Bayala v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11746

Florent Bayala (an asylum applicant) submitted a FOIA request to DHS for asylum officer notes, a three-page "Assessment," and related materials; DHS identified 157 responsive pages, released most, but withheld 11 pages including the notes and Assessment with a one-paragraph explanation and a list of exemptions.
Bayala sued in district court without administratively appealing, alleging DHS’s terse withholding letter prevented a "meaningful administrative appeal."
Shortly after suit was filed, DHS voluntarily released the asylum officer’s notes and other documents but continued to withhold the Assessment, providing for the first time a detailed five-page justification in its district-court filings.
The district court dismissed Bayala’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit held the case was not moot because the Assessment remained withheld, but that the exhaustion question was moot as to DHS’s original administrative decision because DHS abandoned that decision and issued a materially different in-court withholding justification.
The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings addressing the in-court withholding decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of FOIA suit after partial voluntary disclosure	Bayala still seeks the Assessment; dispute not moot because some records remain withheld	Once DHS released many documents, the case is moot	Not moot: appeal remains live as the Assessment is still withheld
Requirement to exhaust administrative appeals	DHS’s initial terse response precluded a meaningful appeal, so exhaustion excused	Bayala should have pursued administrative appeal of the initial determination	Exhaustion as to the original administrative decision was moot because DHS abandoned that decision by making a new in-court determination
Can agency compel exhaustion of a litigation-stage (in-court) withholding decision	Bayala cannot be required to administratively exhaust a decision produced only in litigation	DHS argues exhaustion still required for review	Court: No exhaustion required for the new, litigation-originated withholding decision; FOIA exhaustion requirement applies to agency-made adverse determinations in the administrative process
Proper procedural vehicle for dismissal on exhaustion grounds when agency later changes course	Bayala sought judicial review; dismissal improper after agency supplants original determination	DHS argued dismissal was appropriate for failure to exhaust	Court reversed district court dismissal and remanded for adjudication of the new withholding justification

Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (cases must present a live controversy at all stages to avoid mootness)
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (intervening circumstances can moot a plaintiff's personal stake)
Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (FOIA is moot once all requested records are surrendered)
Williams & Connolly v. SEC, 662 F.3d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (partial disclosures moot only as to released records)
Jordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 591 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (agency may prevail on exemptions raised at agency level or district court but not first raised on appeal)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (FOIA provides an administrative appeal process for adverse agency determinations)
Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (exhaustion is not jurisdictional and failure to appeal is not an absolute bar to judicial review)