978 F.3d 34
2d Cir.2020Background
- Spadaro, an Italian citizen, received a B-1/B-2 visa in 2006; the State Department prudentially revoked it in 2008 under INA § 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) and later denied subsequent applications.
- Spadaro alleges FBI/DEA agents suggested coercion and that U.S. officials spread harmful information; he sought related records from State, FBI, USCIS, CBP, and DOJ under FOIA.
- Agencies located ~3,200 pages, produced ~971 pages (many redacted) and withheld ~2,229 pages invoking FOIA exemptions including Exemption 3 (INA § 222(f)) and Exemption 5.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government; Spadaro appealed principally arguing INA § 222(f) covers only issuance/refusal, not revocation, and alternatively sought documents under the INA "ends of justice" exception.
- The Second Circuit held that INA § 222(f) (an Exemption 3 statute) covers documents "pertaining to" issuance or refusal, including revocation records, and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether INA § 222(f) (Exemption 3) covers visa revocation records | Revocation is distinct from issuance or refusal and thus outside § 222(f) | "Pertaining to issuance" is broad and revocation nullifies issuance, so it falls within § 222(f) | Revocation records "pertain to" issuance; Exemption 3 protects them |
| Whether documents not created during an application but reviewed in connection with it are covered | Documents must be generated in connection with an application to be covered | Documents reviewed or relied on during adjudication pertain to the application and are confidential | Affidavits/Vaughn index showed documents were reviewed in connection with applications; § 222(f) applies |
| Whether records must be released under the INA "ends of justice" exception | Spadaro: governmental misconduct and need to defend justify release | State: exception is narrow—court certification needed for records in pending court proceedings, not FOIA requests | Exception inapplicable here; Spadaro failed to show records are needed by a court in the ends of justice |
| Adequacy of agency affidavits/Vaughn index and segregability | Spadaro: discrepancies and speculation undermine agency declarations | Government: affidavits provide specific justification; presumption of good faith; segregability not contested on appeal | Court credited affidavits and Vaughn indices; speculation insufficient to rebut; withholding sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilner v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2009) (agency bears burden; affidavits may justify nondisclosure)
- N.Y. Times Co. v. CIA, 965 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2020) (affidavits must describe justifications with specific detail)
- Medina-Hincapie v. Dep’t of State, 700 F.2d 737 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (§ 222(f) qualifies as Exemption 3 and protects decisionmakers' thought-process)
- Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) (presumption of agency good faith; speculative challenges insufficient)
- Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807 (2d Cir. 1994) (affidavits accorded presumption of good faith)
- Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) (FOIA exemptions construed narrowly)
- Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) (statute construed in context of whole)
- Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 228 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000) (resolve ambiguity consistent with statute's primary purpose)