Popov v. DHS, No. 23-09001, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156788 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2024) (Birotte, Jr., J.)

Popov v. DHS, No. 23-09001, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156788 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2024) (Birotte, Jr., J.)

Re: Request for records concerning third-party’s naturalization efforts

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6: The court holds that “Defendant properly withheld the third party’s A-File records pursuant to Exemption 6.” “Defendant determined that the records sought by Plaintiff’s FOIA request, to the extent that they exist, would be in the third party’s A-File.” “The A-File records contain personal identifying information such as ‘immigration transactions,’ and according to plaintiff, if correct, personal information such as the third party’s marital status, employment history, children, living conditions, and criminal history.”  “‘The privacy interests implicated are therefore nontrivial within the meaning of Exemption 6.’” “Plaintiff had not received the third party’s consent for the disclosure of this information and the disclosure of such information is a significant invasion of privacy when ‘linked publicly with particular, named individuals.’”  “Plaintiff argues that the disclosure of the A-File records will reveal Defendant’s alleged ‘gross misconduct and criminal negligence . . . in performing its duties to administer and enforce the immigration law.’” “Plaintiff asserts that the third party purportedly committ[ed] a number of crimes and acts . . . .”  The court then finds that “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a public interest that supersedes the third party’s personal privacy interests in the A-File.”  “Plaintiff submitted various documents which he contends reveal that the third party purportedly committed several crimes or made fraudulent omissions and misrepresentations on his immigration applications.”  “But Plaintiff has not presented any evidence of government misconduct in connection with the processing of the third party's immigration applications or any other conduct in the discharge of Defendant’s duties ‘that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.’”