Abdelfattah v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
893 F. Supp. 2d 75
D.D.C.2012Background
- Abdelfattah, a Jordanian national, sues DHS and components alleging Privacy Act violations regarding TECS records.
- TECS records allegedly include address history, driver’s licenses, credit header information, and credit card numbers.
- TECS is exempt from Privacy Act requirements; the Treasury Department exemption governs TECS handling and remedies.
- Plaintiff submitted a request to amend records; the Department allegedly denied and a TECS-related dispute is central to the case.
- Court sua sponte treats affidavits as amendments to the complaint and considers jurisdictional and failure-to-state claims in light of statutory exemptions.
- Court grants motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Privacy Act claims are jurisdictionally barred by TECS exemption | Abdelfattah asserts TECS records violate 552a; seeks removal | TECS exempt from 552a; no jurisdiction | Privacy Act claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Privacy Act claims can proceed despite exhaustion and amendment issues | Requests for amendment exist; abuse of TECS data | Exemption controls; no valid amendment claims | Dismissed for failure to state a claim under Privacy Act; exemptions control |
| Whether non-Privacy Act claims (constitutional, APA, 42 U.S.C. §1983) succeed | Constitutional and declaratory claims remedial; asserted due process/fourth/fifth amendments | Remedied within Privacy Act framework or fail on merits | Dismissed; no independent relief because Privacy Act claims insufficient or dispositive |
| Whether FCRA, RFPA, and GLBA claims survive | Department and others violated these acts via data sharing | No cognizable consumer-reporting or financial-record disclosures; claims fail | Dismissed; no private right of action under GLBA; RFPA and FCRA claims fail pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (U.S. 2004) (privacy statute interpretation guidance)
- Skinner v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 584 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (privacy exemptions and remedies under Privacy Act)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusory pleadings not accepted; plausibility required)
- Chung v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 333 F.3d 273 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (constitutional claims not separable when Privacy Act available)