Am. Immigr. Laws. Ass'n v. DHS, No. 16-02470, 2020 WL 5231336 (D.D.C. Sept. 2, 2020) (McFadden, J.)
Am. Immigr. Laws. Ass'n v. DHS, No. 16-02470, 2020 WL 5231336 (D.D.C. Sept. 2, 2020) (McFadden, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning inspection and admission process for entry into United States
Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment
- Exemption 7, Threshold: The court finds that "CPB's principal mission is to protect the borders, enforce federal immigration law, and facilitate international trade and travel[]" and "[t]he five categories of withheld information share a rational nexus to this mission."
- Exemption 7(E): The court holds that "Exemption 7(E) sets a 'relatively low bar'" and "CBP clears this bar." "[Defendant CBP's] evidence establishes that the withheld information in these documents would 'train potential violators to evade the law or instruct them how to break the law,' or 'increase the risks that a law will be violated or that past violators will escape legal consequences.'" "Indeed, the protected information in these documents appears to be central to CBP's law enforcement mission." "CBP withheld the techniques and procedures it employs to determine eligibility to enter or remain in the United States and assess and monitor risks at the borders."
- Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration: The court relates that "[plaintiff] claims that CBP failed to correlate the basis for Exemption 7(E) to each redaction in a document" and that "[plaintiff] argues that because these documents are longer, there must be more than one reason for the redactions that CBP has not articulated." "Not so [the court holds]." "It is plausible, if not expected, that the same type of information in the same document is redacted for the same reason." "CBP need not repeat the same justification each time."
In response to plaintiff's argument, the court finds that "the presence of unredacted, publicly available information in [certain records] does not overcome CBP's decision to withhold information in these documents under Exemption 7(E)." "That is because how CBP employs public information may not be known and can itself disclose law enforcement techniques and procedures."
The court does find that "[t]here are two minor exceptions." "CBP erred in redacting the subject lines in [two records]." "That is because it already disclosed the full subject line of these documents in its Vaughn index."
- Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration: The court relates that "CBP represents that its 'analysts and attorneys reviewed each release of records line-by-line to confirm that any withholdings were proper, examined whether any discretionary waiver of any exemption was warranted, and determined whether any segregable, non-exempt[] information could further be released.'" "Based on this review, CBP concluded that 'all reasonably segregable portions of the relevant records have been released to [plaintiff].'" "The Court finds that this representation combined with the Vaughn indexes satisfy CBP's segregability obligation."