Am. Civil Liberties Union of S. California v. USCIS, No. 13-861, 2015 WL 5726667 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2015) (Chutkan, J.)
Am. Civil Liberties Union of S. California v. USCIS, No. 13-861, 2015 WL 5726667 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2015) (Chutkan, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning policies for identification, vetting and adjudication of immigration benefits applications with national security concerns, and statistical information related to processing of benefits applications
Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
- Exemption 7, Threshold: The court finds that "[w]hile USCIS as a whole may primarily engage in civil administration and not law enforcement, based on the agency’s declarations, it appears that in this particular context national security concerns play an important role in the agency’s policies and procedures." Therefore, the court finds "that USCIS can invoke Exemption 7(E) even if it does not engage in traditional 'law enforcement' activities."
- Exemption 7(E): The court grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion for summary judgment as it relates to Exemption 7(E). First, the court finds that "the fact that some or all of USCIS’s withholdings are not tied to a particular investigation is not dispositive here." The court then finds that "while USCIS has adequately described the substance of the records in question, it has offered in many instances, vague and conclusory explanations why those records should be withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(E)." "For most of its Vaughn index entries, USCIS engages in a lengthy discussion of the nature of the records, but merely states without explanation that that the records were 'complied for law enforcement purposes related to processing cases involving potential [national security] concerns' and then states in conclusory fashion that '[i]f released, this information would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law by future applicants.'" The court finds that "[t]here is no explanation of how the information, if released, could risk circumvention of the law, no explanation of what laws would purportedly be circumvented, and little detail regarding what law enforcement purpose is involved." "This is not enough to justify withholding records under the FOIA." However, regarding other information, the court finds that "USCIS adequately explains what national security purposes were involved in the creation of the record, and how its release could risk circumvention of the law." Finally, the court finds that, "[g]iven the fact that USCIS is a mixed-function agency (requiring this court to view its withholdings with some skepticism), and the documents relate primarily to immigration benefits processing, not law enforcement in the traditional sense, the court is less willing to give USCIS the same benefit of the doubt as the court [gives other law enforcement agencies]."
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: The court holds that "USCIS’s declarations here include enough information about the search for the court to find that it was adequate." The court relates that "USCIS explained that it searched for whatever reports existed, and to the extent a particular month or quarter is not represented, a report may not have ever been made for that time period or USCIS may no longer have a copy of it." "This is enough to demonstrate the reasonableness of USCIS’s search, and [plaintiff's] assertion that some reports remain missing is not enough to overcome the good faith presumption afforded to USCIS."
- Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records: The court holds that "[b]ecause USCIS has not adequately explained why [certain] pages . . . are 'clearly and without any doubt unrelated to the subject of the request,' it must process them as responsive to [plaintiff's] FOIA request and either release them or claim an appropriate exemption." However, regarding other pages, "[t]he court . . . accepts the agency’s explanation for why the information . . . was out of scope."
- Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements: "With respect to the entries the court found sufficient under Exemption 7(E), . . . [i]t appears that the agency carefully reviewed each page and separated exempt and non-exempt material, and the court does not find its explanations lacking in specificity." However, "[t]he court will withhold ruling on the agency’s segregability determinations with respect to the entries it found lacking under Exemption 7(E)."