Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Filing
26
ORDER & REASONS: denying 8 Motion for Summary Judgment; FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint in this matter is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 8/14/14. (sek)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL GAHAGAN
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 14-1268
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
SECTION: J
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc.
8) filed by Plaintiff, Michael Gahagan ("Plaintiff"), an Opposition
(Rec. Doc. 19) filed by Defendant, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services ("USCIS"), Plaintiff's Reply (Rec. Doc. 22), and USCIS's
Sur Reply
(Rec. Doc. 25). Having considered the motion, the
parties’ submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the Court
finds, for the reasons expressed below, that the Motion for Summary
Judgment should be DENIED and that judgment should be entered in
favor of USCIS.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought suit against USCIS, seeking relief under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiff is an immigration
attorney who sought the release of immigration records pertaining
to his client, Mr. Narinder Singh. Plaintiff alleges that he filed
a FOIA request with USCIS, requesting particular documents and
information, and that USCIS failed to respond within the required
1
twenty
(20)
business
days.
On
July
8,
2014,
the
parties
participated in a telephone status conference with the Court,
during which the government advised that its final response to
Plaintiff's FOIA request was placed in the mail that very day,
which could moot Plaintiff's claim.
Plaintiff is in receipt of the government's response to his
FOIA request and now alleges that the response is insufficient for
several reasons:
(1) Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has refused to disclose
thirty-three
(33)
pages
of
information,
instead
referring
Plaintiff's FOIA request with respect to those documents to the
agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE");
(2) Plaintiff alleges that USCIS wholly redacted fifty-nine
(59) pages of records without disclosing the segregable portions of
information as mandated by FOIA; and
(3) Plaintiff alleges that the government has failed to
disclose the names of the people who conducted the searches, what
types of search methods were used, and which files were searched,
as required by FOIA.
LEGAL STANDARD
A government agency may withhold records that are responsive
to a FOIA request where those records fall into one of nine
statutory exemptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)-(9) (West 2009).
This Court has outlined the following standard for motions for
2
summary judgment in FOIA cases:
Summary judgment is available to the defendant in a FOIA
case when the agency proves that it has fully discharged
its obligations under FOIA, and there is no genuine issue
of material fact, after the underlying facts and the
inferences to be drawn from them are construed in the
light most favorable to the FOIA requester. See Weisberg
v. United States Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1350
(D.C. Cir.1983). The agency may satisfy its burden of
proof through the submission of affidavits that identify
the documents at issue and explain why they fall under
the claimed exemption. These affidavits must be clear,
specific and reasonably detailed while describing the
withheld information in a factual and nonconclusory
manner. Furthermore, the court will not grant summary
judgment if there is contradictory evidence or evidence
of agency bad faith. See Gallant v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 168,
171 (D.C. Cir.1994) (quoting Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d
144, 148 (D.C. Cir.1980)). If the agency meets all of
these requirements, the court will normally accord the
affidavits substantial weight. However, a reviewing court
may also inspect the content of agency documents in
camera to determine whether they fall under any of the
FOIA exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
Mavadia v. Caplinger, No. 95-3542, 1996 WL 592742, at *1 (E.D. La.
Oct. 11, 1996) (Vance, J.) (footnotes omitted). “Without evidence
of
bad
faith,
the
veracity
of
the
government's
submissions
regarding reasons for withholding the documents should not be
questioned.” McQueen v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 502, 514
(S.D. Tex. 2003) (internal citations omitted), aff'd, 100 F. App'x
964 (5th Cir. 2004).
DISCUSSION
The Court finds that USCIS has appropriately responded to
Plaintiff's FOIA request.
3
A. Referral to ICE
Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has refused to disclose thirtythree (33) pages of information, instead referring Plaintiff's FOIA
request
with
respect
to
those
documents
to
the
agency
of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). USCIS argues that the
referral process between USCIS and ICE is quite common, given the
similar nature of immigration enforcement between the two agencies.
USCIS points out that Plaintiff has filed numerous FOIA lawsuits
against USCIS and ICE and has encountered this referral process
numerous times before, and in each case, the referred documents
were
processed
and
released
to
Plaintiff
by
ICE
without
a
significant increase in the amount of time Plaintiff was required
to wait.
An "agency may acquit itself [of a FOIA request] through a
referral,
provided
the
referral
does
not
lead
to
improper
withholding under the McGehee test." Sussman v. U.S. Marshals
Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Under the McGehee
test, a referral may not significantly impair the requester's
ability to obtain the records or significantly increase the amount
of time the requester must wait to obtain the records. McGehee v.
C.I.A., 697 F.2d 1095, 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The Court finds no
evidence of bad faith on the part of USCIS and finds that the
referral to ICE was proper in this case.
4
B. Redaction without Disclosing Segregable Portions
Plaintiff alleges that USCIS wholly redacted fifty-nine (59)
pages of records without disclosing the segregable portions of
information as mandated by FOIA. The declarations that USCIS has
submitted state that USCIS was unable to reasonably segregate any
portion of the disputed documents that were withheld in full. The
Court finds no evidence of bad faith on the part of USCIS and
therefore will not question the veracity of the USCIS's submissions
regarding reasons for withholding the documents.
C. Disclosure of Searchers and Search Methods
Plaintiff alleges that the government has failed to disclose
the names of the people who conducted the searches, what types of
search methods were used, and which files were searched, as
required by FOIA. USCIS has provided a supplemental declaration
setting
forth
the
specific
information
that
Plaintiff
has
requested. Therefore, Plaintiff's argument on this issue is moot.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment
(Rec. Doc. 8) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint in the abovecaptioned matter is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 14th day of August, 2014.
________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?