Chohan v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 22-2459, 2023 WL 8433224 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2023) (Lamberth, J.)

Chohan v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 22-2459, 2023 WL 8433224 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2023) (Lamberth, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff’s student visa

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3:  The court relates that defendant relies on “Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [which] makes confidential ‘[t]he records of the Department of State and of diplomatic and consular offices of the United States pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States.’”  “Although the Act authorizes certain discretionary disclosures to ‘a court’ or ‘a foreign government,’ . . . section 1202(f) qualifies as a ‘withholding statute’ under Exemption 3 because ‘the Secretary of State has no authority to disclose material to the public’ . . . as the FOIA commands.”  The court finds that “Defendant properly withheld responsive documents under Exemption 3 that pertain ‘to the issuance or refusal of visas.’”  “In addition, Defendant properly redacted the same type of information from the released forms.”  “Plaintiff counters only that the documents described in the Vaughn Index ‘must be released because’ they relate to his ‘visa applications to US and travel History to US,’ the latter of which ‘Defendant already has tarnished . . . by providing false information to other countries[.]’”  “But ‘a requester’s personal need for information is immaterial to whether that information is protected from disclosure by one of the exemptions to the FOIA.’”  “Furthermore, ‘[t]he scope of section 222(f) [of the INA] is not limited to information supplied by the visa applicant’ but also ‘includes information revealing the thought-processes of those who rule on the application.’”  “Plaintiff has neither disputed a specific exemption asserted by Defendant nor advanced a countervailing argument to preclude summary judgment on Exemption 3.”  “Therefore, the Court has no occasion to address the other asserted exemptions.”
   
• ​​​​​​​Litigation Consideration, “Reasonably Segregable” Requirements:  “The Court finds that all reasonably segregable responsive records have been disclosed.”  “Defendant attests to having ‘conducted a careful line-by-line review of the eleven records at issue’ with an eye toward releasing ‘any reasonably segregable, non-exempt information,’ . . . and plausibly explains why ‘there is no additional segregable information’ capable of being released . . . .”  “Plaintiff has not refuted the declaration, which is ‘presumed to be [made in] good faith.’”