Ctr. for Immigr. Stud. v. USCIS, No. 23-3491, 2025 WL 3458766 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2025) (Cooper, J.)

Ctr. for Immigr. Stud. v. USCIS, No. 23-3491, 2025 WL 3458766 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2025) (Cooper, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning demographic information of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status applicants, including their current non-immigration status

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility:  The court finds that “[plaintiff] has failed to demonstrate that it substantially prevailed in this litigation, so it is not eligible to recover under FOIA’s cost-shifting provision.”  The court relates that “[a] few months [after plaintiff filed this lawsuit] – without prompting by the Court – the Agency produced a massive spreadsheet with the requested demographic information.”  “But the spreadsheet listed the applicants’ non-immigration statuses as a series of codes (e.g., ‘EWI’) rather than text (e.g., ‘Entry Without Inspection’).”  “[Plaintiff] asked USCIS to define the status codes, and after further out-of-court discussions, the Agency supplied a key.”
  
  “[Plaintiff] first claims that it substantially prevailed in this litigation because it ‘induced [USCIS] to produce responsive records faster than it would have outside of litigation.’”  The court finds that, “[f]irst, the Agency’s initial delay in processing the FOIA requests was neither unexplained nor unusually long.” “Second, there is insufficient evidence that USCIS ‘suddenly accelerated’ its processing of the FOIA requests after [plaintiff] initiated this litigation.”  “While [plaintiff] filed its complaint in November 2023, USCIS did not release the responsive records until three months later, in February 2024.”  “Given that timing, it seems ‘more likely . . . that the documents would have been processed in the same manner, with the same result, regardless of whether litigation was filed.’”  “In this case, [plaintiff] has failed to demonstrate that its lawsuit prompted ‘a sudden burst of alacrity’ by USCIS in producing the requested documents.” “Thus, the timing of the Agency’s disclosure alone does not show that the litigation ‘caused a change in the agency’s position regarding the production of the requested documents.’”
  
  “[Plaintiff] also claims eligibility for attorney’s fees and costs because it obtained a key defining the non-immigrant status codes in the spreadsheet that USCIS produced in response to [this request].”  The court finds that “[plaintiff] has not carried that burden.”  “It first requested a key for the non-immigrant status codes in April 2024, five months after initiating this litigation.” “In short, the Agency did not ‘defend’ its initial decision to not provide a key through this litigation, but instead ‘conferred’ with [plaintiff] to address its concerns about interpreting the non-immigrant status codes.”  “Thus, ‘the connection between this suit and [the Agency’s] release of [the key] is too attenuated to indicate that [plaintiff] substantially prevailed.’”