UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 19-52 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 45, 51 : U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND : SECURITY, et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION Frustrated with certain countries’ refusal to cooperate with U.S. deportation efforts, the Department of Homeland Security and State Department announced a series of visa sanctions. The move prompted a Freedom of Information Act request from the Advancement Project, a nonprofit with an interest in immigration policy. The Project sought records from, among other agencies, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. After turning over some records and withholding others, that agency says it has done all that the law requires. The Court agrees—for the most part. When it comes to a handful of records, however, the Court needs more from the agency before it can decide one way or the other. II. BACKGROUND The Immigration and Nationality Act permits the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to issue visa sanctions against any country that “denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country.” 8 U.S.C § 1253(d). 1 Sanctions entail refusing to grant “immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of [the target] country.” Id. Acting under that authority, the Department of Homeland Security and State Department levied visa sanctions against Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. Pl.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J. and Opp’n ICE’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B, ECF No. 51-4. The press release announcing the sanctions explained that the four countries delayed issuing or refused to issue travel documents to their citizens, effectively rebuffing attempts by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to remove them. Id. Citing a Supreme Court decision barring the long- term detention of most noncitizens unless there is a “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” id. (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001)), the press release asserted that the four countries’ noncooperation “forced” ICE to let loose “thousands of dangerous criminals into communities across the United States,” id. It went on to provide, for each country, how many nationals ICE had released from detention or an approximate number of those residing in the United States subject to orders of removal. Id. It claimed that many of the noncitizens released had “serious criminal convictions,” including convictions for sex offenses and violent offenses. Id. The Advancement Project—a nonprofit civil rights organization concerned with immigration policy—wanted more information than the press release gave. It submitted Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests for records about the visa sanctions to the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, U.S. Customs and Border 1 The statute’s text provides that visa sanction authority lies with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. See 8 U.S.C. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals