Hearing of US citizen continues adversarial denial of due process for targeted  professionals from partner countries

On 16 March 2026, Tbilisi City Court held the hearing on the appeal against the July 12, 2025, denial of entry of Margaret (Maggie) Osdoby Katz, a former official of the U.S. Embassy in Georgia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and with long-standing ties to Georgia. This hearing was the second required step in Ms. Osdoby Katz’s appeal of her unexplained denial of entry, following an unsuccessful administrative appeal. 

This case is a striking example of a troubling and deepening pattern: the denial of due process and the misuse of national security categories against professionals and private citizens seeking judicial relief for an unexplained denial of entry. What began in 2024 as the systematic denial of entry to journalists and civil society professionals from EU and other Western European countries is now poised to extend to private American citizens and former officials of allied governments and international organizations. This case illustrates three compounding problems: 

• The appeals process has not functioned as a meaningful remedy: procedural guarantees were disregarded at every stage, from the border to the courtroom, in ways consistent with findings on fair trial in the OSCE Moscow Mechanism report on Georgia.
• The introduction of a changed reason to national security grounds only at the litigation stage is not merely improper procedure,  but a consistently used tactic that denies the affected person access to the information needed to mount a defence, and one that carries broader consequences extending well beyond this case.
• Formally classifying a former U.S. Embassy official and OSCE professional as a state security concern marks a qualitative shift: from rhetorical attacks on Western diplomats and employees of international organizations to the official categorization of them alongside those considered genuine threats to the state.

Background

Ms. Osdoby Katz was denied entry to Georgia on 12 July 2025. The denial was issued under Article 11, paragraph 1, subparagraph “i” of Georgia’s Law on the Legal Status of Aliens and Stateless Persons - a blanket provision permitting denial in “other cases provided for by the legislation of Georgia,” without any specific legal ground being stated. No explanation was provided to Ms. Osdoby Katz at the time. She was the first American to be denied entry since the 2024 elections.

Ms. Osdoby Katz has had an uninterrupted connection to Georgia since 1998, when she first came as a fellow serving in the Parliament of Georgia. Her subsequent career has included service at the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, the U.S. State Department, and the OSCE. She has been in good standing throughout all periods of residency and frequent visits to the country.

As required, an administrative appeal was filed with the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) within 10 business days. An appeal denial was issued on 12 August, which maintained the reason for the denial and provided no further details. In accordance with the procedure, a judicial appeal was filed with the Tbilisi City Court on 10 September 2025.

While to the knowledge of the Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI), Ms. Osdoby Katz was the first American to be denied entry since November 2024, her case is part of a growing pattern. Since at least September 2024, the Georgian Dream government has systematically denied entry to journalists, human rights defenders, and various field experts, primarily from EU and Western European countries.  In all known cases documented by TDI, the legal basis cited has been the same blanket provision, with no explanation provided at the time of denial. 

Violations of due process and the right to a fair trial

The conduct of the 16 March hearing repeatedly violated due process and Ms. Osdoby Katz’s right to a fair trial. 

• The Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is the respondent party, failed to appear at the hearing on March 16. 
• In addition, the court failed to provide the video link and interpreter for Ms. Osdoby Katz, as the judge had ordered at the preliminary hearing on 29 December 2025, affirming that Ms. Osdoby Katz should be able to exercise her right to be present at her hearing and to deliver a statement. The Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) lawyer was told that the translation bureau had cancelled the interpretation services contract on the day of the court hearing, and that the court did not have the technical equipment necessary for the claimant to participate in the hearing.
• In the absence of the respondent and without an agreed-upon interpretation in place, TDI’s lawyer, who was the only party present, requested a postponement. The judge Nino Scherbakovi denied the request and proceeded with the hearing. 
• No accessible evidence was presented to substantiate the denial of entry, nor was Ms. Osdoby Katz given an opportunity to challenge the basis of the decision or present an affirmative defense as outlined in the court filings.
• The judge denied the appeal, finding the government’s prior unexplained denial of entry lawful, and altered the reason for denial to “state security concerns.”

TDI would also note that this violation of rights is a continuation of Ms. Osdoby Katz’s experience at the border. On 12 July, she was not interviewed, and the border officials did not explain or discuss the denial with her. Instead, on the decision of denial, they stated that Ms. Osdoby Katz had refused to sign a document, while in fact, they had not offered her to sign it. During the period of being held at the border, her phone was illegally confiscated.

Misuse of national security arguments

A particularly concerning development in this case is the use of national security considerations at a later stage of the proceedings.

The original denial of entry issued in July 2025 contained no reference to national security concerns. The issue was first raised months later during judicial proceedings. In a letter submitted to the court prior to the December 2025 preliminary hearing, the Ministry of Internal Affairs indicated that the denial “may be related to state security interests” and requested additional information from the State Security Service of Georgia.

TDI considers this pattern, in which the stated basis for a denial is improperly changed to national security only after the affected person brings a lawsuit, raises serious due process concerns. This timing is both well after the point at which the procedure allows for a meaningful response, and deprives the affected person access to information to challenge this new classification. TDI would note that such a classification - “national security threat” is provocative for the affected person, and has the potential to impact their freedom of movement and other rights beyond Georgia.

In the case of Ms. Osdoby Katz, this classification raises an additional question: whether Georgian authorities are prepared to characterize former diplomats and professionals from partner countries and international organizations as security threats without providing any factual justification.

Misuse of legislation 

Ms. Osdoby Katz’s case is another example of how the MIA systematically misuses the relevant legislation in two ways: 1) by using the blanket provision without specifying the ground for denial, and 2) by introducing the state security ground at the court stage instead of doing so while making the decision on denial.

Unfortunately, the Court joins in the abuse of the law in these cases, underscoring the questions raised about the independence of the Judiciary in the Moscow Mechanism and other reports on Georgia. Time and again, judges fail to admonish this misuse of the legislation. Rather, the judge accepts the MIA’s improper change of the ground of denial without challenging it. In addition, the judge endorses the denial and, based on presumed secret information provided by the State Security Services, upholds the MIA’s position. Practical procedural irregularities of this kind point to a systemic failure across both the executive and the judiciary to uphold basic procedural guarantees.

To sum up, the case of Margaret Osdoby Katz represents more than an isolated administrative dispute. It reflects a broader pattern of arbitrary entry bans, misuse of national security arguments, and erosion of procedural safeguards.

Date of publication: 18/03/2026