Heartland Alliance Nat'l Immigration Justice Ctr. v. DHS, No. 12-9692, 2016 WL 693540 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2016) (Norgle, J.)

Heartland Alliance Nat'l Immigration Justice Ctr. v. DHS, No. 12-9692, 2016 WL 693540 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2016) (Norgle, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning Tier III terrorist organizations as defined by Immigration and Nationality Act

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

• Exemption 7(E):  "The Court finds that the [names of the Tier III terrorist organizations] are guidelines, and based on the affidavits provided, full disclosure could reasonably lead to a circumvention of the law."  "Accordingly, Defendants have met their burden to show that Exemption 7(E) is appropriate here."  "The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the names of Tier III organizations are not techniques or procedures."  "On the other hand, a guideline is 'an indication or outline of future policy or conduct.'"  "And in the context of this case, immigration officers use the names of the Tier III organizations as an indication, or guideline, in future adjudications to determine the applicant's admissibility in the United States and whether the applicant is entitled to an exemption."  "Therefore, the Court finds that the names of the Tier III organizations qualify as a guideline."  Additionally, "the Court finds that releasing the names of Tier III organizations could reasonably lead to circumvention of the law."  The court explains that, "[g]iven how information on Tier III organizations is collected, coupled with the documented cases in which immigration applicants have lied about or omitted their association with Tier III organizations, it is reasonable that the release of all Tier III organization names, not just the ones revealed through the course of litigation, could influence applicants to misrepresent or conceal their past or present involvement with foreign organizations."
   
• Exemption 7(C):  "[T]he Court finds that redacting the date of birth and nationality of the applicants is not logically within Exemption 7(C)."  The court explains that "[t]he Exemption Worksheets identify the applicant by either 'Applicant' or initials; no names are provided."  "Disclosure of the applicant's date of birth and nationality would result in the assembly of mere statistics."  "It is unlikely that an applicant could be identified based on these two data sets and the short description of their involvement with an unnamed Tier III organization."  The court finds that "[w]ithout a link or connection to an individual person, the privacy concerns in this case are low to nil."  The court also notes that "[p]laintiff does not request the applicants' names; it only wants age and nationality information for a statistical review on the treatment of minors and to discern any 'disparate impact' on applicants based on their national origin."  The court finds that "[p]laintiff’s request follows the spirit of the FOIA . . ."