Longas-Palacio v. Jaddou

Southern District of Texas

. ENTERED

February 28, 2023

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

. HOUSTON DIVISION

JOHANNA LONGAS-PALACIO, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

§ Civil Action No. H-21-2661

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND §

IMMIGRATION SERVICES, §

§

Defendant. . — §

| ORDER oe

Pending before the Court are Defendant’s Vaughn Index and Motion for

Summary Judgment (Document No. 16) and Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiffs Own Motion for Summary Judgment

(Document No. 17). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law,

the Court determines the defendant’s motion should be granted and the plaintiff's

motion should be denied. .

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request.

Plaintiff Johanna Longas-Palacio (“Plaintiff”), a native of Colombia, married a

permanent resident of the United States of America, Victor Palacio. Plaintiff

subsequently overstayed her visitor’s visa and was in removal proceedings when her

husband became a naturalized citizen. Following his naturalization, she became

‘

eligible to adjust her status to permanent resident and was granted permanent

resident status in 2012. In 2015, Plaintiff filed an application for a reentry permit,

but it was denied. In 2020, Plaintiff received a Notice to Appear and removal

proceedings against her began. Plaintiff contends these proceedings are connected

to what she alleges to be a “long campaign of intimidation and harassment by local

authorities in Waller and Grimes Counties.”! On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff made

this FOIA request to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”),

seeking documents related to the investigation leading to the pending removal

proceedings. On February 11, 2021, USCIS responded and produced 439 pages in

full, 110 in part, and withheld 34 pages in full out of 583 pages in response to the

request. On Marach 2, 2021, Plaintiff appealed the withholdings. On April 8, 2021,

USCIS released an additional four pages in part following a review of the appeal.

Based on the foregoing, on August 16, 2021, Plaintiff brought this action

seeking the production of the withheld documents. On April 29, 2022, USCIS moved

for summary judgment. On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff responded to the motion for

summary judgment and also moved for summary judgment.

' Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's Own

Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 17 at 6.

Il. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the

nonmovant. Coleman v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (Sth Cir. 1997).

Initially, the movant bears the burden of presenting the basis for the motion and the

elements of the causes of action upon which the nonmovant will be unable to

establish a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific

facts showing there is a genuine dispute for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). “A

dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is such that a reasonable

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus.,

Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (Sth Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

But the nonmoving party’s bare allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to

create a material dispute of fact and defeat a motion for summary. If a reasonable

jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party, then summary judgment is

appropriate. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmovant’s burden cannot

be satisfied by “conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or ‘only a

scintilla of evidence.’ ” Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343

Cir. 2007) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir.

1994)). Uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment,

especially if the overwhelming documentary evidence supports the opposite

scenario. Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 294 (Sth Cir, 2004). Furthermore, it

is not the function of the Court to search the record on the nonmovant’s behalf for

evidence which may raise a fact issue. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1137

n.30 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, “[a]lthough we consider the evidence and all

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of

its pleadings, but must respond by setting forth specific facts indicating a genuine

issue for trial.” Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 735 (Sth Cir. 2000).

Ul. LAW & ANALYSIS

USCIS contends the withheld documents fall within three statutory exceptions

to disclosure under FOIA and thus has fulfilled its obligations under FOIA. Plaintiff

contends USCIS has improperly withheld certain documents in an attempt to cover

up an alleged governmental conspiracy against Plaintiff. Plaintiff further contends

USCIS’s Vaughn Index “raise[s] more question than ever,”” and appears to allege

USCIS acted in bad faith in making its withholdings.

2 Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's Own

Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 17 at 6.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose requested records that do not fall

into one of nine exempt categories. 5 U.S.C. § 552; U.S. v. Weber Aircraft Corp.,

465 U.S. 792, 793-93 (1984). Thus, “the threshold question . . . is whether the

requested can even see the documents the character of which determines whether

they can be released.” Cooper Cameron Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Occupational

Safety and Health Admin., 280 F.3d 539, 543 (Sth Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original).

Additionally, “exemptions from disclosure must be construed narrowly, in such as

way to provide maximum access” in keeping with the purpose of FOIA. Vaughn v.

Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 823 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

If, after a FOIA request is made, the agency declines to disclose a document,

either in whole or in part, “the burden in upon the agency to prove de novo” that the

document is exempt from disclosure under one or more of the statutory exemptions.

Id. A court may grant an agency’s motion for summary judgment only if the agency

“identifies the documents at issue and explains why they fall under [the statutory]

exemptions.” Cooper Cameron Corp., 280 F.3d at 543. This explanation is often

‘made in an affidavit or a Vaughn index which lists responsive documents and

explains why portions of those documents were withheld. Jd. However, that affidavit

or Vaughn index “will not suffice if the agency’s claims are conclusory, merely

reciting statutory standards, or if they are too vague or sweeping.” Jd. (quoting

5 .

Hayden v. Nat’l Sec. Agency/Cent. Sec. Serv., 608 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir.

1979)). The agency is entitled to a “presumption of legitimacy” absent evidence of

bad faith in handling the FOIA request. U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164,

179 (1991). However, this presumption does not “relieve the withholding agency of

its burden of proving that the factual information sought falls within the statutory

exemption asserted.” Batton v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169, 176 (Sth Cir. 2010) (citing

Stephenson v. LR.S., 629 F.2d 1140, 1145 (Sth Cir. 1980)).

The purpose of FOIA is to facilitate public access to agency documents, and

“pierce the veil of miseeiee secrecy and to open agency action to the light of

public scrutiny.” Jd. (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361

(1976)). Notably, the purpose of FOIA is “not to benefit private litigants or to serve

as a substitute for civil discovery.” Baldridge v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 360 n.14

(1982) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 143 n.10 (1975)).

Here, in her FOIA request, Plaintiff requested the production of: (1) “anything

in paper A files, electronic A files, any electronic records in the Enterprise

Documents Management system, or the USCIS electronic system or the DHS

Central Index System or the National File Tracking system or the Person Centric

Query Service or the Enterprise [C]itizenship and Immigration Services, Centralized

Operational Repository;”? and (2) “[Plaintiff] also want[s] to know the names of all

persons or agencies to whom information about [Plaintiff] has been disclosed form

any of these systems of records.”* In response to her request, USCIS ultimately

produced 439 pages in full, 114 in part, and withheld thirty pages in full, and

provided a Vaughn index which describes the statutory basis for its withholdings.

Plaintiff does not contest a narrow subset of the withholdings but does contend the

majority of the withholdings are improper. The Court first addresses the uncontested

withholdings before evaluating the contested withholdings.

1. Uncontested Withholdings

Plaintiff does not contest USCIS’s withholding of the names and personal

identifying information of DHS officials.> Accordingly, summary judgment as to the

3 Defendant’s Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16,

Exhibit 1-A at 9.

4 Defendant’s Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16,

Exhibit 1-A at 9. USCIS contends the law is clear FOIA does not require a responding

agency to create any documents or answer questions in response to a FOIA request, but

only produce documents that are responsive and not exempt from disclosure. See DiViaio

v. Kelley, 571 F.2d 538, 542-43 (10th Cir. 1978) (‘[N]othing in [FOIA] requires ‘answers

to interrogatories’ but rather and only disclosure of documentary matters which are no

exempt.”). The Court finds USCIS need not create any documents or otherwise directly

respond to Plaintiffs request for the names of individual who may have provided.

information to USCIS about Plaintiff. USCIS need only produce responsive, nonexempt

documents in response to this request. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment

with respect to Plaintiff's request for names to the extent it is meant to require USCIS

create a document or directly respond with a list of names in response to the request.

> Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's Own

Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 17 at 18.

7 é

uncontested withholdings and redactions based on the names and personal

identifying information of DHS officials is granted. The Court now turns to the

contested withholdings and redactions.

2. Contested Withholdings .

The agency has the burden to establish whether withheld documents fall

within a statutory exemption. Cooper Cameron, 280 F.3d at 543. As detailed in its

Vaughn Index, USCIS makes withholdings—either in whole or in part—based on

the following exemptions: (1) Exemption 3; (2) Exemption 5; (3) Exemption 6; and

(4) Exemption 7. The Court first addresses USCIS’s withholdings under Exemption

3 before turning to the withholdings made under the remaining exemptions in turn.

a. Exemption 3

USCIS contends it properly withheld information under Exemption 3,

specifically related to the “No Fly” list. In response, Plaintiff does not appear to

directly challenge the application of Exemption 3 other than to contend “the ‘no-fly’

indicator result . . . cannot be arbitrarily applied.”° It is not readily apparent what

Plaintiff means by this, but nevertheless 49 U.S.C. § 114(r) prevents the disclosure

of certain categories of sensitive security information, which includes whether a

"specific name porears on the “No Fly” list. 49 C.F.R. § 1502.5(b)(9)(ii); Skurow v.

□ Defendant’s Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16,

Exhibit 1-A at 6.

□ .

U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 892 F. Supp. 2d 319, 331 (D.D.C. 2012). Therefore,

the Court finds USCIS properly withheld portions of Items 13 and 21 with respect

to the “No Fly” list. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted as to the application

of Exemption 3 to Items 13 and 21 in the Vaughn Index.

b. Exemption 5’

USCIS contends it properly withheld information under Exemption 5 on the

basis of: (1) the deliberative process privilege; (2) the attorney-client privilege; and

(3) the work product doctrine. In response, Plaintiff largely expresses doubt

regarding the applicability of the privileges alleged and contends the Court should

force the production of the documents over USCIS’s assertion of privilege.

Exemption 5 states an agency may withhold “inter-agency or intra-agency

memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an

agency in litigation with the agency... .” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Essentially, only

those documents which are “normally privileged in the civil discovery context” are

exempt. N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975). This, of

course, includes the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and

---TUSCIS withheld, either in whole or in part, the following Items in its Vaughn Index

based on Exemption 5: 1, 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 26. See Defendant’s Vaughn Index

and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16, Exhibit 1-F.

the attorney-work product privilege. See, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. Sierra Club,

Inc., 141 S. Ct. 777, 783 (2021).

Given that USCIS asserts all three as the basis for withholding a majority of

the documents at issue, either in whole or in part, the Court evaluates the

applicability of each of in turn, beginning with the deliberative process privilege.

i. Deliberative Process Privilege

The deliberative process privilege protects documents from disclosure which

“reflect[] advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of

a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” NLRB, 421

U.S. at 150. The privilege stems from “the obvious realization that officials will not

communicate candidly among themselves if each remark is a potential item of

discovery and front page news.” Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective

Assn., 532 U.S. 1, 8-9 (2001). Thus, the purpose of this privilege is to encourage

candor in order to improve agency decision making rather than “the chilling effect

that accompanies the prospect of disclosure.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 141 S. Ct. at 785.

In order to be shielded from discovery under this privilege, a document must be

predecisional and deliberative. Jd. (citing Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft

Eng’g Corp., 421 U.S. 168, 186 (1975)). A document is predecisional if it was

“generated before the agency’s final decision on the matter” and deliberative if it

| 10

was “prepared to help the agency formulate its position.” Jd. (citing NLRB, 421 U.S.

at 150-52).

Here, USCIS asserts Exemption 5 as the basis for withholding Items 1, 14, 16,

20, 23, 24, and 26. The documents are predecisional, given they all predate the

initiation of Plaintiffs removal proceedings. Among these documents are interoffice

memorandums, emails, notes, a fraud referral to the Fraud Detection and National

Security Directorate (“FDNS”), and a statement and findings by FDNS. All of these

documents purport to contain analysis, deliberations, recommendations, and

discussions regarding such recommendations and supporting information. Plaintiff

contends this information should be disclosed is has not been alleged she committed

any fraudulent acts, and thus such an investigation is—according to Plaintiff—

8 USCIS also asserts the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine to

withhold Item 19. The attorney-client privilege protects communications between

attorneys and their clients that are intended to be confidential. See Granviel v. Lynaugh,

881 F.2d 185, 192 (Sth Cir. 1989). Typically, “the Government may invoke the attorney-

client privilege in civil litigation to protect confidential communications between

Government officials and Government attorneys.” United States v. Jicarilla Apache

Nation, 564 U.S. 162, 170 (2011). This privilege, unlike the deliberative process privilege,

also protects factual materials contained within privileged documents. Church of

Scientology of Tex. v. IRS, 816 F. Supp. 1138, 1154 (W.D. Tex. 1993) (Sparks, J.). Item 19

is a legal memorandum dated May 18, 2018 in which “the Associate Counsel with the

Central Law Division provided a legal opinion to [the] Houston Field Office

Management/FDNS Houston Management regarding Plaintiff's immigration matters.”

Defendant’s Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16, Exhibit

1-F at 39-40. Here, Item 19 is a legal memorandum providing legal advice from a

government attorney to a government official. Thus, the Court finds Item 19 falls within

the attorney-client privilege, and consequently is exempt from disclosure under Exemption

5.

11

unwarranted. Essentially, Plaintiff seeks the disclosure of this information to support

her allegations of a conspiracy against her rather than to serve public interests.’

Plaintiff repeatedly expresses extreme skepticism regarding the veracity of USCIS’s

representations made in its Vaughn Index but is unable articulate anything beyond

pure conjecture (and a general mistrust of USCIS) for the basis of this skepticism.

Regardless, the Court finds USCIS’s Vaughn Index explains the basis for its

withholdings under the deliberative process privilege with sufficient specificity.

There, USCIS explains how all of the documents are predecisional, and that they

contain interoffice discussions, analysis, and recommendations designed to assist

USCIS in formulating its position in this case. See U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 141 S. Ct.

at 785. Therefore, the Court finds these documents are protected by the deliberative

process privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5. Accordingly,

summary judgment is granted as to the documents withheld under Exemption 5. The

Court now turns to USCIS’s withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

* See, e.g., Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's

Own Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 17, Exhibit 1 at 12-13 (“If [the]

deliberative thought process [contained in Item 23] was ‘let’s get this woman... ,’ then

[Plaintiff] should have access to this information.”).

12

c. Exemption 6'° & Exemption 7(C)"!

Exemption 6 exempts from disclosure Speeonae! and medical files and

similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly warranted invasion

of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 7(C) exempts from disclosure

“records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the

extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could

reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . .

SUS.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). The Supreme Court has held “whether disclosure of a

private document under Exemption 7(C) is warranted must turn on the nature of the

requested document and its relationship to the basic purpose of [FOIA,] [namely] to

open agency action to the light of public scrutiny, rather than on the particular

purpose for which the document is being requested.” U.S. Dep't of Justice v.

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772 (1989) (internal citation

and quotation marks omitted). Instead, the “court must balance the public interest in

disclosure against the interest Congress intended the Exemption to protect,” which

includes concerns over unwarranted invasions of privacy. Id. at 776.

'0 USCIS withheld, either in whole or in part, the following Items in its Vaughn

Index based on Exemption 6: 1, 3-22, 24-27, 30-40, 42-48, 50, 54-59. See Defendant’s

Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16, Exhibit 1-F.

'' USCIS withheld, either in whole or in part, the following Items in its Vaughn

Index based on Exemption 7(C): 3-27; 30-40; 42-50; 54-59. See Defendant’s Vaughn

Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16, Exhibit 1-F.

13

USCIS contends it properly withheld personal information of low-level

government employee and third parties under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Specifically,

this information includes names and other personal identifying information.!? As

stated above, Plaintiff does not contest USCIS’s withholding of the names and

personal identifying information of DHS officials.!?> Though Plaintiff does contest

the withholding of personal identifying information of nonconsenting third parties

who she alleges “have exercised their influence to convince DHS officials to act

against [Plaintiff] because of their personal animus.”!4 But in her response, Plaintiff

not only fails to articulate a public interest that may be served through the disclosure

of this information—which is the purpose of FOIA—but rather argues this

information should be provided so she may adequately “contest the persecution she

has experienced.”!° Indeed, Plaintiff fails to articulate how the disclosure of the

names and/or identifying information of third parties serves a public interest. After

balancing any public interest in the disclosure of this information with the

2 Defendant’s Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No.

16 at 13-16.

13 Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff’s Own

Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 17 at 18.

14 Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's Own

Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 17 at 18.

15 Plaintiff's Response to Government’s Vaughn Index, Document 17, Exhibit 1 at

1.

14

nonconsenting third parties’ right against an unwarranted invasion of their privacy

interest, the Court finds the third parties’ privacy interests outweigh any public

interest in the disclosure of this information. Thus, the Court finds the information

withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) is exempt from disclosure. Accordingly,

summary judgment as to the withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) is granted.

The Court now turns to USCIS’s withholdings under Exemption 7(E).

d. Exemption 7(E)!©

Exemption 7(E) exempts from disclosure “records or information compiled

for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law

enforcement records or information . . . would disclose techniques and procedures

for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for

law enforcement investigations or prosecution if such disclosure could reasonably

be expected to risk circumvention of the law . ” 5 US.C. § 552(b)(7)(E).

“Exemption 7(E) sets 7 relatively low bar for the agency to justify withholding;

[rjather than requiring a highly specific burden of showing how the law will be

circumvented, this exemption only requires that the agency demonstrate logically

how the release of the requested information might create a risk of circumvention of

'© USCIS withheld, either in whole or in part, the following Items in its Vaughn

Index based on Exemption 7(E): 2; 6; 11-41; 44; 46; 47; 49; 51-53; 55; 57-59. See

a ’s Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16, Exhibit

15

the law.” Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Mayer Brown

LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “[I]nternal agency materials relating to guidelines, techniques, sources,

and procedures for law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, even when the

materials have not been complied in the course of a specific investigation” may be

protected under this exemption, even if those documents “are not ‘how-to’ manuals

for law breakers.” Tax Analysts v. IRS, 294 F.3d 71, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Mayer

Brown, 562 F.3d at 1193.

In this case, virtually all withholdings made pursuant to this exemption relate

to either searches or results of such searches of USCIS and other government

databases used by USCIS in the course of their investigations and for law

enforcement purposes. USCIS thus argues the disclosure of various queries, codes,

system checks, searches and search results of various government databases would

alert other to the type of information that triggers an investigation by USCIS, give

enough information to allow others to alter their behavior to avoid detection, and

thus would result in—or at least reasonably create a risk of—the circumvention the

law. In her response, Plaintiff generally contends she is entitled to know the

information that triggered the investigation into Plaintiffs status in this country, and

USCIS is exaggerating the risk of circumvention of the law that could result if the

information is disclosed. However, the information Plaintiff seeks—that is, the

16

information collected by USCIS which triggered actions by USCIS—is exactly the

sort of information Exemption 7(E) is designed to protect. See Tax Analysts, 294

F.3d at 79. Plaintiff does not articulate a public interest in the disclosure of the

information withheld under this exemption. Rather, she contends she is entitled to

this information in order to get to the root of the alleged conspiracy against her.

However, the Court finds these documents!” constitute “internal agency materials

relating to guidelines, techniques, sources, and procedures for law enforcement

investigations and prosecutions,” the disclosure of which could lead to

circumvention of the law. Thus, the Court finds these documents are exempt from

disclosure under Exemption 7(E). Accordingly, summary judgment is granted as to

the documents withheld under Exemption 7(E).

3. Segregability

FOIA requires “[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be

provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions with are

exempt.” 5. U.S.C. § 552(b). Thus, once the agency identifies a document believed

to qualify for a FOIA exemption, “it must undertake a segregability analysis, in

which it separates the exempt from the non-exempt portions of the document[] and

17 Vaughn Index Items: 2; 6; 11-41; 44; 46; 47; 49; 51-53; 55; 57-59. See

ee Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 16, Exhibit

17

produce the relevant non-exempt information.” Edmonds Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of

Interior, 383 F. Supp. 2d 105, 108 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 825).

Here, only thirty pages were withheld in full by USCIS in response to

Plaintiff's FOIA request after it produced 439 pages in full and 114 in part. In its

supporting affidavit, USCIS contends it conducted a line-by-line review of all the

responsive documents pod further contends no further segregation of information is

possible.'® Given that only a fraction of the responsive documents were withheld in

full and USCIS also produced additional pages after Plaintiff appeal its initial

production, the Court finds USCIS made a diligent effort to redact exempt material

while releasing all nonexempt material and the withholdings were not made in bad

faith. Thus, absent any grounds to dispute this, the Court finds USCIS released all

reasonably segregable information and did not withhold documents in bad faith.

B. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment .

In her response to USCIS’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff also

moves for summary judgment. Given the Court’s ruling above and having

considered the motion, submission, and appliable law, the Court finds Plaintiffs

motion for summary judgment should be denied. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for

summary judgment is denied.

18 Defendant’s Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No.

16, Exhibit 1, § 63 (Declaration of Cynthia Munita).

18

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Defendant’s Vaughn Index and Motion for Summary

Judgment (Document No. 16) is GRANTED. The Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, and Plaintiff's Own Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 17)

is DENIED.

THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on thisQ.@_ day of February, 2023.

Pw fat

DAVID HITTNER

United States District Judge

19