| - Modified action resulting in total grant | 86 | |
| - Reversed or remanded(2) | 354 | |
| - Affirmed | 464 | |
| - Modified action affirmed(3) | 161 | |
| - Miscellaneous | 369 | |
The miscellaneous closings consisted of the following:
|
- Failure of the component to process initial action within statutory time limits(4) |
79 | |||
|
- No records | 162 | |||
|
- Fee waivers: 35
affirmed 31 |
||||
|
- Not a valid appeal |
46 | |||
| - Judicial adjudication or appellant has filed suit | 9 | |||
| - Requester withdrew appeal | 18 | |||
| - Referrals | 8 | |||
| - Duplicate file | 8 | |||
| - Expedited treatment denied | 4 | |||
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) | 66 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) | 90 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) | 18 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) | 4 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) | 15 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) | 125 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) | 78 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) | 399 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D) | 131 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) | 30 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F) | 20 | |
| Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | 12 | |
| 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f) | 1 | |
| 15 U.S.C. § 15a(h) | 1 | |
| 15 U.S.C. § 1314(g) | 1 | |
| 26 U.S.C. § 6103 | 1 | |
| 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3) | 1 | |
| 50 U.S.C. § 1404(g) | 1 | |
| Modified action resulting in total grant | 118 | |
| Reversed or remanded(6) | 460 | |
| Affirmed | 435 | |
| Modified action affirmed(7) | 443 | |
| Miscellaneous | 852 | |
| - Failure of the component to process initial action within statutory time limits(8) | 181 | |
| - Requester withdrew appeal | 28 | |
| - Not a valid appeal | 74 | |
| - No records | 454 | |
| - No agency jurisdiction (appeals from state, local or other federal agency actions) | 3 | |
| - Fee waiver denials affirmed | 49 | |
| - Judicial adjudication | 25 | |
| - Amendment and/or correction denied | 1 | |
| - Referrals | 12 | |
| - Duplicate file | 5 | |
- Expedited treatment
25denied 23 |
||
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) | 41 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) | 290 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) | 36 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) | 28 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) | 70 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) | 152 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) | 663 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D) | 269 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) | 62 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F) | 160 | |
| Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | 27 | |
| Rule 32(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | 2 | |
| 18 U.S.C. § 2510 | 4 | |
| 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3) | 2 | |
| 50 U.S.C. § 403(g) | 1 | |
| Freedom of Information Act related expenses: | ||
| Services | $688,549 | |
| Other | 172,137 | |
| Total | $860,686 | |
| Privacy Act related expenses: | ||
| Services | $1,123,421 | |
| Other | 280,855 | |
| Total | $1,404,276 | |
1 Closed appeals were reopened because the requester provided further information needed in order to process the appeal or remitted reproduction fees assessed, but previously unpaid, in connection with the initial request.
2 These include appeals in which the cases were remanded to the components with instructions to reprocess, or process for the first time, the requested records. Reprocessing follows a determination that the processing was initially carried out under an erroneous standard. A remand for processing results from a determination that a refusal to process requested records, or to confirm or deny their existence, was erroneous. Additionally, some cases in which no records were initially located are remanded for the component to conduct an additional search.
3 These represent modification of initial actions arrived at in the course of the appeals process by agreement between the component and OIP which result in additional record disclosures.
4 Upon receipt of an appeal based on the component's failure to locate and process requested records within the statutory time limits, OIP informs the component of the appeal, but advises the requester that it lacks the personnel resources to conduct the comprehensive record reviews necessary to make initial determinations on requested records. OIP also advises the requester that if he or she is dissatisfied with the component's ultimate substantive action on the request, an appeal on the merits will be opened. The requester is also informed that he or she may treat this notification as a denial of the appeal and bring suit in an appropriate federal court. It has been OIP's experience that a significant number of appeals based on actual denials of access (as opposed to those based on a component's failure to respond) considerably narrow the volume of records and issues that must be considered. Accordingly, this approach contributes to the efficient operation of the overall appeals process, without ever denying a requester the right to a review of an initial action on the merits.
5 Department of Justice practice is to treat requests by individuals seeking access to records about themselves, maintained in a system of records and retrievable under the individual's name or identifier, as Privacy Act requests. In fact, however, given the nature of the records requested and the system of records within which they are maintained (most of which have been exempted from Privacy Act access pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2)), it is relatively rare for actual denials of access to be based on Privacy Act nonsystemic exemptions. Such exemptions were cited in 56 of the cases adjudicated by OIP and in those cases FOIA exemptions were cited as well. Nonetheless, all first-party requests are treated as Privacy Act requests for case-count and cost-allocation purposes.
6 See note 2, supra.
7 See note 3, supra.
8 See note 4, supra.
Go to: Table of Contents // DOJ FOIA Page // Justice Department Home Page