decided in 2021 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is instructive. The plaintiff filed a delisting petition in March 2017 and, after waiting more than two years, went to court alleging unreasonable delay. While the case was pending, OFAC issued a decision on the merits. As a result, the court held the delay claim moot, reviewed OFAC’s denial under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard, and upheld it.

This example is significant for two reasons. First, a lengthy wait may itself become the subject of litigation, but judicial relief depends on the procedural posture at the time the case is heard. Second, when reviewing a decision on the merits, the court does not re-evaluate the case in place of the regulator. APA review is limited, and in cases touching on national security and foreign policy, courts have traditionally exercised particular caution. Accordingly, a lengthy wait does not, by itself, mean that subsequent litigation will automatically lead to delisting.

Litigation strategy should therefore be assessed separately from delisting strategy. If the administrative record is weak, a court will not make it strong. Decisions on whether to file suit, which claims to bring, and in which court require the involvement of U.S. counsel admitted to practice before the relevant court, as well as an analysis of the administrative record already compiled.

Practical Steps Before a New Submission

  1. Compile the complete case history. Consolidate into a single chronology the original designation, all subsequent petitions, exhibits, OFAC requests, the petitioner’s responses, and the regulator’s decisions.
  2. Establish the legal basis for the sanctions. Identify all operative executive orders, other legal authorities, and the specific criteria under which the person remains on the list.
  3. Separate the arguments by legal logic. For each criterion, determine whether the petition asserts a change in circumstances, insufficient basis, or both, and what evidence supports each.
  4. Identify genuinely new facts. Compare the proposed new submission with the most recently reviewed package and remove anything that merely repeats the earlier position without new evidentiary substance.
  5. Verify the evidence map. For each assertion, identify the supporting document, its source, its date, and any potential inconsistency with prior statements. Separately verify information on income, employment, assets, bank accounts, property, ownership structure, and ties to other sanctioned persons, where relevant.
  6. Only then decide whether to file. The analysis may conclude that the petitioner is ready to file immediately, that certain actions must first be taken or documents gathered, or that a renewed petition would be premature at this stage.

A decision not to file a new petition for the time being can also be an outcome in its own right. It preserves the opportunity to petition again once facts or evidence emerge that could change OFAC’s assessment. In a sanctions matter, the number of letters is no measure of the quality of the strategy.

 
Andrei Gusev
Senior Partner, Attorney-at-Law

+7 921 938 29 90, +34 695 043 424, +376 692 1714
St. Petersburg, Barcelona, Almaty