Spadaro v. CBP, 978 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2020) (Bianco, J.)
Date
Spadaro v. CBP, 978 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2020) (Bianco, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning requester and his visa revocation
Disposition: Affirming district court's grant of government's motion for summary judgment
- Exemption 3: The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "conclude[s] that the documents at issue are protected from disclosure under Exemption 3 because they pertain to the issuance or refusal of visas to enter into the United States." The court first "conclude[s] that INA § 222(f) is a qualifying statute because it clearly 'refers to particular types of matters to be withheld,' . . . that is, records 'pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States' . . . ." Second, the court holds that "[t]he affidavits and Vaughn indices provide that the documents were reviewed in connection with a visa application and ultimate refusal of a visa." "The confidentiality of documents reviewed in connection with the visa application (and potentially also relied upon in the adjudication of that application) is necessary to protect the thought-process of the decisionmakers, and such documents clearly fall within the ambit of INA § 222(f), which refers broadly to protecting documents 'pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas,' rather than only documents submitted by the visa applicant." Third, the court "conclude[s] that the plain language of INA § 222(f) encompasses visa revocations." "INA § 222(f), as a qualifying statute under Exemption 3, keeps matters 'pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States' confidential." "Although the statutory language refers only to issuances or refusals on its face, the use of the word 'pertaining' makes clear that the reach of the statute is not so limited." The court "conclude[s] that the use of the broad phrase 'pertaining to' plainly gives the statute a wider reach than mere issuances and refusals." "Applying that broad phrase to the circumstances here, it is clear that the revocation of a visa pertains to the issuance of a visa because they are so closely related – namely, a revocation constitutes a nullification of that issuance." Finally, the court addresses the requester's other argument, that "[u]nder INA § 222(f)(1), the Secretary of State may release certified copies of such records if a court 'certifies that the information contained in such records is needed by the court in the interest of the ends of justice in a case pending before the court.'" The court finds that "[the requester] has not adequately demonstrated that this Court or any other court requires the particular material, and he cannot rely on this subsection of the INA 'to request documents from the Secretary merely for the purpose of turning those documents over to an unsuccessful FOIA applicant.'"
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Exemption 3
Updated November 18, 2020