Odor v. USCIS, No. 20-11198, 2021 WL 2351091 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2021) (Murphy, III, J.)
Odor v. USCIS, No. 20-11198, 2021 WL 2351091 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2021) (Murphy, III, J.)
Re: Request for one plaintiff's USCIS individual Alien File ("A-file")
Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for in camera inspection
- Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, the court finds that "Plaintiffs have provided no direct evidence of bad faith on behalf of USCIS." "Instead, Plaintiffs' bad-faith allegations are based on speculation and assumptions about the procedures USCIS used." "The declarations submitted by USCIS clearly outline the extensive search procedure employed to provide Plaintiffs with the responsive pleadings they sought and repeatedly showed that despite additional searches, they do not have the media file that Plaintiffs believe exists." "What is more, the adequacy of USCIS's search is beyond question." "USCIS determined that the A-file would hold all the immigration transactions relevant to Plaintiff Odor . . . and USCIS ran computerized database searches and located her A-file." "Several courts have affirmed this USCIS procedure as an adequate response to similar FOIA requests."
- Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration: The court holds that "the Vaughn Index submitted in this case is sufficient." The court finds that "USCIS filed a detailed Vaughn Index that clearly and succinctly laid out the PDF number, a description of the document, whether it was withheld or released, if withheld, which exemption applied, and an explanation for the exemption's application." "The Index allowed the Court to make a reasoned assessment: it was orderly, clearly understandable, and adequately explained each exemption." "Plaintiffs' only proffered reason for its insufficiency is Plaintiffs' own belief that there are 'media files' that have been withheld and not identified in this document." The court finds that "even though Plaintiffs insist the Vaughn Index is insufficient because the alleged media file is missing, USCIS, in good faith, has shown that the file does not exist." "And to repeat, an agency's 'failure to turn up a particular document, or mere speculation that as yet uncovered documents exist, does not undermine the determination that the agency conducted an adequate search for the requested records.'"
- Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection: The court holds that "no reason requires in camera review of the fifty-four withheld pages in this case." "Each factor suggests that USCIS has sufficiently complied with the FOIA requirements and public interest does not demand additional review of the agency's work." The court explains that "Plaintiffs have given no reason here, beyond mere speculation, that the proffered reasons for withholding these fifty-four documents are incorrect." Additionally, "there is no evidence of agency bad faith in the case beyond pure speculation, let alone evidence of 'actual agency bad faith.'" Also, "Plaintiffs are seeking access to the documents to contest their own immigration applications – a matter that does not extend to the public at large." "The Court will deny Plaintiffs' motion for in camera review."