Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project v. DHS, No. 12-3461, 2017 WL 1155898 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017) (Castel, J.)

Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project v. DHS, No. 12-3461, 2017 WL 1155898 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017) (Castel, J.)

Re: Request for certain records concerning refugee adjudication process

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection: "The Court declines to follow the DHS's suggestion ["that the Court should resolve the parties' motion based solely on the Vaughn Index, without in camera review of the disputed materials"]." "As will be discussed, the in camera review of the disputed material has been essential to deciding this motion." "Although the Vaughn Index provides accurate and good-faith descriptions of the redacted contents, it discusses them in broad terms, as is warranted given the potentially sensitive nature of some underlying subject matter." "Absent in camera review, the Court would be unable to make adequate findings as to the DHS's claimed FOIA exemptions and whether the discussions contain segregable factual content."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege: The court holds that defendant properly utilized Exemption 5. First, "the Court finds that [certain] redacted text includes recommendations and suggestions for future lines of questioning, which were tailored to elicit truthful answers from narrowly specified segments of refugee populations." "It also contains recommendations as to future interactions with non-USCIS entities, such as the UNHCR." "These are subjective recommendations for future policies and prescriptive observations about areas of concern." "The Court comfortably concludes that [this information] falls within Exemption 5." The court also finds that defendant appropriately withheld "text [which] expressly advises areas of possible follow-up research and future investigation." The court explains that "[i]t contains recommendations and suggestions to decision makers." The court finds similarly regarding "text under [a] 'Policy Guidance' heading expressly advises a clarification of policy that relates to interviewing the specific refugee populations[,]" "narrowly specific conduct observed on the circuit trip and the need for further guidance from more senior USCIS officials[,]" "specific recommendation to superiors concerning the management of claims among a specific category of applicants[,]" "commentary that is expressly phrased to recommend policy changes as to training issues[,]" "guidance and clarification on a specific factual question related to the applicant population[,]" and "policy recommendation concerning the UNHCR."
   
• Exemption 7(E): The court holds that defendant properly invoked Exemption 7(E). First, the court finds that "enforcement guidelines include information that, if publicly disclosed, could help applicants evade investigator techniques and thus circumvent the law[]" were appropriately withheld. The court finds similarly with respect to "text discusses issues concerning applicants' potential public safety risk and connections to the Ba'ath Party, as well as potential fraud trends concerning refugee applicants from certain specified populations[,]" "techniques, procedures and guidelines that detail potentially fraudulent claims made by applicants[,]" "application patterns that emerged during [a] trip, suspicions of fraudulent applications and types of answers deemed suspicious[,]" "guidance for assessing applicants and identifying possible fraud trends[,]" "techniques and procedures for future adjudications, including the identification of possible fraudulent claims[,]" "guidance for scrutinizing potentially fraudulent applications[,]" "guidance on enforcing the [Immigration and Nationality Act][,]" "a specific category of applicants, their common traits and how personnel evaluated the credibility of their statements[,]" and "request for assistance as to a specific incident of fraud, and, separately, guidance as to future refugee adjudications."
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements: "The Court . . . finds that the DHS has disclosed reasonably segregable portions of the record." Specifically, "[h]aving reviewed the reports' redacted contents ex parte, the Court finds that the redacted factual discussions are an integral basis of the exemptions, and cannot be segregated for release."