Gahagan v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Filing 10

ORDER AND REASONS denying 7 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL W. GAHAGAN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-796

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES

SECTION "B"(2)

ORDER AND REASONS

I.

NATURE OF THE MOTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by

Plaintiff,
relative

Michael

to

Gahagan.1

certain

Plaintiff

requests

for

seeks

summary

information

he

judgment

submitted,

pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §
552, et seq., to Defendant, the United States Citizenship and
Immigration

Services

(“USCIS”).

The

USCIS

has

filed

an

opposition.2 Accordingly, and for the reasons enumerated below,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 7)
is DENIED.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In

his

complaint,

Plaintiff

Michael

W.

Gahagan,

an

immigration attorney, alleges that he requested a copy of agency
records

1
2

from

the

U.S.

Immigration

and

Customs

Enforcement

Rec. Doc. No. 7.
Rec. Doc. No. 8.

1

(“USICE”) New Orleans, Louisiana Office of the Chief Counsel
pursuant

to

The

1229(a)(c)(2)(B),
effectively

Mandatory
INA

represent

§

Access

Law,

240(c)(2)(B)

his

client,

so

Lloyd

8

U.S.C.

that

he

Patterson

in

§

could
removal

proceedings before the New Orleans, Louisiana Immigration Court.3
Plaintiff claims that on November 25, 2014, he properly
filed

a

FOIA

Receipt

request

Notice

for
the

from

a

copy

U.S.

of

Patterson’s

Citizenship

and

Form

I-485

Immigration

Services (“USCIS”).4 The request was received by the National
Records

Center

responded

with

(“NRC”),
a

letter,

a

component

dated

within

December

USCIS.

16,

2015,

The

NRC

informing

Plaintiff that 429 pages were being released in their entirety,
36

pages

were

being

released

in

part,

11

pages

were

being

withheld in full, and 33 pages were being referred to the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for processing and
direct release.5 On January 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed an appeal
to the government’s disclosure of the information. On February
10, 2015, the USCIS produced ten (10) partially withheld pages
of responsive records; however, Plaintiff contends it did not
provide the requested Form I-485.6

3

Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 7.
Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 8.
5
Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 9; Rec. Doc. No. 8 at 2.
6
Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 9.
4

2

Gahagan

claims

that

Defendant’s

delay

has

“irreparably

harmed” him, since he will be unable to prepare adequately to
defend

Mr.

Patterson

in

his

removal

proceedings.”7

Gahagan

asserts that he has exhausted his administrative remedies in
connection with his FOIA requests. On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff
filed this lawsuit seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal
Access

to

Justice

injunctive

relief

Act

and

finding

FOIA,
that

as

well

defendants

as

declaratory

violated

FOIA

and
by

failing to respond to his FOIA request, and order defendant to
conduct

a

reasonable

and

adequate

search

for

the

requested

information, and enjoin defendant from continuing to withhold
the documents.8
In

response,

Defendant

argues

that

the

agency:

(1)

conducted a legally adequate search; (2) the agency released the
I-485

at

issue

on

April

24,

2015,

after

the

filing

of

the

instant motion; and therefore, (3) the instant motion should be
dismissed as moot.9
III.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
a. Summary Judgment & the Freedom of Information Act
Summary

judgment

is

appropriate

only

if

“the

pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

7

Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 10.
Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 10.
9
Rec. Doc. No. 8 at 3.
8

3

together with the affidavits show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick
James, 276 F.3d 754, 749 (5th Cir. 2002).
In the FOIA context, the traditional standard is modified
because “the threshold question in any FOIA suit is whether the
requester can even see the documents the character of which
determines whether they can be released.” Cooper Cameron Corp.
v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, OSHA, 280 F.3d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, the FOIA statute provides that, when the Government
withholds information from disclosure, the agency has the burden
to prove de novo that the information is exempt from disclosure.
§ 522(a)(4)(B).
In applying this standard,

the Court is

mindful of the

purpose behind the FOIA. The FOIA was enacted to “pierce the
veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the
light of public scrutiny.” Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425
U.S. 352, 361 (1976)(quotation marks and citation omitted). The
exemptions to disclosure are explicitly limited by statute and
should be construed narrowly. Batton v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169, 175
(5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Department of the Air Force v. Rose,
425 U.S. 352, 361, (1976)); see also Mavadia v. Caplinger, Civil

4

Action No. 95–3542, 1996 WL 592742, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 11,
1996)(Vance, J.)(FOIA “created a basic policy of full agency
disclosure and a broad right of access to official information,
reflecting citizens' right to know what their government is up
to.”)(quoting United States Department of Justice v. Reporters
Committee

for

Freedom

of

Press,

489

U.S.

749,

772–73

(1989)(internal quotations omitted)).
FOIA

provides

that

“each

agency,

upon

any

request

for

records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is
made in accordance with published rules ..., shall make
records

promptly

available

to

any

person.”

5

U.S.C.

the
§

552(a)(3)(A).
FOIA provides that federal district courts:
Have
jurisdiction
to
enjoin
the
agency
from
withholding agency records and to order the production
of agency records improperly withheld from the
complainant. In such a case the court shall determine
the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of
such agency records in camera to determine whether
such records or any part thereof shall be withheld
under any of the exemptions set forth...
In additional to any other matters to which a court
accords substantial weight, a court shall accord
substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency
concerning the agency’s determination as to technical
feasibility under paragraph (2)(C) and subsection (b)
and reproducibility under paragraph (3)(b). 5 U.S.C. §
552 (a)(3)(B).
In a FOIA action, an agency’s supporting affidavits and
declarations are entitled to the “presumption of legitimacy” in
5

the absence of evidence of bad faith. Batton, 598 F.3d at 175
(5th Cir. 2010) (citing U.S. Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S.
164, 179 (1991)). “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). However, the burden of establishing the validity of
a decision to withhold information remains with the agency, and
the Court will not accept an agency’s conclusory and generalized
assertions on a motion for summary judgment. Batton, 598 F.98 at
175.
Also at issue in this matter is the delayed release of the
requested Form I-485 Receipt Notice. Defendant contends that the
release

of

the

document

moots

the

instant

summary

judgment

motion. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an
agency's

production

of

requested

records

may

render

a

plaintiff's FOIA claim moot. Ayanbadejo v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d
273,

278

(5th

Cir.

2008).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s

motion

is

rendered moot to the extent that an injunction is sought to
enjoin

USCIS

Plaintiff’s

from

FOIA

withholding

request

the

sought

I-485

at

additional

issue.
records,

However,
some

of

which were withheld or referred and forms the basis for the
instant

challenge.

Moreover,

FOIA

provides

that

courts

“may
6

assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and
other

litigation

costs

reasonably

incurred

in

any

case...in

which the complainant has substantially prevailed.” 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(E)(i).10

Subsumed

in

the

foregoing

issue,

is

the

declaratory judgment claim, that is, whether a FOIA violation
has occurred. Consequently, the Court addresses the merits of
the motion.
b. Analysis
1. Adequacy of Search
The parties do not dispute that the documents at issue are
“agency records,” within the meaning of FOIA. As a threshold
matter, the Court must first address whether the USCIS’ search
for responsive documents was adequate. Santos v. DEA, 357 F.
Supp. 2d 33, 37 (D.D.C. 2004). An agency may demonstrate that it
conducted an adequate search by showing that it used “methods
which

can

be

reasonably

expected

to

produce

the

information

requested.” Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.
Cir. 1990). The proper focus in this inquiry is on the adequacy
of the search, not on whether other responsive documents may
exist

or

whether

the

agency

searched

every

record

system.

Batton, 598 F.3d at 176; see also Weisberg, 745 F.2d at 1485

10

A FOIA “complainant has substantially prevailed” and, consequently is eligible for a fee award if it “has obtained
relief-through either- (I) a judicial order, or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree; or (II) a voluntary
or unilateral change in position by the agency if the complainant’s claim is not insubstantial.” 5 U.S.C.
§522(a)(4)(A)(E)(ii). However, because the release of the document was made after the filing of the instant
motion, this issue has not been briefed by the parties.

7

(“[T]he issue to be resolved is not whether there might exist
any

other

documents

possibly

responsive

to

the

request,

but

rather whether the search for those documents was adequate”).
In this case, USCIS relies on the sworn Declarations of
Jill A. Eggleston, the Assistant Center Director in the FOIA/PA
Unit, National Records Center, USCIS.11 The Eggleston declaration
states that upon receipt of Plaintiff’s FOIA request, NRC staff
reviewed Mr. Patterson’s Alien File (“A-File”)12 and determined
that because it contained multiple I-485 applications for USCIS
adjudication, and documents related to those applications, the
entire A-file would be processed for release (in whole or in
part).13 The records are located on the “Alien File/Central Index
System,”

a

centralized

and

consolidated

electronic

system

of

records through which A-Files are stored, maintained, updated,
tracked, and retrieved.14 As a result of the search, Defendant
identified 509 responsive documents, 429 of which were released

11

Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 (Exhibit A), Jill Eggleston Declaration.
Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 at 4 (Exhibit A), Eggleston Declaration: The A-File “is the official record where all immigration
transactions involving a particular individual are documented and stored as he passes through the immigration and
inspection process.”
13
Rec. Doc. No. 8-2, Eggleston Declaration at 4. As Eggleston explains: “An A-file is the official government record
that contains information regarding transactions involving an individual as he/she passes through the U.S.
immigration and inspection process…Although USCIS is the official custodian of all A-Files and the system manager
for the Alien File/Central Index System, both the files and systems are shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, all of which create and contribute documents to A-Files.
USCIS is the custodian of all A-Files, including Mr. Patterson’s A-File. All official records generated or held by U.S.
immigration authorities pertaining to Mr. Patterson’s U.S. immigration transactions should, as a matter of course,
be consolidated in the A-File, maintained under and retrievable by reference to Mr. Patterson’s name and Alien
number, and date of birth, or combination thereof.“
14
Rec. Doc. No. 8-2, Eggleston Declaration at 4.
12

8

in full, 36 of which were released in part, 11 or which were
withheld in full, and 33 of which were being referred to ICE.
Defendant subsequently conducted an additional search. Upon
determination that if there were any records in the agency’s
custody,

the

records

would

be

located

at

the

Texas

Service

Center (TSC), which is the USCIS office that accepts copies of
applications

filed

in

cases

within

the

jurisdiction

of

the

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review
(“EOIR”). The TSC confirmed that its office no longer had a
receipt of the file because USCIS did not have jurisdiction over
the application. The TSC was able to retrieve an archive copy of
the

EOIR

receipt

automatically

when

notice
a

that

copy

of

was

generated

the

by

application

the
was

database
initially

received.15
Plaintiff specifically requested “all nonexempt information
on

behalf

of

my

client,”

and

specifically,

“a

copy

of

my

client’s Form I-485 Receipt...bearing receipt number SRC-14-12750122.”16

The

processing

of

Patterson’s

entire

A-File

is

reasonable, in light of the request. The Eggleston Declaration
states that a search was conducted using the available systems
and

electronic

databases,

which

is

not

disputed.

Plaintiff

challenges the adequacy of the search on the basis that the Form
15
16

Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 at 6 (Exhibit A), Eggleston Declaration.
Rec. Doc. No. 7-5 (Exhibit 2).

9

I-485 was not originally located; however, the methods, and not
the

results,

concludes

form

the

that

establishes

the

the

basis

of

the

Eggleston

adequacy

and

inquiry

here.

declaration

reasonableness

The

Court

sufficiently
of

the

USCIS’

search.
Plaintiff also contends USCIS failed to respond within the
20 business day period established by applicable statute. Under
FOIA, each agency, upon any request for certain records shall
determine

within

20

days17

after

the

receipt

of

any

request

whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify
the person making such request of such determination and the
reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to
the head of the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A). Plaintiff’s
request was received on November 25, 2014,18 and on December 16,
2014,19

the

agency

responded

with

a

letter

providing

its

“determination and the reasons therefore,” and enclosing copies
of the records to be disclosed.20 Under the plain meaning of the
statute, the Court concludes that USCIS did not fail to timely
or properly respond.
In sum, the Court concludes that the USCIS has demonstrated
that

the

agency

performed

a

search

reasonably

calculated

to

17

“Excepting Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A).
Rec. Doc. No. 7-5 at 2 (Exhibit 3).
19
Rec. Doc. No. 7-7 (Exhibit 4).
20
Rec. Doc. No. 7-2 at 9; Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 at 4, Eggleston Declaration.
18

10

yield responsive documents to Plaintiff’s FOIA request, and that
the agency properly

responded within the time period set by

FOIA.
2. Redaction without Disclosing Segregable Portions
Second,
withholding
agency

the

Court

segregable

records.21

entitled

to

considers
portions

Pursuant

“any

to

§

reasonably

whether
of

USCIS

five

522(b),

(5)
a

is
fully

FOIA

segregable

unlawfully
redacted

requester

portion

of

is
a

record...after deletion of the portions which are exempt under
this subsection.” The Eggleston Declaration states that USCIS
made appropriate redactions and withholdings pursuant to FOIA
6.22

Exemption
disclose

Exemption

“personnel

disclosure

of

which

and

6

provides

medical

would

that

files

constitute

an

and
a

agency

clearly

not

files

similar

need

the

unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy.” § 552(b)(6).
The
disclosure

U.S.
of

Supreme
a

Court

private

has

document

clarified
under

that

Exemption

“whether
7(C)

is

warranted must turn on the nature of the requested document and
its

relationship

to

the

basic

purpose

of

the

Freedom

of

Information Act to open agency action to the light of public
scrutiny, rather than on the particular purpose for which the
21

Plaintiff’s motion contests eleven (11) documents; however, additional disclosures were made following
Plaintiff’s appeal of the agency’s initial determination. Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 (Exhibit F). Plaintiff does not take issue
with the partially redacted records. See Rec. Doc. No. 7-2 at 20-24.
22
Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 at 38, 44 (Exhibit I).

11

document is being requested.” U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters
Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772 (1989) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted). Instead, the “court must
balance the public interest in disclosure against the interest
Congress intended the Exemption to protect.” Id. at 776. The
Fifth Circuit has performed the same analysis in cases arising
under Exemption 6. Avondale Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 90 F.3d 955,
960 (5th Cir. 1996).
In assessing whether documents have been properly redacted,
the Court may consider an agency’s detailed index identifying
the documents and articulating a basis for the withholding of
each

document

(citing
Vaughn

(“a

Vaughn
index

v.

is

Vaughn
Rosen,

a

index”).
484

detailed

F.2d

index

Batton,
820

598

(D.C.

which

F.3d

Cir.

identifies

at

174

1973)).

A

documents

located in response to a FOIA request and explains why they are
being withheld. Batton, 598 F.3d at 176.
The

Court

considers

whether

there

is

sufficient

factual

basis upon which to rule on the withholdings. Here, attached to
Eggleston’s affidavit is a table that identifies and describes
each document in which information was withheld and explains how
the exemption applies to the withholdings. The detailed index
provided states that the five fully redacted documents at issue
include

personal

identifying

information,

such

as:

dates

of

12

birth, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and
financial information.23 According to the index, the documents
consist of: “[c]opy of a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Return

for

2001,

2002,

and

2003

and

related

tax

worksheets

pertaining to an individual other than the Plaintiff who has not
provided consent for disclosure;” and, “copy of a Form 1040A,
U.S.

Individual

income

Tax

Return

for

2008

and

related

tax

worksheets pertaining to an individual other than the Plaintiff
who has not provided consent for disclosure.”24
Resort to in camera review is purely discretionary, and
the Court finds review of these documents unnecessary, given the
detailed nature of the index provided. Stephenson v. IRS, 629
F.2d

1140,

showing

1144

is

(5th

required

Cir.

to

1984)(finding

establish

the

that

some

validity

of

a

kind

of

claimed

exemption). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no evidence
of bad faith on the part of USCIS with regard to the fully
redacted documents, particularly in light of the fact that five
documents,
therefore

out

of

more

declines

to

than

500,

question

the

were

fully

veracity

redacted,
of

the

and

USCIS's

submissions.

23
24

Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 at 2, 8 (Exhibit I).
Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 at 2, 8 (Exhibit I).

13

3. Referral to ICE
Next,

the

Court

addresses

whether

Defendant

improperly

referred thirty-three (33) pages of responsive agency records to
Immigration

and

determination
responsive

Customs

letter

document(s)

Enforcement.

states:
that

“USCIS
may

The

December

located

have

a

16,

2014

potentially

originated

from

U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). USCIS has sent the
document(s) and a copy of your FOIA request to the ICE FOIA
Office for consideration and direct response to you.”25
Plaintiff argues that it is unlawful under FOIA to refer
responsive agency records to another agency for longer than 30
days. USCIS argues that the referral process between USCIS and
ICE is quite common, given the similar nature of immigration
enforcement between the two agencies. Moreover, an individual’s
A-file is a central database that is shared by USCIS and ICE.26
USCIS also notes that Plaintiff has encountered this referral
process in prior lawsuits against USCIS, and in each case, the
referred documents were processed and released to Plaintiff by
ICE,

without

referral

was

originated

significant

impairment

appropriate

here

from

ICE,

and

the

or

because
referral

delay.
the

USCIS

referred

has

not

contends
documents

resulted

in

significant delay. Further, Defendant argues, only 33 out of more
25
26

Rec. Doc. No. 8-2at 24 (Exhibit C).
Rec. Doc. No. 8-2 at 4 n. 2 (Exhibit A), Eggleston Declaration.

14

than 500 documents were referred, and such a minimal referral,
when “coupled with the routine nature of the same,” should not
constitute an improper withholding.27
An agency “cannot simply refuse to act on the ground that
the documents originated elsewhere,” however, the “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. United States Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d
1106, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 2007)(citing McGehee, v. CIA, 697 F.2d
1095, 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1983)); Electronic Privacy Info. Center v.
Nat'l Sec. Agency, 795 F.Supp.2d 85, 93–94 (D. D.C.2011) (“[T]he
NSA's referral of the FOIA request to the NSC does not relieve
the NSA of its continuing obligation to respond to the request.
An agency may only properly refer a FOIA request to another
agency when doing so does not constitute an improper withholding
of agency records.”)).
“[A]n agency may adopt procedures by which documents in the
agency’s

possession,

agency,

may

be

but

referred

which
to

did
the

not

originate

originating

with

the

agency

for

processing.” Id; McGehee, 697 F.2d at 1110. Under the McGehee
test, a referral may not significantly impair the requester's
ability

27

to

obtain

the

records

or

significantly

increase

the

Rec. Doc, No. 8 at 13.

15

amount of time the requester must wait to obtain the records.
McGehee, 697 F.2d at 1110. The D.C. Circuit’s McGehee decision
is not binding on this Court, but no Fifth Circuit authority
addresses
McGehee

the

issue

addresses,

McGehee
and

this

addresses,
Court

and

finds

this

Court

McGehee’s

finds

analysis

persuasive.
The

Court

considers

whether

the

“net

effect”

of

the

referral has either significantly impaired Plaintiff’s ability
to obtain the records or significantly increased the amount of
time Plaintiff must wait to obtain them. See McGehee, 697 F.2d
at 1111, n. 71. Plaintiff argues that the referral has prevented
him

from

Notice

being

and

able

prepare

to

view

Patterson’s

adequately

for

Form

trial.

I-485
The

Receipt

Eggleston

Declaration states that the agency was not in possession of the
notice. Therefore, the referral of the 33 documents did not
hinder Plaintiff’s representation of his client in that regard.
The Court accepts the foregoing; however, the issue is whether
the

referral

of

responsive

records

constitutes

an

improper

withholding.
In Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n (ONDA) v. Gutierrez, a FOIA
request was made by ONDA on April 30, 2004. 409 F. Supp. 2d
1237,

1250

(D.

Ore.

Jan.

9,

2006).

NOAA

Fisheries

referred

documents on November 9, 2004 and January 26, 2005. Id. The

16

referral

agencies

released

through March 2, 2005. Id.
regulation
records

did

not

although

documents

December

8,

2004

The court there held that a referral

significantly

six

from

months

increase

occurred

the

prior

time
to

to

the

get

first

referral, and documents were not released for at least seven
months from the date of the request at issue. Id.
Similarly,

in

Keys

v.

Department

of

Homeland

Sec.,

the

Secret Service referred sixteen pages of responsive material on
June 4, 2008; however, the referral agency did not respond for
nearly a year, and the Secret Service failed to follow up. 570
F. Supp. 2d 59, 70 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2008)(dismissing the issue
as moot because the Secret Service either released or properly
withheld

all

of

the

documents

that

had

originally

been

referred). The court found that the net effect of the referral
was to significantly increase the amount of time the plaintiff
had to wait. Id.; see also Hall v. C.I.A., 668 F.Supp.2d 172,
182 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2009) (finding two year delay constituted
an improper withholding).
This is not the case here. The FOIA request was received on
November 25, 2014, and on or about December 16, 2014, USCIS
referred 33 pages to ICE. Plaintiff contends in the subject
Motion that, as of April 21, 2015, the 33 documents have not
been produced. Reasonableness is the standard to be applied and

17

the Court concludes that a four month wait is not unreasonable.
See

McGehee,

697

F.2d

at

1100

(holding

that

agency

did

not

adequately substantiate its date of request cut-off policy when
documents were not disclosed until nearly two and one-half years
after the original request). The referral has not significantly
increased the amount of time Plaintiff must wait, and therefore
does not constitute an improper withholding.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons enumerated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc.

7) is DENIED. Although the Court declines to grant Gahagan the
precise relief he has requested, the Court holds that the USCIS
is responsible for responding to the request and that it must
take affirmative steps to ensure that its referrals are being
processed, which it should describe in a supplemental filing, no
later than Tuesday, June 23, 2015.28

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of June, 2015.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

Alternatively, USCIS may file its respective Motion for Summary Judgment under the appropriate circumstances.

18