Bales v. Dep't of State, No. 18-2779, 2020 WL 1078854 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2020) (Contreras, J.)

Bales v. Dep't of State, No. 18-2779, 2020 WL 1078854 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2020) (Contreras, J.)

Re:  Request for certain records concerning visas requested by or issued to seven Afghan witnesses who testified at plaintiff's court-martial

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3:  "Because the Court finds that Exemption 6 is a proper basis for the Department's Glomar response, it has no occasion to decide whether Exemption 3 might also provide a proper basis."
   
• Exemption 6:  The court holds that "the Government was justified in issuing a Glomar response based on FOIA Exemption 6 and is entitled to summary judgment."  First, the court finds that "[t]he argument that the Department did not produce a Glomar response ["because 'the State Department's own declaration indicated that documents responsive to [the Plaintiff's] request do, in fact, exist'"] . . . fails."  The court explains that "[p]laintiff does not point to any language in which the Department's declarant directly acknowledges the existence of records, and, to the extent the Plaintiff is relying on inferential reasoning, he does not explain his logic."  Second, "the Court concludes that the fact of the existence or nonexistence of visa records is properly covered by Exemption 6."  Third, the court finds that "Exemption 6 [privacy interests are] implicated because disclosing whether visa records exist would disclose information 'applying to' each Afghan witness."  Fourth, responding to plaintiff's public interest assertions, the court finds that "Plaintiff points to no evidence whatsoever supporting either the notion that the Afghan witnesses intend to do harm to the United States or the notion that the Government is engaged in some sort of cover-up to protect them."  The court also finds that while "[plaintiff] faces life imprisonment, not the death penalty, . . . the Court will assume without deciding that the public interest in avoiding unjust convictions extends to those facing this second-most extreme punishment."  "That question does not have to be answered because, assuming that a public interest exists, the Plaintiff would still have to show that 'the information' he wants disclosed 'is likely to advance [his] interest' in exoneration, and the Plaintiff cannot do so."  "The Court fails to see how [plaintiff's] cause would be advanced by merely receiving an answer as to whether or not the Government has visa records for the Afghan witnesses."  "Because the public interest in exoneration of the wrongfully-convicted would not be advanced if the Department were to disclose whether it had visa records pertaining to the Afghan witnesses, the Afghan witnesses' privacy interest in information pertaining to their immigration status and activities outweighs any public interest in disclosure."