Gahagan v. USCIS, No. 15-796, 2015 WL 3651220 (E.D. La. June 11, 2015) (Lemelle, J.)

Gahagan v. USCIS, No. 15-796, 2015 WL 3651220 (E.D. La. June 11, 2015) (Lemelle, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning client

Disposition: Denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  "The Court concludes that [defendant's] declaration sufficiently establishes the adequacy and reasonableness of the USCIS' search."  The court relates that defendant searched "the 'Alien File/Central Index System,' a centralized and consolidated electronic system of records through which A–Files are stored, maintained, updated, tracked, and retrieved" and also "subsequently conducted an additional search . . . [u]pon determination that if there were any records in the agency's custody, the records would be located at . . . the USCIS office that accepts copies of applications filed in cases within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review."  The court also finds that while "[p]laintiff challenges the adequacy of the search on the basis that the Form I–485 was not originally located . . .  , the methods, and not the results, form the basis of the inquiry here."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Time Limits:  "Under the plain meaning of the statute, the Court concludes that USCIS did not fail to timely or properly respond."  The court relates that "[p]laintiff also contends USCIS failed to respond within the 20 business day period established by applicable statute."  The court finds that "[p]laintiff's request was received on November 25, 2014, and on December 16, 2014, the agency responded with a letter providing its 'determination and the reasons therefore,' and enclosing copies of the records to be disclosed."
   
• Exemption 6:  The court finds that "personal identifying information, such as: dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and financial information" of third parties was correctly withheld.
   
• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection, Vaughn Index / Declaration:  The court holds that "[r]esort to in camera review is purely discretionary, and the Court finds review of these documents unnecessary, given the detailed nature of the index provided."  The court explains that "attached to [defendant's] affidavit is a table that identifies and describes each document in which information was withheld and explains how the exemption applies to the withholdings."  "The detailed index provided states that the five fully redacted documents at issue include personal identifying information, such as: dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and financial information."
   
• Procedural Requirements, Consultations and Referrals:  The court holds that "[t]he referral has not significantly increased the amount of time Plaintiff must wait, and therefore does not constitute an improper withholding."  The court focuses on "whether the 'net effect' of the referral has either significantly impaired Plaintiff's ability to obtain the records or significantly increased the amount of time Plaintiff must wait to obtain them."  "[T]he issue is whether the referral of responsive records constitutes an improper withholding."  The court finds that "[r]easonableness is the standard to be applied and the Court concludes that a four month wait is not unreasonable."