Calderon v. DHS, No. 18-764, 2020 WL 805212 (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2020) (Cooper, J.)

Calderon v. DHS, No. 18-764, 2020 WL 805212 (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2020) (Cooper, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning denials of plaintiffs' visas

Disposition:  Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3:  "[T]he Court finds that State properly applied Exemption 3 to each withheld document."  The court relates that "State relies upon section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA')."  "The D.C. Circuit long ago held that section 222(f) qualifies as a nondisclosure statute under Exemption 3."  The court finds that "if State satisfies the Court that the records it withheld 'pertain[ ] to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States,' the Court must enter summary judgment for the agency."  Additionally, the court relates that "[s]ection 222(f) of the INA encompasses more than just the information found on a visa application; it also includes any 'information revealing the thought-processes of those who rule on the application.'"  The court relates that "State represents in two Vaughn indices that all but one of the documents it withheld contain 'information used in the course of processing' or 'adjudicating' Plaintiffs' visa applications."  In response to plaintiff's argument that "the records purportedly reflect Plaintiffs' visa status as 'quasi-refusal' – a designation that Plaintiffs argue is 'not related to the adjudication of an actual issued or refused visa' as required to satisfy the INA exemption," the court finds that "State has satisfied its burden to show that all of the records at issue – save one – were used in processing or adjudicating actual visa applications, regardless of whether the records contain a quasi-refusal designation."  Additionally, in response to "Plaintiffs conten[tion] that visa revocations are not an 'issuance' or 'refusal,' so documents pertaining to visa revocations are not covered by section 222(f) of the INA," the court finds that "[t]here is a split of opinion on this precise question in this district that the D.C. Circuit has yet to resolve."  However, in this case, the court finds that "[t]he text of section 222(f) is sufficiently broad to encompass revocations, even though 'issuance of a visa is undoubtedly a distinct act from the revocation of that same visa,' because 'the relevant question is not one of equivalence but of pertinence.'"