19-1157-cv Spadaro v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of October, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., JOSEPH F. BIANCO, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SARO SPADARO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 19-1157-cv UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellees. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR PLAINTFF-APPELLANT: ROBERT S. GROBAN, JR., Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP, New York, NY (David J. Clark, Matthew S. Aibel, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, NY, on the brief). FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: STEPHEN CHA-KIM, Assistant United States Attorney (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Saro Spadaro appeals from a judgment entered March 27, 2019 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees on Spadaro’s 2 claims under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. In 2014, Spadaro filed a FOIA request seeking records related to his prior visa applications to enter the United States and the government’s decision in 2008 to prudentially revoke his visa. On appeal, Spadaro challenges the United States Department of State’s reliance on FOIA Exemption 3 to withhold certain documents in responding to Spadaro’s request, and we resolve that challenge in a separate opinion filed simultaneously with this order. As relevant to this order, Spadaro also challenges the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to rely on FOIA Exemption 5 to withhold certain documents. As to that challenge, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. Spadaro argues that the FBI’s reliance on the deliberative process and attorney work-product doctrines to withhold certain documents under Exemption 5 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals