Yadav v. USCIS, No. 22-00420, 2023 WL 5671621 (D. Md. Sept. 1, 2023) (Griggsby, J.)

Yadav v. USCIS, No. 22-00420, 2023 WL 5671621 (D. Md. Sept. 1, 2023) (Griggsby, J.)

Re:  Request for records used by USCIS in adjudicating plaintiff’s I-485 Application

Disposition:  Denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; granting defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations:  “The Court agrees with Defendants that the exclusive remedy for the relief that Plaintiffs seek in this case is provided by FOIA.”  “As this Court has previously recognized within the context of a FOIA litigation, ‘the APA only provides for judicial review of agency action if “there is no other adequate remedy in a court[.]”’”  “In this case, FOIA provides for the relief sought by Plaintiffs through their APA claim.”  “Notably, the remedy that Plaintiffs seek for both their FOIA and APA claims is for USCIS ‘to conduct a reasonable and adequate search for the requested information’ and to ‘produce forthwith any and all non-exempt information responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.’”  “Given this, Plaintiffs’ remedy in this case would be the same under either FOIA or the APA.”

• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search & Procedural Requirements, Searching for Responsive Records:  The court holds that “the undisputed material facts in this case show that the USCIS made a good faith effort to conduct a search for records responsive to [plaintiff’s] FOIA request, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.”  “In this case, the undisputed material facts show that the USCIS made a good faith effort to conduct a search for responsive records for several reasons.”  “First, the evidence before the Court shows that the USCIS made a good faith effort to timely respond to [plaintiff’s] FOIA request.”  “The unrebutted evidence in this case similarly shows that the USCIS used methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested by [plaintiff].”  “[Defendant] states in [its] Declaration that the USCIS FOIA/PA Unit searched the USCIS RAILS A-file tracking database for [plaintiff’s] alien file number, because this database is the official record system for information regarding the transactions of an individual as he or she passes through the United States immigration process.”  “[Defendant] also explains that the query of this database allowed the USCIS FOIA/PA Unit to locate [plaintiff’s] immigration records, which are maintained in his A-file.”  “[T]he evidence before the Court shows that the agency’s search of this database allowed the USCIS FOIA/PA Unit's to successfully locate [plainitff’s] immigration records.”  “[I]t is undisputed that, following [plaintiff’s] FOIA appeal, the USCIS NRC conducted a supplemental search of certain receipt files that were identified by the USCIS FOIA/PA Unit as corresponding to [plaintiff].”  “[Defendant] explains in [its] Declaration that, during this supplemental search, the agency searched its receipt files because the receipt files contain immigration records such as visa applications and petitions.”  “While Plaintiffs correctly observe that the USCIS produced additional responsive records on August 30, 2022, following [plaintiff’s] FOIA appeal, this fact, alone, does not establish that the agency’s initial search for records was not made in good faith.”

• Exemption 7, Threshold:  “[T]he Court observes that there can be no genuine dispute in this case that the USCIS is a law enforcement agency for purpose of applying FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).”  “As the Defendants correctly argue in their cross-motion, courts have long recognized that the USCIS is a law enforcement agency.”

• Exemption 7(C) & Exemption 7(E):  The court holds that “[t]he undisputed material facts also show that the USCIS properly withheld certain responsive records pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(E) in this case.”  “USCIS applied FOIA Exemption 7(E) to withhold:  (1) five internal emails, sent between June 23, 2021, and August 30, 2021, between USCIS immigration officers that discussed potential immigration fraud related to an employer sponsored non-immigrant worker visa (H-1B) that was submitted to USCIS on behalf of [plaintiff]; (2) certain law enforcement information from the FBI Fingerprint and FBI Name Check database query screen-prints, which contained law enforcement data on Plaintiff derived from various law enforcement sources; (3) a USCIS [Fraud Detection and National Security office (“FDNS”)] record of investigation and findings concerning an immigration fraud investigation related to [plaintiff], including handwritten notes by an FDNS immigration officer and the results of . . . law enforcement information database queries conducted on [plaintiff]; and (4) portions of a copy of a [record of] database checks conducted on [plaintiff] and others, such as sponsors, that appear in [plaintiff’s] immigration record.”  The court finds that “Defendants explain in the Vaughn index that the withheld five internal USCIS emails contain a discussion between immigration officers about potential immigration fraud relating to an immigration fraud investigation.”  “Defendants also explain that withheld FBI Fingerprint and FBI Name Check database query screen-prints also contain law enforcement data about [plaintiff] that was derived from various law enforcement sources.”  “Defendants similarly explain that the withheld USCIS FDNS record of investigation and findings contain information about an immigration fraud investigation related to [plaintiff], including handwritten notes by an FDNS immigration officer and the results of . . . law enforcement information database queries conducted on [plaintiff].”  “Lastly, Defendants explain that the withheld [portions of the database] . . . contain information on . . . database checks conducted by law enforcement officers on [plaintiff] and others, that appear in [plaintiff’s] immigration records.”  “Given this information, the Court is satisfied that the four records withheld by the USCIS pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(E) were compiled for law enforcement purposes and that these records contain the types of information that the USCIS may find useful to evaluate immigration fraud indicators, as contemplated by this FOIA exemption.”  The court finds that “Defendants have also shown that the release of these records might create a risk of circumvention of the law, because the records contain information about the law enforcement techniques and procedures utilized during immigration fraud investigations.”
  
  Also, the court finds that “Defendants have shown that the USCIS properly withheld certain records under FOIA Exemption 7(C).”  “Defendants have shown that the privacy interests in the records or information at issue here outweighs the public interest in disclosure for several reasons.”  “First, Defendants explain in the Vaughn index that the USCIS withheld three records pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(C), because the records contain the names and other personally identifiable information of USCIS and other law enforcement officers.”  “As Defendants persuasively argue, the USCIS officers and other law enforcement officers that are the subjects of this sensitive information have a strong privacy interest in not having their names and other personally identifiable information released.”  “The Vaughn index also makes clear that the personally identifiable information at issue here is related to the officers’ involvement in USCIS immigration fraud investigations.”  “Given this, the Court is also satisfied that the USCIS properly withheld these records and information pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(E).”