Juan Machado Amadis v. DOS, 971 F.3d 364

Background

Juan Machado Amadis, a Dominican national denied U.S. entry as a suspected drug trafficker, submitted multiple FOIA requests to the State Department and DOJ components (DEA, FBI, and OIP) seeking records about those denials and the processing of his earlier FOIA requests/appeals.
2016 requests: State produced records; DEA and FBI located none; Machado appealed to OIP but no longer challenges those responses.
2017 (second) requests: Machado sought records “memorializing or describing the processing” of prior FOIA requests/appeals; State and DEA produced records (DEA supplemented after OIP appeal); FBI/OIP withheld or redacted some material.
2017 (third) requests: DEA and FBI searched, reported no responsive records, and told Machado he could appeal to OIP; both offered additional searches if he provided more search terms or information; Machado did not file administrative appeals or new requests.
Machado sued; the district court granted summary judgment to the agencies. The D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of State Department search (second request)	Search keyed only to prior FOIA request number was too narrow and might miss responsive correspondence	Agency reasonably searched by its internal FOIA request number because records are organized by request number	Search was reasonably calculated and adequate; using the request number matched agency record organization, so affirmed
Adequacy of DEA search (second request)	DEA should have searched individual e-mail accounts beyond its JUSTICE-004 FOIA database	DEA reasonably relied on JUSTICE-004, which (per its SORN) contains original requests, responses, memoranda, correspondence, and related documentation	DEA search adequate; JUSTICE-004 was reasonably likely to contain responsive records, so affirmed
Scope, redactions, and segregability by OIP (Blitz Forms)	OIP misread Machado’s request by excluding underlying agency documents; redactions overbroad and segregability not addressed	OIP properly limited request to records “memorializing or describing the processing” of appeals; Blitz Forms’ recommendation/discussion fields are predecisional and deliberative; OIP performed line-by-line review and released nonexempt material	OIP’s interpretation proper; deliberative-process privilege applies to redacted portions; segregability satisfied (court may address segregability in first instance), so affirmed
Exhaustion and whether DEA/FBI letters were FOIA determinations (third requests)	Agency responses offering further searches mean they were not final "determinations," so exhaustion not required	Letters stated searches were conducted, no responsive records were found, and appeal rights were provided; offers of additional searches did not negate a determination	DEA and FBI letters were proper FOIA determinations that triggered exhaustion; Machado’s failure to appeal was not excused, so affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Weisberg v. DOJ, 745 F.2d 1476 (establishes FOIA search adequacy standard)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (agency affidavits describing search methodology can satisfy burden)
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (presumption of agency good faith in search affidavits)
NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (Exemption 5 and deliberative-process privilege)
Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (scope of deliberative-process privilege)
Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng’g Corp., 421 U.S. 168 (privilege protects recommendations even if later adopted or rejected without explanation)
CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (FOIA exhaustion requirement and what constitutes a determination)
Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (purpose of exhaustion: allow agency to exercise discretion and make factual record)
Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (district courts must address segregability)
Juarez v. DOJ, 518 F.3d 54 (appellate court may address segregability in the first instance)