UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMARA EMUWA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:20-cv-01756 (TNM) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION The Freedom of Information Act’s (“FOIA”) Exemption 5 encompasses, among other things, the deliberative process privilege. This privilege protects from disclosure agency documents that are both predecisional and deliberative. It allows agency officials to communicate candidly without fear that their tentative opinions and recommendations will become public. The privilege is thus meant to improve agency decisionmaking. Plaintiffs—four individuals and one organization—filed this FOIA action seeking “Assessments to Refer” (“Assessments”) from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS” or “the Government”). Assessments are brief documents containing an asylum officer’s impressions after an asylum interview and his recommendation on whether asylum should be granted. While DHS released the factual portions of the Assessments, Plaintiffs seek the analysis portions too. Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Although the parties disagree on several points, the crux of their dispute concerns whether Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege protects the analysis portions of the Assessments. Because the Court finds that it does, and otherwise finds that DHS is entitled to summary judgment, the Court will grant the Government’s motion and deny Plaintiffs’ cross-motion. I. Plaintiff Louise Trauma Center, LLC submitted FOIA requests to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), a DHS component, on behalf of the other four plaintiffs here—Amara Emuwa, Michaux Lukusa, Mohammed AlQaraghuli, and FNU Alatanhua. Def.’s Statement of Material Facts (“DSMF”) ⁋⁋ 1, 6, 12, 16, ECF No. 14. The FOIA requests concern Assessments to Refer, which are prepared after an asylum interview and recommend whether to grant asylum. Id. ⁋⁋ 27–28; Pls.’ Counter Statement of Facts (“PSMF”) at 1, ECF No. 18-2. 1 If USCIS ultimately determines that the applicant is not eligible for asylum, it sends the individual a “Referral Notice” advising that the agency has made a final decision to refer him to an immigration judge for removal proceedings. DSMF ⁋ 29; PSMF at 1. Each FOIA request here sought “the assessment written by the Asylum Officer”; “the notes of the asylum officer”; and the materials consulted by the asylum officer or mentioned in the Referral Notice. DSMF ⁋⁋ 1, 6, 12, 16. As to each request, DHS released hundreds of pages in full, released some pages in part, and withheld others in full. See DSMF ⁋⁋ 3, 8, 14, 18. Except for AlQaraghuli, each Plaintiff administratively appealed the agency’s determination. Id. ⁋⁋ 4, 10, 15, 19. For Emuwa, Lukusa, and Alatanhua, the agency released more pages upon appeal, but otherwise upheld its determination. Id. ⁋⁋ 5, 11, 20. DHS applied full and partial redactions under FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E). See id. ⁋ 21; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), (5)–(6), (7)(C), (7)(E). 2 1 All page citations refer to the page numbers that the CM/ECF system generates. 2 Neither party complied with the directives in the Court’s Standing Order when submitting their statement of facts. See Standing Order …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals