DEA Response to a Petition for Remission or Mitigation
If you received a notice of seizure from DEA, it gives you the following options:
- do nothing (which results in the property being forfeited to the DEA);
- file a petition for remission or mitigation (which means a DEA attorney decides); or
- file a claim for court action which is the ONLY way to contest the legality of the seizure or forfeiture.
Contact the attorneys at Sammis Law Firm to find out why we recommend filing a claim for court action. Filing a claim for court action is the only way to contest the legality of the seizure or forfeiture.
If you only file a petition for remission or mitigation, then you are allowing an attorney with DEA’s asset forfeiture section to decide. When the attorney for DEA gets to decide, it usually results in a form letter send ten (10) months later. That form letter explains why DEA decided to return nothing and forfeit everything seized.
Claimants often call us AFTER they miss the deadline to file a claim and want to know whether they should file a request reconsideration of this decision under 28 C.F.R. § 9.3(i) (2025), within ten (10) days of receiving that form letter.
The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm take these cases when there is still time to file the claim for court action. We know that when someone files a petition for seized property with DEA, it often results in a form letter being send 10 months later.
Read more about the problems with filing a petition for remission or mitigation, and why filing a verified claim is better.
That form letter, from a Senior Attorney with DEA’s Asset Forfeiture Section, often provides:
Dear Claimant,
I am writing to you in response to the petition for remission or mitigation regarding the above referenced property. For the reasons discussed below, the petition failed to meet the requirements for remission or mitigation. 28 C.F.R. Part 9(2025).
The remission or mitigation of a forfeiture is neither a right nor a privilege, but an act of grace. See In re Sixty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Dollars, 901 F.2d 1540, 1543 (11th Cir. 1990); Laconia Sav. Bank v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 248 (2000); Malladi Drugs & Pharm., Ltd. v. Tandy, 538 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D.D.C. 2008).
A Petition for Remission and Mitigation “does not serve to contest the forfeiture, but rather is a request for executive pardon of the property based upon the petitioner’s innocence or, for a wrongdoer, on a plea of leniency.” United States v. Vega, 72 F.3d 507, 514 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied sub. nom. Early v. United States, 518 US. 1007, 116 S. Ct. 2529 (1996). See also United States v. Wong, 62 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ruth, 65 F.3d 599, 604 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1158, 116 S. Ct. 1548(1996).
A decision with respect to remission or mitigation of a forfeiture is made solely at the discretion of the Attorney General. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(d); 19 U.S.C. § 1618(2025).
The Attorney General and the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have delegated the authority to determine the merits of such petitions to this office. See 21 U.S.C.S. § 824(a); 28 C.F.R. § 0.100(b), 0.104 (2020); 28 C.F.R. § 9.1(b)(1) and (3) (2020).
This office’s decision on the petition is not subject to judicial review on its merits. See United States v. Shigemura, 664 F.3d 310, 312 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 955, 132 S. Ct. 1952(2012) (a district court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of an administrative forfeiture if claimant did not file a claim); Mohammad v. United States, 169 F. App’x. 475, 480-81 (7th Cir. 2006) (district court has no jurisdiction to review the merits of an administrative forfeiture; it has jurisdiction only to review the adequacy of the notice given to claimant of the procedure for filing a claim); United States v. One 1970 Buick, 463 F.2d 1168, 1170 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 980(1972) (Attorney General has unreviewable discretion over remission or mitigation of forfeitures); Martin v. Leonhart, 717 F. Supp, 2d 92, 99 (D.D.C. 2010) (plaintiff’s waived their opportunity to seek relief in a judicial forfeiture action by proceeding with a petition for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, as opposed to a claim); Conservation Force v. Salazat, 646 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1261, 132 S. Ct. 1762(2012) (because plaintiff’s chose to pursue administrative remedy by filing a petition for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, they waived the opportunity for judicial forfeiture proceedings).
Once the administrative proçess has begun, a federal district court generally does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the merits of an administrative forfeiture decision. See c.g., United States v. One 1987 Jeep Wrangler Auto., 972 F.2d 472, 479-80 (2d Cir. 1992) (“[T]he overwhelming weight of authority supports the position that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of administrative forfeiture decisions once the administrative process has begun.”); Sarit v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin., 987 F.2d 10, 17 (Ist Cir. 1993); Dawson v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 927 F. Supp. 748,752 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). See 1987 Jeep, 972 F. 2d at 80; Toure v. United States, 24 F.3d 444, 446 (2d Cir. 1994); Dawson, 927 F. Supp. at 752 (However, the court has limited jurisdiction to correct the procedural deficiencies of the administrative forfeiture procksding).
The petitioner has the burden of establishing the basis for granting a petition for remission or mitigation of forfeited property. See Regulations Governing the Remission or Mitigation of Civil and Criminal Forfeiture, 28 C.F.R. § 9.5(a)(3) (2025). See also 19 U.S.C. § 1618(2025) (The Attorney General may return the property if he finds mitigating circumstances to justify the remission.).
As the Ruling Official, I did not consider whether the evidence was sufficient for forfeiture, but presumed a valid forfeiture. 28 C.F.R. § 9.5(a)(4) (2025). See also Juncaj v. United States, 894 F. Supp. 318, 320 (E.D. Mich. 1995); Reinoso v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 93 Civ. 1516 (KTD), 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18054 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 1994).
Federal regulations explicitly prohibit remission of a forfeiture unless the petitioner establishes the following:
- A valid, good faith, and legally cognizable interest in the seized property as an owner or lienholder;
- Qualification as an “innocent owner” within the meaning of the applicable civil forfeiture statute.
The investigation showed….
Based on the foregoing facts, probable cause exists to believe that the seized property represents moneys furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance and/or proceeds traceable to such an exchange and is, therefore, subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 881 (a)(6).
A positive trained drug canine alert for the presence of narcotics on the seized property is strong evidence of a relationship between the property and drug transactions. See United States v. $215,300 United States Currency, 882 F.2d 417, 419 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. 1988 Bmw 750il, 716 F. Supp. 171, 175-176 (E.D. Pa. 1989); United States v. United States Currency Totaling $92,000.00, 707 F. Supp. 540, 543 (N.D. Ga. 1989).
Every dog is unique, and a dog that smells illicit drugs is not required to communicate with its handler in any specific way. Dogs alert in many different manners. United States v. Collier, 116 F.4th 756, 761 (8th Cir. 2024).
One dog may alert in one fashion while another dog may alert differently. Id. (citing United States v. Howard, 448 F. Supp. 2d 889, 898 (E.D. Tenn. 2006)). For this reason, the court can consider the reliability of a dog’s alert, not just its manner. Id. at 761-762.
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 9.3(c)(1)(iv), your interest in the property, as owner or otherwise, must be supported by satisfactory documentary evidence. If you are alleging the forfeited currency to be the proceeds of some business transaction, then you must provide credible, verifiable documentation, combined with a plausible explanation, to support his assertions.
In this case, the evidence you submitted is: ….
A careful review of the submitted documents reveals that you have not produced any evidence of a legitimate business transaction.
Although the petition does not meet the minimum conditions for remission, as a matter of discretion, I re-examined the petition to determine whether extenuating circumstances exist that warrant mitigation of the forfeiture. See generally 28 C.F.R. § 9.5(b) (2025).
You failed to adequately demonstrate that any mitigating factors exist to justify any relief from the forfeiture. In addition, I have reviewed the facts of this case to determine if the forfeiture would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive punishments. See Austin v.
United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S. Ct. 2801 (1993).
Please be advised, I have determined that the administrative forfeiture was entirely proportional to the offense, considering the substantial connection between the forfeited property and the offense.
In addition, the correct forum in which to challenge the constitutionality of the forfeiture is Federal District Court. Since you have failed to contest this forfeiture judicially, this option is no longer open. See United States v. Giraldo, 45 F.3d 509 (1st Cir, 1995); Caraballo v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 62 F. App’× 362, 363 (1st Cir. 2003).
A Petitioner may request reconsideration of this decision. 28 C.F.R. § 9.3(i) (2025). Only one request for reconsideration shall be considered.
Any request for reconsideration must be based on information or evidence not previously considered that is material to the basis for this denial or must present a basis clearly demonstrating that the denial is erroneous. Requests must be postmarked or received by this office within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. Any factual recitation or documentation must be properly submitted pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 9.3(c)(2) (2025).
Further correspondence with this office must include the Asset ID number referenced above and be addressed to the Forfeiture Counsel, Asset Forfeiture Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, HQs Response, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
Regards.
Senior Attorney
Asset Forfeiture Section
This article was last updated on Monday, July 6, 2026.
