NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS BURTON, No. 18-55999 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:17-cv-00705-AG-KES v. CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as MEMORANDUM* Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 3, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Thomas Burton appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on his claims arising from his request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the district * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (per curiam). We affirm. 1. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of DHS on Burton’s FOIA request for “all information” referencing him documented by his estranged wife in her immigration proceedings. DHS determined that any relevant records would be contained in his estranged wife’s alien file (A-File), and withheld the A-File records under FOIA’s Exemption 6, which renders FOIA inapplicable to “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). DHS correctly concluded that the records contained in the A-File are exempted from disclosure as records similar to “personnel and medical files.” See U.S. Dep’t of State v. Wash. Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 598 (1982); Kowack v. U.S. Forest Serv., 766 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2014). The A-File records contain personal identifying information, as well as immigration status and, if Burton is correct, allegations of domestic abuse. The privacy interests implicated are therefore nontrivial within the meaning of Exemption 6. See Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 856 F.3d 626, 638 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding nontrivial information includes that which could cause “possible embarrassment, harassment, or the risk 2 of mistreatment”); U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 175–76 (1991) (disclosure of personal information such as “marital and employment status, children, living conditions and attempts to enter the United States” is a significant invasion of privacy when “linked” to specific people). Burton has failed to demonstrate a significant public interest or that the information sought would advance that interest. See Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 637. Burton argues that the disclosure would shed light on whether the government acted properly on his estranged wife’s petition, given that civil and criminal cases against him for domestic abuse were dismissed. But a FOIA requester “must produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals