Mаria Andrea MEZERHANE DE SCHNAPP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-1461 (JDB)
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Signed September 9, 2014
67 F. Supp. 3d 95
JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge
Fulbright also argues that the ABCMR “failed to explain why a 50% disability rating by the VA effective in 1989 or a 70% disability rating effective in 1992 is not probative of error by the Army.” Def.‘s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Sum. J. at 16. But, as noted above, the ABCMR explained that the VA does not determine whether an individual is fit for continued service in the military before determining whether they are partially or totally disabled. AR 7-9. Army regulations, on the other hand, first require the Army to determine whether the servicemember is unfit for duty.
Lastly, Fulbright asserts that “preponderant evidence shows that Mr. Fulbright was not fit for duty at the time of his separation from active duty in 1989.” Def.‘s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Sum. J. at 19 (emphasis in original). But preponderance of the evidence is not the standard this Court applies in reviewing decisions of the ABCMR under the APA. As long as the board‘s determination adequately states the reasons for its decision and was in the realm of reason, this Court must defer to it. E.g., Frizelle, 111 F.3d at 176. Here, the board determined that Fulbright had presented nо evidence showing that he was unfit for service at the time of his separation because Army medical examiners had found him fit and the VA‘s disability rating was not to the contrary. This determination was reasonable in light of the evidence before the board, and the Court therefore will defer to the board‘s findings.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court will deny Defendant‘s motion to dismiss, deny Plaintiff‘s cross-motion for summary judgment, and grant Defendant‘s motion for summary judgment. The Court will issue an order consistent with this opinion.
Sandra Andrea Grossman, Grossman Law, LLC, Rockville, MD, for Plaintiff.
John Cuong Truong, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge
Before the Court are [16][18] the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in this action seeking the disclosure of agency records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA“),
FOIA requires federal agencies to release all records responsive to a proper request, except those protected from disclosure by any of nine enumerated exemptions set forth at
“FOIA сases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment.” Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and the evidence demonstrate that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
ANALYSIS
Much of Mezerhane‘s briefing tells the story of how USCIS “kept [her] and her family members in immigration limbo for more than three years,” Pl.‘s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.‘s MSJ“) [ECF No. 18] at 2, despite the clear strength of their asylum applications (all of which have now been granted). Ultimately, most—but not all—of this history is irrelevant to the legal questions now before the Court: that is, whether USCIS properly withheld portions of 47 pages of documents under various FOIA exemptions. For the vast majority of the disputed records, the Court finds that USCIS made proper exemption claims. For five pages, perplexing internal contradictions in the record preclude summary judgment for either party at this time.1
I. USCIS Properly Invoked FOIA Exemption 7(E) to Protect Law Enforcement Techniques and Procedures
USCIS argues that much of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes . . . to the extent that the production” of such records “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.”
Under D.C. Circuit precedent, “Exemption 7(E) sets a relatively low bar for the agency to justify withholding: ‘Rather than requiring a highly specific burden of showing how the law will be circumvented,‘” this exemption “‘only requires that the agency demonstrate logically how the release of the requested information might create a risk of circumvention of the law.‘” Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2009)); see also id. (“[T]he exemption looks not just for circumvention of the law, but for a risk of circumvention; not just for an actual or certain risk of circumvention, but for an expected risk; not just for an undeniably or universally expected risk, but for a reasonably expected risk; and not just for certitude of a reasonably expected risk, but for the chance of a reasonably expected risk.“) (internal quotation marks omitted).
USCIS clears this “relatively low bar” for all of the records it has withheld under Exemption 7(E), because USCIS has “demonstrate[d] logically how the release of the requested information might create a risk of cirсumvention of the law.” Id. For example, USCIS withheld several pages of printouts from “The Enforcement Communications System,” also known as the “TECS II” database. The TECS II database contains law enforcement data “from a variety of federal, state and local sources,” including “names, aliases, dates
USCIS‘s representations, and this Court‘s own in camera review, confirm that this data “was compiled for law enforcement purposes,” and that its disclosure would risk revealing “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,”
The same is true for the other information USCIS withholds under Exemption 7(E), which includes, for example, records of USCIS queries of the Interagency Border Inspection System (“IBIS“), see, e.g., Vaughn Index [ECF No. 16-4] Nos. 297-98, 321, and other information that might reveal the methods by which USCIS cooperates and shares information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI“) in adjudicating asylum applications, see, e.g., id. No. 245. Given the deferential standard applied by the D.C. Circuit for agency withholding under Exemption 7(E), and the in camera review that confirmed the accuracy of the agency‘s description of the relevant documents, the Court will not second-guess USCIS‘s concerns about the potential risks of releasing this information.
In response, Mezerhane hardly disputes USCIS‘s factual assertions and, instead, makes a series of legal arguments. None are persuasive. She begins with an appeal to (out-of-circuit, district court) authority: Gluckman v. U.S. Dep‘t of Labor, 2013 WL 6184957 (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2013), which she reads to stand for the proposition that “[a]n agency withholding records for law enforcement purposes must have a law enforcement mandate.” Pl.‘s MSJ at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted). USCIS, argues Mezerhane, “is not principally or even tangentially engaged in law enforcement activity“; instead, it “refers immigration enforcement matters to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” Id. at 22. Even assuming Mezerhane has her facts right, this argument overreads Gluckman and, more importantly, finds no basis in FOIA‘s text. Exemption 7(E) applies to all “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,”
Mezerhane also argues repeаtedly that because she “is a devoted mother of four, without a single criminal conviction anywhere in the world,” Pl.‘s MSJ at 23, release of the disputed information would not “enable her to evade the law.” Id. But the applicability of Exemption 7(E) bears no relationship to the identity of the FOIA requester. See, e.g., Nat‘l Archives & Recs. Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004) (applicability of FOIA exemptions “does not depend on the identity of the requester“). What matters is the risk of improper disclosure of law enforcement techniques and procedures, regardless of who wants the information. Mezerhane‘s law-abiding character is admirable, but irrelevant.
Finally, Mezerhane claims that “USCIS has already made publicly available much of the information about the law enforcement teсhniques it now seeks to withhold,” Pl.‘s MSJ at 24, citing some training manuals and guidance documents that USCIS has published online. But “[t]here is no principle . . . that requires an agency to release all details concerning [its] techniques simply because some aspects of them are known to the public.” Barnard v. DHS, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1, 23 (D.D.C. 2009); see also Miller v. U.S. Dep‘t of Justice, 562 F. Supp. 2d 82, 124 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Although it is common knowledge that law enforcement agencies develop psychological profiles, the exact nature and type of information used to develop these profiles . . . warrants protection . . .“) (internal quotation marks omitted); Blanton v. U.S. Dep‘t of Justice, 63 F. Supp. 2d 35, 50 (D.D.C. 1999) (“While the techniques themselves have already been identified by the FBI, the documents in question involve the manner and circumstances of the various techniques that are not generally known to the public.“) (internal quotation marks omitted). USCIS properly withheld this information under Exemption 7(E), and the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of USCIS on this exemption claim.
II. USCIS Properly Invoked FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to Protect Third-Party Privacy Interests
USCIS invoked FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect the privacy interests of third-parties. Exemption 6 protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Mezerhane does not dispute USCIS‘s assertions that legitimate third-party privacy interests are implicаted by the withheld information. Her only argument for the release of this information is that disclosure would serve the public interest, by shedding light on several varieties of potential agency misconduct in the processing of her asylum application (and those of her family members). She claims that “disclosure would confirm or refute whether [USCIS] has breached its own regulations, Congressional mandates, or its duties under International Human Rights law in its processing, adjudication, and handling of applications for asylum.” Pl.‘s MSJ at 14.3
USCIS‘s response falls flat: it simply insists repeatedly that Mezerhane‘s “complaint about her immigration issue is irrelevant,” and that “[t]his case turns on whether USCIS has properly responded to Plaintiff‘s FOIA Request“—“[n]othing more.” Def.‘s Opp‘n & Reply [ECF No. 20] at 2. That is mostly truе, but entirely unhelpful. The Court cannot decide
But in the end, the Court‘s in camera review gets USCIS off the hook, as it confirmed USCIS‘s (otherwise, mostly conclusory) representations about the min-
One point warrants additional clarity. In rejecting Mezerhane‘s arguments about a public interest in disclosure, the Court need not (and does not) decide whether Mezerhane has plausibly alleged negligent or intentional misconduct by USCIS in the processing of her and her family‘s asylum applications (though it will return to a related issue below, see infra Section III). The Court concludes only that, whether or not Mezerhane‘s theories of misconduct are plausible, the information USCIS has withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) would do nothing to confirm or refute them. Accordingly, that information—which clearly implicates the privacy interests of third parties—remains exempt.
III. Summary Judgment on USCIS‘s Deliberative-Process Privilege Claims Under Exemption 5 Is Not Appropriate at This Time
Although USCIS asserted that Exemption 5 protected much of the disputed information, most of those records are also withhеld under Exemptions 6, 7(C), or 7(E)—claims the Court has now decided in USCIS‘s favor. For those documents that overlap, the Court need not consider the additional applicability of Exemption 5—if a document is properly withheld under any FOIA exemption, the inquiry is over. What remains are only the two documents (totaling five pages) that are withheld, in whole or in part, based only on Exemption 5. See Vaughn Index Nos. 1-4, 246.
FOIA Exemption 5 protects from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”
The deliberative-process privilege is “[a] privilege unique to the government.” Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep‘t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980). To decide whether a document falls within the privilege, courts in this Circuit first “look to whether the document is ‘predecisional,‘” that is, “whether it was generated before the adoption of an agency policy.” Id. Next, a reviewing court asks “whether the document is ‘deliberative,‘” that is, “whether it reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process.” Id. The deliberative-process privilege “thus covers recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency.” Id.
The deliberative-process privilege “has a number of purposes: it serves to assure that subordinates within an agency will feel free to provide the decisionmaker with their uninhibited opinions and recommendations without fear of later being subject to public ridicule or criticism; to protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they have been finally formulated or adopted; and to protect against confusing the issues and misleading the public by dissemination of documents suggesting reasons аnd rationales for a course of action which were not in fact the ultimate reasons for the agency‘s action.” Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866.
As explained below, on the present record the Court cannot determine whether these documents are covered by the deliberative-process privilege and, thus, FOIA Exemption 5. Although the documents, on their face, appear to be both pre-decisional and deliberative, other evidence in the record undermines that conclusion.
A. The withheld records appear to be pre-decisional and deliberative.
The two documents in question are described in some detail on USCIS‘s Vaughn index. The first is a four-page “Asylum Officer Assessment” dated February 11, 2013, which USCIS withheld almost in its entirety. USCIS explains that “[t]he рurpose of the assessment is to document the essential facts in support of the applicant‘s asylum application, and the Asylum Officer‘s analysis and recommendations.” Vaughn Index Nos. 1-4, Description. USCIS argues that this document “is pre-decisional because it predates USCIS‘s decision on Plaintiff‘s asylum application,” id., which USCIS claims was not finalized until November 14, 2013, when an “Asylum Approval” letter was mailed to Mezerhane, see Ex. J to Pl.‘s MSJ [ECF No. 18-5]. And USCIS argues that this document is “deliberative because the options provided and selected by the Asylum Officer are selective in nature and highlight certain portions of the Plaintiff‘s record that were deemed pertinent to the USCIS Officer‘s ultimate recommendation on whether to approvе or deny the Plaintiff‘s application.” Vaughn Index Nos. 1-4, Description. The Court‘s in camera review confirms USCIS‘s representations: the document appears to be a non-binding recommendation from an Asylum Officer to his superior about whether (and why) the Asylum Officer believes Mezerhane‘s asylum application should be granted or denied.
B. Other evidence suggests that the withheld records may not be pre-decisional.
Mezerhane filеd her asylum application on August 11, 2010. According to USCIS, the decision to grant Mezerhane‘s asylum application was not made until November 14, 2013—over three years later.4 According to USCIS, the decision became final when it mailed a letter to Mezerhane notifying her of the decision. Mezerhane, however, puts forth several pieces of evi-
dence that call USCIS‘s explanation into some doubt. Mezerhane‘s theory is that the decision was made as early as September 2010, but that USCIS withheld this information from her for three years, then notified her of a three-year-old decision in the November 14, 2013 letter.
Mezerhane‘s first hint that something might have gone awry with the processing of her asylum application came on August 7, 2013, when her husband, Roberto Schnapp, visited a USCIS field office to inquire about his long-pending application for an “Advance Parole Travel Document,” which is the document required to travel abroad with a pending asylum application. See
Officer Marenco then showed me a copy of the Advance Parole application form filed in my case. It was a copy of the form my attorney had filed, but with one major difference: the form my attorney submitted checked the box “d,” indicating that I was applying for advance parole to allow me to return to the United States after temporary foreign travel; the form that Officer Marenco showed me had the box “b” checked in red marker, indicating that “I now hold U.S. refugee or asylee status, and I am applying for a Refugee Travel Document.” I told her that neither I nor my lawyers had marked my application in red pen, or marked the box that I held refugee or asylee status. I even showed her a copy of my original application, which clearly showed that box “d” was marked, and there was no use of red pen anywhere. It was apparent to me that this mark was made internally by USCIS. I asked if I could make a copy of the document for my own records, but she denied my request.
Schnapp Aff. ¶ 7. This document—later obtained by Schnapp in a separate FOIA request—is marked consistently with Schnapp‘s story: boxes (b) and (d) are both checked. See Ex. C to Pl.‘s MSJ.
Next, on October 30, 2013, a staff member at the USCIS Ombudsman‘s office—who had apparently been in contact with Mezerhane‘s attorney, Sandra Grossman, due to the significant delays in the family‘s asylum applications and travel document requests—called to explain that the Mezerhane family should not have filed for an Advance Parole Travel Document, because they “already held аsylum status.” See Sandra Grossman Aff. ¶ 9(h) [ECF No. 18-4]; see also Oct. 31, 2013 Email from Sandra Grossman to USCIS Ombudsman Officer, Ex. D to Pl.‘s MSJ. And to confirm, this USCIS official apparently located Mezerhane‘s case in the USCIS Refugee Asylum and Parole System database, which indicated that Mezerhane‘s application for asylum had been granted years ago, in September of 2010. See Sandra Grossman Aff. ¶ 9(h).
Finally, on February 17, 2014, Mezerhane and her family re-entered the United States after a brief trip to the Bahamas (each using a Refugee Travel Document, issued in January 2014, after all family members had been notified of their being granted asylum). At customs, a DHS Customs and Border Protection Officer pulled up the family‘s file and commented that Mezerhane and her family were described in DHS recоrds as “asylees since 2010.” See Mezerhane Aff. ¶¶ 6, 7; Schnapp Aff. ¶ 11.
The government makes two arguments in response to Mezerhane‘s evidence. Neither one is persuasive. First, the government claims that all of the key evidence is inadmissible hearsay that the Court cannot consider at the summary-judgment stage. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia, 34 F. Supp. 3d 30, 39 (D.D.C. 2014) (“To support summary judgment, evidence must generally be capable of being offered at trial in admissible form.“) (citing
USCIS also relies on
To be sure, USCIS does offer a declaration from the Director of the Miami Asylum Office, who asserts that the final decision in Mezerhane‘s case was not made until November 14, 2013. But, once again, his only support for that (conclusory) assertion comes from the notice letter. See Decl. of Varsenik Papazian [ECF No. 20-2] ¶ 20 (“The final determination to grant asylum to Ms. Mezerhane . . . was issued on November 14, 2013, as reflected in the approval letter.“). So this is just another version of the argument that the date of the notice letter is controlling. See id. ¶ 10 (“The proposed decisions of Asylum Officers to grаnt or deny asylum do not become a final determination until the [Supervisory Asylum Officer] . . . signs the decision letter, in accordance with
C. Because of the factual dispute over whether the documents are pre-decisional, summary judgment is inappropriate on this record.
As should be clear from the previous discussion, the parties dispute the date on which Mezerhane‘s application for asylum was granted. There is evidence to support both parties’ positions: statements from USCIS employees corroborate Mezerhane‘s assertion that the decision was made as early as September 2010, yet USCIS documents from early 2013 are written as if a final decision had not yet been made, see Vaughn Index Nos. 1-4 (Asylum Officer‘s recommendation, dated February 11, 2013). Documents generated after a final decision are generally not “pre-decisional” for purposes of the deliberative-process privilege, so this issue could very well be outcome-determinative (for these five pages of documents).
To be sure, Mezerhane‘s evidence is not immune to skepticism; it is primarily based on unverifiable accounts of the plaintiff, her husband, and her attorney‘s recollections of conversations with (sometimes unnamed) government officials. For that reason, one might conclude that Mezerhane‘s evidenсe is not reliable, not credible, or both. Relying on this evidence is also in some tension with case law that instructs a district judge to treat the plaintiff‘s own self-serving affidavits with some skepticism—even at the summary judgment stage. See, e.g., Brooks v. Kerry, 37 F. Supp. 3d 187, 200 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting that, standing alone, “self-serving testimony
Even so, at this stage, Mezerhane‘s evidence stands virtually unchallenged—USCIS does not deny that the conversations took place as remembered by the various affiants, and all of USCIS‘s legal arguments for ignoring this evidence have been rejected. And Mr. Schnapp‘s account is consistent with tangible, documentary evidence in the record. See Ex. E to Pl.‘s MSJ. Furthermore, the fact that the plaintiff‘s husband and the plaintiff‘s attorney have offered sworn affidavits—describing separate events from those appeаring in the plaintiff‘s affidavit—also distinguishes this case from those in which a plaintiff opposes summary judgment with nothing more than the plaintiff‘s own conclusory, self-serving statements.
Therefore, construing all this evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), mindful that the U.S. Supreme Court has “consistently stated that FOIA exemptions are to be narrowly construed,” U.S. Dep‘t of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 8 (1988), and because “the burden is on the agency to sustain its action,”
With the benefit of this opinion, and mindful of the fact that only five pages remain in dispute, the Court is hopeful that the parties will be able to come to an agreement to resolve this matter. In case that hope should prove unfounded, the Court will set a schedule for supplemental factual submissions, and the filing of short legal memoranda from each side. Upon review of that additional material, the Court will make a final determination about whether the government has carried its burden to sustain its exemption claims for these last five рages.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, [16] USCIS‘s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and [18] plaintiff‘s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety. A separate Order has issued on this date.
JOHN D. BATES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE