Cath. Legal Immigr. Network, Inc. v. USCIS, No. 19-1511, 2020 WL 5747183 (D. Md. Sept. 25, 2020) (Sullivan, J.)

Cath. Legal Immigr. Network, Inc. v. USCIS, No. 19-1511, 2020 WL 5747183 (D. Md. Sept. 25, 2020) (Sullivan, J.)

Re:  Request for certain records concerning Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJS") classification

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 5, Attorney-Client Privilege:  "Having reviewed the Agency's Vaughn Index, and . . . Declaration and the arguments of counsel, the Court is satisfied that the Agency properly asserted the attorney-client privilege under Exemption 5."  "Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, the information contained in the Vaughn Index is adequate for the Court to determine that the Agency properly asserted the attorney-client privilege."  "Although the Agency's descriptions of the withheld documents do not identify the parties to the communications by name, the descriptions reference in each instance that the communication concerned the provision of legal advice from the Agency's Office of Chief Counsel to a person employed by the Agency."  "This is sufficient for the Court to find that each withheld communication was between a client and an attorney for the Agency, and that the purpose of each communication was for the client to seek or for the attorney to provide legal advice."
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product:  "The Court has reviewed the Vaughn Index entries for the two documents withheld as protected work product."  "The Court is satisfied that each of the documents withheld were prepared in anticipation of litigation and were properly withheld by the Agency."  "The Agency's descriptions of the documents as containing communications from an Office of Chief Counsel ('OCC') attorney 'in anticipation of litigation matters before USCIS in SIJ cases' and 'contain[ing] communications from OCC in anticipation of litigation matters before USCIS in SIJ case that were in issue at that time' are adequate."  "The Court declines to conduct an in camera review of the documents."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  "To fall within the deliberative process privilege, materials must bear on the formulation or exercise of agency policy-oriented judgment."  Regarding one set of records, "[t]he Agency's explanation for its withholding of these documents is sufficient for the Court to find that the documents are both predecisional and deliberative."  "The documents contain the nonfinal recommendations of junior staff to senior management about how policy decisions should be communicated to the public."  Regarding another set of records, "[t]he Court finds that the Agency has properly asserted the deliberative process privilege for the [frequently asked questions] documents."  "The documents concern the recommendations of the Agency's staff to the [Field Office Directorate] regarding the creation of a [frequently asked questions document] for internal use."  "The documents do not contain the Agency's 'working law,' but instead consist of predecisional deliberations."
  
  However, "[b]ecause the Agency has not provided any context for [certain] documents in its reply brief, and because the Vaughn Index is not sufficient on its own for the Court to find that the documents are protected by the deliberative process privilege, the Court will deny the Agency's Motion as to [certain records]."  "The Court will direct the Agency to produce these documents to the Court for in camera review, along with an amended Vaughn Index for these documents that better explains why they are protected by the deliberative process privilege."
  
  Exemption 7(E):  "The Court finds that the Agency properly withheld [a specific] document under Exemption 7(E)."  "The document that the Agency withheld consists of two pages from the Agency's 'Consolidated Handbook of Adjudications Procedures' in which 'sensitive law enforcement techniques and methods in evaluating fraud in Special Immigration Juvenile cases' are addressed."  "The Vaughn Index explains that the document 'reveals the types of items looked at in evaluating fraud indicators, which are procedures and methods involved in the enforcement of immigration and national security laws and directives.'"  "The Agency states that disclosure of this information 'would reveal methods and techniques for the enforcement of immigration and national security laws and directives, and could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of law.'"  "Because release of the document would disclose how the Agency considers fraud indicators, creating a risk of circumvention of the law, the Court finds that the document was properly withheld under Exemption 7(E)."