Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

)

LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

)

1331 G Street, NW, Suite 300

)

Washington, DC 20005-3142,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

No. _______

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

HOMELAND SECURITY

)

Office of General Counsel

)

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

)

Washington, DC 20528

)

)

and

)

)

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND )

IMMIGRATION SERVICES

)

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

)

Washington, DC 20528,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5

U.S.C. § 552, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.,

seeking the release of withheld records concerning agency policies and procedures

relating to nonimmigrant temporary workers and particularly the adjudication of petitions

for their lawful employment in the United States. The American Immigration Lawyers

Association (“AILA”) seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other appropriate relief with

- 1 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 13
respect to the unlawful withholding of these records by the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and its component the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) with oversight responsibility for immigration to the United States.
Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(B). In addition, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory and further necessary or proper relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65. 3. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) as both plaintiff and defendants are located in the District of Columbia and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the jurisdiction.
The Parties 4. Plaintiff AILA is a national association of over 11,000 attorneys and law professors who practice and teach immigration law. Founded in 1946, AILA is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that provides continuing legal education, information, professional services, and expertise through its 36 chapters and over 50 national committees. AILA member attorneys represent U.S. families seeking permanent residence for close family members, as well as U.S. businesses seeking talent from the global marketplace. AILA members also represent foreign students, entertainers, athletes, and asylum seekers, often on a pro bono basis.
- 2 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 13
5. Defendant DHS is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government and is responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws. DHS has possession and control over the records sought by plaintiff. DHS is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
6. Defendant USCIS is a component of DHS and is responsible for the administration of immigration adjudication functions and establishing policies and priorities for immigration services . USCIS has possession and control over the records sought by plaintiff. USCIS is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
NATURE OF THE ACTION 7. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), provides for the admission into the United States of temporary workers sought by petitioning employers to perform services in a specialty occupation. The procedures and restrictions on the admission of so-called “H-1B” workers are set forth in INA § 214, 8 U.S.C. § 1184. Regulations of DHS in 8 C.F.R. § 214(h) and of the Department of Labor in 20 C.F.R. Part 655 implement the statutory authority. 8. U.S. businesses rely on the “H-1B” program, administered by USCIS, to temporarily employ foreign workers—such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers—in occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields. In order for a nonimmigrant to come to the United States to lawfully work, a prospective employer must file and have granted a nonimmigrant petition on the individual’s behalf. Congress has mandated certain restrictions on eligibility for
- 3 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 13
admission to the United States through H-1B classification as well as set certain caps on the number of foreign workers who may annually seek status through this program.
9. At a “high level,” the process by which the government handles the receipt and review of H-1B petitions is generally known. Upon receipt, USCIS creates a file for each original petition and supporting documentation submitted for obtaining H-1B nonimmigrant status. Biographical data, such as name, date of birth, and country of birth, is entered into a case tracking system, and the file is assigned to an adjudicator who determines whether there is adequate information in the file to approve or deny the petition. If sufficient evidence is available, the adjudicator makes a decision and enters the corresponding information into the tracking system. In the case of insufficient evidence, the adjudicator requests additional information from the sponsoring employer by issuing a “Request for Evidence” (“RFE”) under 8 C.F.R §103.2(b)(8). See also Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers, Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report, October 1, 2008 - September 30, 2009, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, April 15, 2010, Appendix A, p. 21, available at http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/H-1B/h1b-fy-09characteristics.pdf.
10. However, following a September 2008 “H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment” by USCIS, see http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_BFCA_20sep08.pdf, in which a sampling of cases was found to include instances of fraud or technical violations in connection with the filing of H-1B petitions, USCIS adopted new, more stringent procedures for review and adjudication. The RFE became a primary vehicle by which USCIS sought to obtain substantially more detailed
- 4 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 5 of 13
information from a petitioner. At the same time, the tightening of petition processing was accompanied by a near vacuum of publicly available information to guide petitioners on compliance in the new era of heightened scrutiny. Still further, USCIS dramatically increased the frequency of unannounced worksite inspections—expected to reach 25,000 visits in 2010 alone—in connection with H-1B cases.
11. More specifically, as explained in a letter from USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas to Senator Charles Grassley dated November 10, 2009, see http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/12/Mayorkas%20letter%20to%20Grassley%20re%20H1B%20visa%20fraud.pdf, USCIS issued field guidance to agency adjudicators instructing them to issue RFEs (and Notices of Intent to Deny or Revoke) in cases in which an adjudicator becomes aware of potential violations or non-compliance with the H-1B program. Disclosure of this guidance has been sought by AILA and its nondisclosure forms part of the present FOIA dispute.
12. Still further, after the issuance of the “H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment,” USCIS adjudicators also began to use an H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet. On information and belief, content in this document is analogous to content in the “H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment” published in 2008. Disclosure of the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet has been sought by AILA and its nondisclosure forms part of the present FOIA dispute.
13. On April 8, 2009, USCIS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing its submission of a form entitled “Compliance Review Worksheet” to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for clearance. 66 Fed. Reg. 15999 (April 8,
- 5 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 6 of 13
2009). The notice, which explained that the form would be used to record the results of on-site inspections of businesses, sought comments from the public. Yet the form itself was not attached to the notice or made available to the public for examination. Disclosure of this Compliance Review Worksheet has been sought by AILA and its nondisclosure forms part of the present FOIA dispute.
14. USCIS provided a supporting statement with the Federal Register notice that described the purpose of the Compliance Review Worksheet. See http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480953f83. The statement explained that, in response to the H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment and a similar study of fraud in the religious worker context, USCIS established the Administrative Site Visit Verification Program (“ASVVP”) to increase the number and enhance the uniformity of on-site visits to businesses applying for visas for foreign workers. The ASVVP utilizes on-site inspections to determine whether the location of employment actually exists, and whether the beneficiary is employed at that location, performing the duties specified, and paid the salary identified in the H-1B petition. The statement further explained that the Compliance Review Worksheet would be used by contract personnel who carry out these on-site visits to record the results of their on-site inspections.
15. Another document that has been publicly disclosed on the internet, is related to the ASVVP, and is relevant to the government’s withholding of the Compliance Review Worksheet from disclosure under FOIA is entitled “Compliance Review Report” and subtitled “Job Aid for Employment (H1B – Based).” See, e.g., http://imminfo.com/Library/employer_issues/Compliance%20review%20report.pdf. The
- 6 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 7 of 13
Compliance Review Report is intended to assist site inspectors at worksites by identifying the type of information that USCIS is seeking. On information and belief, the Compliance Review Report that has been publicly available on the internet includes the same or similar information as the Compliance Review Worksheet that forms part of the present dispute.
16. USCIS H-1B worksite visits also have been discussed and described in publicly-circulated documents, such as a “Practice Pointer” posted on AILA’s website. See, e.g., http://www.immigrateusa.us/content/view/1838/69/. These documents provide details concerning the questions asked during the worksite inspections and the procedures followed by those conducting the site visits on behalf of USCIS.
17. The reliability and fairness of an adjudication process—especially in an area with such great importance as immigration—can only be evaluated if the procedures and actions of the government agency are transparent. To this end, AILA filed two FOIA requests with USCIS seeking detailed information relating to the current procedures for reviewing and adjudicating H-1B cases. The public interest in these procedures is particularly high because the aforementioned recent measures implemented by USCIS concerning H-1B petitions have caused confusion and concern among U.S. businesses that legitimately depend on temporary foreign workers with specialized knowledge in order to operate successfully. The measures additionally have caused confusion and concern on the part of foreign workers named as beneficiaries on H-1B petitions.
18. The FOIA requests lodged by AILA seek to obtain records of particular importance in educating businesses, foreign workers, the bar, and the public at large concerning compliance with the H-1B rules, regulations, and associated law. This action
- 7 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 8 of 13
concerns the failure of DHS and its component USCIS to release requested records under FOIA.
PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUESTS AND DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FOIA First FOIA Request 19. By letter dated February 6, 2009, AILA submitted a FOIA request to USCIS in which it requested: Copies of any and all guidance, including but not lim ited to memoranda, standard operating procedures and tem plates used for Request for Evidence regarding adjudicating H-1B petitions issued as a result of, in connection with, in light of, or related to the Benefits Fraud Assessment report.” See Attachment 1. 20. By letter dated March 18, 2009, AILA supplemented its request and additionally requested “a document entitled ‘H-1B Processing Fraud Referral Sheet’.” See Attachment 2. 21. By letter dated March 20, 2009, USCIS and DHS acknowledged receipt of the original request and supplement (collectively, “First FOIA Request”), assigned case number NRC2009007831, but denied the request for expedited processing. See Attachment 3. 22. Nearly one year after AILA’s original request, by letter dated January 12, 2010, USCIS and DHS identified six pages of responsive record(s) and denied the First FOIA Request in full pursuant to three exemptions – 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(2) (internal agency rules), (b)(5) (inter- and intra-agency memoranda) and (b)(7)(E) (law enforcement). See Attachment 4. Other than citing these FOIA exemptions, USCIS
- 8 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 9 of 13
provided neither any identification of the withheld record(s) nor any explanation as to why the withheld records actually were covered by the asserted exemptions.
23. By letter dated March 11, 2010, AILA filed an administrative appeal of the denial of the First FOIA Request. See Attachment 5. In particular, AILA appealed the withholding of the six pages of responsive record(s) from disclosure by USCIS and DHS. AILA also challenged (i) the adequacy of the search for records responsive to the First FOIA Request, (ii) the failure to segregate non-exempt information from allegedly exempt information, and (iii) the alleged applicability of the cited FOIA exemptions to the records sought.
24. AILA has not received any written acknowledgment from USCIS and DHS concerning its administrative appeal with respect to the First FOIA Request.
25. USCIS and DHS have failed to disclose any records in response to the First FOIA Request.
26. Records responsive to the First FOIA Request that should have been disclosed by defendants include, but are not limited to: (1) field guidance to agency adjudicators instructing them to issue Requests for Evidence and (2) an H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet.
27. AILA subsequently sent DHS a letter dated April 27, 2010 in which it reiterated its appeal for the withheld documents in an attempt to have the matter resolved without litigation. See Attachment 6. Second FOIA Request
28. By letter dated April 13, 2009, AILA submitted another FOIA request to USCIS (“Second FOIA Request”) and requested “[t]he Compliance Review Worksheet
- 9 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 10 of 13
mentioned in ‘Comment Request for Compliance Review Worksheet,’ 74 FR 15999 (April 8, 2009),” see Attachment 7, a form for use by USCIS contract personnel to record the results of visits to businesses petitioning for H-1B temporary workers.
29. By letter dated June 9, 2009, which assigned the FOIA request case number NRC2009023483, USCIS and DHS denied the Second FOIA Request in full pursuant to two exemptions – 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(2) (internal agency rules) and (b)(7)(E) (law enforcement). See Attachment 8. Other than citing these FOIA exemptions, USCIS failed to provide any explanation as to why the withheld record actually was covered by the asserted exemptions.
30. By letter dated August 7, 2009, AILA filed an administrative appeal of the denial of the Second FOIA Request. Attachment 9. In particular, AILA appealed the withholding of the responsive record from disclosure by USCIS and DHS. AILA also challenged the alleged applicability of the cited FOIA exemptions to the record sought.
31. By letter dated February 18, 2010, which assigned the appeal case number APP2009000743, USCIS and DHS denied AILA’s administrative appeal and affirmed the “total denial” decision with respect to the Second FOIA Request. Attachment 10.
32. USCIS and DHS have failed to disclose any records in response to the Second FOIA Request.
33. The record responsive to the Second FOIA Request that should have been disclosed by defendants is the Compliance Review Worksheet.
34. AILA subsequently sent DHS a letter dated April 27, 2010 in which it reiterated its appeal for the withheld documents in an attempt to have the matter resolved without litigation. See Attachment 6.
- 10 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 11 of 13
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 35. USCIS and DHS have failed to comply with the time limits set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) or extend those time limit provisions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B) with respect to the First FOIA Request. Plaintiff AILA has exhausted any and all administrative remedies with respect to USCIS and DHS in connection with the First FOIA Request. 36. Plaintiff AILA has exhausted any and all administrative remedies with respect to USCIS and DHS in connection with the Second FOIA Request.
First Cause of Action: Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for Failure to Disclose Agency Records Pursuant to the First FOIA Request 37. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-36 above. 38. Plaintiff AILA has a legal right under FOIA to obtain the agency records requested from defendants DHS and USCIS in the First FOIA Request, and no legal basis exists for defendants’ failure to make available the requested records. 39. Defendants’ failure to make reasonable efforts to search for responsive records, and wrongful withholding of agency records, sought in plaintiff’s First FOIA Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), 552(a)(3)(C), and 552(a)(6)(A) as well as the DHS and USCIS regulations promulgated thereunder.
Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for Failure to Disclose Agency Records Pursuant to the Second FOIA Request 40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-39 above.
- 11 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 12 of 13
41. Plaintiff AILA has a legal right under FOIA to obtain the agency record requested from defendants DHS and USCIS in the Second FOIA Request, and no legal basis exists for defendants’ failure to make available the requested record.
42. Defendants’ wrongful withholding of the agency record sought in plaintiff’s Second FOIA Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A) as well as the DHS and USCIS regulations promulgated thereunder.
Third Cause of Action: Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act for Failure Timely to Respond to Request for Agency Records 43. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-42 above. 44. Defendants’ failure to timely respond to plaintiff’s requests for agency records, and defendants’ withholding of agency records, constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed, in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 70106. Defendants’ failure to timely respond and withholding each are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law and without observance of procedure required by law, all in violation of the APA.
REQUESTS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendants, and that: (a) defendants and any of defendants’ agents or other persons, departments, or
components acting for, with, by, through or under them be ordered to conduct a reasonable search for records responsive to plaintiff’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act;
- 12 -

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 13 of 13

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-2 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-2 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-2 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-3 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-3 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-4 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 4

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-4 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-4 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 9
ATTACHMENT 5

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 7 of 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 9 of 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-6 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT 6

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-6 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-6 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-6 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-7 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 7

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-7 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-7 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-8 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 8

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-8 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-9 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 8
ATTACHMENT 9

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-9 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-9 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-9 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-9 Filed 07/20/10 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-9 Filed 07/20/10 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-9 Filed 07/20/10 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-9 Filed 07/20/10 Page 8 of 8

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-10 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 10

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-10 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-11 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 1-11 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 19 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS )

ASSOCIATION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

)

HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01224-EGS

CONSENT MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & TO STAY FURTHER SUMMARY-JUDGMENT BRIEFING

The United States Departm ent of Hom eland Security and the United S tates Citizenship

and Immigration Services (collectively, “Defendants”), respectfully move the Court to withdraw

their motion for summary judgment (“Motion”) filed on December 10, 2010, without prejudice.

See Defs.’ Motion, Dkt. No. 11. D efendants also respectfully request that the Court stay further

summary-judgment briefing. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), on February 23, 2011, Assistant

United States Attorney David Rybicki contacte d Plaintiff’s counsel, S eth Watkins, Esq., who

consented to the withdrawal of Defendants’ Motion, a stay, and revised scheduling for this

action, as requested herein.

After having reviewed the Am erican Immigration Lawyers Association’s (“Plaintiff”)

cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14)

(“Plaintiff’s Motion”), Defendants will undertake a renewed search for responsive records and

reconsider redactions and claim s of FOIA exe mptions with respect to records already produced

in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests.

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 19 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 3

Defendants also respectfully request that further summary-judgment briefing in this

action be stayed for thirty (30) days, i.e., un til March 28, 2011, to allow Defendants to undertake

a renewed search for responsiv e records, provide updated Vaughn indices and supporting

declarations should they becom e necessary, a nd produce all responsiv e, non-exempt records.

Defendants respectfully request th at the Court further extend the stay by an additional twenty-

one (21) days, i.e., until April 18, 2011, to perm it Plaintiff to review Defendants’ renewed

response to their FOIA requests, at which time Plaintiff, at its option, may file a substitute and/or

renewed motion for summary judgment to replace Plaintiff’s Motion that is currently pending.

The following revised schedule is thus respectfully proposed:

Defendants undertake a renewed search, provide updated Vaughn indices and supporting declarations as necessary, and produce all responsive, non-exempt records

March 28, 2011

Plaintiff to file a substitute and/or renewed motion for summary judgment, if any

April 18, 2011

Defendants to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s substitute/renewed summary judgment motion and cross-move for summary judgment

May 9, 2011

Plaintiff to file a reply memorandum in support of its summary-judgment motion and its opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment

May 30, 2011

Defendants to file a reply memorandum in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment

June 20, 2011

A proposed order is submitted concurrently herewith.
Date: February 24, 2011 Washington, D.C.

2

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 19 Filed 02/24/11 Page 3 of 3
Respectfully submitted, RONALD C. MACHEN JR., D.C. BAR #447889 United States Attorney for the District of Columbia RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar #434112 Chief, Civil Division BY: __/s/ David C. Rybicki________________ DAVID C. RYBICKI, D.C. Bar #976836 Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 353-4024 Fax: (202) 514-8780 Attorneys for Defendants United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. Of counsel: Eric N. Banks, Esq. Associate Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel United States Citizenship & Immigration Services United States Department of Homeland Security
3

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 19-1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS )

ASSOCIATION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

)

HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01224-EGS

[PROPOSED] ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Defendants’ consent motion to withdraw their motion

for summary judgment and to stay further summary-judgm ent briefing, and for good cause

shown, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the following revised schedule sh all govern further proceedings in this

action:

Defendants shall undertake a renewed search, provide updated Vaughn indices and supporting declarations as necessary, and produce all responsive, non-exempt records

March 28, 2011

Plaintiff shall file a substitute and/or renewed motion for summary judgment, if any

April 18, 2011

Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff’s substitute/renewed summary judgment motion and cross-move for summary judgment

May 9, 2011

Plaintiff shall file a reply memorandum in support of its summary-judgment motion and its opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment

May 30, 2011

Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 19-1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 2

Defendants shall file a reply memorandum in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment
SO ORDERED.

June 20, 2011

SIGNED:

________________

Date

EMMET

United

____________________________ G. SULLIVAN
States District Judge

2

 
 Case 1:10-cv-01224-EGS Document 33 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

)

LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) Civ. Action No. 10-1224 (EGS)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum

Opinion filed on this day, it is hereby

ORDERED that [23] plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

is GRANTED in part; and it is

ORDERED that [25] defendants’ cross-motion for summary

judgment is DENIED without prejudice; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file revised Vaughn

affidavits taking into account the deficiencies identified by

the Court by no later than April 30, 2011; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint

recommendation for further proceedings by no later than May 31,

2012.

SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge March 30, 2012

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

)

LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) Civ. Action No. 10-1224 (EGS)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”

or “plaintiff”) brings this action against the United States

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services, a DHS subdivision (“USCIS”

collectively, “defendants”) under the Freedom of Information Act

(“FOIA”), seeking the release of information withheld by the

USCIS.

Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment. Plaintiff principally argues that the USCIS

waived its right to withhold or redact certain information

because that information is in the public domain, and that even

if waiver did not occur, certain material was improperly

withheld because FOIA exemption 7(E) does not apply to those

documents. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). In a cross-motion for

summary judgment, the USCIS disputes plaintiff’s allegations of waiver, and argues that all withheld material was properly exempt from disclosure pursuant to several FOIA exemptions, including 7(E).
Upon careful consideration of the motions, the responses and replies thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court hereby GRANTS in part the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff AILA is an association of over 11,000 attorneys and law professors who practice and teach immigration law. Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Br.”), Docket No. 23-2, at 7. Defendant USCIS is the agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States, and is charged with disseminating information regarding immigration issues, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of the United States immigration system. Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defs.’ Br.”), Docket No. 25-2, at 2. Among its responsibilities, the USCIS processes H-1B temporary visa petitions filed by United States employers seeking to hire non-immigrant alien workers on a
2

temporary basis. Defs.’ Br. at 2. The USCIS carries out this function pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), which provides for the admission into the United States of temporary workers to perform services in a specialty occupation. Pl.’s Br. at 2; Defs.’ Br. at 2.
A. Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests Beginning in 2009, AILA submitted three FOIA requests to
the USCIS. The requests were processed by the USCIS’s National Records Center (“NRC”), in compliance with DHS implementing regulations found at 6 C.F.R. Part 5 and Management Directive No. 0460.1. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts (“Defs.’ SMF”), Docket No. 25-3, ¶ 1.
By letter dated February 6, 2009, Robert Deasy, AILA’s Director of Liaison and Information, submitted a FOIA request (“February 6 Request”) to the USCIS on behalf of AILA for:
Copies of any and all guidance, including, but not limited to memoranda, standard operating procedures, and templates used for Requests for Evidence regarding adjudicating H-1B petitions issued as a result of, in connection with, in light of, or related to the Benefits Fraud [Compliance] Assessment Report. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 7. This request was assigned control number NRC2009007831. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 8. By letter dated March 18, 2009, AILA submitted a second FOIA request (“March 18 Supplemental Request”), in which it
3

requested a document entitled “H1-B Processing Fraud Referral Sheet” (“H1-B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet”) and petitioned for expedited processing. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 9. This request was considered a supplement to the February 6 Request and was included within it for purposes of processing. See id. ¶¶ 9, 13. The request for expedited processing was denied. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 13.
On April 13, 2009, AILA submitted a third FOIA Request (“April 13 Request”) to the USCIS, this time seeking “The Compliance Review Worksheet Mentioned in Comment Request for Compliance Review Worksheet, 74 FR 15999 (April 8, 2009)” (“Compliance Review Report”). Defs.’ SMF ¶ 14. The NRC received the April 13 Request on April 27, 2009. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 15. The request was assigned control number NRC2009023483. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 16. On May 8, 2009, AILA submitted a request to expedite the April 13 Request, which was denied by letter on May 28, 2009. Defs.’ SMF ¶¶ 17, 18.
Several documents that resulted from USCIS’s searches1 are at issue in this case.

1

Although plaintiff initially challenged the adequacy of the

searches conducted by USCIS, that issue is not raised by

plaintiff on summary judgment and plaintiff does not dispute

defendants’ argument in their cross-motion that the searches

were proper.

4

1. Compliance Review Report
One two-page, preprinted USCIS form entitled “Compliance Review Report” was deemed responsive to AILA’s April 13 Request. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 52; Substitute Declaration of Jill A. Eggleston (“Sub. Eggleston Decl.”), Docket No. 25-5, ¶ 42.2 On June 9, 2009, the USCIS determined that the document should be withheld in full pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(2)3 and (b)(7)(E). Defs.’ SMF ¶ 53. On August 7, 2009, AILA administratively appealed the decision, which was affirmed on February 18, 2010. Sub. Eggleston Decl. ¶¶ 38,40. At some time after this litigation was commenced on July 20, 2010, USCIS made the determination that some of the information withheld could be disclosed, and the USCIS released the document in redacted form on October 27, 2010. Defs.’ SMF ¶¶ 57, 59; Watkins Decl., Ex. 12. USCIS also released a revised index on that date, pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), explaining USCIS’s basis for withholding portions of the document. See October 27, 2010 Vaughn Index (“Oct. 27, 2010 Vaughn Index”),

2

The original Declaration of Jill A. Eggleston was filed in

connection with defendants’ initial motion for summary judgment,

see Docket No. 11-5, and is not part of the record for the

renewed motions for summary judgment.

3

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Milner v. Dep’t

of the Navy, 131 S. Ct. 1259 (2011), defendants have withdrawn

all assertions of exemption b(2) in connection with plaintiff’s

FOIA Requests. Defs.’ Br. at 11, n.10; Sub. Eggleston Decl. ¶

44, n.4.

5

Ex. 21 to the Declaration of Seth A. Watkins in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (“Watkins Decl.”), at 4.
2. Neufeld Memorandum A four-page memorandum by Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate
Director of Domestic Operations, regarding H-1B fraud initiatives (“Neufeld Memorandum”) was determined to be responsive to the February 6 Request and the March 18 Supplemental Request. Sub. Eggleston Decl. ¶ 41. The NRC initially determined that this document should be withheld in its entirety pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(7)(E). Defs.’ SMF ¶ 51. On March 11, 2010, AILA administratively appealed this decision. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 45. The appeal was still pending when this action was filed.
At some time after this litigation was commenced on July 20, 2010, USCIS made the determination that some of the information withheld could be disclosed. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 54. Much, but not all, of the information contained in the Neufeld Memorandum had been publicly disclosed with the publication of the H-1B Benefit Fraud and Compliance Assessment (“BFCA Report”), which is posted on the internet. Defs.’ SMF ¶¶ 54-55; Watkins Decl., Ex. 2. Moreover, the Neufeld Memorandum was issued in September 2008 as a final agency determination,
6

rendering FOIA exemption (b)(5) inapplicable as authority for withholding that document from public viewing. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 56. The USCIS therefore released the document in redacted form on October 27, 2010, and the USCIS’s basis for withholding the document was explained in the October 27 Vaughn Index. Defs.’ SMF ¶¶ 57, 59; Oct. 27, 2010 Vaughn Index, Watkins Decl., Ex. 21, at 1.
3. H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet A two-page pre-printed USCIS form entitled “H-1B Petition
Fraud Referral Sheet” was also determined to be responsive to the February 6 Request and March 18 Supplemental Request. Sub. Eggleston Decl. ¶ 41. NRC made the initial determination that the document should be withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(7)(E) and that there were no reasonably segregable portions for release. Defs.’ SMF ¶¶ 43-44. On March 11, 2010, AILA administratively appealed that decision. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 45. The appeal was still pending when this action was filed.
At some time after this litigation was commenced on July 20, 2010, USCIS made the determination that some of the information withheld could be disclosed, and the USCIS released the document in redacted form on October 27, 2010. Defs.’ SMF ¶¶ 57, 59. The October 27, 2010 Vaughn Index explained the
7

basis for withholding portions of the document. Oct. 27, 2010 Vaughn Index, Watkins Decl., Ex. 21, at 2.
B. Initial Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
After releasing the redacted versions of certain documents, defendants moved for summary judgment on December 10, 2010, asserting that they had satisfied all of their obligations with respect to AILA’s FOIA requests. See Docket No. 11. Plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and in support of plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on January 14, 2011. Docket No. 13. Plaintiff challenged, among other things, the adequacy of defendants’ searches. When the USCIS reviewed plaintiff’s summary judgment filing, it determined it may have missed documents potentially relevant to plaintiff’s requests. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 60. With plaintiff’s consent, the USCIS commenced a renewed search for documents responsive to AILA’s FOIA requests on March 29, 2011. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 61. USCIS made a subsequent production of documents to plaintiff on May 9, 2011 and submitted a Supplemental Vaughn Index describing the materials withheld. May 9, 2011 Vaughn Index (“May 9, 2011 Vaughn Index”), Watkins Decl., Ex. 20; see Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts (“Pl.’s SMF”) ¶ 21. Plaintiff refers to several of the documents produced on May 9, 2011 as the “newly-identified documents.”
8

C. Renewed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
AILA filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on May 31, 2011. In its motion, AILA alleges that USCIS improperly invoked exemption 7(E) as to several documents that were produced with redactions, and that USCIS has waived any ability to withhold the documents because they are in the public domain. Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to determine that they satisfied their obligations under FOIA as to all documents produced or withheld, that they properly invoked exemptions, and that they did not waive its ability to invoke the exemptions because of information that exists in the public domain. II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Rule 56
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment should be granted if the moving party has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Waterhouse v. District of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989, 991 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
9

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Likewise, in ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court shall grant summary judgment only if one of the moving parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law upon material facts that are not genuinely disputed. See Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Dep’t of Justice, 658 F. Supp. 2d 217, 224 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Rhoads v. McFerran, 517 F.2d 66, 67 (2d Cir. 1975)).
B. FOIA
FOIA requires agencies to disclose all requested agency records, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), unless one of nine specific statutory exemptions applies, id. § 552(b). It is designed to “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976) (citations omitted). “Given the FOIA’s broad disclosure policy, the United States Supreme Court has ‘consistently stated that FOIA exemptions are to be narrowly construed.’” Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Dep’t of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 8 (1988)).
“FOIA’s ‘strong presumption in favor of disclosure places the burden on the agency to justify the withholding of any requested documents.” Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991). The government may satisfy its burden of establishing
10

its right to withhold information from the public by submitting appropriate declarations and, where necessary, an index of the information withheld. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973). “If an agency’s affidavit describes the justifications for withholding the information with specific detail, demonstrates that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and is not contradicted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of the agency’s bad faith, then summary judgment is warranted on the basis of the affidavit alone.” ACLU v. Dep’t of the Defense, 628 F.3d 612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see id. (an agency’s justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible’) (internal citations omitted). III. DISCUSSION
In its motion for summary judgment and its response to defendants’ motion, plaintiff primarily challenges defendants’ redaction of three documents: (1) the Compliance Review Report Form; (2) The Neufeld Memorandum; and (3) the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet. Plaintiff also argues that defendants waived the right to claim that certain “newly-identified documents” that were produced on May 9, 2011 are properly withheld under Exemption 7(E) because they purportedly contain
11

publicly-disclosed information, but plaintiff does not challenge the applicability of Exemption 7(E) to those documents.
Defendants, in their cross-motion for summary judgment, seek summary judgment as to the entirety of their searches and subsequent responses to plaintiff’s FOIA Requests. Defendants argue that all exemptions were properly invoked and that all reasonably segregable information was disclosed. Plaintiff, in its opposition, does not dispute the withholding of material pursuant to exemption 7(E) other than in connection with the Compliance Review Report, the Neufeld Memorandum, and the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet. Plaintiff also does not respond to defendants’ arguments regarding the appropriateness of defendants’ searches as a whole, or the withholding of documents pursuant to exemptions b(5) or b(6). Therefore, those points are deemed conceded.
Accordingly, the issues before the Court are 1) whether defendants waived their right to withhold all or portions of the Compliance Review Report, the Neufeld Memorandum, the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet, and certain “newly-identified documents” under the “public domain doctrine”; 2) whether defendants properly sought to withhold the Compliance Review Report, the Neufeld Memorandum, and the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet under Exemption 7(E); and 3) whether defendants’
12

Vaughn indexes and the Substitute Eggleston Declaration properly indicate whether all reasonably segregable information has been released.
A. Waiver/Public Domain Doctrine
The threshold issue before the Court is whether the USCIS waived its right to invoke Exemption 7(E) and withhold redacted material in several documents it produced pursuant to the AILA’s FOIA Requests. The public domain doctrine sets a high standard that a plaintiff must meet in order to establish that the government has waived an otherwise-valid FOIA exemption. “[FOIA] bars the courts from prying loose from the government even the smallest bit of information that is properly classified.” Afshar v. Dep’t of State, 702 F.2d 1125, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Exemptions 1&3). “Under [the] public domain doctrine, materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.” Cottone v. Reno, 193 F.3d 550, 554 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 169 F.3d 16, 19 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Exemption 4)); Public Citizen v. Dep’t of State, 11 F.3d 198, 201-03 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (Exemption 1); Davis v. Dep’t of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Exemptions 3 & 7(C)); Ashfar, 702 F.2d at 1130-34. The logic of this doctrine is that “where information
13

requested ‘is truly public, the enforcement of an exemption cannot fulfill its purposes.’” Id. (quoting Niagra Mohawk, 169 F.3d at 19). “[A] plaintiff asserting that information has been previously disclosed bears the initial burden of pointing to specific information in the public domain that duplicates that being withheld.” Public Citizen, 11 F.3d at 201 (citing Afshar, 702 F.2d at 1130). The D.C. Circuit has held that “when information has been ‘officially acknowledged,’ its disclosure may be compelled even over an agency’s otherwise valid exemption claim. Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 765 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The Court identified three requirements to determine whether the government has waived its right to withhold the sought information by officially acknowledging it. Specifically, plaintiff must establish that the information requested is as specific as the information previously released, must match the information previously disclosed, and must have already been made public through an official and documented disclosure. Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d at 765.
1. Compliance Review Report Form Plaintiff argues that the Compliance Review Report Form released in redacted form should be released in full because the redacted portions are in the public domain. See Pl.’s Br. at 12 (citing Watkins Decl., Ex. 12). The agency produced a redacted
14

version to AILA on October 27, 2010, asserting Exemption (b)(7)(E) as to the redactions. See Watkins Decl., Ex. 12; see Oct. 27, 2010 Vaughn Index, Watkins Decl. Ex. 21.
In support of its argument that the redacted portions of the Compliance Review Report Form are in the public domain, plaintiff cites to four versions of instructions purportedly used by on-site investigators to complete the Compliance Review Report Form. Plaintiff argues that these instructions provide the same information, and indeed more information, than the Compliance Review Report. Plaintiff argues that the public availability of these instructions prevent USCIS from seeking to withhold the information in the Compliance Review Report Form under Exemption (b)(7)(E). Pl.’s Br. at 12-14. The versions of the instructions include (1) a version that was included in the appendix of a book published by Thompson/West (Watkins Decl., Ex. 7); (2) a version of the instructions dated December 5, 2008 that is available on the internet (Watkins Decl., Ex. 8); (3) a version of the instructions dated July 22, 2009 that was produced on May 9, 2011 in response to AILA’s FOIA Requests (Watkins Decl., Ex. 29); and (4) a general description of the information sought by inspectors during site visits that is available on the USCIS’s website. Watkins Decl., Ex. 6.
Defendants argue that AILA has failed to establish that any of the instructions “match” the information that USCIS has
15

withheld. The Court agrees. AILA has not established that any of these alleged instructions specifically correspond to the version of the form that it seeks to compel USCIS to produce in full, which bears an apparent date of June 19, 2009. See Watkins Decl., Ex. 12. The instructions published by Thompson/West bear no date, and the other versions of the instructions are dated December 5, 2008 and July 22, 2009, respectively. Plaintiff has failed to persuade the Court that the date is not relevant to the public disclosure analysis.
The general description of site visits (Watkins Decl., Ex. 6) is even less specific than the different versions of the instructions, giving the reader only a general overview of the process. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet its initial burden of pointing to specific information in the public domain that duplicates what is being withheld. Public Citizen, 11 F.3d at 201 (plaintiff bears burden of pointing to specific information in the public domain that duplicates that being withheld).4

4

Because plaintiff has failed to meet its initial burden,

the Court need not reach the question of whether any of the

Compliance Review Report Instructions cited by plaintiff were

publicly disclosed. The Court notes, however, that USCIS has

conceded that its disclosure of the July 22, 2009 instructions

in response to AILA’s FOIA Requests was an “official

disclosure.” Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to

Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defs.’ Reply”),

Docket No. 30, at 2.

16

2. H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet
AILA argues that the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet, which was released to AILA in redacted form, is “fully in the public domain” because it is part of a judicial record in another litigation. Pl.’s Br. at 14; Watkins Decl., Ex. 11. AILA also argues that the document is in the public domain because USCIS agreed it did not need to be filed under seal in this matter. Pl.’s Br. at 15 (citing Docket No. 16 (“Defendant’s position is that Exhibit[]...15 is publicly available and therefore not appropriately filed under seal.”). The parties do not dispute that a version of an H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet was filed by USCIS as an exhibit on June 24, 2010 in the TechServe Alliance v. Napolitano matter. See Case No. 10 Civ. 00353 (D.D.C.), Docket No. 16, Ex. 1. The parties also do not dispute that USCIS agreed that the same exhibit did not need to be filed under seal in this matter. See Docket No. 16-3. The parties do dispute, however, the effect of these filings.
AILA contends that the filing of the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet by USCIS on a public docket constitutes a “public disclosure.” In support of its argument, plaintiff cites Cottone for the proposition that evidence submitted in court becomes part of the public domain under FOIA unless and until destroyed or placed under seal. Pl.’s Br. at 14-15 (citing
17

Cottone, 193 F.3d at 554). Defendants argue that the exhibit filed in TechServe was an earlier version of the document than the one at issue in this litigation. Defs.’ Br. at 25. Defendants further note that the document was attached to USCIS’s filing because it had been attached to the FOIA request made by the plaintiff in that case, and was filed by USCIS in that lawsuit to support USCIS’s arguments that it had properly asserted exemptions under FOIA, which would distinguish it from a willful disclosure. See id. Defendants note that a notation on the bottom of the document indicates that it had been obtained from an archive entitled “AILA InfoNet,” rather than from any official USCIS source. Id.
The Court agrees with Defendants on this issue. As with the Compliance Review Report Form discussed previously, the Court finds that because the fraud referral form filed in the TechServe matter was a different version than the one at issue in this case, AILA has failed to meet its burden of pointing to specific information in the public domain that duplicates what is being withheld. See Public Citizen, 11 F.3d at 201. Moreover, even if AILA could establish that the form was the same form at issue in this matter, AILA has not established that the form was made public through an official disclosure. See Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at 765. Indeed, it appears the only reason the form was filed on the public docket in TechServe is because
18

it was attached to the plaintiff’s FOIA request in that matter, which USCIS then filed as an exhibit to a declaration explaining the steps taken to respond to that plaintiff’s FOIA request. AILA has not persuaded the Court that the attachment of the FOIA request (and the H-1B Fraud Referral Sheet) was done for the purpose of any desire to officially disclose the document; to the contrary, it appears that the document was filed in support of USCIS’s arguments in that case that it had responded appropriately to the FOIA requests it had received. See Frugone v. CIA, 169 F.3d 772, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“[W]e do not deem ‘official’ a disclosure made by someone other than the agency from which the information is being sought.”) (citations omitted); Valfells v. CIA, 717 F. Supp. 2d 110, 117 (D.D.C. 2010) (noting that FOIA plaintiffs must point to information in the public domain that was previously disclosed by the same agency). For the same reasons, the Court is not persuaded that USCIS has waived its right to withhold the document based on its agreement that the earlier version of the form did not require filing under seal because it was part of the record in the TechServe matter. Therefore, the Court finds that no official disclosure occurred, and defendants did not waive their ability to claim Exemption 7(E) for the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet.
19

3. Neufeld Memorandum
AILA contends that “[a]t least some of the redacted content” in the Neufeld Memorandum is also in the public domain and should be released. Pl.’s Br. at 15 (citing Watkins Decl., Exs. 10 & 21). Specifically, AILA contends that the BFCA Report serves as the basis for the Neufeld Memorandum. Pl.’s Br. at 16. The parties do not dispute that the BFCA Report has been publicly disclosed. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 55. Indeed, USCIS stated that it reconsidered its withholding of the Nuefeld Memorandum specifically because of the public availability of the BFCA Report. Defs.’ SMF ¶¶ 54-55.
AILA contends that “fraud indicators” redacted in the Neufeld Memorandum necessarily include the “fraud indicators” discussed in the BFCA Report.5 AILA also claims that the Neufeld Memorandum makes reference to the BFCA Report “when introducing

5

The final page of the BFCA Report identifies several

primary fraud or technical violation(s) indicators: (1) firms

with 25 of fewer employees have higher rates of fraud or

technical violation(s) than larger-sized companies; (2) firms

with an annual gross income of less than $10 million have higher

rates of fraud or technical violation(s) than firms with annual

gross income greater than $10 million; (3) firms in existence

less than 10 years have higher incidences of fraud or technical

violation(s) than those in existence for more than 10 years; (4)

H-1B petitions filed for accounting, human resources, business

analysts, sales and advertising occupations are more likely to

contain fraud or technical violation(s) than other occupational

categories; and (5) beneficiaries with only bachelor’s degrees

had higher fraud or technical violation(s) rates than those with

graduate degrees. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 3.

20

the guidance concerning fraud indicators.” Pl.’s Br. at 16. Defendants argue that AILA’s speculation as to the relationship between the BFCA Report and the Neufeld Memorandum falls short of the requirement to show that the information in the memorandum “matches” or is the specific information included in the BFCA Report. Defs.’ Br. at 25-26. The Court agrees. By making a general allegation about the relationship between the BFCA Report and the Neufeld Memorandum, AILA has fallen far short of showing that the redacted material in the Neufeld Memorandum is the specific information disclosed in the BFCA Report or that it matches the material in the BFCA Report. Accordingly, USCIS has not waived its right to claim an exemption for this document. See Public Citizen, 11 F.3d at 201.
4. “Newly-Identified Documents” Plaintiff’s final argument is that “[t]o the extent defendants’ newly-identified documents...also include segregable portions which are in the public domain, as discussed above with respect to the Neufeld Memorandum, defendants should be ordered to release such portions.” Pl.’s Br. at 16. AILA cites generally to Exhibits 22 through 25 to the Watkins Declaration, which are redacted documents produced by USCIS in response to AILA’s FOIA Requests and were reflected in defendants’ May 9,
21

2011 Vaughn Index. In response, the USCIS argues that AILA has failed to point to any redactions in those documents that it contends contain information that was officially released by USCIS, and AILA also fails to provide any analysis or legal argument. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the Court finds that AILA has failed to carry its initial burden of showing that the specific information contained in any of these documents exists in the public domain. See Public Citizen, 11 F.3d at 201.
B. Exemption 7(E)
Having found that no waiver occurred, the Court must now determine whether the agency properly withheld and redacted material in the Compliance Review Report Form, the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet, and the Neufeld Memorandum pursuant to Exemption 7(E).6 Plaintiff does not challenge the applicability of Exemption 7(E) to what it refers to as the “newly-identified documents” cited in the May 9, 2011 Vaughn Index. See Watkins Decl., Exs. 22-25.

6

As discussed more fully below, Exemption 7(E) protects

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes

from disclosure “to the extent that the production of such law

enforcement records or information . . . would disclose

techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or

prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to

risk circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E).

22

1. Defendants’ Stated Exemptions
Defendants have set forth the basis for their exemptions in
the October 27, 2010 Vaughn Submission. Defendants describe the
Compliance Review Report as
a questionnaire that is filled out by USCIS/ICE Site Inspectors, documenting their personal observations. Items 1-10 are the actual questions asked onsite, and provide the foundation for any additional impromptu or follow-up questions that might later be asked. More important, the decision whether to initiate a more scrutinizing investigation is, invariably, based upon the recommendation proffered by the author of the report.
Oct. 27, 2010 Vaughn Index, Watkins Decl., Ex. 21 at 4. The
USCIS explains that it asserts Exemption 7(E) because
[t]he public disclosure of the questions contained in this questionnaire will alert all to the precise nature of conduct, behavior, and conditions that will draw the attention of law enforcement authorities, and instruct those so disposed to simultaneously violate the law and avoid detection by adjusting their responses to the questions accordingly. Consequently, the investigative questions...are eligible for [the 7(E) Exemption] since their disclosure would impair the effectiveness of the fraud detection techniques revealed therein.
Id.
With respect to the Neufeld Memorandum, USCIS states that
that the document
reveals very particular and sensitive criteria (fraud indicators) used by adjudicators to determine which cases of suspected fraud to refer for further investigation . . . . Anyone in possession of this document would have, essentially, a roadmap by which they could follow to avoid attracting attention and close scrutiny by either ‘doctoring’ their H-1B
23

applications (or associated forms); ‘staging’ places of employment; manufacturing employment records; or engaging in any number of other ploys designed to deceive immigration and law enforcement authorities.
Id. at 1-2.
The USCIS describes the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet
as the “companion document” to the Neufeld Memorandum, “employed
to make referrals of suspected fraud cases to the USCIS Center
Fraud Detection Operation (CFDO).” The USCIS states that the
exemption applies because the document
is, literally, a checklist of fraud indicators that agency adjudicators are required to strictly adhere to in order to ensure that actionable fraud referrals are being sent to the Center Fraud Detection Operation (CFDO)..... [The document could be used] to determine, with surgical precision and consistent accuracy, the patterns of conduct and forms of operations to be avoided by potential defrauders seeking to skirt closer agency scrutiny and escape detention.... Accordingly, the document is being withheld to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of certain techniques and operations of current law enforcement significance.
Id. at 3-4.
2. Exemption 7(E) Generally
Exemption 7(E) protects records or information compiled for
law enforcement purposes from disclosure “to the extent that the
production of such law enforcement records or information . . .
would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” 5
24

U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). Courts have held that information pertaining to law enforcement techniques and procedures is properly withheld where disclosure reasonably could lead to circumvention of laws or regulations. See, e.g., Skinner v. Dep’t of Justice, 744 F. Supp. 2d 185, 214 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing cases). “[A] highly specific burden of showing how the law will be circumvented” is not required; instead, “exemption 7(E) only requires that [the agency] ‘demonstrate[] logically how the release of [the requested] information might create a risk of circumvention of the law.’” Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting PHE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 983 F.2d 248, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). “If an agency’s affidavit describes the justifications for withholding the information with specific detail, demonstrates that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and is not contradicted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of the agency’s bad faith, then summary judgment is warranted on the basis of the affidavit alone.” ACLU, 628 F.3d at 619.
While Exemption 7(E)’s protection is generally limited to techniques or procedures that are not well-known to the public, even commonly known procedures may be protected from disclosure if the disclosure could reduce or nullify their effectiveness. See, e.g., Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Comm., 337 F. Supp.
25

2d 146, 181 (D.D.C. 2004); see Barnard v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1, 23 (D.D.C. 2009) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument that because the public is generally aware of security clearance procedures including marking of travel documents, use of a computer database, and the use of a “no fly” list, agency is not required to disclose all details concerning those procedures); but see Goldstein v. Office of Indep. Counsel, No. 87-2028, 1999 WL 570862, *14 (D.D.C. July 29, 1999) (ordering disclosure of two documents that were over ten years old and discussed law enforcement techniques that had since become more widely known).
Plaintiff makes several general arguments as to why the Compliance Review Report Form, the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet, and the Neufeld Memorandum are not properly redacted pursuant to Exemption 7(E). AILA principally argues that because the BFCA Report made public several of the fraud indicators, those indicators are no longer exempt from disclosure because they are widely known. In support of that argument, plaintiff cites to cases that have found Exemption 7(E) does not cover information that is widely known or that constitutes basic law enforcement techniques. Pl.’s Br. at 1618. Plaintiff also argues that certain factors, such as gross income of a company, the number of employees in the company, and the number of years the company has been in existence, do not
26

“indicate if and how to circumvent agency regulation” and should not be exempt. Pl.’s Br. at 18.
Defendants argue that Exemption 7(E) has been properly invoked for all information withheld from AILA. Defendants assert that these records fall within the category of investigatory and prosecutorial guidelines that courts have found to be protected under Exemption 7(E). Defs.’ Br. at 18 (citing PHE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 983 F.2d 248, 250-51 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (holding that portions of an FBI manual describing patterns of violations, investigative techniques, and sources of information available to investigators were protected by 7(E))). Defendants argue that the application and interpretation of fraud indicators is not well known to the public and constitutes internal law enforcement data that 7(E) was designed to protect. Id. at 20 (citing Barnard, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 23.
The Court agrees with defendants that exemption 7(E) is properly invoked as to the Compliance Review Report, the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet, and the Neufeld Memorandum, and the Court notes that plaintiff has not challenged any other specific documents as improperly withheld under Exemption 7(E). The Court finds that defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that the disclosure of the fraud indicators reasonably could lead to circumvention of laws or regulations.
27

See Skinner, 744 F. Supp. 2d at 214. Specifically, the Court finds that the explanations provided by defendants indicate that the particular type of information withheld would provide a “roadmap” or “guidance” to those looking to circumvent the law, which would thwart future law enforcement efforts. See generally Oct. 27, 2010 Vaughn Index, Watkins Decl., Ex. 21.
Furthermore, the Court agrees that plaintiff has not rebutted defendants’ argument by establishing that those fraud indicators constitute “basic law enforcement techniques” that would be excluded from Exemption 7(E). See Barnard, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 23. The Court disagrees that factors such as the gross income of a company or the length of time a company has been in existence are factors that could not logically be used to circumvent agency regulation. In addition, the mere fact that the public may know about site visits generally, or may know some information about fraud indicators does not mean that defendants must disclose all details concerning fraud indicators. See id. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendants have properly asserted Exemption 7(E) with respect to the Compliance Review Report, the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet, and the Neufeld Memorandum.
28

C. Segregability
Even after determination that documents are exempt from disclosure, FOIA analysis is not properly concluded unless a court determines whether “any reasonably segregable portion of a record” can “be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). “So important is this requirement that ‘[b]efore approving the application of a FOIA exemption, the district court must make specific findings of segregability regarding the documents to be withheld.’” Elec. Frontier Found. v. Dep’t of Justice, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2011 WL 5966379, *10 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106)). The Court errs if it “simply approve[s] the withholding of an entire document without entering a finding on segregability or the lack thereof.” Powell v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 927 F.2d 1239, 1242 n. 4 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).
“It has long been the rule in this Circuit that non-exempt portions of a document must be disclosed unless they are inextricably intertwined with exempt portions.” Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The agency should, for example, “’describe what proportion of the information in [the] documents,’ if any, ‘is non-exempt and how that material is dispersed through the document[s].” Elec. Frontier Found., --- F. Supp. 2d at ----,
29

2011 WL 5966379, *11 (citing Mead Data Cent., Inc., 566 F.2d 242, 261 (D.C. Cir. 1977)); see King v. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 219 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Vaughn index must sufficiently identify the withheld material to enable the district court to make a rational decision whether the withheld material must be produced without actually viewing the documents). Where an agency has publicly disclosed information that is similar to what is being withheld, its Vaughn submission must be “sufficiently detailed” to distinguish the withheld information from the public information. Army Times Pub. Co. v. Dep’t of Air Force, 998 F.2d 1067, 1071-72 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Defendants argue that they have “established, with reasonable specificity, that responsive documents were redacted in part after a line-by-line review and after a determination that there were no reasonably segregable portions of documents appropriate for release.” Defs.’ Br. at 23 (citing Sub. Eggleston Decl. ¶ 60). Defendants conclude that they have therefore “complied with [their] duty to segregate exempt from non-exempt information.” Id. The Court disagrees.
1. October 27, 2010 Vaughn Index The October 27, 2010 Vaughn Index sets forth defendants’ basis for withholding or redacting certain information as exempt. USCIS states in the Substitute Eggleston Declaration
30

that the documents in the October 27 Vaughn Index were reviewed for segregability and that USCIS “released all reasonably segregable, nonexempt, non-privileged portions of the subject documents.” Sub. Eggleston Decl. ¶ 45.
The Court finds that USCIS’s October 27 Vaughn Index and the related paragraphs of the Substitute Eggleston Declaration to be inadequate to establish that all non-exempt, reasonably segregable portions of the documents disclosed have been produced. For example, the entries for the Compliance Review Report and the Neufeld Memorandum state only “[t]he balance of the document remains eligible for protection under the abovecited FOIA exemption.” Oct. 27, 2010 Vaughn Index, Watkins Decl. Ex. 21, at 1. With respect to the H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet, defendants indicate only that the “[a]gency continues to withhold balance based on above-cited FOIA exemption.” Id. at 2. The submissions fail to describe the proportion of exempt to non-exempt information and fail to establish that any non-exempt information is “inextricably intertwined” with exempt information. See Mead Data Cent., Inc., 566 F.2d at 260; McGehee v. Dep’t of Justice, 800 F. Supp. 2d 220, 238 (D.D.C. 2011) (“Defendant’s declarant’s statement that every effort was made to provide plaintiff with all material in the public domain and with all reasonably segregable portions of the releasable material falls far short of the
31

specificity required to justify non-segregation. Therefore, Defendant has not carried its burden of demonstrating that all segregable material has been disclosed.”) (citing Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Furthermore, because the BFCA Report and the Compliance Review Report Instructions share a common subject matter (fraud indicators) with the documents that USCIS has redacted and listed in the October 27, 2010 Vaughn Index, the Court finds that USCIS is required to specifically explain the difference between what it has deemed appropriate for public disclosure and what remains withheld. Specifically, defendants must specify how the redacted information differs from the BFCA Report and the Compliance Review Report Instructions. See Army Times Pub. Co. v. Dep’t of Air Force, 998 F.2d 1067, 1071-72 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (requiring Vaughn submission to be “sufficiently detailed” to distinguish between the information being withheld and any similar publicly-available information).
2. May 9, 2011 Vaughn Index The May 9, 2011 Vaughn Index sets forth defendants’ basis for withholding information from documents located in searches conducted during this litigation. With respect to those documents, the Substitute Eggleston Declaration states that
32

“[a]ll responsive documents were reviewed with an eye toward providing the fullest disclosure and, in furtherance of this goal, received a line-by-line examination in an effort to identify all reasonably segregable, unprivileged, nonexempt portions for release to plaintiff.” Sub. Eggleston Decl. ¶ 60.
The Court finds the May 9 Index to also be inadequate. First, the index is inadequate because none of the entries and the accompanying portions of the Substitute Eggleston Declaration specify the relationship between any exempt and nonexempt information in the documents. The Court emphasizes that this requirement applies to all information withheld under any exemption, and not only the documents withheld under exemption 7(E). See McGehee, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 238. Furthermore, with respect to the documents exempted under 7(E), the Court finds that the May 9 Index and accompanying portions of the Substitute Eggleston Declaration fail to specifically explain how the exempted information differs from the publicly-disclosed Compliance Review Report Instructions and the BFCA Report. For example, the document referenced on page 2 as “H-1B Primary Fraud Indicators for Referral (Rev. 08-28-08, D12)” appears from its description to relate to fraud indicators. See May 9, 2011 Vaughn Index, Watkins Decl., Ex. 20, at 2. The accompanying description does not, however, explain how the redacted information differs from information that the defendants have
33

chosen to publicly disclose. As explained above, the Court finds that USCIS is required to specifically explain the difference between what it has deemed appropriate for public disclosure and what remains withheld, in light of the existence of the publicly-disclosed BFCA Report and the Compliance Review Report Instructions. Specifically, for any documents that relate to the subject matter discussed in the BFCA Report and the Compliance Review Report Instructions, defendants must specify how the information redacted differs from what has been officially disclosed.
D. Resolution
Having found the USCIS’s Vaughn submissions inadequate, the Court has several options regarding how to now proceed in the case, including whether to inspect the documents in camera, requesting further affidavits, or allowing the plaintiff discovery. See Elec. Frontier Found., 2011 WL 5966379, at *11 (citing Spirko v. USPS, 147 F.3d 992, 997 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). Because a district court should not undertake in camera review of withheld documents as a substitute for requiring an agency’s explanation of its claims exemptions in accordance with Vaughn, see id., the Court finds that the best approach is to direct defendants to submit revised Vaughn submissions. See Army Times Pub. Co., 998 F.2d at 1071-72. The Court notes that the USCIS’s
34

revised Vaughn submissions must be sufficiently detailed such that the Court and plaintiff can conduct their own reviews of the segregability of the non-exempt information, particularly in light of the previously-disclosed information regarding fraud indicators in the BFCA Report (Watkins Decl., Ex. 2) and the Compliance Review Report Instructions produced by defendants in response to plaintiff’s FOIA Requests (Watkins Decl., Ex. 29). The Vaughn submissions should contain a segregability analysis for each document withheld in part or in full, identifying the proportion of exempt and non-exempt information, and specifically explaining why the withheld information cannot be produced.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that
defendants’ Vaughn submissions and accompanying Substitute Eggleston Declaration fail to set forth a sufficient basis that “any reasonably segregable portion” of the documents defendants seek to withhold have been provided to plaintiff. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Accordingly, defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment must be DENIED without prejudice, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be GRANTED insofar as it challenges the segregability analysis set forth by defendants. Defendants are hereby directed to file revised Vaughn submissions that take into account the deficiencies identified
35

by the Court by no later than April 30, 2012. The parties are

directed to file a joint recommendation for further proceedings

by no later than May 31, 2012. An appropriate order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

It is so ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge March 30, 2012

36

 
 Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 1 of 9
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10−cv−01224−EGS

TYPE−I

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan Case: 1:10−cv−00353−RCL Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

represented by Seth A. Watkins STEPTOE &JOHNSON, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429−3000 Fax: (202) 429−3902 Email: sethwatkins@steptoe.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Houda Morad STEPTOE &JOHNSON, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 862−5774 Email: hmorad@steptoe.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Defendant UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

represented by David Cotter Rybicki U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353−4024 Email: david.rybicki@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/06/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marian L. Borum U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Civil Division 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−6531 Fax: (202) 514−8780 Email: Marian.L.Borum@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Cotter Rybicki (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 2 of 9

Marian L. Borum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/20/2010
07/20/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010
07/27/2010 08/13/2010 08/17/2010 08/20/2010
08/20/2010 09/15/2010 09/17/2010 09/21/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616031364) filed by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
SUMMONS (4) Issued as to UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (jf, ) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
2 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests NONE by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. (jf, ) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES served on 7/20/2010, answer due 8/19/2010; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 7/20/2010, answer due 8/19/2010. (Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by David Cotter Rybicki on behalf of UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Rybicki, David) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
5 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. Case related to Case No. 10−00353. (Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
6 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise to Respond to the Complaint by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 6 defendants' motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise to respond to the complaint. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to 1 the complaint by no later than September 20, 2010. Plaintiff shall file its reply by no later than September 27, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 20, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 9/20/2010, Replies due by 9/27/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
7 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise to Respond to the Complaint by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 7 the motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to 1 the complaint. The defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by no later than October 4, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 17, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 10/4/2010, (clv, ) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 3 of 9

10/04/2010 10/27/2010 11/01/2010
11/02/2010 12/03/2010 12/08/2010 12/09/2010 12/10/2010 01/14/2011 01/14/2011
01/17/2011

8 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
9 NOTICE JOINT PROPOSAL CONCERNING CASE MANAGEMENT by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 9 the parties' joint proposal, the Court hereby ORDERS that defendants shall file their dispositive motion and produce all responsive records by no later than December 6, 2010. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants' motion, and plaintiff's cross−motion, by no later than January 14, 2011. Defendants' opposition to plaintiff's cross−motion, as well as any reply in support of defendants' dispositive motion, shall be filed by no later than February 14, 2011. Plaintiff's reply in support of its cross−motion shall be filed by no later than March 14, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 1, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: defendant's dispositive motion and all responsive records due by 12/6/10; plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion, and plaintiff's cross−motion due by 1/14/11; defendant's opposition to plaintiff's cross−motion, and reply in support of defendants' dispositive motion due by 2/14/2011; Plaintiff's reply in support of its cross−motion due by 3/14/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
10 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Move for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting defendants' motion for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion. Defendants shall file their dispositive motion by no later than December 10, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 8, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 12/10/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
11 MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Exhibit Def.'s Exhs. A−X, # 5 Declaration of Jill A. Eggleston)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
12 Unopposed MOTION for Order to File Exhibits Under Seal by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibits Under Seal, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
13 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Statement of Facts of Plaintiff, # 4 Statement of Facts − Response to Defendants', # 5 Declaration of Seth A. Watkins, # 6 Exhibit 1, # 7 Exhibit 2, # 8 Exhibit 3, # 9 Exhibit 4, # 10 Exhibit 5, # 11 Exhibit 6, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16 Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18)(Watkins, Seth) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/18/2011: # 21 Exhibit 7 (SEALED), # 22 Exhibit 8 (SEALED), # 23 Exhibit 15 (SEALED)) (jf, ). (Entered: 01/14/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 12 the motion to file Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8, and Exhibit 15 to plaintiff's cross−motion for summary judgment under seal, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to provide the Court with joint proposed redacted versions of the three exhibits in question. The parties shall submit a sealed filing with the Court including their joint proposed redactions by no later than January 31, 2011. In the event that the parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding the appropriate redactions, the parties shall jointly submit a sealed filing by that date that includes (1) one copy of the exhibits reflecting all agreed−upon redactions; and (2) two separate copies of the exhibits reflecting the additional

Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 4 of 9

01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011
02/03/2011 02/13/2011 02/17/2011 02/24/2011
02/25/2011

redactions proposed by each side. The parties are cautioned, however, that given the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records, see, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 ("It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents."), that redactions shall be made solely to the extent necessary to preserve the confidential or proprietary nature of the relevant information. Any party that abuses the redaction process may be sanctioned by the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 17, 2011. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/17/2011)
14 Memorandum in opposition to re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. (Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Parties joint proposed redactions due by 1/31/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
15 NOTICE of Filing Joint Response Under Seal by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
16 SEALED Joint Response to Minute Order on Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal filed by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 7, # 2 Exhibit 8, # 3 Exhibit 15 − various pages illegible )(zjf, ) Modified on 2/2/2011 (zjf, ). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 16 the parties' joint response filed on January 31, 2011, the 12 motion to file exhibits under seal is hereby DENIED as moot. The plaintiff is directed to file unsealed copies of Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8, and Exhibit 15 to plaintiff's cross−motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 3, 2011. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
17 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply &Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 02/13/2011)
18 NOTICE of Filing Unsealed Copies of Exhibits by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION re 13 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 7, # 2 Exhibit 8, # 3 Exhibit 15)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
19 Consent MOTION to Withdraw Defendants' 11 Motion for Summary Judgment &To Stay Further Summary−Judgment Briefing by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) Modified on 2/25/2011 to add docket link (jf, ). Added MOTION to Stay on 2/25/2011 (jf, ). (Entered: 02/24/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 19 the consent motion to withdraw defendants' motion for summary judgment and to stay further summary−judgment briefing. It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall conclude their renewed search for documents, provide updated Vaughn indices and supporting declarations, and produce all responsive, non−exempt records by no later than March 28, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment by no later than April 18, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file their cross−motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by no later than May 9, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff shall file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to defendants' cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than May 30, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file a reply in support of its cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than June 20, 2011. Signed by

Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 5 of 9

02/28/2011 03/24/2011 03/29/2011
03/30/2011 04/07/2011 04/26/2011 04/28/2011
04/29/2011 05/31/2011

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 25, 2011. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: plaintiff's renewed motion for summary jugdment due by 4/18/11; defendant's cross motions and oppositions due by 5/9/2011; plaintiff's reply and response to cross motions due by 5/30/2011; Defendant's reply to cross motions due by 6/20/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
20 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Renewed Search for Documents by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 20 the consent motion for an extension of time. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall conclude their renewed search for documents, provide updated Vaughn indices and supporting declarations, and produce all responsive, non−exempt records by no later than April 27, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment by no later than May 18, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file their cross−motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by no later than June 8, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff shall file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to defendants' cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than June 29, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file a reply in support of its cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than July 11, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 29, 2011. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: defendant's updated Vaughn indices and supporting declarations, and produce all responsive, non−exempt records due by 4/27/11; Motions for summary judgment due by 5/18/11; cross motions and responses due by 6/8/11; reply and response due by 6/29/11; reply due by 7/11/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
21 Consent MOTION to Stay Further Proceedings in the Event of a Federal Government Shutdown by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
22 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Renewed Search for Documents by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Jill Eggleston)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 22 the consent motion for an extension of time. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall conclude their renewed search for documents, provide updated Vaughn indices and supporting declarations, and produce all responsive, non−exempt records by no later than May 9, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment by no later than May 30, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file their cross−motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by no later than June 20, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff shall file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to defendants' cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than July 11, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file a reply in support of its cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than July 21, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 28, 2011. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/28/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Non−Exempt Records due by 5/9/11; Summary Judgment motions due by 5/30/2011; reply and Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/20/2011; Response and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/11/2011; reply due by 7/21/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
23 MOTION for Summary Judgment by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support,

Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 6 of 9

06/07/2011 06/13/2011 06/15/2011
06/15/2011 06/27/2011
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 07/13/2011 07/18/2011 07/18/2011

# 3 Declaration of Seth A. Watkins, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16 Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 15, # 19 Exhibit 16, # 20 Exhibit 17, # 21 Exhibit 18, # 22 Exhibit 19, # 23 Exhibit 20, # 24 Exhibit 21, # 25 Exhibit 22, # 26 Exhibit 23, # 27 Exhibit 24, # 28 Exhibit 25, # 29 Exhibit 26, # 30 Exhibit 27, # 31 Exhibit 28, # 32 Exhibit 29, # 33 Exhibit 30, # 34 Exhibit 31, # 35 Statement of Facts Not in Dispute)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
MINUTE ORDER denying 21 the consent motion to stay further proceedings in the event of a federal government shutdown as moot. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 7, 2011. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
24 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Cross−Move for Summary Judgment &Oppose Pl.'s Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 24 the consent motion for an extension of time. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file their cross−motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by no later than June 27, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff shall file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to defendants' cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than July 18, 2011; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file a reply in support of its cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than July 28, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 15, 2011. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions and response due by 6/27/2011. Reply and Response to Cross Motions due by 7/18/2011. Reply to Cross Motions due by 7/28/2011. (Entered: 06/15/2011)
25 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Statement of Facts Defs.' Opposition to Pl.'s Statement of Facts, # 5 Declaration Substitute Decl. of Jill Eggleston w/ Exhs. A−Z)(Rybicki, David) Modified on 7/26/2011 to correct docket text (jf, ). (Entered: 06/27/2011)
26 Memorandum in opposition to re 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Substitute Decl. of Jill Eggleston, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Statement of Facts Defs.' Opposition to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts)(Rybicki, David) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
ORDER denying 17 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as moot. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 28, 2011. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
27 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Oppose Defendants Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 27 the consent motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff shall file its opposition to 25 defendants' cross−motion and reply in support of 23 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by no later than July 25, 2011. Defendants shall file a reply in support of their 25 cross−motion for summary judgment by no later than August 4, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 18, 2011. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/25/11; Response to Cross Motions due by 7/25/2011. Reply to Cross Motions due by 8/4/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 7 of 9

07/25/2011
07/25/2011 08/04/2011 08/09/2011 10/06/2011 03/30/2012 03/30/2012 03/31/2012 04/03/2012 04/24/2012 04/25/2012 04/25/2012 05/22/2012 05/31/2012 06/02/2012 06/04/2012

28 REPLY to opposition to re 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute and Plaintiffs Statement of Genuine Material Issues)(Watkins, Seth) Modified on 7/26/2011 to correct docket text (jf, ). (Entered: 07/25/2011)
29 Memorandum in opposition to re 25 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. (See Docket Entry 28 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
30 REPLY to opposition to motion re 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Rybicki, David) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
31 NOTICE of Appearance by Houda Morad on behalf of AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Morad, Houda) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
32 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Marian L. Borum on behalf of All Defendants Substituting for attorney David C. Rybicki (Borum, Marian) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
33 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying 25 defendants' cross−motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 30, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
34 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 30, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons stated in 34 the Court's Memorandum Opinion and 33 Order issued March 30, 2012, 25 defendants' cross−motion for summary judgment is hereby denied. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 31, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/31/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: defendant's Vaughn Affidavits due by 4/30/2011. Status Report due by 5/31/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
35 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' revised Vaughn by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Borum, Marian) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 35 defendants' consent motion for enlargement of time. Defendants shall file their revised Vaughn affidavits by no later than May 22, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 25, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: defendant's revised Vaughn affidavits due by 5/22/2012. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
36 NOTICE to the Court by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Borum, Marian) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
37 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Joint Recommendation for Further Proceedings by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 37 joint motion for enlargement of time. The parties shall file their joint recommendation for further proceedings by no later than June 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 2, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/02/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties joint recommendation for further proceedings due by 6/15/2012. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 8 of 9

06/15/2012 06/21/2012 06/21/2012 07/16/2012 07/17/2012 07/17/2012 08/15/2012 08/17/2012 08/21/2012 09/14/2012 09/18/2012
09/18/2012 10/15/2012 10/17/2012
10/17/2012

38 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Joint Recommendation for Further Proceedings by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time. The parties shall file their joint recommendation for further proceedings by no later than July 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 21, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties joint recommendations for further proceedings due by 7/15/2012. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
39 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Joint Recommendation for Further Proceedings by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 39 joint motion for enlargement of time. The parties shall file a joint recommendation for further proceedings by no later than August 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 17, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties joint recommendations for further proceedings due by 8/15/2012. (tcb) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Joint Recommendation for Further Proceedings by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Borum, Marian) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 40 joint motion for an extension of time. The parties shall file a joint recommendation for further proceedings by no later than September 14, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 17, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/14/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
41 Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule and JOINT RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the 41 Joint Recommendation for Further Proceedings, in which the parties state that they have reached agreement with respect to all but four documents withheld from disclosure, identified as Documents 2, 6, 9 and 10, the court enters the following briefing schedule: Defendants shall file revised Vaughn affidavits with a brief of no more then 10 pages concerning Documents 2, 6, 9 and 10 justifying the sufficiency of the affidavits by no later than October 15, 2012, and plaintiff shall file a responsive brief of no more than 10 pages by no later than October 30, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 18, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's revised Vaughn affidavits with a briefdue by 10/15/2012. Plaintiff's Responses due by 10/30/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
42 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Revised Vaughn Submissions and Supporting Brief by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Borum, Marian) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 42 defendants' consent motion for extension of time. Defendants shall file revised Vaughn affidavits with a brief of no more than 10 pages concerning Documents 2, 6, 9 and 10 justifying the sufficiency of the affidavits by no later than November 14, 2012. Plaintiff shall file a responsive brief of no more than 10 pages by no later than November 29, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 17, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Revised Vaughn affidavits due by 11/14/2012. Responses due by 11/29/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 10/17/2012)

Case: 1:10-cv-1224 As of: 02/10/2013 09:49 PM EST 9 of 9

11/14/2012 12/13/2012 12/18/2012
12/18/2012 01/14/2013 01/15/2013
01/16/2013

43 NOTICE to the Court by UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Borum, Marian) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
44 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs Request for Attorneys Fees and Costs by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morad, Houda) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 44 Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time. AILA shall file its request for attorneys' fees and costs by no later than January 14, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 18, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: AILA request for attorneys; fees and costs is due by 1/14/2013. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
45 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff's Request for Attorneys Fees and Costs by AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Watkins, Seth) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 45 joint motion for enlargement of time for plaintiff to file its request for attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff shall file its request by no later than February 13, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 15, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs due by 2/13/2013. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/16/2013)