Mezerhane de Schnapp v. USCIS, No. 13-1461, 2014 WL 4436925 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2014) (Bates, J.)

Mezerhane de Schnapp v. USCIS, No. 13-1461, 2014 WL 4436925 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2014) (Bates, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff and plaintiff's family

Disposition: Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7(E):  The court holds that "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 circumvention of the law.'"  "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.'"  "Specifically, it could create the 'chance' of a 'risk' of circumvention of the law."  The court disagrees with plaintiff's arguments to the contrary and finds that FOIA "mak[es] no reference to, distinction between, or limitation on the sort of agency currently in custody of the document," "the applicability of Exemption 7(E) bears no relationship to the identity of the FOIA requester," and "'[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.'"
   
• Exemption 7(C):  The court holds that this "information—which clearly implicates the privacy interests of third parties—remains exempt."  The court notes that "[plaintiff] does not dispute USCIS's assertions that legitimate third-party privacy interests are implicated 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)."  The court finds that "USCIS's response falls flat: it simply insists repeatedly that [plaintiff's] 'complaint about her immigration issue is irrelevant.'"  "[I]n the end, the Court's in camera review gets USCIS off the hook, as it confirmed USCIS's (otherwise, mostly conclusory) representations about the minimal public interest in the withheld information, and disproved [plaintiff's] assertions that disclosure would reveal agency misconduct."
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  The court holds that "[f]or those documents that overlap, the Court need not consider the additional applicability of Exemption 5," but regarding the remainder of the documents, "on the present record the Court cannot determine whether these documents are covered by the deliberative-process privilege and, thus, FOIA Exemption 5."  The court therefore determines that "both parties' motions for summary judgment on the Exemption 5 issue will be denied at this time."  The court finds that "[a]lthough the documents, on their face, appear to be both pre-decisional and deliberative, other evidence in the record undermines that conclusion."  The court explains that "[t]he bottom line is this: on the present record, one can come to more than one conclusion about when USCIS made a decision on [plaintiff's] asylum application and, in turn, whether these documents are predecisional, and protected by the deliberative-process privilege."