Gosen v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, 118 F. Supp. 3d 232

Background

Nelson Mezerhane Gosen and his daughter Maria Andrea Mezerhane de Schnapp submitted FOIA requests to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for records related to their asylum applications after unusual agency interactions suggested they had already been granted asylum in 2010.
USCIS initially withheld many records under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E); prior rulings resolved most disputes, leaving a small set of documents (five pages in Schnapp; twenty-two pages in Gosen) withheld solely under Exemption 5 (deliberative-process privilege).
The central factual dispute is whether USCIS made a final decision to grant asylum in September 2010 (as plaintiffs contend) or only in November 2013 (as USCIS contends); the timing determines whether disputed documents are predecisional.
USCIS submitted detailed declarations explaining the multi-step adjudication and vetting process (including Headquarters review and Fraud Detection and National Security checks) and showed Headquarters did not clear the cases for final adjudication until November 13, 2013.
The Court reviewed the contested documents in camera and found they were drafted to assist the agency’s deliberation and therefore predecisional and deliberative; however the Court identified factual material within the documents that may be reasonably segregable.
Remedy: the Court denied plaintiffs’ motions (mostly), granted in part and denied in part the government’s motions, and ordered USCIS to release all reasonably segregable non‑exempt portions of the remaining documents (Schnapp Bates Nos. 1–4, 246; Gosen Bates Nos. 1, 157, 257–62).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether disputed pages are protected by Exemption 5 (deliberative-process)	Plaintiffs: final decision occurred Sept. 2010, so later documents are post‑decisional and not privileged	USCIS: no final decision until Nov. 2013; documents are predecisional and deliberative	Held: documents are predecisional/deliberative; Exemption 5 applies
Whether plaintiffs raised a genuine dispute of material fact about final decision timing	Plaintiffs: database screenshots and officer statements show 2010 grant	USCIS: inconsistencies explained as clerical/database errors and ongoing vetting; declarations credible	Held: plaintiffs failed to rebut agency declarations or show bad faith; no genuine dispute
Whether factual material in documents must be disclosed (segregability)	Plaintiffs: seek release of segregable portions of remaining pages	USCIS: much content is part of deliberative analysis and privileged	Held: some factual/quoted material is reasonably segregable; Court orders disclosure of non‑exempt segregable portions after agency reassessment
Whether further discovery or adverse inference is warranted	Plaintiffs: suggest additional evidence of 2010 grant justifies disclosure	USCIS: declarations detailed and in good faith; no basis for extra discovery	Held: no further discovery; agency affidavits suffice absent evidence of bad faith

Key Cases Cited

Loving v. Dep’t of Defense, 550 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Exemption 5 incorporates civil‑litigation privileges including deliberative‑process)
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (deliberative‑process protects predecisional and deliberative documents)
Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (agency must show material falls within claimed FOIA exemption)
Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Co., 421 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1975) (predecisional documents assist decisionmaker rather than support already made decision)
Coastal States Gas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (deliberative test and when recommendations become adopted agency position)
Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2001) (privilege protects candid intra‑agency deliberations to improve decision quality)