American Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Executive Office for Immigration Review
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13800
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Immigration judges are DOJ career employees (EOIR) who preside over removal proceedings; complaints about judge conduct are tracked in an OCIJ database created in 2010.
- AILA submitted a FOIA request (Nov. 2012) seeking all complaints against immigration judges, records reflecting complaint resolutions, related reports, incorporated records, and an index of final opinions/orders.
- EOIR produced ~16,000 pages (767 complaint files) but redacted judges’ names under FOIA Exemption 6 and also redacted portions it deemed non-responsive within responsive records; EOIR identified judges by anonymous three-digit codes.
- AILA sued; the district court upheld EOIR’s categorical Exemption 6 redactions, the non-responsive redactions, and rejected AILA’s claim that complaint resolutions are subject to FOIA’s affirmative publication requirement.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the affirmative-disclosure ruling, but reversed as to the blanket Exemption 6 redactions and the practice of redacting non-responsive material from responsive records; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EOIR permissibly withheld immigration judges’ names under FOIA Exemption 6 | AILA: public interest in transparency about judge conduct outweighs privacy; names help track patterns | EOIR: immigration judges have privacy interests that categorically outweigh public interest; names may be withheld across the board | Reversed: categorical, across‑the‑board redaction unjustified; EOIR must provide a particularized/subgroup or case‑by‑case showing to sustain Exemption 6 withholding |
| Whether agency may redact non‑responsive information within a record it deems responsive | AILA: once a record is responsive, non‑exempt content must be disclosed; agency cannot redact non‑responsive material inside responsive records | EOIR: permitted to withhold material unrelated to the FOIA request even if embedded in a responsive document | Reversed: statute permits redaction only for information that falls within FOIA exemptions; agency may not withhold non‑exempt, non‑responsive portions of a responsive record |
| Whether complaint‑resolution records are subject to FOIA’s affirmative publication requirement (5 U.S.C. §552(a)(2)) | AILA: complaint resolutions are ‘final opinions’/orders and must be proactively published | EOIR: complaint resolutions are internal, not adjudicative final opinions affecting outside parties or setting law/policy | Affirmed: complaint resolutions are not final opinions/orders for affirmative publication; they are sui generis personnel/disciplinary actions, not precedent or binding agency law |
| Scope/definition of a “record” for FOIA purposes (practical dispute) | AILA: (implied) produced documents defined by EOIR as responsive must be disclosed intact except for exempt material | EOIR: practical concerns about multi‑topic documents (e.g., email chains) justify surgical non‑responsive redactions | Court: accepts agency’s chosen unit of “record” for purposes of the remand but holds statutory limits apply—once EOIR treats a document as responsive, only statutory exemptions justify deletions |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (narrow construction of FOIA exemptions)
- Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA’s core purpose: inform public about government operations)
- Dep’t of Def. v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (balancing public interest against privacy under Exemption 6)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (Vaughn index procedure for FOIA exemptions)
- Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (focus on information vs. documents in FOIA context)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (agency burden to justify exemptions and Vaughn rigor)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (privacy interests vary with context; categorical identity withholding disfavored)
- Prison Legal News v. Samuels, 787 F.3d 1142 (permitting subgroup or individualized Exemption 6 showings)