resources would not outweigh the entity’s interest in knowing the charges and evidence against it. In fact, OFAC has provided just such a summary in a different case. See KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., Inc. v. Geithner (KindHearts I), 647 F.Supp.2d 857, 868 (N.D.Ohio 2009) (noting that OFAC had provided “an unclassified three-page summary of the classified evidence” to the entity under investigation). We understand from the parties that many (and likely most) of the designated persons are not United States citizens or entities. That conclusion is unsurprising given that EO 13,224 primarily targets “foreign persons.” Many of those persons likely cannot assert the due process protections that are available to AHIFOregon, a United States entity. See NCO-RI, 251 F.3d at 201 (<HOLDING>); see afeo Aguilera-Montero v. Mukasey, 548
holding that a foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights under the due process clause or otherwise internal quotation marks omitted holding that the petitioner may not turn a clerical error into a windfall of rights it would not otherwise enjoy internal quotation marks omitted holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause holding that bankruptcy is no exception to the due process principle that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party to or to which he has not been made a party by service of process internal quotation marks omitted holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted