Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant.

Case No. TJS-19-1511

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

September 25, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court in this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") case is the Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") (ECF No. 42) filed by Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS" or the "Agency"). Having considered the submissions of the parties (ECF Nos. 42, 43 & 44), I find that a hearing is unnecessary. See Loc. R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, the Agency's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization that "promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs." ECF No. 1 ¶ 13. As part of its mission, Plaintiff "provides training and technical assistance to nonprofit practitioners across the country to help them effectively represent noncitizens in immigration proceedings." Id. ¶ 2.

The Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJS") classification "provides certain children who have been subject to state juvenile court proceedings related to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law the ability to seek lawful permanent residence in the United States." Id. ¶ 3. The assistance that Plaintiff provides to practitioners includes assistance about the SIJS classification. Id. Plaintiff believes that USCIS has made significant changes to its practices for adjudicating SIJS petitions since the fall of 2016. Id. ¶ 4. To obtain clarification of the practices that USCIS follows for the adjudication of SIJS petitions and SIJS-based adjustment applications, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA Request to USCIS. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff's Request sought the following documents:

1. A copy of the legal guidance issued by USCIS' Office of Chief Counsel in February 2018 regarding the agency's interpretation of the statutory reunification requirement for SIJS eligibility;

2. A copy of all other USCIS guidance, policies, memoranda, training materials, or other directives (including via e-email correspondence) issued from December 2008 to the present regarding the adjudication of SIJS petitions in cases where the state "juvenile" court predicate order (required in all SIJS cases) is issued after the child's 18th birthday;

3. A copy of any document pertaining to research or information about specific state laws that USCIS has created or provided to assist adjudicators handling SIJS petitions, including but not limited to research or information pertaining to juvenile court jurisdiction and authority, issued from December 2008 to the present;

4. A copy of all USCIS guidance, polices, memoranda, training materials, or other directives (including via e-mail correspondence) issued from December 2008 to the present regarding the adjudication of SIJS petitions; and

5. A copy of all USCIS guidance, policies, memoranda, training materials, or other directives (including via e-email correspondence) issued from December 2008 to the present regarding the adjudication of SIJS-based adjustment of status applications (including regarding protocols for conducting interviews of SIJS petitioners or SIJS-based adjustment of status applicants).

ECF No. 42-2 at 14-15.

USCIS has responded to Plaintiff's FOIA Request. See ECF No. 42-1 at 5-6.¹ In support of its redactions and withholdings, Plaintiff has prepared a Vaughn index that "explain[s] each ofthe Agency's redactions and withholdings."² ECF No. 44 at 1. USCIS argues that the Vaughn index and the declarations it submitted in support of its Motion "satisfy its burden of proving that it properly invoked the pertinent FOIA exemptions." Id. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff argues that the Agency has improperly redacted and withheld documents, and that the evidence it relies on for withholding the documents does not satisfy its burden under FOIA.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). If sufficient evidence exists for a reasonable jury to render a verdict in favor of the party opposing the motion, then a genuine dispute of material fact is presented and summary judgment should be denied. SeeAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). However, the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [opposing party's] position" is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 252.

The facts themselves, and the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007); Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 230 (4th Cir. 2008). A party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleading but instead must cite to "particular parts of materials in the record" or "show[] that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Supporting and opposing affidavits are to be made on personal knowledge, contain such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and show affirmatively the competence of the affiant to testify to the matters stated in the affidavit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).

B. FOIA Standard

"The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978). Under FOIA, an agency must "make . . . records promptly available" to the public upon request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). However, FOIA contains nine specific exemptions from the general obligation to make records available. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); see Hunton & Williams v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 590 F.3d 272, 277 (4th Cir. 2010) ("The Act acknowledges that "public disclosure is not always in the public interest.") (quoting Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 352 (1982)). An agency may withhold information that falls within one of these exemptions. Id. Nevertheless, "FOIA exceptions are to be narrowly construed." FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 630 (1982). "Thegovernment has the burden of demonstrating that a requested document falls under an exemption, which it can satisfy by describing the withheld material with reasonable specificity and explaining how it falls under one of the enumerated exemptions." Am. Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Dep't of the Army, 703 F.3d 724, 729 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

To determine whether an agency has met its burden to justify a withholding, the Court "may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof" may be withheld. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). A Vaughn index "is a surrogate for the production of documents for in camera review, designed to enable the district court to rule on a privilege without having to review the document itself." Ethyl Corp., 25 F.3d at 1249. Giving an agency the opportunity to meet its burden with a Vaughn index reduces the burden on the reviewing court and allows an agency to protect against "the potential damage that disclosure, even to the district court, might have on the deliberative process of an agency." Id. at 1249-50. But a Vaughn index is only useful insofar as the agency provides a "detailed justification" for the asserted exemptions. Id. at 1250 ("If the index is so vague as to leave the district court with an inability to rule, then some other means of review must be undertaken, such as in camera review.").

C. The Agency's Burden

To sustain its burden to prove that it properly withheld documents under Exemption 5 and Exemption 7(E), USCIS relies on two declarations and a Vaughn Index.³ See ECF No. 42-1 at 9. Both declarations are signed by Jill Eggleston ("Ms. Eggleston"), the Associate Center Director of USCIS's Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Unit. ECF Nos. 42-2 & 44-2. Ms. Eggleston's initial Declaration (ECF No. 42-2) explains her role as the FOIA Officer for USCIS, the procedurethat USCIS follows to process FOIA requests, the manner in which USCIS processed the Plaintiff's FOIA Request in this case, and a description of each FOIA exemption that USCIS claims allows it to withhold documents in connection with Plaintiff's FOIA Request (with reference to the original Vaughn Index, which was subsequently amended). Ms. Eggleston's Supplemental Declaration (ECF No. 44-2) describes additional documents that were released to Plaintiff during the briefing of the Motion, and incorporates the amended Vaughn Index (ECF No. 44-1).

The Vaughn Index incorporated into Ms. Eggleston's declarations describes the documents withheld according to the following headings: "PDF Number, Description of Document, Withholding full/partial, Exemption(s) Applied, Description of Withheld Information and Explanation(s) for Withholding." ECF No. 44-1 at 2. USCIS withheld records under a number of exemptions, but only two are at issue in the Motion: Exemption 5 and Exemption 7(E). ECF No. 42-1 at 11.

Plaintiff argues that the Agency's "Vaughn index is facially inadequate" because it does not describe the withheld information with "reasonable specificity." ECF No. 43 at 9. Specifically, Plaintiff faults the Agency's Vaughn Index for failing "to include the authors, recipients, and dates for several documents, and...