Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 6

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087) ZEITGEIST LAW PC
2 25 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102
3 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
4 Attorney for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER
5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9

)

10

)

CORA CURRIER,

)

11

)

12

Plaintiff,

) )

13

v.

) )

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE

) RELIEF

14 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, )

)

15 DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

)

)

16

and

)

)

17 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

)

)

18

Defendants. )

)

19

20

1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552,

21 for injunctive and other appropriate relief. Plaintiff Cora Currier seeks the expedited processing

22 and release of records requested from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of

23 State, and Department of Justice concerning the development and execution of travel

24 restrictions barring nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United

25 States. Ms. Currier is statutorily entitled to the expedited treatment she seeks.

26

//

27

//

28

-1-
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 6
1 PARTIES
2 2. Plaintiff Cora Currier is an employee of First Look Media Works, Inc. and a staff
3 reporter for The Intercept, an online news and journalism platform. Ms. Currier has covered
4 national security, counterterrorism, and immigration at The Intercept since 2014. Ms. Currier
5 resides in Marin County, California.
6 3. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a Department of the
7 Executive Branch of the United States Government. DHS is an “agency” within the meaning of 5
8 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). Customs and Border Protection is a component of DHS.
9 4. Defendant Department of State (“DOS”) is a Department of the Executive Branch of
10 the United States Government. DOS is an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
11 5. Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is a Department of the Executive Branch of
12 the United States Government. DOJ is an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
13 The Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of Legislative
14 Affairs, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Public Affairs, and U.S.
15 Marshals Service are components of DOJ.
16
17 JURISDICTION
18 6. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal
19 jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(B) and 552(a)(6)(C)(i). This Court
20 also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
21
22 VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
23 7. Venue is proper in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §
24 1391(e).
25 8. Assignment to the San Francisco division is proper pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) and
26 (d) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this district
27 and division, where Ms. Currier resides.
28
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 6

1

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

2

Executive Order No. 13,769

3

4

9. On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769 entitled

5 “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which took

6 immediate effect. The executive order was rolled out without any notice-and-comment period or

7 interagency review.

8

10. The executive order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and

9 Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, suspended entry of all refugees for 120 days,

10 and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees from entering the country.

11

11. The executive order’s travel restrictions attracted intense media attention from

12 around the world and sparked protests throughout the United States.

13

12. Within days, more than a dozen lawsuits were filed across the country challenging

14 the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 13,769. Several district courts issued temporary

15 injunctive relief barring enforcement of the executive order, including an order entered by the

16 United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and upheld by the Ninth

17 Circuit Court of Appeals on February 9, 2017. These courts found that the travel restrictions were

18 motivated by a desire to ban Muslims from entering the country, and there was a substantial

19 likelihood that the order violated the Establishment Clause. The district court injunctions remain

20 in effect.

21

13. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13,780, which was

22 to become effective and revoke Executive Order No. 13,769 on March 16, 2017. Like its

23 predecessor, the new order aimed to restrict travel to the United States from several

24 predominantly Muslim countries.

25

14. Before Executive Order No. 13,780 could take effect, federal district courts in

26 Maryland and Hawai’i issued injunctions to block portions of it on constitutional grounds, again

27 finding a substantial likelihood that the order violated the Establishment Clause. These findings

28 were based in significant part on statements made by members of the Trump Administration prior

-3-
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 4 of 6

1 to the signing of the executive orders.
2

3

Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act Requests

and Requests for Expedited Processing 4

5

15. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier and her Intercept colleague Jenna McLaughlin

6 requested under the FOIA records concerning DHS’s analysis and implementation of Executive

7 Order No. 13,769, specifically identifying CBP as an agency component whose records should be

8 searched.

9

16. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin requested under the FOIA

10 records concerning DOS’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769.

11

17. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin requested under the FOIA

12 records concerning the DOJ’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769

13 located within the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office

14 of Legal Counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs, and U.S. Marshals Service.

15

18. Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin formally requested that the processing of all these

16 requests be expedited because they pertain to information about which there is “[a]n urgency to

17 inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity,” and were “made by a

18 person primarily engaged in disseminating information.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).

19

19. Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin also requested that the requests to DHS and DOJ

20 components be expedited pursuant to agency regulations because they involve “[a] matter of

21 widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the

22 government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1)(iv) and 28 C.F.R. §

23 16.5(e)(1)(iv).

24

20. By letter dated February 13, 2017, DHS acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier and

25 Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request and granted expedited processing.

26

21. By letter dated February 9, 2017, DOS acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier and Ms.

27 McLaughlin’s FOIA request and granted expedited processing.

28

-4-
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 5 of 6
1 22. By email dated February 13, 2017, the DOJ Office of Information Policy (“OIP”)
2 asked whether the requesters would like a search conducted in the DOJ Office of Public Affairs
3 in response to their request. They responded that they would like such a search to be performed.
4 23. By letter dated February 14, 2017, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel acknowledged
5 receipt of Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request and granted expedited processing.
6 24. By letter dated February 17, 2017, the DOJ OIP acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier
7 and Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA requests to the DOJ Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy
8 Attorney General, Public Affairs, and Legislative Affairs. OIP granted expedited processing on
9 behalf of these components.
10 25. By email dated February 17, 2017, DHS CBP acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier
11 and Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request.
12 26. By letter dated March 28, 2017, the U.S. Marshals Service acknowledged receipt of
13 Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request and denied expedited processing. They
14 appealed the denial to the DOJ OIP by letter dated March 29, 2017.
15 27. To date, the agencies have not completed the processing of any of the requests nor
16 informed Plaintiff of an anticipated date for the completion of the processing of the requests.
17 28. Not only have DHS, DOS and DOJ failed to expedite the processing of Plaintiff’s
18 requests, the agencies have also exceeded the generally applicable 20-day statutory deadline for
19 the processing of any FOIA request.
20 29. Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.
21 30. Defendants DHS, DOS and DOJ have wrongfully withheld the requested records
22 from Plaintiff.
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 1 Filed 03/31/17 Page 6 of 6

1

CAUSE OF ACTION

2

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for

3

Wrongful Withholding of Agency Records

4

31. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-30.

5

32. DHS, DOS and DOJ have wrongfully withheld agency records requested by Plaintiff

6 by failing to comply with the statutory time limit for the processing of FOIA requests.

7

33. Plaintiff has exhausted the applicable administrative remedies with respect to DHS,

8 DOS and DOJ’s wrongful withholding of the requested records.

9

34. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief with respect to the release and disclosure of the

10 requested documents.

11

12

Requested Relief

13 Plaintiff prays that this Court:

14

A. order Defendants DHS, DOS and DOJ to process immediately the requested records

15 in their entirety;

16

B. order Defendants DHS, DOS and DOJ, upon completion of such expedited

17 processing, to disclose the requested records in their entirety and make copies available to

18 Plaintiff;

19

C. provide for expeditious proceedings in this action;

20

D. award Plaintiff her costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this action; and

21

E. grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

22

23 DATED: March 31, 2017 24 25 26

By /s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664

27

Attorney for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER

28

-6-
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 8

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087) ZEITGEIST LAW PC
2 25 Taylor St. 3 San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law 4 Telephone: (415) 830-6664

5 Attorney for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10

) )

11 CORA CURRIER,

) Case No. 3:17-cv-01799 )

12

Plaintiff,

) )

13

v.

) )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

14

) FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, )

15 DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

) )

16 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

) )

17 and

) )

18 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

) )

19 20

)

Defendants.

) )

21 1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §
22 552, for injunctive and other appropriate relief. Plaintiff Cora Currier seeks the expedited
23 processing and release of records requested from the Department of Homeland Security,
24 Department of State, Department of Justice, and Department of Defense concerning the
25 development and execution of travel restrictions barring nationals of several Muslim-majority
26 countries from entering the United States. Ms. Currier is statutorily entitled to the expedited
27 treatment she seeks.
28

-1-

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 8

1

PARTIES

2

2. Plaintiff Cora Currier is an employee of First Look Media Works, Inc. and a staff

3 reporter for The Intercept, an online news and journalism platform. Ms. Currier has covered

4 national security, counterterrorism, and immigration at The Intercept since 2014. She resides in

5 Marin County, California.

6

3. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a Department of the

7 Executive Branch of the United States Government. DHS is an “agency” within the meaning of 5

8 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is a component of DHS.

9

4. Defendant Department of State (“DOS”) is a Department of the Executive Branch

10 of the United States Government. DOS is an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §

11 552(f)(1).

12

5. Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is a Department of the Executive

13 Branch of the United States Government. DOJ is an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §

14 552(f)(1). The Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of

15 Legislative Affairs, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Public Affairs,

16 U.S. Marshals Service, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Federal Bureau of

17 Investigation are components of DOJ.

18

6. Defendant Department of Defense (“DOD”) is a Department of the Executive

19 Branch of the United States Government. DOD is an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §

20 552(f)(1).

21

JURISDICTION

22

7. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal

23 jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(B) and 552(a)(6)(C)(i). This Court

24 also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

25 VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
26 8. Venue is proper in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §
27 1391(e).
28

-2-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01799

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14 Filed 05/19/17 Page 3 of 8

1

9. Assignment to the San Francisco division is proper pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c)

2 and (d) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this

3 district and division, where Ms. Currier resides and works.

4

BACKGROUND

5

The Executive Orders Banning Nationals of Several

6

Muslim-Majority Countries From Entering the United States

7

10. On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769 entitled

8 “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which took

9 immediate effect. The executive order was issued without any notice-and-comment period or

10 interagency review.

11

11. The executive order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,

12 and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, suspended entry of all refugees for 120

13 days, and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees from entering the country.

14

12. The executive order attracted intense media attention from around the world and

15 sparked protests throughout the United States.

16

13. Within days, more than a dozen lawsuits were filed across the country challenging

17 the constitutionality of the travel restrictions. Several district courts issued temporary injunctive

18 relief barring enforcement of Executive Order No. 13,769, including an order entered by the

19 United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and upheld by the Ninth

20 Circuit Court of Appeals on February 9, 2017. These courts found that the travel restrictions were

21 motivated by a desire to ban Muslims from entering the country, and there was a substantial

22 likelihood that the order violated the Establishment Clause. The district court injunctions remain

23 in effect.

24

14. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13,780, which

25 was to become effective and revoke Executive Order No. 13,769 on March 16, 2017. Like its

26 predecessor, the new order aimed to restrict nationals of several predominantly Muslim countries

27 from entering the United States.

28

15. Before Executive Order No. 13,780 could take effect, federal district courts in

-3-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01799

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14 Filed 05/19/17 Page 4 of 8

1 Maryland and Hawai’i issued injunctions to block portions of it on constitutional grounds, again

2 finding a substantial likelihood that the order violated the Establishment Clause.

3

16. Litigation over both Executive Order 13,769 and 13,780 remains ongoing in

4 courts throughout the country, including before the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit Courts of

5 Appeal. A key issue in this litigation is whether the executive orders intentionally targeted

6 individuals based on their religion in violation of the First Amendment.

7

Plaintiff’s First Set of Freedom of Information Act Requests and

Requests for Expedited Processing 8

17. On February 1, 2017, just five days after President Trump issued Executive Order 9

No. 13,769, Ms. Currier and her Intercept colleague Jenna McLaughlin submitted a FOIA request 10

to DHS for records concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of the executive order 11

from January 20, 2017 to the date of the request, specifically identifying CBP as an agency 12

component whose records should be searched. 13

18. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin submitted a FOIA request 14

to DOS for records about the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 15

13,769 from January 20, 2017 to the date of the request. 16

19. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin submitted FOIA requests 17

for records about the DOJ’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 located 18

within the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of 19

Legal Counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs, and U.S. Marshals Service from January 20, 2017 20

to the date of the request. 21

20. Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin formally requested that the processing of all 22

these requests be expedited because they pertain to information about which there is “[a]n 23

urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity,” and were 24

“made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.” 5 U.S.C. § 25

552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). 26

21. Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin also requested that the requests to DHS and DOJ 27

components be expedited pursuant to agency regulations because they involve “[a] matter of 28

-4-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01799

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14 Filed 05/19/17 Page 5 of 8

1 widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the

2 government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1)(iv) and 28 C.F.R. §

3 16.5(e)(1)(iv).

4

22. By letter dated February 13, 2017, DHS acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier and

5 Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request and granted expedited processing.

6

23. By letter dated February 9, 2017, DOS acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier and

7 Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request and granted expedited processing.

8

24. By email dated February 13, 2017, the DOJ Office of Information Policy asked

9 whether the requesters would like a search conducted in the DOJ Office of Public Affairs in

10 response to their request. They responded that they would like such a search to be performed.

11

25. By letter dated February 14, 2017, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel

12 acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request and granted expedited

13 processing.

14

26. By letter dated February 17, 2017, the DOJ Office of Information Policy

15 acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA requests to the DOJ Offices of

16 the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs. The DOJ

17 Office of Information Policy granted expedited processing on behalf of these components.

18

27. By email dated February 17, 2017, DHS CBP acknowledged receipt of Ms.

19 Currier and Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request.

20

28. By letter dated March 28, 2017, the U.S. Marshals Service acknowledged receipt

21 of Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin’s FOIA request and denied expedited processing. The

22 requesters appealed the denial to the DOJ Office of Information Policy by letter dated March 29,

23 2017. The DOJ Office of Information Policy reversed the decision in a letter emailed to the

24 plaintiff’s counsel on April 4, 2017 and granted expedited processing.

25 //

26 //

27 //

28 //

-5-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01799

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14 Filed 05/19/17 Page 6 of 8

1 Plaintiff’s Second Set of Freedom of Information Act Requests and

2

Requests for Expedited Processing

3

29. On April 3, 2017, after the issuance of Executive Order No. 13,780, Ms. Currier

4 submitted a FOIA request to DHS for records concerning the agency’s analysis and

5 implementation of Executive Order Nos. 13,769 and 13,780 from February 1, 2017 to the date of

6 the request. Ms. Currier specifically identified CBP and the Office of the Inspector General as

7 agency components whose records should be searched.

8

30. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to DOS for records

9 concerning the analysis and implementation of Executive Order Nos. 13,769 and 13,780 from

10 February 1, 2017 to the date of the request.

11

31. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted FOIA requests for records about the

12 DOJ’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order Nos. 13,769 and 13,780 located within

13 the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of Legislative

14 Affairs, Office of Public Affairs, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office for United States

15 Attorneys, and Federal Bureau of Investigation from February 1, 2017 to the date of the request.

16

32. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to DOD for records

17 about the agency’s analysis of the impact of Executive Order Nos. 13,769 and 13,780 from

18 January 20, 2017 to the date of the request.

19

33. Ms. Currier formally requested that the processing of all these requests be

20 expedited because they pertain to information about which there is “[a]n urgency to inform the

21 public about an actual or alleged federal government activity,” and were “made by a person

22 primarily engaged in disseminating information.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).

23

34. Ms. Currier also requested that the requests to DHS and DOJ components be

24 expedited pursuant to agency regulations because they involve “[a] matter of widespread and

25 exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s

26 integrity which affect public confidence.” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1)(iv) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv).

27

35. By letter dated April 4, 2017, DHS acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier’s FOIA

28 request and granted expedited processing.
-6-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01799

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14 Filed 05/19/17 Page 7 of 8

1

36. By letter dated April 4, 2017, DOS acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier’s FOIA

2 request and granted expedited processing.

3

37. By letter dated April 5, 2017, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel acknowledged

4 receipt of Ms. Currier’s FOIA request and granted expedited processing.

5

38. By letter dated April 13, 2017, the DOJ Office of Information Policy

6 acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier’s FOIA request to the DOJ Offices of the Attorney General,

7 Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs and granted expedited

8 processing on behalf of these components.

9

39. On April 7, 2017, the DOJ Executive Office for United States Attorneys informed

10 Ms. Currier that it had denied expedited processing for her request. She appealed the denial of

11 expedited processing on April 9, 2017. The DOJ Office of Information Policy reversed the

12 decision in a letter emailed to the plaintiff’s counsel on April 18, 2017 and granted expedited

13 processing.

14

40. By letter dated April 7, 2017, DOD acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier’s FOIA

15 request and denied expedited processing. Plaintiff appealed the denial of expedited processing on

16 April 11, 2017. DOD granted expedited processing on May 5, 2017.

17

41. By letter dated April 27, 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation granted

18 expedited processing of Ms. Currier’s FOIA request.

19

42. To date, even though all of Plaintiff’s requests have been granted expedited

20 processing, the agencies have not completed the processing of the requests nor informed Plaintiff

21 of an anticipated date for the completion of the processing of the requests.

22

43. Not only have Defendants failed to expedite the processing of Plaintiff’s requests,

23 the agencies have exceeded the generally applicable 20-day statutory deadline for the processing

24 of any FOIA request.

25

44. Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies for all requests.

26

45. Defendants have wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff.

27 //

28 //

-7-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01799

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14 Filed 05/19/17 Page 8 of 8

1

CAUSE OF ACTION

2

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for

Wrongful Withholding of Agency Records 3
46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-45.

4 47. Defendants have wrongfully withheld agency records requested by Plaintiff by

5 failing to comply with the statutory time limit for the processing of FOIA requests.

6 48. Plaintiff has exhausted the applicable administrative remedies with respect to

7 Defendants’ wrongful withholding of the requested records.

8 49. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief with respect to the release and disclosure of

9 the requested documents.

10

11

REQUESTED RELIEF

12 Plaintiff prays that this Court:

13

A. Order Defendants DHS, DOS, DOJ and DOD to process immediately the requested

14 records in their entirety;

15

B. Order Defendants DHS, DOS, DOJ, and DOD upon completion of such expedited

16 processing, to disclose the requested records in their entirety and make copies available to

17 Plaintiff;

18

C. Provide for expeditious proceedings in this action;

19

D. Award Plaintiff her costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this action; and

20

E. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

21 22 DATED: May 19, 2017 23 24 25

By /s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664

26

Attorney for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER

27

28
-8-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01799

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14-1 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the ___N__o_rt_h_e_rn_ DDiissttrriicctt ooff C__a_li_fo_r_n_i_a__

Cora Currier
Plaintiff(s)
v. Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Justice, and Department of
Defense
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01799

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)
Department of Defense Office of General Counsel 1400 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1400

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 14-1 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01799

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 22

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087)
Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law 2 Kendra Albert (SBN 314839)
3 Email: kendra@zeitgeist.law ZEITGEIST LAW PC
4 25 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102
5 Telephone: (415) 830-6664

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER 7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

)

12 CORA CURRIER,

) ) Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

13

)

Plaintiff, )

14

)

v.

) PLAINTIFF CORA CURRIER’S

15 16

DEPARTMENT et al.,

OF

HOMELAND

SECURITY,

) ) )

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

17

Defendants.

) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY ) INJUNCTION

18

)

)

19

) Date: August 24, 2017

20

) Time: 9:00 a.m. ) Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor

21

) Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

)

22

)

) 23

24

25

26

27

28
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 22

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

3 I.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

4 II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..................................................................... 2

5 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... 2

6

A. THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON IMMIGRATION, ACCUSATIONS OF ANIMUS, AND

7

SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ......................................................................... 2

8

B. MS. CURRIER’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS FOR RECORDS ABOUT

9

THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................................................................................. 5

10 IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 6

11

A. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED RELIEF ............................ 7

12

B. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO ENTRY OF AN ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ....... 7

13

1. Ms. Currier is Likely to Prevail Upon the Merits of Her Claim ..................... 8

14
15
16
17
18
19 V.
20

2. Ms. Currier Will Suffer Irreparable Injury in the Absence of the Requested Injunctive Relief............................................................................................ 10
3. The Balance of Equities Favors Ms. Currier ................................................ 11
4. The Public Interest Favors the Requested Relief .......................................... 12
C. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER DEFENDANTS TO PROCESS MS. CURRIER’S FOIA REQUESTS IMMEDIATELY........................................................................................... 13
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 15

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-i-

PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF

PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 22

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 FEDERAL CASES

3

ACLU v. Dep’t of Defense,

4

339 F. Supp. 2d 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................................................... 14

5 ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice,

6

321 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2004) ................................................................................................ 13

7 Aguilera v. FBI, 941 F. Supp. 144 (D.D.C. 1996) ................................................................................................... 14
8

Al-Fayed v. CIA,

9

254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 7, 9

10 Ali v. Trump,

11

2:17-cv-00135 (W.D. Wa. filed Jan. 30, 2017) .............................................................................. 4

12 Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................ 8
13

14 Al-Mowafak v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-00557-WHO (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 2, 2017) ............................................................... 4

15

Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump,

16

No. 2:17-cv-10310-VAR-SDD (filed E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2017) ................................................... 5

17 Aziz v. Trump,

18

No. 1:17-cv-116, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) ....................................................... 3

19 Cherokee National of Okla. v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................... 13
20

21

Cleaver v. Kelley, 427 F. Supp. 80 (D.D.C. 1976) ..................................................................................................... 14

22

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund,

23

473 U.S. 788 (1985)...................................................................................................................... 12

24 Doe v. Trump,

25

2:17-cv-00178-JLR (W.D. Wa. filed Feb. 7, 2017)........................................................................ 4

26 Edmonds v. FBI, No. 02-1294, 2002 WL 32539613 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2002)............................................................ 13
27

28

-ii-

PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF

PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 22

1 Elec. Frontier Found. v. Office of Dir. of Nat. Intelligence, No. C 07-5278 SI, 2007 WL 4208311 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) ........................................ passim
2

3 Elec. Frontier Found. v. Office of the Dir. of Nat. Intelligence, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ................................................................................. passim

4

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice,

5

416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006) ................................................................................ 9, 10, 13, 14

6 Gerstein v. CIA,

7

No. C-06-4643 MMC, 2006 WL 3462659 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006) ............................ 10, 12, 14

8 Gerstein v. CIA,
No. C-06-4643 MMC, 2006 WL 3462658 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006) ........................................ 14 9

Gilmore v. Dep’t of Energy,

10

33 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (N.D. Cal. 1998) ............................................................................................ 8

11 Hagig v. Trump,

12

No. 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ (D. Colo. filed Jan. 30, 2017) .................................................................. 4

13 Hawaii v. Trump,

14

No. 17-00050 DKW-KS, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) ........................................ 4

15 Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-00050 DKW-KS, 2017 WL 1167383 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2017) ........................................ 4

16

Hawaii v. Trump,

17

859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam)...................................................................................... 4

18 Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump,

19

857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................................... 4

20 Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. TDC-17-036, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) ................................................ 4, 12
21

22 Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (per curiam) ........................................................................... 4

23

Jacksonville Port Authr. v. Adams,

24

556 F.2d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ........................................................................................................ 13

25 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy,

26

191 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2002) .............................................................................................. 14

27 Local Lodge No. 1266, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Panoramic Corp.,

668 F.2d 276 (7th Cir. 1981)......................................................................................................... 11

28

-iii-

PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF

PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 22

1

Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp.,

2

690 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................................ 11

3 Martins v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.,

4

962 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .......................................................................................... 7

5 Mayo v. U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 839 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. Cal. 1992) ............................................................................................... 13
6

7 Mohammed v. United States, 2:17-cv-00786-SJO-GJS (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 30, 2017)................................................................ 4

8

Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish,

9

541 U.S. 157 (2004)...................................................................................................................... 12

10 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Dep’t of Energy,

11

191 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2002) .......................................................................................... 13, 14

12 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254 (1964)...................................................................................................................... 12 13

14

Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F. 2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ..................................................................................................... 14

15 Pars Equality Ctr. v. Trump,

16

No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC (D.D.C. filed Feb. 2, 2017) ..................................................................... 4

17 Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States,

18

837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................... 10

19 Sarsour v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 30, 2017) ......................................................... 5

20

Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc.,

21

739 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................................ 7

22 Tawfeeq v. Dep’t of Homeland Security,

23

1:17-cv-00353 (N.D. Ga. filed Jan. 30, 2017) ................................................................................ 4

24 United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1988) ........................................................................................................ 10
25
26 Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ...................................................................................................... 14
27

28

-iv-

PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF

PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 22

1 Wadelton v. Dep’t of State, 941 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D.D.C. 2013) ................................................................................................ 9
2

3 Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR (W.D. Wa. filed Jan. 30, 2017)................................................................ 4

4

Washington v. Trump,

5

No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) ............................................... 3

6 Winter v. Natural. Res. Def. Council,

7

555 U.S. 7 (2008)............................................................................................................................ 7

8

FEDERAL STATUTES

9 5 U.S.C. § 552............................................................................................................................passim
10 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) ...................................................................................................................... 7 11
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) .................................................................................................................. 6, 7 12
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C) ...................................................................................................................... 7 13 14 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i)................................................................................................................... 8
15 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I)............................................................................................................ 13

16 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii)........................................................................................................passim

17 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v) .................................................................................................................. 8

18 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II)............................................................................................................. 5
19 OTHER AUTHORITIES
20
@realDonaldTrump, TWITTER (June 5, 2017, 3:29 AM) ................................................................... 4 21

22 Emanuella Grinberg and Eliott C. McLaughlin, Travel Ban Protests Stretch Into Third Day From US to UK, CNN (Jan. 31, 2017)...................................................................................................... 3

23

Glenn Thrush, Trump’s New Travel Ban Blocks Migrants From Six Nations, Sparing Iraq, N.Y.

24

TIMES (March 6, 2017) ................................................................................................................... 3

25 Jeffrey Gettleman, State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump’s Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures, N.Y. TIMES

26

(Jan. 31, 2017)................................................................................................................................. 3

27 Michael D. Shear, Nicholas Kulish & Alan Feuer, Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid

Chaos and Outcry Worldwide, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 28, 2017) ........................................................... 3

28

-v-

PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF

PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 22

1 Protests Erupt at Airports Following Trump Travel Ban, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Jan. 29, 2017) ......... 3
2

3 Rebecca Savransky, Giuliani: Trump Asked Me How to do a Muslim Ban ‘Legally,’ THE HILL (Jan. 29, 2017) ......................................................................................................................................... 2

4

Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General, THE WHITE HOUSE

5

(Jan. 30, 2017)................................................................................................................................. 3

6 Trump’s Travel Ban Sparks Mass Confusion as Conflicting Details Emerge, CBC NEWS (Jan. 29,

7

2017) ............................................................................................................................................... 3

8

FEDERAL RULES

9 Supreme Court Rule 25....................................................................................................................... 4

10

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

11 Executive Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 ....................................................................... passim
12
Executive Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017).............................................. 3, 4, 6 13

14 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1)(ii) ........................................................................................................................ 9

15 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1)(iv) ................................................................................................................... 5, 9

16 22 C.F.R. § 171.11(f)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 9

17 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii) .................................................................................................................... 9
18 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv) ............................................................................................................... 5, 9
19 32 C.F.R. § 286.8(e)(1)(i)(B).............................................................................................................. 9
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-vi-

PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF

PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 22

1 TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 24, 2017 or as soon thereafter as the matter may
3 be heard, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom F,
4 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Plaintiff Cora Currier will, and
5 hereby does, move for an order granting preliminary injunctive relief.
6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Ms. Currier seeks to enjoin the defendant
7 federal agencies from impeding her efforts to expeditiously obtain government records concerning
8 the development and implementation of two executive orders restricting entry of nationals from
9 several Muslim-majority countries. Ms. Currier respectfully asks this Court to order the Defendants
10 to complete the expedited processing of her Freedom of Information Act requests no later than
11 September 5, 2017. This motion is based on this notice of motion, the memorandum of points and
12 authorities in support of this motion, the declaration of Marcia Hofmann and attached exhibits in
13 support of this motion, the proposed order, all papers and records on file with the Clerk or which
14 may be submitted prior to or at the time of the hearing, and any further evidence which may be
15 offered.
16

17

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

18 I. INTRODUCTION

19

This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking

20 the expedited processing and release of records held by four federal agencies: the Department of

21 Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State, and Department of Defense.

22 Plaintiff Cora Currier is a journalist who has submitted a series of FOIA requests to these agencies

23 seeking information related to the development and implementation of President Trump’s

24 controversial effort to prevent nationals from several Muslim-majority countries from entering the

25 United States. Defendants acknowledge that the requested information qualifies for expedited

26 processing, and each agency and component has granted Ms. Currier’s requests for such treatment.

27 Nonetheless, in violation of the FOIA and Defendants’ own regulations, the agencies have failed to

28 process Ms. Currier’s requests even within the statutory time frame (20 business days) for a
-1-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 22

1 standard request that is not entitled to expedited treatment. Defendants’ failure to process the

2 requests violates the law.

3 As Defendants forestall compliance with Ms. Currier’s FOIA requests, courts around the

4 country—including the Supreme Court—are weighing the legality of the executive orders,

5 including whether unconstitutional animus motivated the Executive Branch to impose the travel

6 restrictions. Because Ms. Currier’s rights and Defendants’ obligations are highly time-sensitive,

7 Ms. Currier respectfully requests the entry of an order compelling the agencies to process and

8 disclose the requested records no later than September 5, 2017, so that she can report on the

9 documents while they are still newsworthy and can inform the public debate surrounding the travel

10 ban.

11

II. 12

STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED Whether Ms. Currier is entitled to injunctive relief to ensure timely processing of her FOIA

13 requests.

14

15 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

16

A. The “Travel Ban” Executive Orders and Subsequent Judicial Proceedings

17

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order entitled

18 “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which was intended to

19 take immediate effect. Exec. Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (“EO-1”). The order banned

20 nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States

21 for 90 days, suspended entry of all refugees for 120 days, and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees

22 from entering the country. Rudy Giuliani, a top advisor to President Trump, publicly stated that

23 EO-1 had been developed to implement a “Muslim ban” promised by President Trump during his 24 campaign.1

25

26
27 1 Rebecca Savransky, Giuliani: Trump Asked Me How to do a Muslim Ban ‘Legally,’ THE HILL (Jan. 29, 2017), http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-
28 how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally.
-2-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 10 of 22

1 EO-1 attracted immense international media attention and sparked public protests around
2 the world.2 It was also met with resistance within the United States government. For example, then3
acting Attorney General Sally Yates declined to enforce the travel ban and was dismissed from her 4 position.3 Approximately a thousand State Department employees joined an internal dissent memo 5 denouncing the executive order.4 Military officials reportedly expressed concern about the effect of 6
the travel ban on the fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and worried that it would 7 hamper cooperation with Iraq and other coalition partners.5 8
EO-1 prompted a wave of legal challenges throughout the country. Some courts granted 9
temporary injunctive relief barring enforcement of certain provisions of the travel ban. See, e.g., 10
Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116, 2017 WL 580855 at *11 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017); Washington v. 11
Trump, No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017), aff’d Washington 12
v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017), en banc rehearing denied, 858 F. 3d 1168 (9th Cir. 13
2017). 14
In midst of these judicial proceedings, President Trump signed a second executive order, 15
which revoked EO-1. Executive Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (“EO-2”). 16

17 2 See, e.g., Michael D. Shear, Nicholas Kulish & Alan Feuer, Judge Blocks Trump Order on

Refugees Amid Chaos and Outcry Worldwide, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.co 18 m/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-

19

immigration-order.html; Protests Erupt at Airports Following Trump Travel Ban, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Jan. 29, 2017), https://apnews.com/98d4bed7e9414a86bfefc28c5f7595b; Trump’s Travel

20 Ban Sparks Mass Confusion as Conflicting Details Emerge, CBC NEWS (Jan. 29, 2017), http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-immigration-refugee-travel-executive-order-1.3957205;

21 Emanuella Grinberg and Eliott C. McLaughlin, Travel Ban Protests Stretch Into Third Day From

US to UK, CNN (Jan. 31, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/ 2017/01/30/politics/travel-ban-protests22 immigration/index.html.

23 3 Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General, THE WHITE HOUSE
(Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/30/statement-appointment24 dana-boente-acting-attorney-general.

25 4 Jeffrey Gettleman, State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump’s Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures, N.Y.
TIMES (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-dept-dissent26 cable-trump-immigration-order.html?mcubz=1.

27 5 Glenn Thrush, Trump’s New Travel Ban Blocks Migrants From Six Nations, Sparing Iraq, N.Y. TIMES (March 6, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/travel-ban-muslim-
28 trump.html.
-3-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 11 of 22
1 EO-2 also restricted nationals of several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United
2 States, but was narrower in scope than EO-1. President Trump characterized the new order as “the
3 watered down, politically correct” version of its predecessor.6 4
A wave of legal challenges were brought around the country before EO-2 could take effect. 5
Federal district courts in Maryland and Hawaii found a substantial likelihood that the travel 6
restrictions violated the Establishment Clause and issued nationwide injunctions blocking portions 7
of it. Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-00050 DKW-KS, 2017 WL 1167383 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2017) 8
(entering preliminary injunction); Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-00050 DKW-KS, 2017 WL 1011673 9
(D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) (entering temporary restraining order); Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. 10
Trump, No. TDC-17-036, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017). The Fourth and Ninth 11
Circuits largely upheld the injunctions. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554, 12
606 (4th Cir. 2017); Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741, 789 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). 13
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the circuit court decisions 14
in International Refugee Assistance Project and Hawaii. Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 15
__ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2089 (2017) (per curiam). The Court will hear consolidated argument 16
during the first session of October Term 2017. Id. at 2086. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25, the 17
government’s merits briefing is to be filed no later than August 10, 2017, and the respondents’ 18
merits briefing is due on September 11, 2017. Other ongoing challenges to the travel ban include 19
Al-Mowafak v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-00557-WHO (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 2, 2017); Mohammed v. 20
United States, 2:17-cv-00786-SJO-GJS (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 30, 2017); Ali v. Trump, 2:17-cv21
00135 (W.D. Wa. filed Jan. 30, 2017); Doe v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00178-JLR (W.D. Wa. filed Feb. 7, 22
2017); Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR (W.D. Wa. filed Jan. 30, 2017); Tawfeeq v. 23
Dep’t of Homeland Security, 1:17-cv-00353 (N.D. Ga. filed Jan. 30, 2017); Pars Equality Ctr. v. 24
Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC (D.D.C. filed Feb. 2, 2017); Hagig v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-0028925
RBJ (D. Colo. filed Jan. 30, 2017); Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv26
27 6 @realDonaldTrump, TWITTER (June 5, 2017, 3:29 AM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/statu
28 s/871675245043888128. -4-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 12 of 22

1 10310-VAR-SDD (filed E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2017); and Sarsour v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00120-

2 AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 30, 2017).

3

B. Ms. Currier’s Freedom of Information Act Requests for Records About the

4

Executive Orders

5

Plaintiff Cora Currier is a staff reporter for the Intercept, where she writes about national

6 security, counterterrorism, and immigration. Hofmann Decl. ¶ 2. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier

7 submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice

8 (DOJ), and Department of State seeking records about the agencies’ analysis and implementation

9 of EO-1, which had been signed just five days earlier. Hofmann Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Exs. 1-2, 4.7

10

In her request to DHS, Ms. Currier specifically identified Customs and Border Protection as

11 an agency component whose records should be searched. Hofmann Decl. ¶ 3, Ex.1. In her request

12 to the DOJ and subsequent correspondence with the agency, Ms. Currier identified the Office of

13 the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of

14 Legislative Affairs, and Office of Public Affairs as agency components whose records should be

15 searched. Hofmann Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. 2-3.

16

Ms. Currier formally asked that each request be processed in an expedited manner as

17 provided in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) because it sought the disclosure of information about

18 which there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government

19 activity,” and the requests were made by “a person primarily engaged in disseminating

20 information.” Hofmann Decl. Exs. 1-2, 4. Ms. Currier also asked that the requests to DHS and DOJ

21 be expedited pursuant to agency regulations because they involve “[a] matter of widespread and

22 exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity

23 which affect public confidence.” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1)(iv) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv). Hofmann

24 Decl. Exs. 1-2. All of Ms. Currier’s February 1 requests were granted expedited processing.

25 Hofmann Decl. ¶¶ 7-10, Exs. 5-8.

26
27 7 Ms. Currier submitted the February 1 requests with her colleague Jenna McLaughlin, who was at the time a fellow staff reporter at the Intercept, but has since left the media organization. Ms.
28 McLaughlin is not a party to this case.
-5-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 13 of 22
1 On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a second set of FOIA requests to the same
2 agencies and components seeking records concerning the analysis and implementation of EO-2.
3 Hofmann Decl. ¶¶ 11-14, Exs. 9-12. Ms. Currier also sent FOIA requests to the Department of
4 Defense, the DOJ Executive Office of United States Attorneys, and the Federal Bureau of
5 Investigation seeking records about both EO-1 and EO-2. Hofmann Decl. ¶¶ 15-17, Exs. 13-15.
6 Ms. Currier formally asked that all of the April 3 requests be processed in an expedited manner,
7 and the agencies all granted expedited processing. Hofmann Decl. ¶¶ 18-24, Exs. 16-22.
8 On July 17, 2017, Customs and Border Protection issued an interim partial response to Ms.
9 Currier’s February 1 FOIA request to DHS. The agency processed 56 pages of records, releasing
10 53 partially redacted pages. Hofmann Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. 23.
11 Counsel for the parties have had ongoing discussions about the agencies’ progress, and Ms.
12 Currier has agreed to narrow the scope of some requests in an effort to shorten the time needed by
13 Defendants to process the documents. Hofmann Decl. ¶ 30. Nonetheless, to date, no defendant has
14 completed processing Ms. Currier’s requests to its components, nor informed Ms. Currier of an
15 anticipated date for the completion of processing. Hofmann Decl. ¶ 26.8 16
IV. ARGUMENT 17
This motion raises a straightforward issue. Although Defendants have acknowledged that 18
Ms. Currier is legally entitled to expedited processing of her FOIA requests, they have failed to 19
comply with the FOIA’s provisions for expedited processing. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). They 20
have also failed to comply with the statute’s generally applicable 20-day statutory deadline for 21
processing standard, non-expedited FOIA requests. Id. § 552(a)(6)(A). The agencies’ actions are 22
unlawful and must be enjoined in light of the ongoing public interest and active litigation over the 23
legality of the travel ban. 24
25
26
27 8 Ms. Currier also submitted FOIA requests to the DOJ U.S. Marshals Service on February 1 and April 3. That component has processed Ms. Currier’s requests, and they are not at issue in this
28 motion. -6-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 14 of 22

1

A. The Court has Jurisdiction to Grant the Requested Relief

2

This Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter and grant appropriate relief. The FOIA

3 provides:

Agency action to deny or affirm denial of a request for expedited processing . . .

4

shall be subject to judicial review under paragraph (4), except that the judicial

5

review shall be based on the record before the agency at the time of the

determination.

6 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). The referenced judicial review provision states:

7

On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the

8

complainant resides, or has his principal place of business . . . has jurisdiction to

enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of

9

any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the

court shall determine the matter de novo[.]

10 Id. § 552(a)(4)(B). See Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300, 304 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

11 Notwithstanding Defendants’ decisions to “expedite” Ms. Currier’s requests, the agencies

12 have failed to respond within the standard 20-working-day time limit established by 5 U.S.C.

13 § 552(a)(6)(A). Ms. Currier’s claim is ripe for adjudication because she has exhausted all

14 applicable administrative remedies. The FOIA provides:

15

[a]ny person making a request to any agency for records . . . shall be deemed to

16

have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request if the

17

agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph.

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C). 18

19

B. Ms. Currier is Entitled to Entry of an Order for Preliminary Injunction

20

A preliminary injunction is a device for “preventing the irreparable loss of rights before

21 judgment.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984)

22 (citation omitted). To establish the need for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show “(1) a

23 likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm that would result if an

24 injunction were not issued, (3) the balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiff, and (4) an

25 injunction is in the public interest.” Martins v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 962

26 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2013), quoting Winter v. Natural. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7,

27 20 (2008). The Court may also issue a preliminary injunction when the plaintiff raises “serious

28 questions going to the merits” and the “balance of hardships tips sharply in [the] plaintiff’s favor,”

-7-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.
Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 15 of 22
1 provided that the other elements of the test are satisfied. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632
2 F.3d 1127, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2011).
3 This Court has found that injunctive relief is appropriate in a FOIA case when a plaintiff
4 establishes that her requests are entitled to expedited processing under the statute and the
5 government fails to process them in a timely manner. Elec. Frontier Found. v. Office of the Dir. of
6 Nat. Intelligence, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“EFF v. ODNI I”); see also Elec.
7 Frontier Found. v. Office of Dir. of Nat. Intelligence, No. C 07-5278 SI, 2007 WL 4208311 at *4
8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) (“EFF v. ODNI II”) (collecting cases). The preliminary injunction
9 factors in this case firmly establish Ms. Currier’s entitlement to the relief she seeks.
10 1. Ms. Currier is Likely to Prevail Upon the Merits of Her Claim
11 Given Ms. Currier’s uncontested entitlement to the expedited processing of her requests
12 under the explicit terms of the FOIA, her likelihood of prevailing on the merits could not be
13 stronger. All of the Defendants have already determined that Ms. Currier’s requests are entitled to
14 expediting processing. Hofmann Decl. ¶¶ 7-10 & 18-24, Exs. 5-8 & 16-22. Yet the agencies have
15 violated the terms of the FOIA and their own regulations by failing to satisfy the processing
16 deadline for even standard, non-expedited requests. As this Court has found, “an agency’s failure
17 to comply with the FOIA’s time limits is, by itself, a violation of the FOIA, and is an improper
18 withholding of the requested documents.” Gilmore v. Dep’t of Energy, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1187
19 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
20 The FOIA clearly establishes the circumstances in which an agency must process a request
21 in an expedited manner. According to the statute, “[e]ach agency shall promulgate regulations . . .
22 providing for expedited processing of requests for records . . . in cases in which the person
23 requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need and . . . in other cases determined by the
24 agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i). “Compelling need” includes, “with respect to a request made
25 by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public
26 concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Put another
27 way, a compelling need exists when the “subject matter of the request [is] central to a pressing
28
-8-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 16 of 22
1 issue of the day.” Wadelton v. Dep’t of State, 941 F. Supp. 2d 120, 123 (D.D.C. 2013), citing Al-
2 Fayed, 254 F.3d 300.
3 Pursuant to this statutory directive, the Defendants have all issued regulations establishing
4 grounds for expedited processing. Pursuant to those regulations, requests should be expedited when
5 there is “an urgency to inform the public” about an “actual or alleged federal government activity,”
6 if made by a person who is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” 6 C.F.R. §
7 5.5(e)(1)(ii) (DHS); 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii) (DOJ); 22 C.F.R. § 171.11(f)(2) (State); 32 C.F.R. §
8 286.8(e)(1)(i)(B) (DOD). DHS and DOJ have an additional agency-specific ground for expedited
9 processing where the request involves “a matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in
10 which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public
11 confidence.” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1)(iv); 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv).
12 When an agency grants expedited treatment, it is obligated to process the request “as soon
13 as practicable.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). This phrase, “in the context of a provision of FOIA
14 allowing for expedited processing, cannot be interpreted to impose a lower burden on the agency
15 than would otherwise exist.” Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30, 39
16 (D.D.C. 2006) (emphasis in original).
17 As such, an agency presumptively violates the “expedited processing” provisions of the
18 FOIA when it fails to meet the generally applicable 20-working-day deadline imposed by the FOIA
19 for processing a non-expedited request. Id.; EFF v. ODNI I, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1186; EFF v. ODNI
20 II, 2007 WL 4208311 at **4-5. Once the 20-working-day deadline has passed, the agency bears the
21 burden of proving that it is in fact processing the expedited request “as soon as practicable.” EFF v.
22 ODNI I, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1186; EFF v. ODNI II, 2007 WL 4208311 at *5; Elec. Privacy Info.
23 Ctr., 416 F. Supp. 2d 24, 39 at n.8. While the agency may rebut the presumption that it failed to
24 process a request “as soon as practicable,” it bears the burden of presenting “credible evidence” to
25 show that further delay is necessary due to “exceptional circumstances.” EFF v. ODNI II, 2007 WL
26 4208311 at *5; Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 416 F. Supp. 2d at 39-40.
27
28
-9-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 17 of 22

1 Ms. Currier requested expedited processing of her FOIA requests concerning President

2 Trump’s executive orders on immigration, a matter about which there is “an urgency to inform the

3 public about actual or alleged federal government activity.” Hofmann Decl. Exs. 1-2, 4 & 9-15.

4 Furthermore, as a journalist, Ms. Currier is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” Id.

5 Defendants determined that Ms. Currier’s requests are entitled to expedited processing under this

6 standard. Hofmann Decl. Exs. 5-8, 16-22. Yet Ms. Currier’s requests have been pending for several

7 months, and there is no indication that the agencies have done anything other than “drag [their] feet

8 and pay lip service” to Ms. Currier’s entitlement to expedition. EFF v. ODNI II, 2007 WL 4208311

9 at *5; Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 416 F. Supp. 2d at 37.

10 As this Court has noted, “in the absence of relevant evidence as to the reasons for their

11 delay in processing [a plaintiff’s FOIA] requests, [government agencies] have no likelihood of

12 success on the merits.” Gerstein v. CIA, No. C-06-4643 MMC, 2006 WL 3462659 at *4 (N.D. Cal.

13 Nov. 29, 2006) (emphasis added). The agencies have not (and cannot) offer adequate justification

14 for the delay. Ms. Currier is entitled to the immediate processing and release of the requested

15 records, and asks that the Court issue an order to secure this right.

16

2. Ms. Currier Will Suffer Irreparable Injury in the Absence of the

17

Requested Injunctive Relief

18

Ms. Currier will suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants’ unlawful failure to comply with

19 their legal obligations is not immediately enjoined. The very nature of the right that Ms. Currier

20 seeks to vindicate—expedited processing—depends upon timeliness, because “stale information is

21 of little value.” Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988); EFF

22 v. ODNI II, 2007 WL 4208311 at *6; Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 416 F. Supp. 2d at 40-41.

23

Courts have recognized that the requisite injury is present, and preliminary injunctive relief

24 is appropriate, in expedited processing cases where time is of the essence, because delay constitutes

25 a cognizable harm. EFF v. ODNI I, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1186-87; EFF v. ODNI II, 2007 WL

26 4208311 at **6-7; Gerstein, 2006 WL 3462659 at *4; Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 416 F. Supp. 2d at

27 40; see also, e.g., United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 465 (9th Cir. 1988); Martin-Marietta

28
-10-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 18 of 22
1 Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 568 (6th Cir. 1982). In the FOIA, Congress created a
2 statutory right to prompt processing of requests made on matters where there is an urgency to
3 inform the public. But unless Defendants are ordered to process the requests immediately, Ms.
4 Currier’s right to expedition under the FOIA will be irretrievably lost.
5 Any further delay in the processing of Ms. Currier’s requests will irreparably harm her
6 ability to obtain in a timely fashion information vital to the ongoing public discussion over the
7 travel ban. Hofmann Decl. ¶¶ 27-29. Ms. Currier hopes to write articles based on these records
8 while they are still newsworthy, and the public will benefit from that reporting and access to the
9 records on which it is based. Because time is of the essence in this matter, Ms. Currier will be
10 irreparably harmed unless the Court acts now, “when it [is] still possible to grant effective relief,”
11 and before “all opportunity to grant the requested relief [is] foreclosed.” Local Lodge No. 1266,
12 Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Panoramic Corp., 668 F.2d 276, 290 (7th Cir.
13 1981).
14 3. The Balance of Equities Favors Ms. Currier
15 The balance of equities weighs in favor of the relief Ms. Currier seeks. She has a significant
16 interest in the timely processing of the documents to which she has a statutory right. She is a
17 professional journalist seeking to report on a matter of great interest to the general public. The
18 information she seeks may not only form the basis of Ms. Currier’s own news reporting, but could
19 also play an important role in the judiciary’s ongoing consideration of the legality of the travel ban.
20 On the other side of the scale, the defendant agencies cannot be “burdened” by having to
21 comply with federal law and their own regulations. The relief Ms. Currier seeks will require
22 nothing more of the government than what the law already mandates: the expedited processing of
23 her FOIA requests, which the agencies concede qualify for such treatment. Ms. Currier merely
24 seeks the expedition to which the agencies agree she is entitled. See EFF v. ODNI II, 2007 WL
25 4208311 at *7.
26
27
28 -11-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 19 of 22
1 4. The Public Interest Favors the Requested Relief
2 The final factor in the preliminary injunction analysis tips sharply in Ms. Currier’s favor.
3 The expedited release of the records will serve the public interest in three ways. First, the timely
4 release of the information may help inform judicial review by courts throughout the country that
5 are actively considering whether the travel ban violates the law and runs afoul of the Establishment
6 Clause. One circuit court has already cited agency dissent about the national security value of the
7 travel ban as evidence that the orders were motivated by religious animus rather than national
8 security concerns. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 857 F.3d 554, 596 (4th Cir. 2017). The
9 documents requested by Ms. Currier could shed further light on this matter for the courts
10 considering the travel ban. Once decisions are made in those matters, however, the litigation cannot
11 be “restarted or wound back.” EFF v. ODNI I, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1186 (quoting Gerstein v. CIA,
12 2006 WL 3462659 at *4); EFF v. ODNI II, 2007 WL 4208311 at *7.
13 Given the briefing schedule in the Supreme Court litigation, Ms. Currier asks this Court to
14 order the agencies to complete processing her FOIA requests no later than September 5. That
15 deadline would not only allow Ms. Currier to report on the disclosed records while they are still
16 newsworthy, but would also give the respondents and amici in that matter an opportunity to review
17 the documents and incorporate any relevant information into their Supreme Court briefings.
18 Second, the expedited release of the records will further the FOIA’s core purpose of
19 ensuring “the uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate about matters of public importance that
20 secures an informed citizenry.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 815
21 (1985), quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) (internal quotation
22 marks omitted). The public oversight mechanism provided by the FOIA is central to open and
23 democratic debate on the travel ban. As the Supreme Court has observed, the Act is “a means for
24 citizens to know what their Government is up to. This phrase should not be dismissed as a
25 convenient formalism. It defines a structural necessity in a real democracy.” Nat’l Archives &
26 Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 171-172 (2004) (emphasis added; citation and internal
27 quotation marks omitted). And timely access to information is just as important as access itself.
28
-12-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 20 of 22

1 Delay in the processing of FOIA requests “may well result in disclosing the relevant documents

2 after the need for them in the formulation of national . . . policy has been overtaken by events.”

3 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Dep’t of Energy, 191 F. Supp. 2d 41, 43 (D.D.C. 2002)

4 (“NRDC”) (granting motion for release of documents).

5 Finally, the public interest is served when federal agencies follow the law and their own

6 regulations. The courts have long recognized an “overriding public interest” in “an agency’s

7 faithful adherence to its statutory mandate.” Jacksonville Port Authr. v. Adams, 556 F.2d 52, 59

8 (D.C. Cir. 1977). And it is “axiomatic that an agency is required to follow its own regulations.”

9 Edmonds v. FBI, No. 02-1294, 2002 WL 32539613, at *9 n.3 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2002) (quoting

10 Cherokee National of Okla. v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation

11 marks omitted). Such adherence is what Ms. Currier seeks here. For these reasons, the public

12 interest favors the issuance of an order directing defendants to immediately process and release the

13 requested information.

14

C. The Court Should Order Defendants to Process Ms. Currier’s FOIA Requests

15

Immediately

16

It is well established that preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate when, as in this case,

17 an agency has failed to act upon a well-founded request for expedited processing. EFF v. ODNI I,

18 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1187 (granting preliminary injunction in FOIA lawsuit for expedited

19 processing); EFF v. ODNI II, 2007 WL 4208311 at *8 (same); Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. I, 416 F.

20 Supp. 2d at 35 (same); Aguilera v. FBI, 941 F. Supp. 144, 152-153 (D.D.C. 1996) (same); Cleaver

21 v. Kelley, 427 F. Supp. 80, 81-82 (D.D.C. 1976) (same); ACLU v. Dep’t of Defense, 339 F. Supp.

22 2d 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (same). Congress expressly required agencies to make determinations

23 on requests for expedited processing within 10 calendar days, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I), and

24 provided for immediate judicial review of adverse determinations, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii),

25 demonstrating an intent that the courts should act quickly to vindicate the right to expedition. See,

26 e.g., ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24, 28-29 (D.D.C. 2004) (complete exhaustion of

27 administrative remedies not a prerequisite to judicial review of agency expedition decisions).

28
-13-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 21 of 22
1 Courts regularly impose processing deadlines on agencies requiring the prompt delivery of
2 non-exempt records to FOIA requesters. This Court has in the past ordered agencies to process and
3 produce all non-exempt records responsive to FOIA requests within 17 days and 13 days of the
4 Court’s orders, respectively. EFF v. ODNI I, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1187; EFF v. ODNI II, 2007 WL
5 4208311 at *8; see also Gerstein v. CIA, 2006 WL 3462659 at *5 (ordering agencies to process and
6 produce all non-exempt records responsive to FOIA requests within 30 days of the Court’s order);
7 Gerstein v. CIA, No. C-06-4643 MMC, 2006 WL 3462658 at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006) (same).
8 Even in cases involving large numbers of documents, courts have recognized the interests
9 of the requester in prompt release pursuant to a finding of expedited processing. In ACLU v. Dep’t
10 of Defense, for example, the court ordered a variety of agencies to “produce or identify” all
11 documents responsive to an expedited FOIA request, estimated to be between 17,000 and 20,000
12 pages, and to provide the requesters with a Vaughn index detailing withholdings, within 30 days.
13 339 F. Supp. 2d at 503-505.9 14
Other courts have imposed concrete FOIA processing schedules upon federal agencies even 15
in cases involving non-expedited requests. For example, in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 16
the court ordered the Department of Commerce and Department of Transportation to process, 17
respectively, 9000 and 6000 pages of material within 60 days in response to non-expedited 18
requests. 191 F. Supp. 2d 138, 141 (D.D.C. 2002). The court also ordered the agencies to provide 19
the requester with an index detailing their withholdings pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 20
820, 826-8 (D.C. Cir. 1973) within 72 days. Id., 191 F. Supp. 2d 138 at 141. 21
Similarly, in NRDC, the court ordered the Department of Energy to process 7500 pages of 22
non-expedited material; to process the “vast majority” of it within 32 days, and to provide the 23
requester with a Vaughn index within 63 days. 191 F. Supp. 2d at 43-44 (noting that the schedule 24
25
26 9 Judicial resolution of the expedited processing issue would not resolve all issues raised in the first amended complaint. Once the question of processing time is resolved, the Court would retain
27 jurisdiction to review the completeness and propriety of the Defendants substantive determination of Ms. Currier’s FOIA requests. See Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.
28 2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976). -14-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 22 of 22

1 was necessary partially because the time table the defendant proposed would result in the
2 production of documents after the need for them as part of a public debate would have passed).
3 Given the extraordinary public interest in the records at issue, and to facilitate Ms. Currier’s
4 work to inform the public and courts about the development and implementation of the travel ban,
5 Ms. Currier respectfully asks this Court to direct Defendants to complete the processing of her
6 requests and produce or identify all responsive records no later than September 5, and to provide
7 Ms. Currier with an a document index and declaration, as specified in Vaughn v. Rosen, stating the
8 justification for the withholding of any documents responsive to Ms. Currier’s requests within 30
9 days of the date of the Court’s order.
10 V. CONCLUSION
11

12

For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Currier’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be

13 granted.

14 DATED: July 20, 2017
15 16 17 18 19 20

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann Kendra K. Albert ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664

21

Attorneys for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-15-
PL.’S NOT. OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEM. IN SUPP. OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 6

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087) Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law
2 Kendra Albert (SBN 314839) Email: kendra@zeitgeist.law
3 ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor St.
4 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 830-6664
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER
6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10

)

)

11 CORA CURRIER,

) Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC )

12

Plaintiff,

) )

13 14 15

v.

) )

) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, )

et al.,

)

)

DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF CORA CURRIER’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

16

Defendants. )

17 18

) ) ) ) )

Date: August 24, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

19

)

)

20

)

21

1. I am an attorney of record for the plaintiff Cora Currier in this matter and a member

22 in good standing of the California State Bar, and am admitted to practice before this Court. I have
23 personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration. If called upon to do so, I am
24
competent to testify to all matters set forth here. 25

26

2. Ms. Currier is a staff reporter for the Intercept, where she writes about national

27 security, counterterrorism and immigration. -1-

28

DECL. OF MARCIA HOFMANN

IN SUPPORT OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 6

1

3. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

2 request to the Department of Homeland Security seeking records about the agency’s analysis and

3 implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 (“EO-1”), specifically identifying Customs and
4 Border Protection as an agency component whose records should be searched. A true and correct
5
copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 1. 6

7

4. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted FOIA requests to the Department of

8 Justice seeking records about the agency’s analysis and implementation of EO-1, specifically

9 identifying the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the
10 Office of Legal Counsel, and the Office of Legislative Affairs as agency components whose 11
records should be searched. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 2. 12
5. On February 13, 2017, the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy sent 13 14 me an email asking if Ms. Currier would like a search of the Office of Public Affairs conducted as
15 part of her February 1, 2017 request to the Department of Justice. I informed the Office of

16 Information Policy that Ms. Currier would like such a search conducted. A true and correct copy of

17 this email exchange is attached as Exhibit 3.

18

6. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to the Department of

19 State seeking records about the agency’s analysis and implementation of EO-1. A true and correct
20
copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 4. 21

22

7. In a letter dated February 13, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security

23 acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier’s February 1 FOIA request and granted expedited processing.

24 A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 5.

25

8. In a letter dated February 17, 2017, the Department of Justice Office of Information

26 Policy acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier’s FOIA request on behalf of the Office of the Attorney

27 -2-

28

DECL. OF MARCIA HOFMANN

IN SUPPORT OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 6

1 General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of Public Affairs, and Office of Legislative

2 Affairs, and granted expedited processing. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as
3 Exhibit 6.
4 9. In a letter dated February 14, 2017, the Department of Justice Office of Legal
5 Counsel acknowledged that it had received Ms. Currier’s February 1 FOIA request and granted
6
7 expedited processing. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 7.

8

10. In a letter dated February 9, 2017, the Department of State acknowledged receipt of

9 Ms. Currier’s February 1 FOIA request and granted expedited processing. A true and correct copy
10 of this letter is attached as Exhibit 8. 11
11. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to the Department of 12
Homeland Security seeking records about the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive 13 14 Order No. 13,780 (“EO-2”), specifically identifying Customs and Border Protection as an agency
15 component whose records should be searched. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as

16 Exhibit 9.

17

12. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to the Department of

18 Justice seeking records about the agency’s analysis and implementation of EO-2, specifically
19 identifying the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of
20 Public Affairs, and Office of Legislative Affairs as an agency components whose records should be
21
22 searched. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 10.

23

13. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to the Department of

24 Justice Office of Legal Counsel seeking records about the agency’s analysis and implementation of

25 EO-2. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 11.

26 / / /
27
28

-3-
DECL. OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.
Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 6

1

14. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State

2 seeking records about the agency’s analysis and implementation of EO-2. A true and correct copy
3 of this letter is attached as Exhibit 12.
4 15. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to the Department of
5 Defense seeking records about the agency’s analysis of the impact of EO-1 and EO-2. A true and
6
7 correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 13.

8

16. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to the Department of

9 Justice Executive Office of United States Attorneys seeking records about EO-1 and EO-2. A true

10 and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 14.
11 17. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Currier submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Bureau of
12 Investigation seeking records about the agency’s analysis of the impact of EO-1 and EO-2. A true
13
14 and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 15.

15

18. In a letter dated April 4, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged

16 receipt of Ms. Currier’s April 3 FOIA request and granted expedited processing. A true and correct

17 copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 16.

18

19. In a letter dated April 4, 2017, the Department of State acknowledged receipt of Ms.

19 Currier’s April 3 FOIA request and granted expedited processing. A true and correct copy of this
20
letter is attached as Exhibit 17. 21

22

20. In a letter dated April 13, 2017, the Department of Justice Office of Information

23 Policy acknowledged that it had received Ms. Currier’s FOIA request to the Office of the Attorney

24 General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of Public Affairs, and Office of Legislative

25 Affairs, and granted expedited processing. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as

26 Exhibit 18.
27
28

-4-
DECL. OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.
Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 6

1

21. In a letter dated April 5, 2017, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel

2 acknowledged that it had received Ms. Currier’s April 3 FOIA request and granted expedited
3 processing. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 19.
4 22. In an undated letter, the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy granted
5 expedited processing on behalf of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. A true and
6
7 correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 20.

8

23. In a letter dated April 27, 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation acknowledged

9 that it had received Ms. Currier’s April 3 FOIA request and granted expedited processing. A true

10 and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 21.
11 24. In an email dated May 5, 2017, the Department of Defense granted expedited
12 processing of Ms. Currier’s April 3 FOIA request. A true and correct copy of this email granting
13
14 expedited processing is attached as Exhibit 22.

15

25. On July 17, 2017, Customs and Border Protection issued an interim partial response

16 to Ms. Currier’s February 1 FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security. The agency

17 processed 56 pages of records, releasing 53 partially redacted pages. A true and correct copy of the

18 interim partial response cover letter is attached as Exhibit 23.
19 26. Notwithstanding the agencies’ purported decisions to grant expedited processing for
20 Ms. Currier’s FOIA requests, the agencies have neither completed the processing of the requests
21
22 nor informed Ms. Currier of an anticipated date for the completion of such processing.

23

27. Unless the agencies are ordered to process Ms. Currier’s FOIA requests

24 immediately, Ms. Currier’s right to expedition under the FOIA will be irretrievably lost, resulting

25 in irreparable injury to Ms. Currier.

26 / / /
27
28

-5-
DECL. OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.
Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 6

1

28. Any further delay in the processing of Ms. Currier’s FOIA requests will irreparably

2 harm Ms. Currier’s ability, and that of the public, to obtain in a timely fashion information vital to
3 examining the Trump Administration’s justifications for the executive orders on immigration, as
4 well as the fallout for agencies in the immediate aftermath of the signing of those orders.
5 29. Without expedited access to the information to which it is legally entitled, Ms.
6
7 Currier’s ability to engage in an urgent and current public debate will be irretrievably lost.

8

30. I met and conferred with opposing counsel on July 7, and July 18, 2017. Ms. Currier

9 has agreed to narrow the scope of some requests in an effort to shorten the time needed by
10 Defendants to process the documents. We have also discussed the agencies’ progress in processing 11
the requests and the possibility of agreeing upon a processing schedule to eliminate the need for 12
motion practice to secure Ms. Currier’s right to expedition. I informed opposing counsel that Ms. 13 14 Currier intended to seek preliminary injunctive relief if the parties could not agree upon a mutually
15 acceptable date by which to complete the processing of Ms. Currier’s requests. To date, Defendants

16 have been unwilling to commit to process the requests in their entirety by a specific date.

17

18

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the

19 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed July 20, 2017.
20

21

/s/ Marcia Hofmann

22

Marcia Hofmann

23

24

25

26

27 -6-

28

DECL. OF MARCIA HOFMANN

IN SUPPORT OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 11
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 10 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-2 Filed 07/20/17 Page 11 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 11
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 2
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 10 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-3 Filed 07/20/17 Page 11 of 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-4 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Your Request DOJ-2C0a17s-e00321:1767(-AcvG-)0e1t.7a9l. 9-JSC Document 20-4 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2
Subject: Re: Your Request DOJ-2017-002176 (AG) et. al. From: Marcia Hofmann <marcia@zeitgeist.law> Date: 2/14/17, 11:08 AM To: "Smith, James M. (OIP)" <James.M.Smith@usdoj.gov>
Thank you, Mr. Smith. We would like a search of the Office of Public Affairs conducted as part of the request. Don't hesitate to let me know if you have other questions or concerns.
-Marcia Hofmann Founder and Principal Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 830-6664
On 2/13/17 12:08 PM, Smith, James M. (OIP) wrote: Dear Ms. Hofmann,
I am writing in regards to the Freedom of Information Act request made on behalf of Cora Currier and Jenna McLaughlin, dated February 1, 2017, and received in the Office of Information Policy on February 7, 2017, for records pertaining to Executive Order 13769. The letter was addressed in part to the Office of Public Affairs, however, in the section of the letter describing the requested records, the Office of Public Affairs was not among the offices listed as a location of potential records. As such, could you clarify if you would like a search of the Office of Public Affairs conducted as part of the request?
Thank you for your time.
Best,
James Matthew Smith
Attorney-Advisor
Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice

1 of 1

7/17/17, 11:14 AM

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 10
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 4
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-5 Filed 07/20/17 Page 10 of 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-6 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 5
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-6 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 3
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528
Homeland Security
February 13, 2017
SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: marcia@zeitgeist.law
Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor St San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: 2017-HQFO-00362
Dear Hofmann:
This letter acknowledges receipt of your February 07, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other communications: among DHS and CBP personnel, including supervisors, officers, managers, and union representatives; from or about travelers asking for clarification or about the ban's effect; between DHS or CBP officials and the Executive Office of the President or other White House offices; between DHS or CBP officials and members of Congress or congressional staffers, including aides to the House Judiciary Committee; between DHS or CBP officials and the staff or management of commercial airlines; between DHS or CBP officials and local and state agencies, including local law enforcement and agents at airports of entry such as General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); and between DHS or CBP officials and non-government representatives and outside consultants, including nonprofits, policy think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform, and private firms such as Giuliani Partners; records reflecting analysis and response of DHS or CBP officials to judicial orders staying the enforcement of the executive order, including discussions of legal liability for failing to follow those orders. This office received your request on February 07, 2017.
As it relates to your request for expedited processing and fee waiver, your request is granted. Due to the increasing number of FOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. Consistent with 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(a) of the DHS FOIA regulations, the Department processes FOIA requests according to their order of receipt. Although DHS’ goal is to respond within 20 business days of receipt of your request, FOIA does permit a 10-day extension of this time period in certain circumstances. As your request seeks documents that will require a thorough and wide-ranging search, DHS will invoke a 10-day

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-6 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 3
extension for your request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you would like to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner. We have queried the appropriate component(s) of DHS for responsive records. If any responsive records are located, they will be reviewed for determination of releasability. Please be assured that one of the processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request. Your request has been assigned reference number 2017-HQFO-00362. Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. To check the status of your FOIA request, you may contact this office at 1-866-431-0486 or 202-343-1743, or you may check the status of your request online at http://www.dhs.gov/foia-status.
Sincerely,
Catherine Pruitt FOIA Program Specialist

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-7 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 6
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-7 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 3
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050 1425 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

February 17, 2017

Ms. Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law, P.C. 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 marcia@zeitgeist.law

Re: DOJ-2017-002176 (AG) DOJ-2017-002177 (DAG) DOJ-2017-002178 (PAO) DOJ-2017-002179 (OLA) VRB:VAV:JMS

Dear Ms. Hofmann:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter, on behalf of Cora Currier and Jenna McLaughlin journalists at the Intercept, dated February 1, 2017, and received in this Office on February 7, 2017, in which you requested records pertaining to the Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” dating from January 20, 2017. This response is made on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Public Affairs, and Legislative Affairs.

You have requested expedited processing of the request pursuant to the Department’s standard permitting expedition for requests involving “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.” See 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii) (2016). Based on the information you have provided, I have determined that your request for expedited processing should be granted. Accordingly, your request has been assigned to an Attorney-Advisor in this Office and records searches have been initiated in the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Public Affairs, and Legislative Affairs.

Although your request has been granted expedited processing, we are required to advise you that the records you seek require searches in other offices, and so your request falls within “unusual circumstances.” See 5 U.S.C. 552 § (a)(6)(B)(i)-(iii). Accordingly, we have not yet completed a search to determine whether there are records within the scope of your request. The time needed to process your request will necessarily depend on the complexity of our records search and on the volume and complexity of any records located. Your request has been assigned to the expedited track, and will be processed as soon as practicable.

We have not yet made a decision on your request for a fee waiver. We will do so after we determine whether fees will be assessed for this request. In your letter, Ms. Currier and Ms. McLaughlin agreed to pay fees up to $100 in the event that a fee waiver is not granted.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-7 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 3 -2-
If you have any questions or wish to discuss the processing of your request, you may contact James Smith, the Attorney-Advisor processing your request, by telephone at the above number or you may write to him at Office of Information Policy, United States Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001. Lastly, you may contact our FOIA Public Liaison at the above telephone number to have any concerns you may have addressed.
Sincerely,
Vanessa R. Brinkmann Senior Counsel

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-8 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 7
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-8 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel

Washington, D.C. 20530

February 14, 2017

Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law O.B.O. Cora Currier and Jenna McLaughlin The Intercept marcia@zeitgeist. law

Re: FOIA Tracking No. FY17-104

Dear Ms. Hofmann:

This letter acknowledges receipt of your February 1, 2017 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"), seeking "all agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning the agency's analysis and implementation of' "[the] executive order entitled 'Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States."' We received your request on February 8, 2017, and it has been assigned tracking number FYl 7-104.

Your request for expedited processing has been granted and your request has been assigned to the "expedited" processing track. Because of the considerable number of FOIA requests received by OLC before your request, including other previously expedited requests, our staff has not yet been able to complete a search to determine whether there are documents within the scope of your request. Please note that it also is likely that we will be unable to respond to your request within the twenty-day statutory deadline. I regret the necessity of this delay, but I assure you that your request will be given priority and processed as soon as practicable.

We have not yet made a decision on your request for a fee waiver. We will do so after we determine whether fees will be assessed for this request. We note that in the event your fee waiver is denied, you have agreed to pay fees up to $100.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or wish to discuss your request, you may contact Melissa Golden, our Lead Paralegal and FOIA Specialist and FOIA Liaison, at (202) 514-2053, or at Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 5511, Washington, DC 20530.

Sincerely,

.

/4//~

Paul P. Colborn Special Counsel

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-9 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 8
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-9 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 11
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 9
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 11
April 3, 2017
Jonathan Cantor Acting Chief Privacy Officer/Chief FOIA Officer The Privacy Office U.S. Department of Homeland Security 245 Murray Lane SW STOP-0655 Washington, DC 20528-0655
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request and Request for Expedited Processing
Dear Mr. Cantor:
This is an expedited request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I am submitting it to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on behalf of Cora Currier, a staff journalist at The Intercept.
This letter follows another FOIA request submitted on February 1, 2017, seeking records related to Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which President Trump signed on January 27, 2017. DHS granted expedited processing for that request on February 13, 2017.
Requested Records
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Among other things, the order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days. The order was enjoined in part or full by several federal courts, one of which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,780, which had the same title as its predecessor. This new order also restricted travel to the United States from several

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 11
April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 2
predominantly Muslim countries. To date, portions of this order have been blocked by two federal district courts. The government is appealing those decisions to the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit.
Ms. Currier requests all agency records from February 1, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780. We believe the records they seek are located within DHS Headquarters, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Office of the Inspector General.
We urge the all components to process this request consistent with Justice Department policy directing a presumption of disclosure.1
This request includes, but is not limited to:
A. Records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other communications:
1. Among DHS and CBP personnel, including supervisors, officers, managers, and union representatives;
2. From or about travelers asking for clarification or about the ban’s effect;
3. Between DHS or CBP officials and the Executive Office of the President or other White House offices;
4. Between DHS or CBP officials and members of Congress or congressional staffers, including aides to the House Judiciary Committee;
5. Between DHS or CBP officials and the staff or management of commercial airlines;
6. Between DHS or CBP officials and local and state agencies, including local law enforcement and agents at airports of entry such as General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK);
1 See Dep’t of Justice Office of Information Policy, President Obama’s FOIA Memorandum and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines: Creating a “New Era of Open Government” (2009), https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 11
April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 3
7. Between DHS or CBP officials and nonprofits or policy think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Security Policies, the Heritage Foundation, the Investigative Project on Terrorism;
8. Between DHS or CBP officials and non-government representatives and outside consultants, including private firms such as Giuliani Partners; and
9. Between DHS or CBP officials and reporters from Breitbart News, Fox News, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, the Washington Times, and the Free Beacon regarding the executive orders.
B. Records reflecting analysis and response of DHS or CBP officials to judicial orders staying the enforcement of the executive order, including discussions of legal liability for failing to follow those orders.
C. Any analyses, reports, or assessments about the security risks posed by individuals from the nations covered by the executive orders.
D. Any analyses, reports, or other documents assessing the impact or effectiveness of the travel restrictions in preventing terrorist or national security threats or
E. Any analyses, reports, or other documents assessing the use of citizenship as an indicator of a terrorist threat to the United States, including the report entitled “Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States,” which was prepared at the request of the DHS Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis.
F. Any records related to the Inspector General’s review of the implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769, including directives to DHS staff about the retention of records relevant to the investigation.
Please produce any responsive records you identify in electronic format.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 11
April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 4
Request for Expedited Processing
This requests warrants expedited processing under two standards: 6 C.F.R. §§ 5.5(e)(1)(ii) and (iv).
A. Urgency to Inform the Public Standard
This request pertains to information about which there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” and it is made by a requester “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” Id. § 5.5(e)(1)(ii).
There is an urgency to inform the public about the federal government’s implementation of highly controversial restrictions banning nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Thousands of people across the country have protested these restrictions. Several different federal courts issued temporary relief against Order No. 13,769 citing constitutional concerns. Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates declined to instruct the DOJ to defend that executive order because she was “not convinced” that it was consistent with the DOJ’s “solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right”—and she was promptly fired and replaced by the President.2 Executive Order No. 13,780 was intended to cure the legal deficiencies of the first travel ban, but to date, two federal courts have enjoined enforcement of that order, as well.3
These events have been the subject of articles from news outlets throughout the world. In fact, a Google News search for the string “Trump ‘executive order’ ‘travel ban’” returns close to two million results.4
2 Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lichtblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trumpimmigration-ban-memo.html.
3 See Order Granting Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction, Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, at 6, 16-17 (D. Haw. March 29, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 30, 2017); Memorandum Opinion, Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, at 9, 28-33 (D. Md. March 16, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 18, 2017).
4 https://goo.gl/b5OIn7.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 11 April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 5
Here is a sample of news articles published by major press organizations within the United States and internationally discussing recent developments related to this matter: Laura Jarrett, Federal Judge Extends Ruling Halting Travel Ban Indefinitely, CNN (March 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/hawaii-trump-travel-ban-extended. Kartikay Mehrotra and Erik Larson, Trump Travel Ban Back in Court, But Win Won’t Restore It, BLOOMBERG (March 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-29/trumptravel-ban-back-in-court-but-even-a-win-won-t-restore-it. Bart Jansen, Trump’s Travel Ban Could Cost $18B in U.S. Tourism, Analysis Shows, USA TODAY (March 29, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/trumpstravel-ban-could-cost-18b-us-tourism-travel-analysts-say/99708758.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 11
April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 6
Josh Gerstein, Is Trump Stalling a Travel Ban Appeal at 9th Circuit?, POLITICO (March 28, 2017), http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/03/donald-trump-travel-ban-ninthcircuit-appeal-236575.
Cogan Schneier, Web of Litigation Grows Around Trump Travel Ban, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (March 28, 2017), http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202782264436/Web-of-LitigationGrows-Around-Trump-Travel-Ban?slreturn=20170229201754.
Andrea Noble, Full Fourth Circuit to Consider Hearing Case on Trump’s Travel Limits, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 27, 2017), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/trump-travel-ban-full-4th-circuit-courtappeals-co.
Ryan Teague Beckwith, President Trump’s Own Words Keep Hurting His Travel Ban, TIME (March 16, 2017), http://time.com/4703614/travel-ban-judges-donald-trump-words.
Alexander Burns, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, NEW YORK TIMES (March 15, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html.
Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell, DHS Report Disputes Threat From Banned Nations, AP (Feb. 24, 2017), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhs-intelreport-disputes-threat-posed-travel-ban-nations.
The requested information will help the public better understand the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of the travel restrictions, as well as how DHS has responded to the public outcry and judicial decisions prompted by them. Further, as explained below in support of the request for “news media” treatment, Ms. Currier is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
B. Widespread and Exceptional Media Interest Standard
The requested records relate to “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1)(iv).
As noted above, the subject of this request has been extensively covered by press around the world over the past few weeks.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 11
April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 7
Further, the requested records relate directly to questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence. Many members of the news media have questioned whether the executive orders went through appropriate internal vetting processes, and whether White House staff overruled DHS legal interpretations regarding the first order’s application to lawful permanent residents.5 Concerns have also been raised about whether CBP had responded appropriately to inquiries by members of Congress.6 And numerous federal courts have found the travel restrictions in both executive orders are likely unconstitutional. The requested information will help shed light on how the travel restrictions were written, interpreted and implemented, and how DHS and CBP interacted with the White House, Congress, and others as the events of the past few weeks unfolded. It will also help the public understand the motivations behind the travel restrictions and the steps that have been taken to remedy the constitutional deficiencies identified by the courts.
Pursuant to 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(3), I certify this statement to be true and correct.
Request for “News Media” Fee Status
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media and does not seek the requested records for commercial use. Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of this request should be limited to reasonable duplication costs. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media because she “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses [her] editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” Id.; 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(b)(6).
Cora Currier is a staff reporter for The Intercept. The Intercept is a digital news publication that was founded in 2013 with a mission to report on national security and foreign policy issues. The Intercept has since expanded to a staff of more than twenty reporters producing investigative reporting, analysis, commentary, and multimedia content focused on national security, politics, civil liberties, technology, criminal justice, the media, and more. The Intercept’s coverage has
5 Evan Perez, Pamela Brown & Kevin Liptak, Inside the confusion of the Trump executive order and travel ban, CNN (Jan. 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trumptravel-ban/index.html.
6 David Siegel, Congressmen at Dulles airport protest say they were denied access to detainee facilities, CNN (Jan. 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/congressmen-customsborder-dulles/index.html.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 11
April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 8
been recognized with awards from the Online News Association, the American Society of Magazine Editors, the New York Press Club, and others.
Ms. Currier has covered national security, counterterrorism, and immigration since joining the newsroom in 2014. Prior to that, she covered similar topics for the investigative news site ProPublica. She has reported on issues pertinent to the recent travel ban, including CBP’s policy on collecting social media information from foreign travelers,7 government efforts to counter violent extremism, the No Fly list and other watchlisting procedures,8 and in the past, has covered the cases of individuals blocked from entering the United States on terrorism grounds.9 She has previously requested, obtained, and reported on documents obtained via the FOIA on a range of national security-related issues.10
Finally, we note that per DHS regulations, a request for records that supports the newsdissemination function of the requester is not considered to be for a commercial use. Id. § 5.11(b)(6).
Thus, Ms. Currier should be classified as “news media” requesters for purposes of fee assessments.
Request for Public Interest Fee Waiver
Ms. Currier requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested records “is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the
7 Cora Currier, The US Government Wants to Read Travelers’ Tweets Before Letting Them In, THE INTERCEPT (Oct. 21, 2016), https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wantsto-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/.
8 Cora Currier, Government May Now Tell You Why You’re on a “No Fly” List, But Not Always, THE INTERCEPT (April 15, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/04/15/government-will-now-tellyoure-fly-list-except-wont/.
9 Cora Currier, Why the U.S. Won’t Allow a Dying Iranian Sociologist to Join His Family, PROPUBLICA (Nov. 20, 2012), https://www.propublica.org/article/why-the-us-wont-allow-adying-iranian-sociologist-to-join-his-family.
10 Cora Currier, Newly Released Records Show the US Paid $6 Million for Civilian Harm in Afghanistan, THE INTERCEPT (Mar. 3, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/03/04/newlyreleased-records-show-us-paid-6-million-afghan-civilian-harm/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 10 of 11
April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 9
government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k)(1)(i)-(ii). As DHS regulations note, news media requesters are entitled to a presumption that their requests meet this standard. 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k)(3)(ii).
First, the request concerns “identifiable operations or activities of the federal government[.]” Id. § 5.11(k)(2)(i). Specifically, the records will shed light on how DHS officials were involved in the creation and execution of restrictions on the ability of travelers from certain countries to enter the United States.
Second, disclosure of the requested records will be “meaningfully informative about government operations or activities” and is “likely to contribute to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities.” Id. § 5.11(k)(2)(ii) (internal quotation marks omitted). The records sought will educate the public about DHS’s implementation of the executive orders.
Third, the requested records will “contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester.” Id. § 5.11(k)(2)(iii). The requesters do not seek this information for themselves, but to incorporate into news reporting that will educate the public.
Fourth, the requested records will significantly enhance the public’s understanding of DHS’s involvement in the executive orders. Id. § 5.11(k)(2)(iv). The records will reveal substantial new information about the travel restrictions, how they were developed, and DHS’s role in executing them even after multiple courts ordered that certain government actions be stayed.
Finally, the records are not primarily in the requester’s commercial interest. Ms. Currier seeks the requested information for newsgathering purposes and expects to incorporate it into journalistic work product.
Thus, DHS should grant a public interest fee waiver for this request. Should DHS decline a fee waiver, Ms. Currier agrees to pay up to $100 for the processing of this request. If the estimated fees will exceed this limit, please inform me before you begin processing.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-10 Filed 07/20/17 Page 11 of 11
April 3, 2017 DHS FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 10 Thank you for your consideration of this request. As DHS regulations provide, we will anticipate your determination on expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days. Id. § 5.5(e)(4). If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 830-6664 or marcia@zeitgeist.law.
Regards,
Marcia Hofmann

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 10
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 10
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 10

April 3, 2017

Office of the Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General Office of Public Affairs Office of Legislative Affairs Laurie Day Chief, Initial Request Staff Office of Information Policy U.S. Department of Justice Suite 11050 1425 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530

Peter Carr Acting Director of Public Affairs Office of Public Affairs U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request and Request for Expedited Processing

Dear FOIA Officers:

This is an expedited request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I am submitting it to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of Cora Currier, a staff journalist at The Intercept.

This letter follows another FOIA request submitted on February 1, 2017, seeking records related to Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which President Trump signed on January 27, 2017. The DOJ Office of Information Policy granted expedited processing on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs for that request.

Requested Records

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Among other things, the order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 2
United States for 90 days. The order was enjoined in part or full by several federal courts, one of which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,780, which had the same title as its predecessor. This new order also restricted travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. To date, portions of this order have been blocked by two federal district courts. The government is appealing those decisions to the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit.
Ms. Currier requests all agency records from February 1, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780. We believe the records we seek are located within the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs.
We urge all components to process this request consistent with DOJ policy directing a presumption of disclosure.1
This request includes, but is not limited to:
A. Records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other communications:
1. Among DOJ personnel, including supervisors, officers, managers, and union representatives;
2. Between DOJ officials and the Executive Office of the President (EOP) or other White House offices, including any consultations by the OLC and communications between the Acting Attorney General and EOP;
3. Between DOJ officials and other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State;
4. Between DOJ officials and members of Congress or congressional staffers, including aides to the House Judiciary Committee;
1 See Dep’t of Justice Office of Information Policy, President Obama’s FOIA Memorandum and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines: Creating a “New Era of Open Government” (2009), https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 3
5. Between DOJ officials and local and state agencies, including local law enforcement and agents at airports of entry such as General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK);
6. Between DOJ officials and non-government representatives and outside consultants, including nonprofits, policy think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Security Policies, the Heritage Foundation, the Investigative Project on Terrorism;
7. Between DOJ officials and reporters from Breitbart News, Fox News, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, the Washington Times, or the Free Beacon; and
8. Between DOJ officials and private firms such as Giuliani Partners and Renaissance Technologies.
B. Legal assessments, analyses, or discussions about the decision to remove language between Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780 about offering preferential status to minority religious groups and the legality of such measures.
C. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOJ officials to judicial orders staying the enforcement of the executive order, including discussions of legal liability for failing to follow those orders.
Please produce any responsive records you identify in electronic format.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 4
Request for Expedited Processing
This requests warrants expedited processing under two standards: 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii) and (iv).
A. Urgency to Inform the Public Standard
This request pertains to information about which there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” and it is made by a requester “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” Id. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii).
There is an urgency to inform the public about the federal government’s implementation of highly controversial restrictions banning nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Thousands of people across the country have protested these restrictions. Several different federal courts issued temporary relief against Order No. 13,769 citing constitutional concerns. Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates declined to instruct the DOJ to defend that executive order because she was “not convinced” that it was consistent with the DOJ’s “solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right”—and she was promptly fired and replaced by the President.2 Executive Order No. 13,780 was intended to cure the legal deficiencies of the first travel ban, but to date, two federal courts have enjoined enforcement of that order, as well.3
These events have been the subject of articles from news outlets throughout the world. In fact, a Google News search for the string “Trump ‘executive order’ ‘travel ban’” returns close to two million results.4
2 Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lichtblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trumpimmigration-ban-memo.html.
3 See Order Granting Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction, Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, at 6, 16-17 (D. Haw. March 29, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 30, 2017); Memorandum Opinion, Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, at 9, 28-33 (D. Md. March 16, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 18, 2017).
4 https://goo.gl/b5OIn7.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 10 April 3, 2017 DOJ FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 5
Here is a sample of news articles published by major press organizations within the United States and internationally discussing recent developments related to this matter: Laura Jarrett, Federal Judge Extends Ruling Halting Travel Ban Indefinitely, CNN (March 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/hawaii-trump-travel-ban-extended. Kartikay Mehrotra and Erik Larson, Trump Travel Ban Back in Court, But Win Won’t Restore It, BLOOMBERG (March 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-29/trumptravel-ban-back-in-court-but-even-a-win-won-t-restore-it. Bart Jansen, Trump’s Travel Ban Could Cost $18B in U.S. Tourism, Analysis Shows, USA TODAY (March 29, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/trumpstravel-ban-could-cost-18b-us-tourism-travel-analysts-say/99708758.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 6
Josh Gerstein, Is Trump Stalling a Travel Ban Appeal at 9th Circuit?, POLITICO (March 28, 2017), http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/03/donald-trump-travel-ban-ninthcircuit-appeal-236575.
Cogan Schneier, Web of Litigation Grows Around Trump Travel Ban, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (March 28, 2017), http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202782264436/Web-of-LitigationGrows-Around-Trump-Travel-Ban?slreturn=20170229201754.
Andrea Noble, Full Fourth Circuit to Consider Hearing Case on Trump’s Travel Limits, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 27, 2017), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/trump-travel-ban-full-4th-circuit-courtappeals-co.
Ryan Teague Beckwith, President Trump’s Own Words Keep Hurting His Travel Ban, TIME (March 16, 2017), http://time.com/4703614/travel-ban-judges-donald-trump-words.
Alexander Burns, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, NEW YORK TIMES (March 15, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html.
Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell, DHS Report Disputes Threat From Banned Nations, AP (Feb. 24, 2017), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhs-intelreport-disputes-threat-posed-travel-ban-nations.
The requested information will help the public better understand the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of the travel restrictions, as well as how DOJ has responded to the public outcry and judicial decisions prompted by them. Further, as explained below in support of the request for “news media” treatment, Ms. Currier is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
B. Widespread and Exceptional Media Interest Standard
The requested records relate to “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv).
As noted above, the subject of this request has been extensively covered by press around the world over the past few weeks.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 7
Further, the requested records relate directly to questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence. Numerous federal courts have found the travel restrictions in both executive orders are likely unconstitutional. The requested information will help shed light on how DOJ has interacted with the White House, Congress, and others as the events of the past few weeks unfolded. It will also help the public understand the motivations behind the travel restrictions, the steps that have been taken to remedy the constitutional deficiencies identified by the courts, and how the Executive branch has worked to enforce and craft its defense of the executive orders.
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(3), I certify this statement to be true and correct.
Request for “News Media” Fee Status
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media and does not seek the requested records for commercial use. Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of this request should be limited to reasonable duplication costs. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media because she “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses [her] editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” Id.; 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(b)(6).
Cora Currier is a staff reporter for The Intercept. The Intercept is a digital news publication that was founded in 2013 with a mission to report on national security and foreign policy issues. The Intercept has since expanded to a staff of more than twenty reporters producing investigative reporting, analysis, commentary, and multimedia content focused on national security, politics, civil liberties, technology, criminal justice, the media, and more. The Intercept’s coverage has been recognized with awards from the Online News Association, the American Society of Magazine Editors, the New York Press Club, and others.
Ms. Currier has covered national security, counterterrorism, and immigration since joining the newsroom in 2014. Prior to that, she covered similar topics for the investigative news site ProPublica. She has reported on issues pertinent to the recent travel ban, including CBP’s policy on collecting social media information from foreign travelers,5 government efforts to counter
5 Cora Currier, The US Government Wants to Read Travelers’ Tweets Before Letting Them In, THE INTERCEPT (Oct. 21, 2016), https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wantsto-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 8
violent extremism, the No Fly list and other watchlisting procedures,6 and in the past, has covered the cases of individuals blocked from entering the United States on terrorism grounds.7 She has previously requested, obtained, and reported on documents obtained via the FOIA on a range of national security-related issues.8
Finally, we note that per DOJ regulations, a request for records that supports the newsdissemination function of the requester is not considered to be for a commercial use. Id. 16.10(b)(6).
Thus, Ms. Currier should be classified as “news media” requesters for purposes of fee assessments.
Request for Public Interest Fee Waiver
Ms. Currier requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested records “is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(k)(1)(i)-(ii).
First, the request will “shed light on the operations or activities of the federal government.” Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(i). Specifically, the records will shed light on how DOJ officials were involved in the creation and execution of restrictions on the ability of travelers from certain countries to enter the United States.
Second, disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding” of this issue. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii). Such disclosure will be “meaningfully
6 Cora Currier, Government May Now Tell You Why You’re on a “No Fly” List, But Not Always, THE INTERCEPT (April 15, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/04/15/government-will-now-tellyoure-fly-list-except-wont/.
7 Cora Currier, Why the U.S. Won’t Allow a Dying Iranian Sociologist to Join His Family, PROPUBLICA (Nov. 20, 2012), https://www.propublica.org/article/why-the-us-wont-allow-adying-iranian-sociologist-to-join-his-family.
8 Cora Currier, Newly Released Records Show the US Paid $6 Million for Civilian Harm in Afghanistan, THE INTERCEPT (Mar. 3, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/03/04/newlyreleased-records-show-us-paid-6-million-afghan-civilian-harm/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-11 Filed 07/20/17 Page 10 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 9
informative” because it will give the public additional detail about DOJ’s role in developing and defense of the executive orders. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii)(A). The requested records will also “contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester.” Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii)(B). Ms. Currier does not seek this information for herself, but to incorporate into news reporting that will educate the public. It is presumed that representatives of the news media such as Ms. Currier satisfy this factor. Id.
Finally, the records are not primarily in the requester’s commercial interest. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(iii). Ms. Currier seeks the requested information for newsgathering purposes and expects to incorporate it into journalistic work product.
Thus, DOJ should grant a public interest fee waiver for this request. Should DOJ decline a fee waiver, Ms. Currier agrees to pay up to $100 for the processing of this request. If the estimated fees will exceed this limit, please inform me before you begin processing.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. As DOJ regulations provide, we will anticipate your determination on expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days. Id. § 16.5(e)(4). If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 830-6664 or marcia@zeitgeist.law.
Regards,
Marcia Hofmann

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 11
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 10
April 3, 2017
Office of Legal Counsel Melissa Golden Lead Paralegal and FOIA Specialist U.S. Department of Justice Room 5511, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request and Request for Expedited Processing
Dear Ms. Golden:
This is an expedited request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I am submitting it to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on behalf of Cora Currier, a staff journalist at The Intercept.
This letter follows another FOIA request submitted on February 1, 2017, seeking records related to Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which President Trump signed on January 27, 2017. The Office of Legal Counsel granted expedited processing for that request.
Requested Records
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Among other things, the order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days. The order was eventually enjoined in part or full by several federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,780, which had the same title as its predecessor. This new order also restricted travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. To date, portions of this order have been blocked by two

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ OLC FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 2
federal district courts. The government is appealing those decisions to the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit.
Ms. Currier requests all agency records from February 1, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.
We urge OLC to process this request consistent with DOJ policy directing a presumption of disclosure.1
This request includes, but is not limited to:
A. Records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other communications:
1. Among OLC personnel, including supervisors, officers, managers, and union representatives;
2. Between OLC officials and the Executive Office of the President (EOP) or other White House offices, including any consultations;
3. Between OLC officials and other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State;
4. Between OLC officials and members of Congress or congressional staffers, including aides to the House Judiciary Committee;
5. Between OLC officials and non-government representatives and outside consultants, including nonprofits, policy think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Security Policies, the Heritage Foundation, the Investigative Project on Terrorism;
1 See Dep’t of Justice Office of Information Policy, President Obama’s FOIA Memorandum and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines: Creating a “New Era of Open Government” (2009), https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ OLC FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 3
6. Between OLC officials and private firms such as Giuliani Partners and Renaissance Technologies; and
7. Between OLC officials and reporters from Breitbart News, Fox News, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, the Washington Times, or the Free Beacon; and
B. Legal assessments, analyses, or discussions about the decision to remove language between Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780 about offering preferential status to minority religious groups and the legality of such measures.
C. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOJ officials to judicial orders staying the enforcement of the executive order, including discussions of legal liability for failing to follow those orders.
Please produce any responsive records you identify in electronic format.
Request for Expedited Processing
This requests warrants expedited processing under two standards: 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii) and (iv).
A. Urgency to Inform the Public Standard
This request pertains to information about which there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” and it is made by a requester “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” Id. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii).
There is an urgency to inform the public about the federal government’s implementation of highly controversial restrictions banning nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Thousands of people across the country have protested these restrictions. Several different federal courts issued temporary relief against Order No. 13,769 citing constitutional concerns. Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates declined to instruct the DOJ to defend that executive order because she was “not convinced” that it was consistent with the DOJ’s “solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right”—and she was

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 10 April 3, 2017 DOJ OLC FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 4 promptly fired and replaced by the President.2 Executive Order No. 13,780 was intended to cure the legal deficiencies of the first travel ban, but to date, two federal courts have enjoined enforcement of that order, as well.3 These events have been the subject of articles from news outlets throughout the world. In fact, a Google News search for the string “Trump ‘executive order’ ‘travel ban’” returns close to two million results.4
2 Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lichtblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trumpimmigration-ban-memo.html. 3 See Order Granting Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction, Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, at 6, 16-17 (D. Haw. March 29, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 30, 2017); Memorandum Opinion, Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, at 9, 28-33 (D. Md. March 16, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 18, 2017). 4 https://goo.gl/b5OIn7.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ OLC FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 5
Here is a sample of news articles published by major press organizations within the United States and internationally discussing recent developments related to this matter:
Laura Jarrett, Federal Judge Extends Ruling Halting Travel Ban Indefinitely, CNN (March 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/hawaii-trump-travel-ban-extended.
Kartikay Mehrotra and Erik Larson, Trump Travel Ban Back in Court, But Win Won’t Restore It, BLOOMBERG (March 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-29/trumptravel-ban-back-in-court-but-even-a-win-won-t-restore-it.
Bart Jansen, Trump’s Travel Ban Could Cost $18B in U.S. Tourism, Analysis Shows, USA TODAY (March 29, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/trumpstravel-ban-could-cost-18b-us-tourism-travel-analysts-say/99708758.
Josh Gerstein, Is Trump Stalling a Travel Ban Appeal at 9th Circuit?, POLITICO (March 28, 2017), http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/03/donald-trump-travel-ban-ninthcircuit-appeal-236575.
Cogan Schneier, Web of Litigation Grows Around Trump Travel Ban, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (March 28, 2017), http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202782264436/Web-of-LitigationGrows-Around-Trump-Travel-Ban?slreturn=20170229201754.
Andrea Noble, Full Fourth Circuit to Consider Hearing Case on Trump’s Travel Limits, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 27, 2017), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/trump-travel-ban-full-4th-circuit-courtappeals-co.
Ryan Teague Beckwith, President Trump’s Own Words Keep Hurting His Travel Ban, TIME (March 16, 2017), http://time.com/4703614/travel-ban-judges-donald-trump-words.
Alexander Burns, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, NEW YORK TIMES (March 15, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html.
Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell, DHS Report Disputes Threat From Banned Nations, AP (Feb. 24, 2017), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhs-intelreport-disputes-threat-posed-travel-ban-nations.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ OLC FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 6
The requested information will help the public better understand the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of the travel restrictions, as well as how DOJ has responded to the public outcry and judicial decisions prompted by them. Further, as explained below in support of the request for “news media” treatment, Ms. Currier is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
B. Widespread and Exceptional Media Interest Standard
The requested records relate to “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv).
As noted above, the subject of this request has been extensively covered by press around the world over the past few weeks.
Further, the requested records relate directly to questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence. Numerous federal courts have found the travel restrictions in both executive orders are likely unconstitutional. The requested information will help shed light on how DOJ has interacted with the White House, Congress, and others as the events of the past few weeks unfolded. It will also help the public understand the motivations behind the travel restrictions, the steps that have been taken to remedy the constitutional deficiencies identified by the courts, and how the Executive branch has worked to enforce and craft its defense of the executive orders.
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(3), I certify this statement to be true and correct.
Request for “News Media” Fee Status
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media and does not seek the requested records for commercial use. Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of this request should be limited to reasonable duplication costs. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media because she “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses [her] editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” Id.; 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(b)(6).
Cora Currier is a staff reporter for The Intercept. The Intercept is a digital news publication that was founded in 2013 with a mission to report on national security and foreign policy issues. The

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ OLC FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 7
Intercept has since expanded to a staff of more than twenty reporters producing investigative reporting, analysis, commentary, and multimedia content focused on national security, politics, civil liberties, technology, criminal justice, the media, and more. The Intercept’s coverage has been recognized with awards from the Online News Association, the American Society of Magazine Editors, the New York Press Club, and others.
Ms. Currier has covered national security, counterterrorism, and immigration since joining the newsroom in 2014. Prior to that, she covered similar topics for the investigative news site ProPublica. She has reported on issues pertinent to the recent travel ban, including CBP’s policy on collecting social media information from foreign travelers,5 government efforts to counter violent extremism, the No Fly list and other watchlisting procedures,6 and in the past, has covered the cases of individuals blocked from entering the United States on terrorism grounds.7 She has previously requested, obtained, and reported on documents obtained via the FOIA on a range of national security-related issues.8
Finally, we note that per DOJ regulations, a request for records that supports the newsdissemination function of the requester is not considered to be for a commercial use. Id. 16.10(b)(6).
Thus, Ms. Currier should be classified as “news media” requesters for purposes of fee assessments.
5 Cora Currier, The US Government Wants to Read Travelers’ Tweets Before Letting Them In, THE INTERCEPT (Oct. 21, 2016), https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wantsto-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/.
6 Cora Currier, Government May Now Tell You Why You’re on a “No Fly” List, But Not Always, THE INTERCEPT (April 15, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/04/15/government-will-now-tellyoure-fly-list-except-wont/.
7 Cora Currier, Why the U.S. Won’t Allow a Dying Iranian Sociologist to Join His Family, PROPUBLICA (Nov. 20, 2012), https://www.propublica.org/article/why-the-us-wont-allow-adying-iranian-sociologist-to-join-his-family.
8 Cora Currier, Newly Released Records Show the US Paid $6 Million for Civilian Harm in Afghanistan, THE INTERCEPT (Mar. 3, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/03/04/newlyreleased-records-show-us-paid-6-million-afghan-civilian-harm/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ OLC FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 8
Request for Public Interest Fee Waiver
Ms. Currier requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested records “is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(k)(1)(i)-(ii).
First, the request will “shed light on the operations or activities of the federal government.” Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(i). Specifically, the records will shed light on how DOJ officials were involved in the creation, execution, and defense of restrictions on the ability of travelers from certain countries to enter the United States.
Second, disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding” of this issue. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii). Such disclosure will be “meaningfully informative” because it will give the public additional detail about DOJ’s development and defense of the executive orders. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii)(A). The requested records will also “contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester.” Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii)(B). Ms. Currier does not seek this information for herself, but to incorporate into news reporting that will educate the public. It is presumed that representatives of the news media such as Ms. Currier satisfy this factor. Id.
Finally, the records are not primarily in the requester’s commercial interest. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(iii). Ms. Currier seeks the requested information for newsgathering purposes and expects to incorporate it into journalistic work product.
Thus, OLC should grant a public interest fee waiver for this request. Should OLC decline a fee waiver, Ms. Currier agrees to pay up to $100 for the processing of this request. If the estimated fees will exceed this limit, please inform me before you begin processing.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-12 Filed 07/20/17 Page 10 of 10
April 3, 2017 DOJ OLC FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 9 Thank you for your consideration of this request. As DOJ regulations provide, we will anticipate your determination on expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days. Id. § 16.5(e)(4). If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 830-6664 or marcia@zeitgeist.law.
Regards,
Marcia Hofmann

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 9
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 12
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 9
April 3, 2017
Office of Information Programs and Services A/GIS/IPS U.S. Department of State, SA-2 Washington, DC 20522-8100
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request and Request for Expedited Processing
Dear Freedom of Information Officer:
This is an expedited request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I am submitting it to the Department of State (DOS) on behalf of Cora Currier, a staff journalist at the Intercept.
This letter follows another FOIA request submitted on February 1, 2017, seeking records related to Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which President Trump signed on January 27, 2017. DOS granted expedited processing for that request on February 7, 2017.
Requested Records
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Among other things, the order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days. The order was enjoined in part or full by several federal courts, one of which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,780, which had the same title as its predecessor. This new order also restricted travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. To date, portions of this order have been blocked by two federal district courts. The government is appealing those decisions to the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 9
April 3, 2017 State FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 2
Ms. Currier requests all agency records from February 1, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.
We urge the agency to process this request consistent with Justice Department policy directing a presumption of disclosure.1
This request includes, but is not limited to:
A. Records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other communications:
1. Among DOS personnel, including consular officials, supervisors, officers, managers, and union representatives;
2. From or about visa applicants or dual citizens asking for clarification or about the ban’s effect;
3. Between DOS officials and the Executive Office of the President or other White House offices;
4. Between DOS and members of Congress or congressional staffers, including aides to the House Judiciary Committee; and
5. Between DOS officials and non-government representatives and outside consultants, including nonprofits, policy think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Security Policies, the Heritage Foundation, the Investigative Project on Terrorism; and State Department officials and private firms such as Giuliani Partners and Renaissance Technologies.
B. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOS officials to judicial orders staying the enforcement of the executive orders, including discussions of legal liability for failing to follow those orders.
1 See Dep’t of Justice Office of Information Policy, President Obama’s FOIA Memorandum and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines: Creating a “New Era of Open Government” (2009), https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 9
April 3, 2017 State FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 3
C. Records from the Dissent Channel related to the executive orders.
D. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOS officials to responses by other countries to the executive orders, including but not limited to Iran and Iraq.
E. Directives, memos, or cables advising consular officials how to handle queries from travelers about their legal status or travel plans in light of the executive orders.
F. Memos, analyses, or communications (including correspondence with Iraqi officials) about the decision to remove Iraq from the list of countries covered by the travel restrictions in Executive Order No. 13,780.
G. Analyses, reports, or assessments of the security risks posed by individuals from the nations whose citizens were covered by the executive orders.
H. Analyses, reports, or assessments of the impact of the travel restrictions on national security or diplomatic relationships.
Please produce any responsive records you identify in electronic format.
Request for Expedited Processing
This request warrants expedited processing because it seeks information that is “urgently needed” to “inform the public concerning an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” and it is made by requesters “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” 22 C.F.R. § 171.11(f)(2).
There is an urgency to inform the public about the federal government’s implementation of highly controversial restrictions banning nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Thousands of people across the country have protested these restrictions. Several different federal courts issued temporary relief against Order No. 13,769 citing constitutional concerns. Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates declined to instruct the DOJ to defend that executive order because she was “not convinced” that it was consistent with the DOJ’s “solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right”—and she was promptly fired and replaced by the President.2 Executive Order No. 13,780 was intended to cure
2 Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lichtblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trumpimmigration-ban-memo.html.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 9 April 3, 2017 State FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 4 the legal deficiencies of the first travel ban, but to date, two federal courts have enjoined enforcement of that order, as well.3 These events have been the subject of articles from news outlets throughout the world. In fact, a Google News search for the string “Trump ‘executive order’ ‘travel ban’” returns close to two million results.4
3 See Order Granting Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction, Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, at 6, 16-17 (D. Haw. March 29, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 30, 2017); Memorandum Opinion, Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, at 9, 28-33 (D. Md. March 16, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 18, 2017). 4 https://goo.gl/b5OIn7.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 9
April 3, 2017 State FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 5
Here is a sample of news articles published by major press organizations within the United States and internationally discussing recent developments related to this matter:
Laura Jarrett, Federal Judge Extends Ruling Halting Travel Ban Indefinitely, CNN (March 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/hawaii-trump-travel-ban-extended.
Kartikay Mehrotra and Erik Larson, Trump Travel Ban Back in Court, But Win Won’t Restore It, BLOOMBERG (March 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-29/trumptravel-ban-back-in-court-but-even-a-win-won-t-restore-it.
Bart Jansen, Trump’s Travel Ban Could Cost $18B in U.S. Tourism, Analysis Shows, USA TODAY (March 29, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/trumpstravel-ban-could-cost-18b-us-tourism-travel-analysts-say/99708758.
Josh Gerstein, Is Trump Stalling a Travel Ban Appeal at 9th Circuit?, POLITICO (March 28, 2017), http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/03/donald-trump-travel-ban-ninthcircuit-appeal-236575.
Cogan Schneier, Web of Litigation Grows Around Trump Travel Ban, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (March 28, 2017), http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202782264436/Web-of-LitigationGrows-Around-Trump-Travel-Ban?slreturn=20170229201754.
Andrea Noble, Full Fourth Circuit to Consider Hearing Case on Trump’s Travel Limits, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 27, 2017), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/trump-travel-ban-full-4th-circuit-courtappeals-co.
Ryan Teague Beckwith, President Trump’s Own Words Keep Hurting His Travel Ban, TIME (March 16, 2017), http://time.com/4703614/travel-ban-judges-donald-trump-words.
Alexander Burns, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, NEW YORK TIMES (March 15, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html.
Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell, DHS Report Disputes Threat From Banned Nations, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Feb. 24, 2017), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhs-intel-report-disputesthreat-posed-travel-ban-nations.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 9
April 3, 2017 State FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 6
The requested information will help the public better understand the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of the travel restrictions, the internal dissent that resulted from it, and how DOS has responded to reciprocal actions by other states.
Further, as explained below in support of the request for “news media” treatment, Ms. Currier is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
Request for “News Media” Fee Status
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media and does not seek the requested records for commercial use. Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of this request should be limited to reasonable duplication costs. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media because she “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses [her] editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” Id. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II); 22 C.F.R. § 171.14(b)(5)(ii)(C).
Cora Currier is a staff reporter for The Intercept. The Intercept is a digital news publication that was founded in 2013 with a mission to report on national security and foreign policy issues. The Intercept has since expanded to a staff of more than twenty reporters producing investigative reporting, analysis, commentary, and multimedia content focused on national security, politics, civil liberties, technology, criminal justice, the media, and more. The Intercept’s coverage has been recognized with awards from the Online News Association, the American Society of Magazine Editors, the New York Press Club, and others.
Ms. Currier has covered national security, counterterrorism, and immigration since joining the newsroom in 2014. Prior to that, she covered similar topics for the investigative news site ProPublica. She has reported on issues pertinent to the recent travel ban, including CBP’s policy on collecting social media information from foreign travelers,5 government efforts to counter violent extremism, the No Fly list and other watchlisting procedures,6 and in the past, has
5 Cora Currier, The US Government Wants to Read Travelers’ Tweets Before Letting Them In, THE INTERCEPT (Oct. 21, 2016), https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wantsto-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/.
6 Cora Currier, Government May Now Tell You Why You’re on a “No Fly” List, But Not Always, THE INTERCEPT (April 15, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/04/15/government-will-now-tellyoure-fly-list-except-wont/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 9
April 3, 2017 State FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 7
covered the cases of individuals blocked from entering the United States on terrorism grounds.7 She has previously requested, obtained, and reported on documents obtained via the FOIA on a range of national security-related issues.8
Thus, Ms. Currier should be classified as a “news media” requester for purposes of fee assessments.
Request for Public Interest Fee Waiver
Ms. Currier requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested records “is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 22 C.F.R. § 171.16(a).
Disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government. First, the request concerns “identifiable operations or activities of the federal government[.]” 22 C.F.R. § 171.16(a)(1)(i). Specifically, the requested records will shed light on how (and whether) DOS officials were involved in the creation of restrictions limiting the ability of travelers from certain countries to enter the United States.
Second, disclosure of the requested records will be “meaningfully informative about government operations or activities” and is “likely to contribute to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities.” Id. § 171.16(a)(1)(ii). (internal quotation marks omitted). News outlets have already reported on significant internal dissent within the DOS about the travel restrictions. The requested records will shed more light on how the executive orders were developed and how DOS helped to implement them.
Third, the requested records will “contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester.”
7 Cora Currier, Why the U.S. Won’t Allow a Dying Iranian Sociologist to Join His Family, PROPUBLICA (Nov. 20, 2012), https://www.propublica.org/article/why-the-us-wont-allow-adying-iranian-sociologist-to-join-his-family.
8 Cora Currier, Newly Released Records Show the US Paid $6 Million for Civilian Harm in Afghanistan, THE INTERCEPT (Mar. 3, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/03/04/newlyreleased-records-show-us-paid-6-million-afghan-civilian-harm/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-13 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 9
April 3, 2017 State FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 8
Id. § 171.16(a)(1)(iii). Ms. Currier does not seek this information for herself, but to incorporate into news reporting that will educate the public. Representatives of the news media such as Ms. Currier presumptively satisfy this factor. Id.
Fourth, the requested records will significantly enhance the public’s understanding of DOS’s involvement in carrying out the executive order. Id. §171.16(a)(1)(iv). The records will reveal substantial new information about how the travel restrictions were developed and dissent within the DOS about how to implement them.
Finally, the records are not primarily in the requester’s commercial interest. Ms. Currier seeks the requested information for newsgathering purposes and expects to incorporate it into journalistic work product. Such requests are not considered for a commercial purpose. Id. § 171.16(a)(2)(iii).
Thus, DOS should grant a public interest fee waiver for this request. Should DOS decline a fee waiver, Ms. Currier agrees to pay up to $100 for the processing of this request. If the estimated fees will exceed this limit, please inform me before you begin processing.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. As DOS regulations provide, we will anticipate your determination on expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days. Id. § 171.11(f)(4). If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 830-6664 or marcia@zeitgeist.law.
Regards,
Marcia Hofmann

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 9
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 13
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 9
April 3, 2017 Office of Freedom of Information 1155 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1155 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request and Request for Expedited Processing Dear Freedom of Information Officer: This is an expedited request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I am submitting it to the Department of Defense (DOD) on behalf of Cora Currier, a staff journalist at the Intercept. Requested Records On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Among other things, the order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days. The order was enjoined in part or full by several federal courts, one of which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,780, which had the same title as its predecessor. This new order also restricted travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. To date, portions of this order have been blocked by two federal district courts. The government is appealing those decisions to the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit. Ms. Currier requests all agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis of the impact of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 9
April 3, 2017 DOD FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 2
We urge the agency to process this request consistent with Justice Department policy directing a presumption of disclosure.1
This request includes, but is not limited to:
A. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOD officials to responses by officials of other countries to the executive orders, including but not limited to Iran and Iraq.
B. Memos, analyses, or communications (including correspondence with Iraqi officials) about the decision to remove Iraq from the list of countries covered by the travel restrictions in Executive Order No. 13,780.
C. Analyses, reports or assessments produced by DOD components about the security risks posed by individuals from the nations covered by the executive orders, about the use of citizenship as an indicator of a terrorist threat to the United States, or otherwise evaluating the effectiveness of the travel ban in preventing national security threats.
D. Any analyses, reports, or assessments about the executive orders’ impact on national security or on military operations abroad.
Please produce any responsive records you identify in electronic format.
Request for Expedited Processing
This request warrants expedited processing because it seeks information that is “urgently needed” to “inform the public concerning an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” and it is made by requesters “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” 32 C.F.R. § 286.8(e)(1)(i)(B).
There is an urgency to inform the public about the federal government’s implementation of highly controversial restrictions banning nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Thousands of people across the country have protested these restrictions. Several different federal courts issued temporary relief against Order No. 13,769 citing constitutional concerns. Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates declined to instruct the
1 See Dep’t of Justice Office of Information Policy, President Obama’s FOIA Memorandum and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines: Creating a “New Era of Open Government” (2009), https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 9
April 3, 2017 DOD FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 3
DOJ to defend that executive order because she was “not convinced” that it was consistent with the DOJ’s “solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right”—and she was promptly fired and replaced by the President.2 Executive Order No. 13,780 was intended to cure the legal deficiencies of the first travel ban, but to date, two federal courts have enjoined enforcement of that order, as well.3
Additionally, news reports have indicated that the Secretary of Defense and other military officials expressed concerns about the effects of the travel ban on the fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. According to reports, defense officials were concerned that including Iraq in the ban would hamper cooperation with Iraqi and other coalition partners.4 An Iraqi general who frequently travels from Iraq to meet with U.S. commanders was reportedly denied entry to the United States after the initial executive order went into effect.5
These events have been the subject of articles from news outlets throughout the world. In fact, a Google News search for the string “Trump ‘executive order’ ‘travel ban’” returns close to two million results.6
2 Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lichtblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trumpimmigration-ban-memo.html.
3 See Order Granting Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction, Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, at 6, 16-17 (D. Haw. March 29, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 30, 2017); Memorandum Opinion, Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, at 9, 28-33 (D. Md. March 16, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 18, 2017).
4 Glenn Thrush, Trump’s New Travel Ban Blocks Migrants From Six Nations, Sparing Iraq, THE NEW YORK TIMES (March 6, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/travel-banmuslim-trump.html. 5 Charlie D’Agata, Iraqi general who works with American military kept from visiting U.S., CBS NEWS (Jan. 30, 2017), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraqi-general-who-works-with-american-military-kept-fromvisiting-u-s/.
6 https://goo.gl/b5OIn7.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 9 April 3, 2017 DOD FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 4
Here is a sample of news articles published by major press organizations within the United States and internationally discussing recent developments related to this matter: Laura Jarrett, Federal Judge Extends Ruling Halting Travel Ban Indefinitely, CNN (March 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/hawaii-trump-travel-ban-extended. Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell, DHS Report Disputes Threat From Banned Nations, AP (February 24, 2017), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhsintel-report-disputes-threat-posed-travel-ban-nations. Kartikay Mehrotra and Erik Larson, Trump Travel Ban Back in Court, But Win Won’t Restore It, BLOOMBERG (March 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-29/trumptravel-ban-back-in-court-but-even-a-win-won-t-restore-it.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 9
April 3, 2017 DOD FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 5
Bart Jansen, Trump’s Travel Ban Could Cost $18B in U.S. Tourism, Analysis Shows, USA TODAY (March 29, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/trumpstravel-ban-could-cost-18b-us-tourism-travel-analysts-say/99708758.
Josh Gerstein, Is Trump Stalling a Travel Ban Appeal at 9th Circuit?, POLITICO (March 28, 2017), http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/03/donald-trump-travel-ban-ninthcircuit-appeal-236575.
Cogan Schneier, Web of Litigation Grows Around Trump Travel Ban, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (March 28, 2017), http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202782264436/Web-of-LitigationGrows-Around-Trump-Travel-Ban?slreturn=20170229201754.
Andrea Noble, Full Fourth Circuit to Consider Hearing Case on Trump’s Travel Limits, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 27, 2017), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/trump-travel-ban-full-4th-circuit-courtappeals-co.
Ryan Teague Beckwith, President Trump’s Own Words Keep Hurting His Travel Ban, TIME (March 16, 2017), http://time.com/4703614/travel-ban-judges-donald-trump-words.
Alexander Burns, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, NEW YORK TIMES (March 15, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html.
Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell, DHS Report Disputes Threat From Banned Nations, AP (Feb. 24, 2017), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhs-intelreport-disputes-threat-posed-travel-ban-nations.
The requested information will help the public better understand the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of the travel restrictions, the internal dissent that resulted from it, and how DOD has responded to reciprocal actions by other states.
Further, as explained below in support of the request for “news media” treatment, Ms. Currier is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.”

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 9
April 3, 2017 DOD FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 6
Request for “News Media” Fee Status
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media and does not seek the requested records for commercial use. Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of this request should be limited to reasonable duplication costs. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media because she “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses [her] editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” Id. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
The Intercept is a digital news publication that was founded in 2013 with a mission to report on national security and foreign policy issues. The Intercept has since expanded to a staff of more than twenty reporters producing investigative reporting, analysis, commentary, and multimedia content focused on national security, politics, civil liberties, technology, criminal justice, the media, and more. The Intercept’s coverage has been recognized with awards from the Online News Association, the American Society of Magazine Editors, the New York Press Club, and others.
Cora Currier is a staff reporter for The Intercept. Ms. Currier has covered national security, counterterrorism, and immigration since joining the newsroom in 2013. Prior to that, she covered similar topics for the investigative news site ProPublica. She has reported on issues pertinent to the recent travel ban, including CBP’s policy on collecting social media information from foreign travelers,7 government efforts to counter violent extremism, the No Fly list and other watchlisting procedures,8 and in the past, has covered the cases of individuals blocked from
7 Cora Currier, The US Government Wants to Read Travelers’ Tweets Before Letting Them In, THE INTERCEPT (Oct. 21, 2016), https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wantsto-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/. 8 Cora Currier, Government May Now Tell You Why You’re on a “No Fly” List, But Not Always, THE INTERCEPT (April 15, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/04/15/government-will-now-tellyoure-fly-list-except-wont/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 9
April 3, 2017 DOD FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 7
entering the United States on terrorism grounds.9 She has previously requested, obtained, and reported on documents obtained via the FOIA on a range of national security-related issues.10
Thus, Ms. Currier should be classified as a “news media” requester for purposes of fee assessments.
Request for Public Interest Fee Waiver
Ms. Currier requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested records “is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 32 C.F.R. § 286.12(l)(1).
Disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government. First, the request concerns “identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government[.]”32 C.F.R. § 286.12(l)(2)(i). Specifically, the requested records will shed light on how (and whether) DOD officials were involved in the creation of restrictions limiting the ability of travelers from certain countries to enter the United States.
Second, disclosure of the requested records is “likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of those operations or activities.” Id. § 286.12(l)(2)(ii). The requested records will be “meaningfully informative” because they will shed more light on how the executive orders were developed and how DOD helped to implement them. Id. § 286.12(l)(2)(ii)(A). Furthermore, the requested records will “contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester.” Id. § 286.12(l)(2)(ii)(B). Ms. Currier does not seek this information for herself, but to incorporate into news reporting that will educate the public. Representatives of the news media such as Ms. Currier presumptively satisfy this factor. Id.
9 Cora Currier, Why the U.S. Won’t Allow a Dying Iranian Sociologist to Join His Family, PROPUBLICA (Nov. 20, 2012), https://www.propublica.org/article/why-the-us-wont-allow-adying-iranian-sociologist-to-join-his-family.
10 Cora Currier, Newly Released Records Show the US Paid $6 Million for Civilian Harm in Afghanistan, THE INTERCEPT (Mar. 3, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/03/04/newlyreleased-records-show-us-paid-6-million-afghan-civilian-harm/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-14 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 9
April 3, 2017 DOD FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 8 Third, the records are not primarily in the requester’s commercial interest. Ms. Currier seeks the requested information for newsgathering purposes and expects to incorporate it into journalistic work product. Such requests are not considered for a commercial purpose. Id. § 286.12(l)(2)(iii).
Thus, DOD should grant a public interest fee waiver for this request. Should the agency decline a fee waiver, Ms. Currier agrees to pay up to $100 for the processing of this request. If the estimated fees will exceed this limit, please inform me before you begin processing.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. As DOD regulations provide, we will anticipate your determination on expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days. Id. § 286.8(e)(1). If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 830-6664 or marcia@zeitgeist.law.
Regards,
Marcia Hofmann

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 9
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 14
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 9
April 3, 2017
Kevin Krebs Assistant Director, FOIA/Privacy Unit Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Room 7300 600 E Street NW Washington, DC 20530
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request and Request for Expedited Processing
Dear Mr. Krebs:
This is an expedited request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I am submitting it to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) on behalf of Cora Currier, a staff journalist at The Intercept.
Requested Records
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Among other things, the order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days. The order was eventually enjoined in part or full by several federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,780, which had the same title as its predecessor. This new order also restricted travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. To date, portions of this order have been blocked by two federal district courts. The government is appealing those decisions to the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 9
April 3, 2017 EOUSA FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 2 Ms. Currier requests all agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.
We urge EOUSA to process this request consistent with DOJ policy directing a presumption of disclosure.1
This request includes, but is not limited to:
A. Records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other communications:
1. Among EOUSA personnel, including supervisors, officers, and managers;
2. Between EOUSA officials and offices of United States Attorneys;
3. Between EOUSA officials and the Executive Office of the President (EOP) or other White House offices;
4. Between EOUSA officials and other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State; and
5. Between EOUSA officials and members of Congress or congressional staffers, including aides to the House Judiciary Committee.
B. Records reflecting EOUSA analysis of and response to judicial orders staying the enforcement of the executive orders, including discussions of legal liability for failing to follow those judicial orders.
Please produce any responsive records you identify in electronic format.
Request for Expedited Processing
This requests warrants expedited processing under two standards: 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii) and (iv).
1 See Dep’t of Justice Office of Information Policy, President Obama’s FOIA Memorandum and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines: Creating a “New Era of Open Government” (2009), https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 9
April 3, 2017 EOUSA FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 3
A. Urgency to Inform the Public Standard
This request pertains to information about which there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” and it is made by a requester “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” Id. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii).
There is an urgency to inform the public about the federal government’s implementation of highly controversial restrictions banning nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Thousands of people across the country have protested these restrictions. Several different federal courts issued temporary relief against Order No. 13,769 citing constitutional concerns. Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates declined to instruct the DOJ to defend that executive order because she was “not convinced” that it was consistent with the DOJ’s “solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right”—and she was promptly fired and replaced by the President.2 Executive Order No. 13,780 was intended to cure the legal deficiencies of the first travel ban, but to date, two federal courts have enjoined enforcement of that order, as well.3
These events have been the subject of articles from news outlets throughout the world. In fact, a Google News search for the string “Trump ‘executive order’ ‘travel ban’” returns close to two million results.4
2 Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lichtblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trumpimmigration-ban-memo.html. 3 See Order Granting Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction, Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, at 6, 16-17 (D. Haw. March 29, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 30, 2017); Memorandum Opinion, Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, at 9, 28-33 (D. Md. March 16, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 18, 2017). 4 https://goo.gl/b5OIn7.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 9 April 3, 2017 EOUSA FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 4
Here is a sample of news articles published by major press organizations within the United States and internationally discussing recent developments related to this matter: Laura Jarrett, Federal Judge Extends Ruling Halting Travel Ban Indefinitely, CNN (March 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/hawaii-trump-travel-ban-extended. Kartikay Mehrotra and Erik Larson, Trump Travel Ban Back in Court, But Win Won’t Restore It, BLOOMBERG (March 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-29/trumptravel-ban-back-in-court-but-even-a-win-won-t-restore-it. Bart Jansen, Trump’s Travel Ban Could Cost $18B in U.S. Tourism, Analysis Shows, USA TODAY (March 29, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/trumpstravel-ban-could-cost-18b-us-tourism-travel-analysts-say/99708758.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 9
April 3, 2017 EOUSA FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 5
Josh Gerstein, Is Trump Stalling a Travel Ban Appeal at 9th Circuit?, POLITICO (March 28, 2017), http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/03/donald-trump-travel-ban-ninthcircuit-appeal-236575.
Cogan Schneier, Web of Litigation Grows Around Trump Travel Ban, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (March 28, 2017), http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202782264436/Web-of-LitigationGrows-Around-Trump-Travel-Ban?slreturn=20170229201754.
Andrea Noble, Full Fourth Circuit to Consider Hearing Case on Trump’s Travel Limits, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 27, 2017), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/trump-travel-ban-full-4th-circuit-courtappeals-co.
Ryan Teague Beckwith, President Trump’s Own Words Keep Hurting His Travel Ban, TIME (March 16, 2017), http://time.com/4703614/travel-ban-judges-donald-trump-words.
Alexander Burns, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, NEW YORK TIMES (March 15, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html.
Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell, DHS Report Disputes Threat From Banned Nations, AP (Feb. 24, 2017), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhs-intelreport-disputes-threat-posed-travel-ban-nations.
The requested information will help the public better understand the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of the travel restrictions, as well as how EOUSA analyzed and responded to the judicial decisions prompted by them. Further, as explained below in support of the request for “news media” treatment, Ms. Currier is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
B. Widespread and Exceptional Media Interest Standard
The requested records relate to “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv).
As noted above, the subject of this request has been extensively covered by press around the world over the past few weeks.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 9
April 3, 2017 EOUSA FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 6
Further, the requested records relate directly to questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence. Numerous federal courts have found the travel restrictions in both executive orders are likely unconstitutional. The requested information will help shed light on how EOUSA interacted with other parts of the government as the events of the past few weeks unfolded. It will also help the public understand the motivations behind the travel restrictions, the steps that have been taken to remedy the constitutional deficiencies identified by the courts, and how the Executive branch has worked to enforce and craft its defense of the executive orders.
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(3), I certify this statement to be true and correct.
Request for “News Media” Fee Status
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media and does not seek the requested records for commercial use. Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of this request should be limited to reasonable duplication costs. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media because she “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses [her] editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” Id.; 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(b)(6).
Cora Currier is a staff reporter for The Intercept. The Intercept is a digital news publication that was founded in 2013 with a mission to report on national security and foreign policy issues. The Intercept has since expanded to a staff of more than twenty reporters producing investigative reporting, analysis, commentary, and multimedia content focused on national security, politics, civil liberties, technology, criminal justice, the media, and more. The Intercept’s coverage has been recognized with awards from the Online News Association, the American Society of Magazine Editors, the New York Press Club, and others.
Ms. Currier has covered national security, counterterrorism, and immigration since joining the newsroom in 2014. Prior to that, she covered similar topics for the investigative news site ProPublica. She has reported on issues pertinent to the recent travel ban, including CBP’s policy on collecting social media information from foreign travelers,5 government efforts to counter
5 Cora Currier, The US Government Wants to Read Travelers’ Tweets Before Letting Them In, THE INTERCEPT (Oct. 21, 2016), https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wantsto-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 9
April 3, 2017 EOUSA FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 7
violent extremism, the No Fly list and other watchlisting procedures,6 and in the past, has covered the cases of individuals blocked from entering the United States on terrorism grounds.7 She has previously requested, obtained, and reported on documents obtained via the FOIA on a range of national security-related issues.8
Finally, we note that per DOJ regulations, a request for records that supports the newsdissemination function of the requester is not considered to be for a commercial use. Id. 16.10(b)(6).
Thus, Ms. Currier should be classified as “news media” requesters for purposes of fee assessments.
Request for Public Interest Fee Waiver
Ms. Currier requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested records “is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(k)(1)(i)-(ii).
First, the request will “shed light on the operations or activities of the federal government.” Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(i). Specifically, the records will show how EOUSA officials were involved in the legal defense of restrictions on the ability of travelers from certain countries to enter the United States.
Second, disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding” of this issue. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii). Such disclosure will be “meaningfully
6 Cora Currier, Government May Now Tell You Why You’re on a “No Fly” List, But Not Always, THE INTERCEPT (April 15, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/04/15/government-will-now-tellyoure-fly-list-except-wont/.
7 Cora Currier, Why the U.S. Won’t Allow a Dying Iranian Sociologist to Join His Family, PROPUBLICA (Nov. 20, 2012), https://www.propublica.org/article/why-the-us-wont-allow-adying-iranian-sociologist-to-join-his-family.
8 Cora Currier, Newly Released Records Show the US Paid $6 Million for Civilian Harm in Afghanistan, THE INTERCEPT (Mar. 3, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/03/04/newlyreleased-records-show-us-paid-6-million-afghan-civilian-harm/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-15 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 9
April 3, 2017 EOUSA FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 8
informative” because it will give the public additional detail about DOJ’s defense of the executive orders. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii)(A). The requested records will also “contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester.” Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii)(B). Ms. Currier does not seek this information for herself, but to incorporate into news reporting that will educate the public. It is presumed that representatives of the news media such as Ms. Currier satisfy this factor. Id.
Finally, the records are not primarily in the requester’s commercial interest. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(iii). Ms. Currier seeks the requested information for newsgathering purposes and expects to incorporate it into journalistic work product.
Thus, EOUSA should grant a public interest fee waiver for this request. Should the agency decline a fee waiver, Ms. Currier agrees to pay up to $100 for the processing of this request. If the estimated fees will exceed this limit, please inform me before you begin processing.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. As DOJ regulations provide, we will anticipate your determination on expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days. Id. § 16.5(e)(4). If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 830-6664 or marcia@zeitgeist.law.
Regards,
Marcia Hofmann

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 9
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 15
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 9
April 3, 2017 Federal Bureau of Investigation Attn: FOI/PA Request Record/Information Dissemination Section 170 Marcel Drive Winchester, CA 22602-4843 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request and Request for Expedited Processing Dear FOIA Officers: This is an expedited request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. I am submitting it to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on behalf of Cora Currier, a staff journalist at The Intercept. Requested Records On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Among other things, the order banned nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days. The order was enjoined in part or full by several federal courts, one of which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,780, which had the same title as its predecessor. This new order also restricted travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. To date, portions of this order have been blocked by two federal district courts. The government is appealing those decisions to the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit. Ms. Currier requests agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning the FBI’s analysis of the impact of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 9
April 3, 2017 FBI FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 2
We urge the Bureau to process this request consistent with Justice Department policy directing a presumption of disclosure.1
This request includes, but is not limited to:
A. Analyses, reports or assessments produced by the FBI about the impact of the executive orders’ travel restrictions on national security.
B. Analyses, reports or assessments produced by the FBI about the security risks posed by individuals from the nations covered by the executive orders, about the use of citizenship as an indicator of a terrorist threat to the United States, or otherwise evaluating the effectiveness of the travel ban in preventing national security threats.
Please produce any responsive records you identify in electronic format.
Request for Expedited Processing
This request warrants expedited processing under two standards: 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii) and (iv).
A. Urgency to Inform the Public Standard
This request pertains to information about which there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” and it is made by a requester “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” Id. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii).
There is an urgency to inform the public about the federal government’s implementation of highly controversial restrictions banning nationals of several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Thousands of people across the country have protested these restrictions. Several different federal courts issued temporary relief against Order No. 13,769 citing constitutional concerns. Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates declined to instruct the DOJ to defend that executive order because she was “not convinced” that it was consistent with the DOJ’s “solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right”—and she was
1 See Dep’t of Justice Office of Information Policy, President Obama’s FOIA Memorandum and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines: Creating a “New Era of Open Government” (2009), https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 9 April 3, 2017 FBI FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 3 promptly fired and replaced by the President.2 Executive Order No. 13,780 was intended to cure the legal deficiencies of the first travel ban, but to date, two federal courts have enjoined enforcement of that order, as well.3 These events have been the subject of articles from news outlets throughout the world. In fact, a Google News search for the string “Trump ‘executive order’ ‘travel ban’” returns close to two million results.4
2 Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lichtblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trumpimmigration-ban-memo.html. 3 See Order Granting Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction, Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, at 6, 16-17 (D. Haw. March 29, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 30, 2017); Memorandum Opinion, Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, at 9, 28-33 (D. Md. March 16, 2017) (notice of appeal filed March 18, 2017). 4 https://goo.gl/b5OIn7.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 5 of 9
April 3, 2017 FBI FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 4
Here is a sample of news articles published by major press organizations within the United States and internationally discussing recent developments related to this matter:
Laura Jarrett, Federal Judge Extends Ruling Halting Travel Ban Indefinitely, CNN (March 30, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/hawaii-trump-travel-ban-extended.
Kartikay Mehrotra and Erik Larson, Trump Travel Ban Back in Court, But Win Won’t Restore It, BLOOMBERG (March 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-29/trumptravel-ban-back-in-court-but-even-a-win-won-t-restore-it.
Bart Jansen, Trump’s Travel Ban Could Cost $18B in U.S. Tourism, Analysis Shows, USA TODAY (March 29, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/trumpstravel-ban-could-cost-18b-us-tourism-travel-analysts-say/99708758.
Josh Gerstein, Is Trump Stalling a Travel Ban Appeal at 9th Circuit?, POLITICO (March 28, 2017), http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/03/donald-trump-travel-ban-ninthcircuit-appeal-236575.
Cogan Schneier, Web of Litigation Grows Around Trump Travel Ban, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (March 28, 2017), http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202782264436/Web-of-LitigationGrows-Around-Trump-Travel-Ban?slreturn=20170229201754.
Andrea Noble, Full Fourth Circuit to Consider Hearing Case on Trump’s Travel Limits, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 27, 2017), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/trump-travel-ban-full-4th-circuit-courtappeals-co.
Ryan Teague Beckwith, President Trump’s Own Words Keep Hurting His Travel Ban, TIME (March 16, 2017), http://time.com/4703614/travel-ban-judges-donald-trump-words.
Alexander Burns, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, NEW YORK TIMES (March 15, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html.
Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell, DHS Report Disputes Threat From Banned Nations, AP (Feb. 24, 2017), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhs-intelreport-disputes-threat-posed-travel-ban-nations.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 6 of 9
April 3, 2017 FBI FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 5
The requested information will help the public better understand the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of the travel restrictions, as well as how DOJ has responded to the public outcry and judicial decisions bearing on them. Further, as explained below in support of the request for “news media” treatment, Ms. Currier is “primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
B. Widespread and Exceptional Media Interest Standard
The requested records relate to “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv).
As noted above, the subject of this request has been extensively covered by press around the world over the past few weeks.
Further, the requested records relate directly to questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence. Numerous federal courts have found the travel restrictions in both executive orders are likely unconstitutional. The requested information will help shed light on how FBI has interacted with the White House, Congress, and others as the events of the past few weeks unfolded. It will also help the public understand the motivations behind the travel restrictions, the steps that have been taken to remedy the constitutional deficiencies identified by the courts, and how the Executive branch has worked to enforce and craft its defense of the executive orders.
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(3), I certify this statement to be true and correct.
Request for “News Media” Fee Status
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media and does not seek the requested records for commercial use. Accordingly, fees associated with the processing of this request should be limited to reasonable duplication costs. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
Ms. Currier is a representative of the news media because she “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses [her] editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” Id.; 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(b)(6).
Cora Currier is a staff reporter for The Intercept. The Intercept is a digital news publication that was founded in 2013 with a mission to report on national security and foreign policy issues. The

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 7 of 9
April 3, 2017 FBI FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 6
Intercept has since expanded to a staff of more than twenty reporters producing investigative reporting, analysis, commentary, and multimedia content focused on national security, politics, civil liberties, technology, criminal justice, the media, and more. The Intercept’s coverage has been recognized with awards from the Online News Association, the American Society of Magazine Editors, the New York Press Club, and others.
Ms. Currier has covered national security, counterterrorism, and immigration since joining the newsroom in 2014. Prior to that, she covered similar topics for the investigative news site ProPublica. She has reported on issues pertinent to the recent travel ban, including CBP’s policy on collecting social media information from foreign travelers,5 government efforts to counter violent extremism, the No Fly list and other watchlisting procedures,6 and in the past, has covered the cases of individuals blocked from entering the United States on terrorism grounds.7 She has previously requested, obtained, and reported on documents obtained via the FOIA on a range of national security-related issues.8
Finally, we note that per DOJ regulations, a request for records that supports the newsdissemination function of the requester is not considered to be for a commercial use. Id. 16.10(b)(6).
Thus, Ms. Currier should be classified as “news media” requesters for purposes of fee assessments.
5 Cora Currier, The US Government Wants to Read Travelers’ Tweets Before Letting Them In, THE INTERCEPT (Oct. 21, 2016), https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-u-s-government-wantsto-read-travelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in/.
6 Cora Currier, Government May Now Tell You Why You’re on a “No Fly” List, But Not Always, THE INTERCEPT (April 15, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/04/15/government-will-now-tellyoure-fly-list-except-wont/.
7 Cora Currier, Why the U.S. Won’t Allow a Dying Iranian Sociologist to Join His Family, PROPUBLICA (Nov. 20, 2012), https://www.propublica.org/article/why-the-us-wont-allow-adying-iranian-sociologist-to-join-his-family.
8 Cora Currier, Newly Released Records Show the US Paid $6 Million for Civilian Harm in Afghanistan, THE INTERCEPT (Mar. 3, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/03/04/newlyreleased-records-show-us-paid-6-million-afghan-civilian-harm/.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 8 of 9
April 3, 2017 FBI FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 7
Request for Public Interest Fee Waiver
Ms. Currier requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested records “is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities or operations of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(k)(1)(i)-(ii).
First, the request will “shed light on the operations or activities of the federal government.” Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(i). Specifically, the records will shed light on how the FBI was involved in the creation and execution of restrictions on the ability of travelers from certain countries to enter the United States.
Second, disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding” of this issue. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii). Such disclosure will be “meaningfully informative” because it will give the public additional detail about DOJ’s implementation and defense of the executive orders. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii)(A). The requested records will also “contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester.” Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(ii)(B). Ms. Currier does not seek this information for herself, but to incorporate into news reporting that will educate the public. It is presumed that representatives of the news media such as Ms. Currier satisfy this factor. Id.
Finally, the records are not primarily in the requester’s commercial interest. Id. § 16.10(k)(2)(iii). Ms. Currier seeks the requested information for newsgathering purposes and expects to incorporate it into journalistic work product.
Thus, the FBI should grant a public interest fee waiver for this request. Should the FBI decline a fee waiver, Ms. Currier agrees to pay up to $100 for the processing of this request. If the estimated fees will exceed this limit, please inform me before you begin processing.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-16 Filed 07/20/17 Page 9 of 9
April 3, 2017 FBI FOIA Request Executive Orders 13,769 & 13,780 Page 8 Thank you for your consideration of this request. As DOJ regulations provide, we will anticipate your determination on expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days. Id. § 16.5(e)(4). If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 830-6664 or marcia@zeitgeist.law.
Regards,
Marcia Hofmann

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-17 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 16
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-17 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 3
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528
Homeland Security
April 4, 2017
SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: marcia@zeitgeist.law
Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor St San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: 2017-HQFO-00610
Dear Hofmann:
This letter acknowledges receipt of your April 3, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other communications: among DHS and CBP personnel, including supervisors, officers, managers, and union representatives; from or about travelers asking for clarification or about the ban's effects; between DHS or CBP officials and the Executive Office of the President or other White House offices; between DHS or CBP officials and members of Congress or congressional staffers, including aids to the House Judiciary Committee; between DHS or CBP officials and the staff or management of commercial airlines; between DHS or CBP officials and local and state agencies, including local law enforcement and agents at ports of entry such as General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); between DHS or CBP officials and nonprofits or policy think tanks such as the Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Security Policies, the Heritage Foundation, the Investigative Project on Terrorism; between DHS or CBP officials and nongovernment representatives and outside consultants, including private firms such as Guiliani Partners; and between DHS or CBP officials and reporters from Breitbart News, Fox News, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, the Washington Times, and the Free Beacon regarding the executive orders. Records reflecting analysis and response of DHS or CBP officials to judicial orders staying the enforcement of the executive order, including discussions of legal liability for failing to follow those orders. Any analyses, reports, or assessments about the security risks posed by individuals from the nations covered by the executive orders. Any analyses, reports, or other documents assessing the impact or effectiveness of the travel restrictions in preventing terrorist or national security threats. Any analyses, reports, or other documents assessing the use of citizenship as an indicator of a terrorist threat to the United States, including the report entitled "Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States," which was prepared at the request of the DHS Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. Any

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-17 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 3
records related to the Inspector General's review of the implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 including directives to DHS staff about the retention of records relevant to the investigation. This office received your request on April 3, 2017.
As it relates to your request for expedited processing and fee waiver, your request is granted.
Due to the increasing number of FOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. Consistent with 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(a) of the DHS FOIA regulations, the Department processes FOIA requests according to their order of receipt. Although DHS’ goal is to respond within 20 business days of receipt of your request, FOIA does permit a 10-day extension of this time period in certain circumstances. As your request seeks documents that will require a thorough and wide-ranging search, DHS will invoke a 10-day extension for your request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you would like to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.
We have queried the appropriate component(s) of DHS for responsive records. If any responsive records are located, they will be reviewed for determination of releasability. Please be assured that one of the processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.
Your request has been assigned reference number 2017-HQFO-00610. Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. To check the status of your FOIA request, you may contact this office at 1-866-431-0486 or 202-343-1743, or you may check the status of your request online at http://www.dhs.gov/foia-status.
Sincerely,
LaEbony Livingston FOIA Program Specialist

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-18 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 17
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-18 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-19 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 18
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-19 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 3
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050 1425 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

April 13, 2017

Ms. Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law, P.C. 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 marcia@zeitgeist.law
Dear Ms. Hofmann:

Re: DOJ-2017-003341 (AG) DOJ-2017-003345 (DAG) DOJ-2017-003346 (OLA) DOJ-2017-003347 (PAO) VRB:DRH:JMS

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter, on behalf of Cora Currier, dated and received in this Office on April 3, 2017, in which you requested records pertaining Executive Order 13769 and its successor, Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” This response is made on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs.
You have requested expedited processing of the request pursuant to the Department’s standard permitting expedition for requests involving “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.” See 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii) (2016). Based on the information you have provided, I have determined that your request for expedited processing should be granted. Accordingly, your request has been assigned to an Attorney-Advisor in this Office and records searches have been initiated in the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs.
Although your request has been granted expedited processing, we are required to advise you that the records you seek require searches in other offices, and so your request falls within “unusual circumstances.” See 5 U.S.C. 552 § (a)(6)(B)(i)-(iii). Accordingly, we have not yet completed a search to determine whether there are records within the scope of your request. The time needed to process your request will necessarily depend on the complexity of our records search and on the volume and complexity of any records located. Your request has been assigned to the expedited track, and will be processed as soon as practicable.
We have not yet made a decision on your request for a fee waiver. We will do so after we determine whether fees will be assessed for this request. In your letter, Ms. Currier agreed to pay fees up to $100 in the event that a fee waiver is not granted.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss the processing of your request, you may contact James Smith, the Attorney-Advisor processing your request, by telephone at the above number or you may write to him at Office of Information Policy, United States Department of

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-19 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 3 -2-
Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001. Lastly, you may contact our FOIA Public Liaison at the above telephone number to have any concerns you may have addressed.
Sincerely,
Vanessa R. Brinkmann Senior Counsel

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 19
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-20 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Washington, D.C. 20530
April 5, 2017
Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law PC marcia@zeitgeist.law O.B.O. The Intercept
Re: FOIA Tracking No. FYl7-184
Dear Ms. Hofmann:
This letter acknowledges receipt of your April 3, 2017 Freedom oflnformation Act G'FOIA") request to the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") on behalf of The Intercept, in which you sought "records from February 1, 2017 to the present concerning the [OLC's] analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780." We received your request on April 3, 2017,- and it has been assigned tracking number FYl7-184.
Your request for expedited processing has been granted and your request has been assigned to the "expedited" processing track. Because of the considerable number of FOIA requests received by OLC before your request, including other previously expedited requests, our staff has not yet been able to complete a search to determine whether there are documents within the scope of your request. Please note that it also is likely that we will be unable to respond to your request within the twenty-day statutory deadline. I regret the necessity of this delay, but I assure you that your request will be given priority and processed as soon as practicable.
We have not yet made a decision on your request for a fee waiver. We will do so after we determine whether fees will be assessed for this request. We note that in the event your fee waiver is denied, you have agreed to pay fees up to $100.
In the meantime, if you have any questions or wish to discuss your request, you may contact Melissa Golden, our Lead Paralegal and FOIA Specialist and FOIA Liaison, at (202) 514-2053, or at Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 5511 , Washington, DC 20530.
Paul P. Colborn Special Counsel

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-21 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 20
Exhibit 20
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-21 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2

Office of

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050 1425 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

Marcia Hofmann, Esq. Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 marcia@zeitgeist.law

Re: Appeal No. DOJ-AP-2017-003429 Request No.EOUSA-2017-001021 SRO:JNW

VIA: FOIAonline

Dear Ms Hofmann:

This is to advise you that your administrative appeal on behalf of your client, Cora Currier of The Intercept, from the action of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) was received in this Office on April 10, 2017. You appealed from EOUSA’s denial of your client’s request for expedited treatment of her Freedom of Information Act request.

After carefully considering your appeal, and based on the information presented, I believe that expedited processing of your client’s request is warranted. Accordingly, I am remanding your client’s request to EOUSA, where it will be processed as quickly as practicable.

If you have any questions regarding the action this Office has taken on your appeal, you may contact this Office's FOIA Public Liaison for your appeal. Specifically, you may speak with the undersigned agency official by calling (202) 514-3642.

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, the FOIA permits you to file a lawsuit in federal district court in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

Sincerely,
4/

X
Sean R. O'Neill Chief Administrative Appeals Staff

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-22 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 21
Exhibit 21
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-22 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-22 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 3
You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) at 877-684-6448, or by emailing ogis@nara.gov. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing foipaquestions@ic.fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so that it may be easily identified.
Sincerely,
David M. Hardy Section Chief Record/Information
Dissemination Section Records Management Division

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-23 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 22
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(17-F-0778) Update of CFraeesdeom3:o1f7In-fcovrm-0a1tio7n9A9c-tJRSeCquesDt foorc..u. ment 20-23 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2

Subject: (17-F-0778) Update of Freedom of Information Act Request for Expedited Processing (UNCLASSIFIED) From: "Jenkins, Cheryl D CIV WHS (US)" <cheryl.d.jenkins2.civ@mail.mil> Date: 5/5/17, 12:16 PM To: "'marcia@zeitgeist.law'" <marcia@zeitgeist.law>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms. Hoffman:
We have taken an additional review of your request and are granting your request for expedited processing, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Regulation 5400.7-R. We have initiated the necessary search actions with the appropriate components of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
For your awareness, please understand that the granting of expedited processing does not provide for a guarantee that your request will be completed by a certain date, as all of our required procedures for searching and reviewing any records located, must be followed.
Cheryl Jenkins FOIA Analyst Office of Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Division (FOID) Comm: 571-372-0445 cheryl.d.jenkins2.civ@mail.mil ........................................................................................................ Please note that the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) offers services to requesters who have disputes with Federal agencies. If you have concerns about the processing of your request, please contact OGIS at:
Office of Government Information Services National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS College Park, MD 20740 E-mail: ogis@nara.gov Telephone: 202-741-5770 Fax: 202-741-5769

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED Attachments:
17-F-0778 Pal Request Form.pdf

50.8 KB

1 of 1

7/17/17, 11:17 AM

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-24 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 23
Exhibit 23
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-24 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 3

July 17, 2017

Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law Firm 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: CBP-2017-031844

Dear Ms. Hofmann:

This is an initial partial response to your clients’ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), dated February 1, 2017, which seeks records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Your clients requested all agency records from January 20, 2017 to present concerning CBP's analysis and implementation of the Executive Order. The records included in this response have been deemed responsive to your request.

This release includes a total of 56 pages of records responsive to your clients’ request, marked as EO FOIA CBP 0000000001-0000000056. CBP has determined that 53 pages of the records are partially released, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). Three pages, marked as EO FOIA CBP 0000000025-0000000027, are being withheld in full pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7)(C).

Exemption 5 protects from disclosure those inter- or intra-agency documents that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context. The three most frequently invoked privileges are the deliberative process privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the attorney-client privilege.

•

Deliberative Process Privilege

The deliberative process privilege protects the integrity of the deliberative or decision-making

processes within the agency by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinions, conclusions, and

recommendations included within inter- or intra-agency memoranda or letters. The release of this

internal information would discourage the expression of candid opinions and inhibit the free and

frank exchange of information among agency personnel.

•

Attorney Work-Product Privilege

The attorney-work product privilege protects documents and other memoranda prepared by an

attorney in contemplation of litigation.

•

Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and his

client relating to a legal matter for which the client has sought professional advice. It applies to

facts divulged by a client to his attorney, and encompasses any opinions given by an attorney to

his client based upon, and thus reflecting those facts, as well as communications between

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-24 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 3
attorneys that reflect client-supplied information. The attorney-client privilege is not limited to the context of litigation.
Exemption (b)(6) exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar files the release of which would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This requires a balancing of the public’s right to disclosure against the individual’s right privacy. The types of documents and/or information that we have withheld may consist of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, driver license, social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, or various other documents and/or information belonging to a third party that are considered personal. The privacy interests of the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Any private interest you may have in that information does not factor into the aforementioned balancing test.
Exemption (b)(7)(C) protects records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This exemption takes particular note of the strong interests of individuals, whether they are suspects, witnesses, or investigators, in not being unwarrantably associated with alleged criminal activity. That interest extends to persons who are not only the subjects of the investigation, but those who may have their privacy invaded by having their identities and information about them revealed in connection with an investigation. Based upon the traditional recognition of strong privacy interest in law enforcement records, categorical withholding of information that identifies third parties in law enforcement records is ordinarily appropriate.
Exemption (b)(7)(E) protects records compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
As this matter is currently in litigation, if you need further assistance or would like to discuss any aspect of this response, please contact Matthew J. Berns, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch.
Sincerely,
Patrick Howard Branch Chief U.S. Customs and Border Protection, FOIA Division Privacy and Diversity Office
Enclosure(s)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-25 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087) Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law
2 Kendra Albert (SBN 314839) Email: kendra@zeitgeist.law
3 ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor St.
4 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 830-6664
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER
6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10

)

)

11 CORA CURRIER,

) Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC )

12

Plaintiff,

) )

13

v.

) )

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

14

) PLAINTIFF CORA CURRIER’S

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ) MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

15 et al.,

) INJUNCTION

)

16

Defendants. )

)

17

) Date: August 24, 2017

) Time: 9:00 a.m.

18

) Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor

) Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

19

)

)

20

)

21

This matter came on for hearing before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary

22 Injunction. Having given full consideration to all of Plaintiff’s papers, evidence, and the relevant
23 authorities, all of Defendants’ responses thereto, and the oral presentations of counsel, and good
24
cause appearing, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), it is HEREBY ORDERED: 25

26

1. That Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is granted; and it is

27

2. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall complete the processing of

28

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 20-25 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2

1 Plaintiff’s February 1, 2017 and April 3, 2017 Freedom of Information Act requests and produce or

2 identify all responsive records no later than September 5, 2017; and it is
3 3. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with an index and
4 declaration, as specified in Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-8 (D.C. Cir. 1973), stating the
5 justification for the withholding of any records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests within 30 days of
6
7 the entry of this Order; and it is

8

4. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file with the Court and serve upon

9 Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the entry of this Order an affidavit or declaration attesting to
10 and detailing Defendants’ compliance with it.
11 * * *
12 ORDER
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 DATED: ___________________ ___________________________________________

16

HON. JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 1 of 20

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087) ZEITGEIST LAW PC
2 25 Taylor St. 3 San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law 4 Telephone: (415) 830-6664

5 Attorney for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10

)

11 CORA CURRIER,

) ) Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

12

) Plaintiff, )

13

v.

) ) PLAINTIFF CORA CURRIER’S

14 15

DEPARTMENT et al.,

OF

HOMELAND

SECURITY,

) ) )

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

16

Defendants.

) ) Date: August 24, 2017

17

) Time: 9:00 a.m. ) Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor

18

) Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 2 of 20

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 3 I.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

4 II. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 1

5

A. MS. CURRIER IS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ........................................ 2

6

1. Ms. Currier is Likely to Prevail Upon the Merits of Her Claim That She is

7

Entitled to Expedited Processing of Her Requests ........................................ 2

8

a. The FOIA Requires Agencies to Comply with Rigid Timelines

Unless They Are Able to Show Exceptional Circumstances............... 2 9

10

b. The Agencies Seeking Significantly More Time Have Not Demonstrated Exceptional Circumstances. ......................................... 4

11 c. CREW Does Not Hold That FOIA’s Timelines are Unenforceable. ... 6
12 d. The EPIC 2006 Line of Cases Remains Good Law. ........................... 8
13

14

2. Ms. Currier Will Suffer Irreparable Injury in the Absence of the Requested Injunctive Relief .......................................................................................... 10

15 3. The Balance of Equities Favors Ms. Currier ................................................ 13
16
4. The Public Interest Favors the Requested Relief .......................................... 14 17

18

B.

THE COURT SHOULD ORDER DEFENDANTS TO PREPARE A VAUGHN INDEX TO HELP

RESOLVE THE REMAINING ISSUES IN THIS CASE........................................................ 14

19 III. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 15
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-i-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 3 of 20

1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2

3

FEDERAL CASES

4 ACLU v. Dep’t of Defense,
339 F. Supp. 2d 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .................................................................................. 15 5

6

ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2004) ........................................................................................ 13

7 Allied Progress v. CFPB,

8

No. 17-cv-686, 2017 WL 1750263 (D.D.C. May 4, 2017)................................................... 12

9 Brown v. CBP,

10

132 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................. 7

11 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................... passim

12

Clemente v. FBI,

13

71 F. Supp. 3d 262 (D.D.C. 2014) .......................................................................................... 8

14 Daily Caller v. Dep’t of State,

15

152 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) ...................................................................................... 9, 12

16 Elec. Frontier Found. v. Office of Dir. of Nat. Intelligence, No. C 07-5278 SI, 2007 WL 4208311 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) ................................. 10, 13
17

18 Elec. Frontier Found. v. Office of the Dir. of Nat. Intelligence, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .......................................................................... 10, 13

19

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice,

20

15 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2014) ...................................................................................... 9, 12

21 Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice,

22

416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006) ................................................................................. passim

23 Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm. on Election Integrity,
No. 17-cv-1320, 2017 WL 3141907 (D.D.C. July 24, 2017) ................................................. 8 24

Exner v. FBI,

25

542 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir. 1976) ................................................................................................ 3

26 Fiduccia v. Dep’t of Justice,

27

185 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................ 6

28
-ii-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 4 of 20

1

Gilmore v. Dep’t of Energy,

2

33 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (N.D. Cal. 1998) .................................................................................... 4

3 Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.,

4

458 U.S. 564 (1982).............................................................................................................. 11

5 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 191 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2002) ...................................................................................... 15
6

7 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 514 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2007) .......................................................................................... 12

8

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice,

9

774 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D.D.C. 2011) ........................................................................................ 9

10 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales,

11

404 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2005) ...................................................................................... 13

12 Long v. IRS,
693 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................ 15 13

14

Martins v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 962 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................. 9

15 NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev.,

16

No. 07 Civ. 3378, 2007 WL 4233008 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2007) .......................................... 9

17 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Dep’t of Energy,

18

191 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2002) .................................................................................. 14, 15

19 Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ................................................................................................ 3

20

Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.,

21

85 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................ 6, 7, 9

22 Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States,

23

837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................................... 2, 15

24 Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. Dep’t of Defense, No. 17–cv–00842, 2017 WL 2992076 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017) .................................. 8, 13, 14
25

26 South Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. Civ. S-06-2845, 2008 WL 2523829 (E.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................................... 9

27

Treatment Action Group v. Food & Drug Admin.,

28

No. 15-cv-976, 2016 WL 5171987 (D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2016)............................................... 8

-iii-

PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 5 of 20

1

Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project,

2

__ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (per curiam) ................................................................... 1

3 Vaughn v. Rosen,

4

484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) .............................................................................................. 15

5 Weiner v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................ 15
6

7

FEDERAL STATUTES

8 5 U.S.C. § 552............................................................................................................................passim

9 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) ...................................................................................................................... 7
10 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(viii)(II)(cc)........................................................................................... 3, 4, 9 11
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) .................................................................................................................. 2 12
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i)................................................................................................................... 3 13 14 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii) ................................................................................................................ 3
15 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i)........................................................................................................... 2, 3, 7

16 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(ii) ............................................................................................................. 3, 5

17 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii)................................................................................................................. 2
18 FOIA Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 114-185, 130 Stat. 539 (2016) ................................................ 3 19
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS 20
H. Rep. No. 876, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess. (1974)..................................................................................... 4 21
22 S. Rep. No. 104-272 (1996) ................................................................................................................ 2

23

OTHER AUTHORITIES

24 Supreme Court Argument Calendar October 2017 (July 17, 2017) ................................................. 11

25

26

27

28
-iv-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 6 of 20

1

II. 2

INTRODUCTION In this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Plaintiff Cora Currier seeks

3 the entry of a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants Department of Homeland Security,
4 Department of Justice, Department of State, and Department of Defense to disclose information by

5 September 5, 2017 relevant to President Trump’s effort to prevent nationals from several Muslim-

6 majority countries from entering the United States. The travel ban is a matter of significant national

7 debate and the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review its legality. Trump v. Int’l Refugee
8 Assistance Project, __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2089 (2017) (per curiam). Defendants have now
9 each issued interim responses to Ms. Currier’s requests—one response the day before this motion

10 was filed, the others since then. But several agencies and components remain unable to provide an

11 anticipated date for the completion of processing and release of documents.

12 The FOIA requires federal agencies to process expedited requests “as soon as practicable,”

13 but Defendants have violated the statute’s time limits for even non-expedited requests. They are

14 not permitted more time without demonstrating exceptional circumstances and due diligence to the

15 Court. They have failed to meet that burden. The Court should order Defendants to process Ms.

16 Currier’s requests immediately.

17

III. ARGUMENT 18

When Congress passed the FOIA, it crafted a framework generally requiring agencies to 19

meet time limits for processing requests, with safety valves for agencies that are not able to meet 20

those time limits due to certain circumstances. Defendants parse the language of the statute to 21

argue that they are not required to meet any time limit. But Congress meant what it said. By 22

default, agencies must process requests within 20 business days and “promptly” release responsive 23

records unless unusual or exceptional circumstances exist. Requests that are expedited must be 24

processed “as soon as practicable,” which logically must mean something faster than the default 25

time limit. 26

Defendants lean heavily on D.C. Circuit precedent to argue that an agency is not bound to 27

follow the FOIA’s deadlines. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 711 28

F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“CREW”). But CREW holds only that when an agency fails to make a

-1-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 7 of 20

1 “determination” on a FOIA request within the statutory timeline, it cannot invoke an administrative

2 exhaustion argument to keep a lawsuit out of court. Id. at 189–90. Once a requester is in court, the

3 FOIA “imposes no limits on courts’ equitable powers in enforcing its terms.” Payne Enters., Inc. v.

4 United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988). A court can fashion the relief it deems

5 appropriate under the circumstances.

6

A. Ms. Currier is Entitled to a Preliminary Injunction 7

1. Ms. Currier is Likely to Prevail Upon the Merits of Her Claim That She

8

Is Entitled to Expedited Processing of Her Requests

9

Defendants are in violation of the FOIA’s time limits. The D.C. Circuit’s holding in CREW

10 does not suggest otherwise.

11

a. The FOIA Requires Agencies to Comply with Rigid Timelines Unless

They Are Able to Show Exceptional Circumstances.

12

Defendants strain the plain language of the FOIA to blur the statute’s timing requirements.

13 Opp. 3-5. The FOIA requires an agency to “determine within 20 [business] days” after receiving a

14 FOIA request whether to comply with it and to “immediately notify” the requester of “such

15 determination and reasons therefor[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). When an agency makes a

16 determination to comply, “the records shall be made promptly available to such person making

17 such request.” Id. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). In other words, the FOIA requires an agency to process a

18 request within 20 days and make the records available quickly.

19

When a request is granted expedited treatment, it is to be processed “as soon as

20 practicable.” Id. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). In other words, as the legislative history explains, “The goal is

21 not to get the request processed within a specific time frame, but to give the request priority for

22 processing more quickly than otherwise would occur.” S. Rep. No. 104-272, at 17 (1996)

23 (emphasis added). The FOIA provides that processing “otherwise would occur” within 20 days

24 under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

25

Congress did create two safety valves to permit an agency more processing time in limited

26 situations. Where “unusual circumstances” exist, an agency is permitted to extend the standard 20-

27

28

-2-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 8 of 20

1 day deadline—but no more than 10 days. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i).1 And where an agency fails to

2 comply with the FOIA’s time limits, but “exceptional circumstances” exist and the agency is

3 “exercising due diligence,” a court may “retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional time to

4 complete its review of the records.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). Congress amended the FOIA last year

5 to clarify that an agency’s failure is only “excused for the length of time provided by court order.”

6 Id. at § 552(a)(4)(A)(viii)(II)(cc).2

7 “Exceptional circumstances” do not include “a delay that results from a predictable agency

8 workload of requests under this section, unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in

9 reducing its backlog of pending requests.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In Open America v.

10 Watergate Special Prosecution Force, the D.C. Circuit construed “exceptional circumstances” to

11 mean:

12

when an agency . . . is deluged with a volume of requests for information vastly in

13

excess of that anticipated by Congress, when the existing resources are inadequate

to deal with the volume of such requests within the time limits of subsection

14

(6)(A), and when the agency can show that it “is exercising due diligence” in

processing the requests. 15

547 F.2d 605, 616 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a limited version of the holding 16

in Open America that permits an agency to claim exceptional circumstances when it is faced with 17

an unforeseen and unforeseeable increase in the number of FOIA requests. Exner v. FBI, 542 F.2d 18

1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1976). 19

Together, these provisions show that Congress intended to create a framework in which 20

agencies must process requests and make determinations within 20 days by default and “promptly” 21

release responsive records. Expedited requests are to be processed “as soon as practicable,” which 22

means they are given priority to be processed more quickly than the default 20 days. An agency 23

24 1 “Unusual circumstances” is defined as “(I) the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;

25 (II) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and

distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or (III) the need for consultation, which 26 shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in

27

the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii).

28 2 This language was added by the FOIA Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 114-185, 130 Stat. 539
(2016). -3-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.
Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 9 of 20

1 can unilaterally extend the default deadline by up to 10 days in limited circumstances, and a court

2 may choose to give an agency additional processing time in other limited circumstances.

3 This regime is consistent with the legislative history, which said, “information is often

4 useful only if it is timely. Thus, excessive delay by the agency in its response is often tantamount to

5 denial. It is the intent of this bill that the affected agencies be required to respond to inquiries and

6 administrative appeals within specific time limits.” H. Rep. No. 876, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess. (1974);

7 see also Gilmore v. Dep’t of Energy, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (discussing

8 FOIA’s legislative background).

9

b. The Agencies Seeking Significantly More Time Have Not

10

Demonstrated Exceptional Circumstances.

11

In the declarations accompanying the Defendants’ opposition, some agency components

12 have now proposed to process documents by September 5, (Defs. Ex. C ¶ 7 (FBI); Ex. D ¶ 5

13 (EOUSA)), or at least on a rolling basis (Defs. Ex. G ¶¶ 13-15 (DOS); Ex. H ¶¶ 22-32 (DOD); 14 Ex. I ¶¶ 14-17 (DHS-PRIV); Ex. J ¶¶ 21-31 (CBP)).3 These are positive developments. But OIP

15 says it requires an additional four months to finish processing Ms. Currier’s requests (Defs. Ex. E

16 ¶ 30) and other agencies cannot project a final completion date at all (Defs. Ex. F ¶¶ 24-33(OLC);

17 Ex. G ¶¶ 33-35 (DOS); Ex. H ¶ 33 (DOD); Ex. I ¶¶ 14-23 (DHS-PRIV); Ex. J ¶¶ 21-31 (CBP)).

18 Under the FOIA, these agencies are only permitted more time if the Court determines that

19 exceptional circumstances exist and extends their deadlines by court order. 5 U.S.C.

20 § 552(a)(4)(A)(viii)(II)(cc).

21

Ms. Currier appreciates the difficulties inherent in FOIA processing and recognizes that

22 recent national events have prompted a wave of FOIA requests to the federal government. But the

23 Defendants have not carried their burden of showing exceptional circumstances and due diligence,

24 particularly the components seeking open-ended processing deadlines.

25

26 3 Defendants suggest that Ms. Currier erroneously directed her FOIA requests to the Privacy Office
27 at DHS Headquarters rather than to CBP and OIG directly. Opp. at 5 & 6 n.4. Ms. Currier’s
requests to DHS were submitted this way at the suggestion of former DHS Chief Privacy Officer 28 and Chief Freedom of Information Officer Mary Ellen Callahan. @MECPrivacy, Twitter (Jan. 29,
2017, 12:30 PM), https://twitter.com/MECPrivacy/status/825803658650595328. -4-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.
Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 10 of 20
1 For example, the State Department explains that while the number of FOIA requests it has
2 received annually since 2008 had increased by more than 350% as of 2016, its funding has
3 remained relatively consistent with a small increase in resources just last year. Defs. Ex. G ¶ 20.
4 Yet the agency’s FOIA review staff, most of whom are part-time, has decreased recently and is
5 likely to continue doing so. Defs. Ex. G ¶ 31. The agency is overburdened and is not making
6 progress in reducing its backlog, Defs. Ex. G ¶¶ 26 & 28, which makes it unlikely to meet the
7 “exceptional circumstances” standard. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). The FOIA office is willing to
8 assign one reviewer to work on Ms. Currier’s request, and anticipates that this person will review
9 300 pages a month, which is an average of 15 pages per work day. Defs. Ex. G ¶ 15. The agency
10 has no projected date to complete processing. Defs. Ex. G ¶¶ 33-35. It is difficult to understand
11 how the agency is processing Ms. Currier’s requests “as soon as practicable.”
12 OLC explains that one attorney is primarily responsible for all agency FOIA compliance.
13 Defs. Ex. F ¶ 9. The agency is not making progress in reducing its backlog. Defs. Ex. F ¶ 11. There
14 is significant overlap between Ms. Currier’s requests and many others currently pending, Defs.
15 Ex. F ¶¶ 25-29, so processing efforts should serve a large group of requesters. Yet OLC has not
16 committed to even rolling releases, much less an eventual date to complete processing. Defs. Ex. F
17 ¶ 33.
18 DOD says that a team of one full-time employee and four or five contractors has been
19 assigned to handle Ms. Currier’s request and twelve other FOIA litigation matters. Defs. Ex. H
20 ¶¶ 10 & 12. The offices tasked to search for documents have identified a relatively small number of
21 potentially responsive pages, Defs. Ex. H ¶¶ 27 & 30, though additional searches are required Defs.
22 Ex. H ¶ 27. The agency offers some time estimates for discrete offices ranging from two to three
23 months, Defs. Ex. H ¶¶ 29-31, but it ultimately “cannot provide an accurate estimate on when DoD
24 likely will be able to complete its processing of Plaintiff’s request.” Defs. Ex. H ¶ 33.
25 The DHS Privacy Office and CBP report that they have also received many FOIA requests
26 that overlap with Ms. Currier’s requests, Defs. Ex. I ¶ 12 & Ex. J ¶ 4. The DHS Privacy Office has
27 identified approximately 3,000 pages as potentially responsive to Ms. Currier’s February 1 request,
28 and has not completed the search for records responsive to the April request. Defs. Ex. I ¶¶ 15 &
-5-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 11 of 20

1 16. The agency is willing to process 500 pages a month, Defs. Ex. I ¶ 17, which is an average of 25

2 pages a day. At that rate, it could take another six months to process the February 1 request alone.

3 CBP projects that it may have as many as 125,000 records related to the implementation of

4 Executive Order 12769, and offers no estimate about records pertaining to Executive Order 13780.

5 Defs. Ex. I ¶ 5. Neither the DHS Privacy Office nor CBP has a projected date to complete

6 processing.

7 The agencies are unquestionably burdened by the amount of FOIA requests that they

8 receive. But that has long been so. “Although the Court and many others have recognized that

9 agencies’ resources are heavily taxed by the quantity and depth of FOIA requests, that does not

10 grant the agency carte blanche to repeatedly violate congressionally mandated deadlines.” Our

11 Children’s Earth Foundation v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1090-91 (N.D.

12 Cal. 2015). As the Ninth Circuit has found in holding that difficulties of the kind Defendants cite

13 here may not be invoked to justify FOIA processing delays:

14

Though FOIA doubtless poses practical difficulties for federal agencies, federal

15

agencies can educate Congress on the practical problems they have, and attempt

16

to persuade Congress to change the law or provide additional funds to achieve

compliance. So long as the Freedom of Information Act is the law, we cannot

17

repeal it by a construction that vitiates any practical utility it may have. . . . It may

be that agency heads, such as the Attorney General in this case, can be forced by

18

the Freedom of Information Act to divert staff from programs they think more

valuable to Freedom of Information Act compliance . . . . But these policy

19

concerns are legislative, not judicial, and we intimate no views on them. Congress

20

wrote a tough statute on agency delay in FOIA compliance, and recently made it

tougher.

21 Fiduccia v. Dep’t of Justice, 185 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1999). The “tough statute” that

22 Congress enacted does not permit open-ended delays in processing material responsive to

23 “expedited” FOIA requests. Defendants are in violation of the law and are not entitled to an

24 indefinite amount of time.

25

c. CREW Does Not Hold That FOIA’s Timelines are Unenforceable.

26

Defendants argue that CREW stands for the proposition that the only legal consequence of

27 an agency’s failure to follow the FOIA’s deadlines is that a FOIA requester may file suit without

28 first exhausting administrative remedies. Opp. at 12. In other FOIA litigation, this Court has found

-6-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 12 of 20
1 that argument “tantamount to a willful misreading of CREW.” Brown v. CBP, 132 F. Supp. 3d
2 1170, 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
3 The question before the D.C. Circuit in CREW was whether a FOIA requester must exhaust
4 administrative appeal remedies before filing suit. 711 F.3d at 184. The D.C. Circuit held that that
5 when an agency does not make a “determination” whether to comply with a FOIA request within
6 the statutory timeline, it cannot invoke an administrative exhaustion argument to keep a lawsuit out
7 of court. Id. at 189–90; Our Children’s Earth Found., 85 F. Supp. 3d at 1089 (CREW addresses
8 only the question of when a FOIA requester can sue). Once a requester is in court, CREW’s holding
9 has no impact on whether a court may “exercise its discretionary authority to issue a judgment
10 declaring that the agency has, in fact, violated the statutory timeline.” Our Children’s Earth
11 Found., 85 F. Supp. 3d at 1090 (issuing declaratory judgment that agency failed to comply with
12 statutory time limits).
13 Defendants also contend that CREW “made clear that the 20-day deadline under FOIA is
14 not a deadline for release of records.” Opp. at 11 (emphasis in original). But that is not what the
15 D.C. Circuit said. Specifically, the court found that an agency makes a “determination” for
16 purposes of the FOIA when it, at a minimum, “(i) gather[s] and review[s] the documents; (ii)
17 determine[s] and communicate[s] the scope of the documents it intends to produce and withhold;
18 and (iii) inform[s] the requester that it can appeal whatever portion of the ‘determination’ is
19 adverse.” 711 F.3d at 188. In dicta, the D.C. Circuit said an agency does not have to produce
20 records “at the exact same time” as it makes a determination, but must make nonexempt records
21 “‘promptly available,’ which depending on the circumstances typically would mean within days or
22 a few weeks of the ‘determination,’ not months or years.” Id., citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A),
23 (a)(6)(C)(i) (emphasis added).
24 By September 5, Ms. Currier’s February 1 and April 3 requests will have been pending for
25 over seven months and five months, respectively. Even assuming CREW is correct that the FOIA
26 permits an agency to produce records “within days or a few weeks” after a determination, the
27
28
-7-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 13 of 20

1 Defendants have failed to meet that standard.4 No agency issued a “determination” as defined by

2 CREW or produced documents within 20 days or “promptly” thereafter. And while DHS Privacy

3 did invoke the “unusual circumstances” extension, see Hofmann Decl. Exs. 5 & 16, the agency did

4 not issue a determination or produce documents within the extra 10-day period. At the time this

5 lawsuit was filed, the agencies had not made determinations nor produced records. And while each

6 agency has now made interim productions—nearly all after the instant motion was filed—final

7 determinations still have not been made by most components. The declarations submitted by

8 Defendants show that several components have not finished the process of gathering and reviewing

9 responsive records. Defs. Ex. C ¶ 6 (FBI); Ex. D ¶ 4 (EOUSA); Ex. E ¶ 27 (OIP); Ex. F ¶¶ 30-31

10 (OLC); Ex. H ¶¶ 22-23, 29-33(DOD); Ex. I ¶¶ 15-16 (DHS-PRIV); (Ex. J ¶¶ 24-27 (CBP). And

11 some agencies have neither determined nor communicated the scope of the documents they intend

12 to produce and withhold. Defs. Ex. C ¶ 7 (FBI); Ex. D ¶ 5 (EOUSA); Ex. E Decl. ¶ 27 (OIP); Ex. F

13 ¶¶ 30-31 (OLC); Ex. H ¶ 33 (DOD); Ex. I ¶ 16 (DHS-PRIV); (Ex. J ¶ 24-27 (CBP). Ms. Currier

14 does appreciate the Defendants’ efforts to take steps toward processing her requests, but the

15 agencies still have not met the CREW standard for issuing a determination or producing records in

16 a timely manner.

17

d. The EPIC 2006 Line of Cases Remains Good Law.

18

Defendants characterize Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30

19 (D.D.C. 2006) (“EPIC 2006”) as “outdated” and “cast into doubt nearly at its inception.” Opp. at

20 13 & n.9. Yet courts throughout the country continue to cite it approvingly and rely on its analysis.

21 See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm. on Election Integrity, No. 17-cv-

22 1320, 2017 WL 3141907, at *13 (D.D.C. July 24, 2017); Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. Dep’t

23 of Defense, No. 17–cv–00842, 2017 WL 2992076, at *4 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017); Treatment Action

24 Group v. Food & Drug Admin., No. 15-cv-976, 2016 WL 5171987, at *6 (D. Conn. Sept. 20,

25 2016); Clemente v. FBI, 71 F. Supp. 3d 262, 269 (D.D.C. 2014); Martins v. U.S. Citizenship &

26

27 4 We note CREW’s dicta about when an agency must produce responsive records is not supported
by the statutory text or legislative history. Nothing in the FOIA says that Congress intended 28 agencies to produce non-exempt records “within days or a few weeks” after making a
determination on a FOIA request. -8-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.
Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 14 of 20
1 Immigration Servs., 962 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2013); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of
2 Justice, 774 F. Supp. 2d 225, 230 (D.D.C. 2011); South Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat’l
3 Marine Fisheries Serv., No. Civ. S-06-2845, 2008 WL 2523829, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2008); NAACP
4 Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., No. 07 Civ. 3378, 2007
5 WL 4233008, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2007).
6 Defendants point to two cases to argue that EPIC 2006 has been “undermined” by more
7 recent decisions. Opp. at 13. But those cases are not at odds with EPIC 2006. In Elec. Privacy Info.
8 Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice (“EPIC 2014”), the court found that under CREW, an agency goes through
9 a two-step process to respond to a FOIA request. 15 F. Supp. 3d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2014). First, the
10 agency gathers and reviews documents to make a determination within 20 days of receipt. Second,
11 the agency “processes” the documents and releases them “promptly.” Id. at 41-42. If an agency
12 cannot comply with these time limits, it may present a court with “credible evidence that disclosure
13 within such time period is truly impracticable,” and the court may exercise its discretion to modify
14 the deadlines. Id. at 42. While EPIC 2014 reached a different result than EPIC 2006 on the facts,
15 the basic approach matches EPIC 2006.
16 The second case Defendents cite relied on CREW to hold that the FOIA’s 20-day deadline
17 “serves primarily as a means to obtain immediate judicial supervision over an agency’s response to
18 an outstanding FOIA response.” Daily Caller v. Dep’t of State, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10 (D.D.C.
19 2015). The court went on to find that “an agency’s failure to make and communicate its initial
20 determination before the statutory twenty-day deadline allows the requester to be deemed to have
21 exhausted his administrative remedies and to seek immediate judicial review[.]” Id. While that is
22 correct under CREW, it is not the end of the story. Once a FOIA requester files suit, a court may
23 “exercise its discretionary authority to issue a judgment declaring that the agency has, in fact,
24 violated the statutory timeline.” Our Children’s Earth Found., 85 F. Supp. 3d at 1090 (issuing
25 declaratory judgment that agency failed to comply with statutory time limits). And as amended in
26 2016, the FOIA requires that a court must issue an order before ongoing noncompliance with the
27 law will be excused. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(viii)(II)(cc).
28
-9-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 15 of 20

1 Defendants also claim that the EPIC 2006 line of cases are easily distinguishable on the

2 facts. First, Defendants note that their components have begun to release documents in the past few

3 weeks, whereas the agencies in the EPIC 2006 line of cases did not. While this is true, it is not a

4 dispositive fact. The question is whether the Court should extend the agencies more time because

5 exceptional circumstances exist and the agencies are exercising due diligence. For the reasons

6 discussed in II.A.1.b, Defendants have not demonstrated that they meet this standard.

7 Next, according to Defendants, the agencies in the EPIC 2006 line of cases “failed to

8 present any evidence” that it would be impracticable to finish processing the disputed FOIA

9 requests within 20 business days. Opp. at 14 (emphasis in original). This maybe the case for EPIC

10 2006. But it is not true for Elec. Frontier Found. v. Office of the Dir. of Nat. Intelligence, 542 F.

11 Supp. 2d 1181, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“EFF 2008”) or Elec. Frontier Found. v. Office of Dir. of

12 Nat. Intelligence, No. C 07-5278 SI, 2007 WL 4208311 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) (“EFF

13 2007”). In those cases, the agencies presented evidence in declarations just as they have here.5

14 Judge White and Judge Illston of this Court simply found that evidence unpersuasive.

15 Finally, Defendants point to the broad nature of Ms. Currier’s requests. Ms. Currier has

16 cooperated with the agencies to help narrow the scope, Supp. Hofmann Decl. at ¶ 3 Ex. A, and

17 remains open to working with the Defendants to facilitate the timely processing of the records she

18 seeks.

19

2. Ms. Currier Will Suffer Irreparable Injury in the Absence of the

Requested Injunctive Relief 20

Defendants argue first that because other FOIA litigants seeking records about the travel 21

ban have not sought preliminary injunctive relief means that she cannot have been irreparably 22

23 5 EFF 2008, No. 3:07-cv-1023 JSW, Dkt. Nos. 44-1 (Declaration of John Hackett, Director of
24 Information Management for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence), 44-2 (Declaration
of Gayla D. Sessoms, FOIA Coordinator for the National Security Division of the Department of 25 Justice); 44-3 (Declaration of John Colborn, Special Counsel in OLC), 44-4 (Declaration of
26 Thomas E. Hitter, Attorney-Advisor in OIP), 44-5 (Declaration of David M. Hardy, Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division, FBI), & 44-6
27 (Declaration of James M. Kovakas, Attorney-in-Charge of the FOI and Privacy Acts Office, Civil Division, DOJ); EFF 2007, No. 3:07-cv-5278-SI, Dkt. No. 22-1 (Declaration of John Hackett,
28 Director of Information Management for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence).

-10-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 16 of 20

1 harmed. Opp. at 16. But the question before this Court is whether this particular requester will

2 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief. The record establishes that Ms.

3 Currier is a professional journalist whose FOIA requests for records about the travel ban have been

4 granted expedited processing. Several months later, they have not been processed in compliance

5 with the FOIA. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review the legality of the travel ban.

6 The parties and amici involved in the case have imminent deadlines to brief the matter, and oral

7 argument is scheduled before the Court on October 10. Supreme Court Argument Calendar

8 October 2017 (July 17, 2017).6 Without injunctive relief, Ms. Currier will imminently lose the

9 opportunity to write about this topic while it is still timely and she can contribute to the pubic

10 debate about the legality of the travel ban.

11 Defendants next argue that Ms. Currier has not lost her statutory right to expedition because

12 the agencies have granted expedited processing. Opp. at 16. But statutes must be interpreted to

13 avoid absurd results when alternative interpretations are consistent with legislative intent. Griffin v.

14 Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 575 (1982). It defies logic to conclude, as the Defendants

15 would have it, that a request entitled to expedited processing somehow imposes less of a legal

16 burden on an agency than a standard FOIA request. As the court found in EPIC 2006:

17

Congress could not have intended to create the absurd situation wherein standard

18

FOIA requests must be processed within twenty days (unless the agency can show

19

that exceptional circumstances exist for a delay), yet expedited requests empower

an agency to unilaterally decide to exceed the standard twenty-day period.

20 416 F. Supp. 2d at 38. The court held:
21

an agency that violates the twenty-day deadline applicable to standard FOIA

22

requests presumptively also fails to process an expedited request “as soon as

23

practicable.” That is, a prima facie showing of agency delay exists when an

agency fails to process an expedited FOIA request within the time limit applicable

24

to standard FOIA requests.

25

The presumption of agency delay raised by failing to respond to an expedited

request within twenty days is certainly rebuttable if the agency presents credible

26

evidence that disclosure within such time period is truly not practicable.

27 Id. at 39 (footnote omitted).

28
6 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalOctober2017.html. -11-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.
Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 17 of 20
1 Defendants also contend that Ms. Currier’s irreparable injury cannot be based on potentially
2 withheld information. But there is no reason to believe all other records responsive to Ms. Currier’s
3 requests will be exempt from disclosure. Since filing this motion for preliminary injunction, she
4 has received more than 600 pages from Defendants and has an article based on records released
5 through this case. Supp. Hofmann Decl. ¶ 3 Ex. B (“Emails and other government
6 documents, released to The Intercept under the Freedom of Information Act, show how ill-
7 prepared the agency was, crafting guidance on the fly and frantically adjusting its response as
8 thousands of protesters descended on airports around the country.”). Other reporters in pending
9 FOIA lawsuits seeking overlapping records have also written articles based on material released to
10 them thus far. Supp. Hofmann Decl. ¶ 4 Ex. C. And even if all other requested records were
11 somehow withheld from the public in the days before the Supreme Court hears the travel ban base,
12 this fact itself would be newsworthy.
13 Defendants also argue that “recent, well-reasoned decisions have rejected similar claims
14 that FOIA plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm whenever an agency does not finish processing
15 expedited requests immediately.” Opp. at 17. But those decisions were all based on the specific
16 facts before each court, which are nothing like this case. In Allied Progress v. CFPB, the court
17 found that the requester had not shown substantial public interest in the requested records, so delay
18 in receiving them would not cause significant enough injury to constitute irreparable harm. No. 17-
19 cv-686, 2017 WL 1750263, at *6 (D.D.C. May 4, 2017). Notably, the court pointed out that the
20 “time-sensitive nature” of a FOIA request may constitute as irreparable harm—just not on the facts
21 before the court in that case. Id. at *6, citing Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security,
22 514 F. Supp. 2d 7, 10 (D.D.C. 2007). In Daily Caller, the court found no irreparable harm where a
23 court order would have compelled the State Department to finish processing the plaintiff’s request
24 “only marginally sooner” than the agency otherwise expected to do so. 152 F. Supp. 3d at 13. And
25 in EPIC 2014, the court found that the requester failed to show irreparable harm when it “offer[ed]
26 nothing more than a bald assertion that [the agency] is obviously not processing its FOIA Request
27 in a timely fashion.” 15 F. Supp. at 45.
28
-12-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 18 of 20

1 Here, by contrast, a substantial harm to an interest recognized by the courts is certain and

2 irreversible. Irreparable harm exists where “ongoing public and congressional debates about issues

3 of vital national importance cannot be restarted or wound back.” Protect Democracy Project, 2017

4 WL 2992076, at *4 (quoting EFF 2007, 2007 WL 4208311 at *7). Ms. Currier seeks information

5 about a matter of intense ongoing public interest in which the Supreme Court will imminently

6 consider whether an Executive action was unconstitutionally based on religious animus. If the

7 requested records are not processed immediately, she and the public will lose the ability to

8 participate meaningfully in the national debate surrounding the constitutionality and propriety of

9 that Executive action. See, e.g., EFF 2008, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1187 (irreparable harm exists

10 requested records could enable the public to participate meaningfully in a debate over legislation

11 pending before Congress); EFF 2007, 2007 WL 4208311 at *7 (same); EPIC 2006, 416 F. Supp.

12 2d 41 (same); Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp. 2d 246, 260

13 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24, 30 (D.D.C. 2004) (same).

14 3. The Balance of Equities Favors Ms. Currier

15 Defendants claim that Ms. Currier’s interests in timely disclosure are “conclusory and

16 speculative.” Opp. at 22. To the contrary, they are concrete and statutorily mandated. As a

17 professional journalist, Ms. Currier has a statutory right to the timely processing of the records she

18 seeks so that she can report on a time-sensitive matter of considerable interest to the general public.

19 Defendants also argue that the injunction Ms. Currier seeks would burden them and risk the

20 possibility that exempt information might be erroneously released. Opp. at 19-22. But it will not

21 burden them any more than Congress intended. As EPIC 2006 noted:

22

Congress has already weighed the value of prompt disclosure against the risk of

23

mistake by an agency and determined that twenty days is a reasonable time

24

period, absent exceptional circumstances, for an agency to properly

process standard FOIA requests . . . Vague suggestions that inadvertent release of

25

exempted documents might occur are insufficient to outweigh the very tangible

benefits that FOIA seeks to further—government openness and accountability. 26
416 F. Supp. at 42 (emphasis in original).

27 Defendants also ague that the issuance of an order compelling them to process Ms.

28 Currier’s FOIA requests would impose a hardship on other requesters. Opp. at 19-20. But other

-13-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 19 of 20

1 FOIA requesters would actually be benefitted by the relief Ms. Currier seeks. As Defendants have

2 pointed out, many other requesters are seeking overlapping records related to the travel ban, both

3 ahead and behind Ms. Currier in the processing queues. See, e.g., Defs. Ex. A; Ex. F ¶ 25-29

4 (OLC); Ex. G ¶ 17 (DOS); Ex. I ¶ 12 (DHS-PRIV); Ex. J ¶ 4 (CBP). An order compelling the

5 agencies to process the responsive records by a certain date would ensure those requesters obtain

6 their records faster, too. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Dep’t of Energy, 191 F. Supp. 2d

7 41, 43-44 (D.D.C. 2002) (by processing FOIA request in an expeditious manner, agency would

8 fulfill its responsibilities to other requesters seeking the same records).

9 4. The Public Interest Favors the Requested Relief

10 Defendants suggest that the information sought by Ms. Currier can have no impact on the

11 travel ban litigation before the Supreme Court and other courts because she is neither a party nor

12 potential amicus in those cases. Opp. at 22. But Ms. Currier is a journalist who writes for a major

13 national media outlet. Her analysis and publication of the requested records will contribute to the

14 public debate, as well as help inform amici and others in the midst of briefing the actual litigation.

15 See @NealKatyal, Twitter (Aug. 2, 2017, 6:49 PM), https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/8929254

16 52670582784 (“Must read article w FOIA’d docs. Admin has always tried to hide the truth about

17 its Muslim ban but it’s coming out.”) Further, “an agency’s compliance with a mandatory statutory

18 regime is presumably always in the public interest.” Protect Democracy Project, 2017 WL

19 2992076 at *5.

20

B. The Court Should Order Defendants to Prepare a Vaughn Index to Help

21

Resolve the Remaining Issues in This Case

22

Defendants claim that the injunctive relief sought by Ms. Currier is inappropriate because it

23 is “effectively the ultimately relief” she seeks in this case. Opp. at 3. That is not correct. As Ms.

24 Currier explained in her motion:

25

Judicial resolution of the expedited processing issue would not resolve all issues

26

raised in the first amended complaint. Once the question of processing time is

resolved, the Court would retain jurisdiction to review the completeness and

27

propriety of the Defendants’ substantive determination of Ms. Currier’s FOIA

requests. See Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F. 2d

28

605 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

-14-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27 Filed 08/17/17 Page 20 of 20

1 Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 14 n.9.
2 In preparation to litigate the issues remaining in this case, Ms. Currier asks the Court to
3 order Defendants to prepare an index pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
4 As the Ninth Circuit has explained, agencies that withhold documents under the FOIA “have been
5 required to supply the opposing party and the court with a ‘Vaughn index,’ identifying each
6 document withheld, the statutory exemption claimed, and a particularized explanation of how
7 disclosure of the particular document would damage the interest protected by the claimed
8 exemption.” Weiner v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991). Courts regularly order defendant
9 agencies to produce Vaughn showings—either in index or declaration form—after documents have
10 been processed to facilitate the resolution of the issues remaining in the case. See, e.g., ACLU v.
11 Dep’t of Defense, 339 F. Supp. 2d 501, 503-05 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of
12 Energy, 191 F. Supp. 2d 138, 141 (D.D.C. 2002); NRDC, 191 F. Supp. 2d at 43-44; EPIC 2006,
13 416 F. Supp. 2d at 43.
14 IV. CONCLUSION
15

16

Defendants are long past the FOIA’s statutory deadlines. Delays in disclosing non-exempt

17 documents “violate the intent and purpose of the FOIA, and the courts have a duty to prevent these

18 abuses.” Long v. IRS, 693 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1982); Payne, 837 F.2d at 494 (same). Ms. Currier’s

19 motion for a preliminary injunction should be granted and this Court should order Defendants to

20 process the requested records immediately.

21 DATED: August 17, 2017
22 23 24 25 26

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664

27

Attorney for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER

28

-15-
PL.’S REPLY IN SUPP. OF MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27-1 Filed 08/17/17 Page 1 of 2

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087) ZEITGEIST LAW PC
2 25 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102
3 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
4 Attorney for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER
5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9

)

)

10 CORA CURRIER,

) Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC )

11

Plaintiff,

) )

12 13 14

v.

) )

) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, )

et al.,

)

)

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF CORA CURRIER’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15

Defendants. )

16 17

) ) ) ) )

Date: August 24, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

18

)

)

19

)

20

1. I am an attorney of record for the plaintiff Cora Currier in this matter and a member

21 in good standing of the California State Bar, and am admitted to practice before this Court. I have
22 personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration. If called upon to do so, I am
23
competent to testify to all matters set forth here. 24

25

2. Ms. Currier is a staff reporter for the Intercept, where she writes about national

26 security, counterterrorism and immigration.

27 -1-

28

SUPPLEMENTAL DECL. OF MARCIA HOFMANN

IN SUPPORT OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27-1 Filed 08/17/17 Page 2 of 2

1

3. On July 13, 2017, I sent an email to counsel for Defendants narrowing the scope of

2 Ms. Currier’s FOIA requests. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit A.
3 4. On August 8, 2017, The Intercept published a news article written by Ms. Currier
4 based on FOIA documents released through this case. A true and correct copy of the following
5 news article is attached as Exhibit B: Documents Reveal the Behind-the-Scenes Chaos of the
6
7 Muslim Ban, THE INTERCEPT (August 8, 2017), https://theintercept.com/2017/08/08/documents-

8 reveal-the-behind-the-scenes-chaos-of-the-muslim-ban.

9

5. On August 2, 2017, The Daily Beast published a news article based on FOIA

10 documents released through other FOIA litigation that overlaps with the material in this case. A
11 true and correct copy of the following news article is attached as Exhibit C: Betsy Woodruff,
12 Trump’s DHS Ordered Agents to Block Congressmen During Travel Ban, DAILY BEAST (Aug. 2,
13
14 2017), http://www.thedailybeast.com/border-patrol-ordered-to-block-congressmen-during-travel-

15 ban.

16

17

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the

18 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed August 17, 2017. 19

20

/s/ Marcia Hofmann

Marcia Hofmann 21

22

23

24

25

26

27 -2-

28

SUPPLEMENTAL DECL. OF MARCIA HOFMANN

IN SUPPORT OF PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 27-2 Filed 08/17/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Cora Currier v. DHS, et al. Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARCIA HOFMANN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Currier responses to ageCncaysperop3o:s1a7ls-/cmv-e0et1a7n9d 9co-JnfSerC Document 27-2 Filed 08/17/17 Page 2 of 3
Subject: Currier responses to agency proposals / meet and confer From: Marcia Hofmann <marcia@zeitgeist.law> Date: 7/13/17, 11:32 AM To: "Berns, Matthew J. (CIV)" <Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov>
Hi Matt,
I've spoken with Cora Currier and have responses to the agencies' proposals for narrowing the scope of her FOIA requests for records related to the travel ban executive orders. Please take a look at the items below and don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
Could we please schedule a time to meet and confer early next week? I'd like to discuss whether we can agree to a firm date for the completion of processing of Ms. Currier's requests to avoid the need for litigation over that issue. What would be a convenient date and time for you?
Best,
Marcia
-Marcia Hofmann Founder and Principal Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 830-6664
____________________
Ms. Currier is willing to exclude these categories of records from the scope of the requests:
1) News briefings and clips. This exclusion was suggested by OIP, but Ms. Currier agrees to this proposal with respect to all agencies and DOJ components.
2) All filed court pleadings and emails forwarding them without additional commentary. This exclusion was suggested by OIP, but Ms. Currier agrees to this proposal with respect to all agencies and DOJ components.
3) CBP records related to particular travelers except A) complaints submitted by or pertaining to particular travelers, and B) requests for guidance about how to apply the ban to particular travelers and responses to those requests.
4) All records and emails accounts from the Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser.
5) Duplicate records identified by any agency.

1 of 2

8/17/17, 3:49 PM

Currier responses to ageCncaysperop3o:s1a7ls-/cmv-e0et1a7n9d 9co-JnfSerC Document 27-2 Filed 08/17/17 Page 3 of 3
Ms. Currier is *not* willing to exclude these categories of records from the scope of the requests:
1) All emails entirely between or among OLC staff.
2) Classified records identified by DOD.
3) All correspondence between the DOJ Office of Public Affairs and reporters.
The Department of State asked Ms. Currier to consider identifying particular offices or individuals whose records she'd like the agency to search. Ms. Currier asks that the agency conduct a search in the following offices:
* Office of the Secretary * Executive Secretariat * Operations Center * Policy Planning Staff * Counselor of the Department * Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights * Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations * Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor * Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration * Bureau of Consular Affairs * United States embassies and consulates in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya

2 of 2

8/17/17, 3:49 PM

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 33

1 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
2
BRIAN STRETCH 3 United States Attorney

4 ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
5
MATTHEW J. BERNS (DC Bar No. 998094) 6 KARI E. D’OTTAVIO (NY Bar No. 5338785)
MICHAEL DREZNER (VA Bar No. 83836) 7 Trial Attorneys
(202) 616-8016 8 (202) 616-8470 (Fax)
Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov 9 United States Department of Justice
Civil Division 10 Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW 11 Washington, DC 20530

12 Counsel for Defendants

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15 CORA CURRIER,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

16

Plaintiff,

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO

17

v.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

18 DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Date:

August 24, 2017

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Time: Place:

9:00 a.m. Courtroom F, 15th Floor

20

Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 33

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii 2 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 3

3 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3

4

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework ..................................................................... 3

B. Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests....................................................................................... 5

5

C. The Instant Litigation.............................................................................................. 6

6

D. Defendants’ Releases and Current Processing Status ............................................. 7

LEGAL STANDARD..................................................................................................................... 8 7 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9

8 I. 9

PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY INJUNCTION COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO PROCESS HER complex FOIA REQUESTS BY THE ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF SEPTEMBER 5 .......................... 9

10

A. Plaintiff Has Not Shown That She Is Likely To Prevail On Her Claim That She Is Entitled To All Responsive, Non-exempt Records Immediately................. 9

11

1. FOIA’s expedited processing provisions require that expedited

requests be processed as soon as practicable, not within any

12

time certain................................................................................................ 10

2. The outdated district court decisions on which Plaintiff relies are

13

distinguishable because Defendants here are diligently working

to process Plaintiff’s requests as soon as practicable................................ 13

14

B. Plaintiff Has Failed To Establish That She Will Suffer Irreparable Harm

15

If She Does Not Receive All Responsive, Non-exempt Records Immediately .... 15

C. The Remaining Preliminary Injunction Factors Weigh Strongly Against

16

Plaintiff ................................................................................................................. 19

17 II.

PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO A VAUGHN INDEX, LET ALONE ON HER ABREVIATED TIME TABLE ................................... 23

18 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 25

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page i

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 33

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES 2

PAGE(S)

Allied Progress v. CFPB,

3

No. 17-cv-686, 2017 WL 1750263 (D.D.C. May 4, 2017)........................................... 17, 20, 21

4 Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. King Cty. (“AFDI”), 796 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 8, 16
5

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Dep’t of Agric.,

6

No. 17-cv-949, 2017 WL 2352009 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2017)....................................... 8, 21, 22

7 Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 15
8

Campbell v. Feld Entm’t Inc.,

9

No. 12-cv-4233, 2013 WL 4510629 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) ................................................ 8

10 City & Cty. of Honolulu v. EPA, No. 08-cv-404, 2009 WL 855896 (D. Haw. Mar. 27, 2009) .................................................... 19
11
Cmty Ass’n for Restoration of the Env’t, Inc. v. EPA, 12 36 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (E.D. Wash. 2014) ................................................................................... 12

13 CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................. 5, 11, 12, 13
14
Daily Caller v. DOS, 15 152 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) ....................................................................................... passim

16 Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2002) ............................................................................................ 15
17
Doe v. Samuel Merritt Univ., 18 921 F. Supp. 2d 958 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................................ 8

19 Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 22
20
Elec. Frontier Found. v. ODNI (“EFF II”), 21 542 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................... 9

22 Elec. Frontier Found. v. ODNI (“EFF I”), No. 07-cv-5278, 2007 WL 4208311 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) .......................................... 9, 21
23
EPIC v. DOJ (“EPIC I”), 24 416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006) ........................................................................................ 9, 14

25 EPIC v. DOJ (“EPIC II”), 15 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2014) ....................................................................................... passim
26
Estate of Abduljaami v. DOS, 27 No. 14-cv-7902, 2016 WL 94140 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2016) ...................................................... 11

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page ii

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 33

Exner v. FBI,

1

542 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir. 1976) .............................................................................................. 4, 12

2 Fiduccia v. DOJ, 185 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 24
3

Garcia v. Google, Inc.,

4

786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................... 8

5 Gaylor v. DOJ, No. 05-cv-414, 2006 WL 1644681 (D.N.H. June 14, 2006) .................................................... 11
6

Gerstein v. CIA,

7

No. 06-cv-4643, 2006 WL 3462659 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006) .................................... 9, 14, 24

8 Gilmore v. Dep’t of Energy, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (N.D. Cal. 1998) ...................................................................................... 12
9
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 10 322 U.S. 238 (1944).................................................................................................................. 22

11 In re Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 15
12
Judicial Watch Inc. v. DHS, 13 514 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2007) ........................................................................................ 19, 23

14 L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................. 15
15
Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 16 910 F. Supp. 2d 270 (D.D.C. 2012) .................................................................................... 10, 18

17 Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 24
18
Lewis v. IRS, 19 823 F.2d 375 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 24

20 LivingWell Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Harris, No. 15-cv-04939, 2015 WL 13187682 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015)........................................... 22
21
Long v. DHS, 22 436 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2006) ............................................................................................ 19

23 Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 8
24
Marks v. DOJ, 25 578 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1978) .................................................................................................... 15

26 Mason v. Calloway, 554 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1977) .................................................................................................... 15
27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page iii

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 33

Massachusetts v. HHS,

1

727 F. Supp. 35 (D. Mass. 1989) .............................................................................................. 15

2 Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................. 24
3

Minier v. CIA,

4

88 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................... 24

5 Miscavige v. IRS, 2 F.3d 366 (11th Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................... 24
6

Nation Magazine v. DOS,

7

805 F. Supp. 68 (D.D.C. 1992) ........................................................................................... 18, 20

8 Navigators Ins. Co. v. DOJ, 155 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D. Conn. 2016) ....................................................................................... 12
9
Nken v. Holder, 10 556 U.S. 418 (2009).................................................................................................................. 22

11 Our Children’s Earth Found. v. EPA, No. 08-cv-1461, 2008 WL 3181583 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2008) ................................................ 11
12
Our Children’s Earth Found. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 13 85 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 12

14 Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. DOD, No. 17-cv-00842, 2017 WL 2992076 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017) ..................................... 13, 20, 21
15
Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 16 415 U.S. 1 (1974)...................................................................................................................... 19

17 Senate of Cal. v. Mosbacher, 968 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................... 8
18
Shannahan v. IRS, 19 672 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 24

20 Stimac v. DOJ, 620 F. Supp. 212 (D.D.C. 1985) ............................................................................................... 24
21
Washington v. Trump, 22 No. 17-cv-141, 2017 WL 2172020 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017) ............................................ 23

23 Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972 (9th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................... 24
24
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 25 555 U.S. 7 (2008).................................................................................................................. 8, 15

26

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page iv

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 33

STATUTES 1
5 U.S.C. § 552................................................................................................................................. 1 2
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)...................................................................................................................... 15 3
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) ........................................................................................................ 2, 3, 12 4
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) ........................................................................................................ 4, 11 5
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)(I) ........................................................................................................ 11 6
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii)(III)...................................................................................................... 4 7
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C) ................................................................................................................ 13 8
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i)................................................................................................. 2, 3, 5, 12 9
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)............................................................................................................. 4, 17 10
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii)............................................................................................. 2, 4, 10, 12 11
5 U.S.C. § 552(b) ............................................................................................................................ 4 12
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)………………………………………………………………………………4 13
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) ……………………………………………………………………………...4 14
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) ……………………………………………………………………………...4 15
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) ……………………………………………………………………………...4 16
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, 17 Pub. L. No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048 .......................................................................................... 4

18 REGULATIONS

19 6 C.F.R. § 5.3 .................................................................................................................................. 3

20 6 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(1) ......................................................................................................................... 6

21 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(b) ............................................................................................................................. 4

22 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(4) ......................................................................................................................... 4

23 22 C.F.R. § 171.11(f) ...................................................................................................................... 4

24 22 C.F.R. § 171.11(h) ..................................................................................................................... 4

25 22 C.F.R. § 171.4 ............................................................................................................................ 3

26 28 C.F.R. § 16.3 .............................................................................................................................. 3

27 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(b) ......................................................................................................................... 4

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page v

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 33

28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(4) ..................................................................................................................... 4 1
32 C.F.R. § 286.5 ............................................................................................................................ 3 2
32 C.F.R. § 286.8(b) ....................................................................................................................... 4 3
32 C.F.R. § 286.8(e)(4) ................................................................................................................... 4 4
OTHER AUTHORITIES 5
H.R. Rep. No. 104-795 (1996)...................................................................................................... 10 6
S. Rep. No. 93-854 (1974) ............................................................................................................ 11 7
S. Rep. No. 104-272 (1996) .......................................................................................................... 10 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page vi

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 33

1

Plaintiff Cora Currier seeks an extraordinary, mandatory preliminary injunction

2 compelling Defendants, the Departments of Justice (“DOJ”), Defense (“DOD”), State (“DOS”),

3 and Homeland Security (“DHS”), to complete their processing of Plaintiff’s multiple requests

4 under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, by September 5, 2017—within

5 7 business days of the hearing on her Motion—and to produce document-by-document indices

6 justifying any withholdings within 30 days of the Court’s order. The Motion should be denied.

7

As set forth in the detailed declarations accompanying this Opposition,1 every Defendant

8 has expedited its processing of Plaintiff’s requests, and is diligently working to process her

9 requests as soon as practicable, ahead of earlier-filed non-expedited requests. But Defendants’

10 resources are limited, Plaintiff’s requests are very broad, and hers are not the only requests that

11 Defendants are working to process expeditiously—all at a time when Defendants have been

12 receiving an escalating number of FOIA requests. Nevertheless, every Defendant has begun

13 releasing records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests or plans to begin doing so shortly. Some

14 agencies—USMS and DHS-OIG—have already completed their searches for responsive records

15 subject to FOIA and released all non-exempt information. Some agencies—FBI and EOUSA—

16 anticipate that they can complete their responses by September 5, with the possible exception of

17 records requiring interagency review. The others—agencies that have already located large

18 volumes of potentially responsive records, are still searching for more records, and/or are dealing

19 with classified or otherwise sensitive information—simply need more time.

20

In this context, the Court should resist Plaintiff’s invitation to impose an omnibus, one-

21 size-fits-all deadline for every Defendant to complete its processing of Plaintiff’s requests,

22 regardless of the progress that has been made to date, the amount of work that remains to be done,

23
24 1 There are more declarations than Defendants because Defendants have multiple components that process FOIA requests, depending on the component(s) from which records are requested. The
25 components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the
26 Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and
27 Border Protection (“CBP”); and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 33

1 and the other (no less important) requests that Defendants are also working to fulfill. Instead, the

2 Court should allow Defendants to continue their efforts to respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests as

3 soon as practicable, while directing Defendants to file quarterly or monthly status reports in order

4 to monitor Defendants’ progress, and if the Court finds that an agency is not proceeding diligently,

5 to consider agency-specific relief tailored to the circumstances. The Court should further direct

6 Plaintiff to consider additional ways to clarify and narrow her requests to focus on the discrete

7 categories of records of greatest interest to her, in order to facilitate Defendants’ processing and to

8 bring this litigation to an earlier end.

9

None of the preliminary injunction factors supports Plaintiff’s alternative approach. First,

10 Plaintiff is incorrect that the FOIA generally requires agencies to release all non-exempt records

11 that are responsive to a request within 20 business days (and less time if the request qualifies for

12 expedited processing). The statute requires agencies to process requests “promptly,” id.

13 § 552(a)(3)(A), (a)(6)(C)(i), and expedited requests “as soon as practicable,” id.

14 § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). Applying these standards depends on the nature of a plaintiff’s FOIA request

15 and the competing demands of other requesters, among other factors. Because Defendants are

16 working diligently to process Plaintiff’s broad requests as soon as practicable, Plaintiff cannot

17 show that she is likely to prevail on the merits.

18

Second, the requested injunction is not necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiff.

19 That an agency has not finished processing a FOIA request does not constitute per se irreparable

20 harm for purposes of a preliminary injunction, and Plaintiff has failed to make a case-specific

21 showing that she personally will suffer serious harm if Defendants’ ongoing, expedited processing

22 of her FOIA requests continues beyond September 5. Moreover, none of the many other FOIA

23 requesters seeking records relating to the same subject matter have requested similar relief, a fact

24 that substantially undermines Plaintiff’s claims of irreparable harm.

25

Third, the equities and public interest weigh against a mandatory injunction directing

26 Defendants to complete processing by September 5. Forcing Defendants to process Plaintiff’s

27 requests on an arbitrary and infeasible timeline would disadvantage other FOIA requesters—

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 33

1 including many whose expedited requests were submitted prior to Plaintiff’s—and would risk

2 inadvertent disclosure of sensitive and otherwise exempt information. Plaintiff’s analysis of the

3 public interest fails to account for these considerations and instead rests on speculation regarding

4 the content of non-exempt records that she might receive. Moreover, the relief Plaintiff seeks—

5 the release of records—is effectively the ultimate relief sought in this lawsuit, not preliminary

6 relief designed to protect the status quo. It is inappropriate and premature at this time.

7

Finally, Plaintiff has not shown that she is entitled to an index of information withheld

8 from Defendants’ releases within 30 days of the Court’s order. Such an index is not required in

9 every FOIA case, and Plaintiff has not articulated why any of the preliminary injunction factors

10 warrants an order directing any Defendant to produce one before it seeks summary judgment.

11

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

12

1. Where Defendants have already granted Plaintiff’s FOIA requests expedited processing,

have begun releasing responsive records, and have been working diligently to locate and

13

process additional records as soon as practicable, whether Plaintiff is entitled to a

mandatory injunction compelling Defendants to complete their productions by an arbitrary

14

date that is only seven business days after the hearing on her Motion.

15

2. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a document-by-document index of all information withheld

by Defendants on a similarly arbitrary timetable. 16

BACKGROUND 17

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework 18
With certain exceptions, the FOIA requires federal agencies to make requested records 19
“promptly available” to any person upon receiving a request which “(i) reasonably describes such 20
records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), 21
and procedures to be followed.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A); see also id. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).2 22

Processing a FOIA request takes time. An agency must search for and retrieve all 23

responsive records, and the duration of the search will depend on the scope and nature of the 24

25 2 Defendants’ regulations establish procedures for submitting FOIA requests, which illustrate the
26 kind of specific information requesters should provide. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.3 (DOJ) (“the date, title or name, author, recipient, subject matter of the record, case number, file designation, or reference
27 number”); see also 6 C.F.R. § 5.3 (DHS); 22 C.F.R. § 171.4 (DOS); 32 C.F.R. § 286.5 (DOD).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of 33

1 request. Once an agency has completed its search and located responsive records, it must process

2 them for potential release. This process requires careful review of responsive records to excise and

3 withhold information falling within any of the nine statutory exemptions from disclosure, 5 U.S.C.

4 § 552(b), including classified information, id. § 552(b)(1), information “the disclosure of which

5 would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” id. § 552(b)(6), information

6 compiled for law enforcement purposes, id. § 552(b)(7), and privileged information, id.

7 § 552(b)(5), among other categories. When an agency that receives a request locates records that

8 involve another agency’s equities, the former agency also needs to consult with the latter agency

9 before releasing the records, and these consultations take time. See id. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii)(III).

10

As a default rule, agencies must “determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays,

11 and legal public holidays)” of receiving a proper FOIA request “whether to comply with such

12 request.” Id. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). And they must then “immediately notify the person making such

13 request of . . . such determination and the reasons therefore,” among other information. Id.

14

These “precise time limits,” however, “bear no relation in actual practice to the multiple

15 demands placed upon [an agency], or to the capacity of the [agency] work force to do the careful

16 and thorough examination required on each such demand.” Exner v. FBI, 542 F.2d 1121, 1122

17 (9th Cir. 1976). In order to accommodate the competing demands of multiple requesters, therefore,

18 agencies ordinarily process requests on a first-in, first-out basis. See, e.g., id. at 1123.

19

In 1996, Congress amended the FOIA to provide for “expedited processing” of certain

20 categories of requests. See Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-231, § 8, 110

21 Stat. 3048 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)). If an agency grants a request for expedited

22 processing, the FOIA provides that it shall process the request “as soon as practicable,” 5 U.S.C.

23 § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii), rather than just “promptly.” Generally, expedition entitles requesters to move

24 to the front of the agency’s processing queue, ahead of earlier-filed non-expedited requests, but

25 after other earlier-filed expedited requests. See 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(b), (e)(4) (DHS); 22 C.F.R.

26 § 171.11(f), (h) (DOS); 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(b), (e)(4) (DOJ); 32 C.F.R. § 286.8(b), (e)(4) (DOD).

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of 33

1

Under the terms of the statute, the only consequence “if the agency fails to comply with

2 the applicable time limit provisions” (e.g., fails to make a determination within 20 business days)

3 is that the requester “shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies.” 5 U.S.C.

4 § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). An agency may still need more time to process the request, in light of the nature

5 of the request or other considerations. In that case, “the court (if suit has been filed) will supervise

6 the agency’s ongoing progress, ensuring that the agency continues to exercise due diligence in

7 processing the request.” CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

8

B. Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests

9

Plaintiff submitted FOIA requests, dated February 1, 2017, to DHS, DOJ, and DOS (the

10 “February Requests”). Pl. Exs. 1, 2, 4.3 The February Requests seek records from multiple agency

11 components. From DHS, Plaintiff requested records from “DHS Headquarters” and CBP. Pl. Ex.

12 1. From DOJ, Plaintiff requested records from OLC, USMS, the Office of the Attorney General

13 (“OAG”), the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (“ODAG”), and the Office of Legislative

14 Affairs (“OLA”). Pl. Ex. 2. Plaintiff later expanded the scope of the request to include the Office

15 of Public Affairs (“PAO”), in response to a query from OIP, which processes FOIA requests on

16 behalf of OAG, ODAG, OLA, and PAO, among other DOJ components. Pl. Ex. 3. Plaintiff’s

17 request to DOS did not specify what offices might possess the records sought. Pl. Ex. 4.

18

In substance, each of the February Requests seeks “all agency records from January 20,

19 2017 to present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of [Executive Order

20 13,769].” Each February Request then goes on to identify multiple categories of records that “[t]his

21 request includes, but is not limited to.” Many of those categories are themselves broad and vague

22 (e.g., “[r]ecords related to . . . communications . . . [a]mong [agency] personnel”).

23

Plaintiff later filed another set of requests, each dated April 3, 2017 (the “April Requests”).

24 See Pl. Exs. 9-15. The April Requests added DOD, two additional DOJ components (the FBI and

25
26 3 The February Requests were submitted on behalf of both Plaintiff and another journalist, Jenna McLaughlin. See Pl. Exs. 1, 2, 4. Ms. McLaughlin did not join Plaintiff in submitting the April
27 Requests or in pursuing any of the requests in litigation. See Pl. Exs. 9-15.

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of 33

1 EOUSA), and one additional DHS component (DHS-OIG) to the list of agencies from which

2 Plaintiff seeks records. See Pl. Exs. 9, 13-15. From DOD and the FBI, Plaintiff requested “records

3 from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning [the agency’s] analysis of the impact of Executive

4 Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.” Pl. Exs. 13, 15. From EOUSA, Plaintiff

5 requested all “records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning Executive Order No.

6 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.” Pl. Ex. 14. With respect to DHS, DOS, and all DOJ

7 components included in the February Requests, Plaintiff’s April Requests sought “all agency

8 records from February 1, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation

9 of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.” Pl. Exs. 9-12. Again, each April

10 Request identified multiple categories of records that the “request includes, but is not limited to.”4

11

Plaintiff asked that each of her requests receive expedited processing. See Pl. Exs. 1-2, 4,

12 9-15. Each of her requests for expedited processing was granted, either initially or after Plaintiff

13 appealed, though not necessarily on every ground asserted in her requests. See Pl. Ex. 5-8, 16-22.

14

Plaintiff was promptly advised, however, that her requests would “require a thorough and

15 wide-ranging search,” and she was invited “to narrow the scope of [her] request.” Pl. Ex. 5; see

16 also Pl. Ex. 6 (“The time needed to process your request will necessarily depend on the complexity

17 of our records search and the volume and complexity of any records located.”).

18

C. The Instant Litigation

19

Plaintiff did not receive the requested records as quickly as she would have liked, and rather

20 than narrow her requests to focus on the records of greatest interest to her, filed suit on March 31,

21 2017. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. Then, on May 19, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, ECF

22 No. 14, which added claims related to her April Requests and added DOD as a Defendant. On July

23 20, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in the midst of the parties’ discussion of production schedules.

24

25 4 Though DHS rules direct requesters to “write directly to the FOIA office of the component that
26 maintains the records sought” so that the request can “receive the quickest possible response,” 6 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(1), Plaintiff directed her requests for CBP and OIG records to the DHS Privacy
27 Office.

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 14 of 33

D. Defendants’ Releases and Current Processing Status 1
Two agencies have now fully responded to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests by releasing all non2
exempt records subject to FOIA and located in their searches: 3

o USMS completed its processing of Plaintiff’s requests before she filed her Motion, and

4

Plaintiff seeks no relief as to USMS. See Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 6

n.8 (July 20, 2017), ECF No. 20 (“Mem.”). 5

o DHS-OIG has released, in full or in part, 207 pages responsive to Plaintiff’s April Request

6

for records from that agency component. On August 3, 2017, DHS-OIG advised Plaintiff

that, in light of DHS-OIG’s ongoing investigation, all of its remaining records are currently

7

exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(A). See Ex. B.

8

Two agencies in DOJ—the FBI and EOUSA—have not completed their responses but

9 anticipate releasing all non-exempt records subject to FOIA and responsive to Plaintiff’s requests

10 by September 5, with the potential exception of records requiring interagency review. While the

11 timing of interagency review would be beyond their control, the agencies commit to concluding

12 the process as soon as practicable. See Ex. C ¶ 7 (FBI); Ex. D ¶ 5(EOUSA).

13

Of the two remaining DOJ components, OIP and OLC have nearly completed their

14 searches, and both have begun rolling releases, with OLC making its first release on August 2 and

15 OIP making its first release on August 10. See Ex. E ¶¶ 26-27, 30 n.4 (OIP); Ex. F ¶¶ 24-32

16 (OLC). OIP has located over 16,000 potentially responsive records requiring further review, Ex.

17 E ¶ 27, while OLC has located over 26,000, Ex. F ¶ 30. OIP estimates that it can complete

18 processing by January 2018, Ex. E ¶ 30, while OLC is not yet able to estimate a completion date.

19 See Ex. F ¶¶ 24-33. But neither can practicably complete its processing by September 5.

20

DOS, DOD, DHS-PRIV, and CBP have each begun searching for records responsive to

21 Plaintiff’s requests and begun releasing responsive records. In light of the breadth of Plaintiff’s

22 requests and the agencies’ limited resources, however, these agencies’ searches remain ongoing.

23 These agencies will continue processing Plaintiff’s requests on an expedited basis and making

24 rolling releases of responsive, non-exempt records while their expedited searches are underway.

25 See Ex. G ¶¶ 13-15 (DOS); Ex. H ¶¶ 22-32 (DOD); Ex. I ¶¶ 14-17 (DHS-PRIV); Ex. J ¶¶ 21-31

26 (CBP).

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 7

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 15 of 33

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

Under any circumstances, a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic

3 remedy” that should not be granted “unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of

4 persuasion.” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012). The movant “must establish

5 that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

6 of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the

7 public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

8

Here, Plaintiff must satisfy an even more demanding standard because she seeks an order

9 directing Defendants to take action. Such “a mandatory injunction goes well beyond simply

10 maintaining the status quo pendente lite [and] is particularly disfavored.” Garcia v. Google, Inc.,

11 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). Mandatory injunctions should be denied “unless the facts and

12 law clearly favor the moving party,” id., “are not granted unless extreme or very serious damage

13 will result and are not issued in doubtful cases.” Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. King Cty., 796

14 F.3d 1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2015) (“AFDI”), cert. denied sub nom. 136 S. Ct. 1022 (2016); Animal

15 Legal Def. Fund v. Dep’t of Agric., No. 17-cv-949, 2017 WL 2352009, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 31,

16 2017).

17

Even more problematic, Plaintiff seeks relief that would be irreversible, and thus not really

18 “preliminary” at all. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, in setting aside a preliminary injunction

19 requiring the federal Government to release data, “that kind of judgment on the merits in the guise

20 of preliminary relief” is “highly inappropriate.” Senate of Cal. v. Mosbacher, 968 F.2d 974, 978

21 (9th Cir. 1992); see Daily Caller v. DOS, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C. 2015) (describing

22 immediate processing of FOIA requests as “the full relief [a plaintiff] seeks in filing its underlying

23 Complaint”).5

24

25 5 Plaintiff also cannot satisfy the “serious questions” standard for preliminary relief, Mem. 7-8,
26 which is of doubtful validity in any event, Campbell v. Feld Entm’t Inc., No. 12-cv-4233, 2013 WL 4510629, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013), particularly in the context of a mandatory
27 injunction, see, e.g., Doe v. Samuel Merritt Univ., 921 F. Supp. 2d 958, 962-63 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 8

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 16 of 33

ARGUMENT 1

I. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY

2

INJUNCTION COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO PROCESS HER COMPLEX

FOIA REQUESTS BY THE ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF SEPTEMBER 5 3

Plaintiff’s demand that Defendants complete their processing of each of her FOIA requests

4

by September 5 fails each of the preliminary injunction requirements. Defendants have been

5

diligently working to process Plaintiff’s requests as soon as practicable (as demonstrated in their

6

declarations) and have begun releasing records. The FOIA does not require more. In any event,

7

Plaintiff has shown neither that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm if Defendants’ processing

8

of her FOIA requests continues at its current expedited pace nor that the equities and public

9

interest favor imposing an omnibus September 5 deadline for every Defendant.

10

A. Plaintiff Has Not Shown That She Is Likely To Prevail On Her Claim That She

11

Is Entitled To All Responsive, Non-exempt Records Immediately

12

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on her argument that she is “entitled

13 to the immediate processing and release of the requested records.” Mem. 10. Plaintiff’s argument

14 rests heavily on EPIC v. DOJ, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006) (“EPIC I”), in which the court

15 created a presumption that “an agency that violates the twenty-day deadline applicable to standard

16 FOIA requests presumptively also fails to process an expedited request ‘as soon as practicable,’”

17 id. at 39, and on three cases from this district that followed EPIC I. See Mem. 9-10 (citing Elec.

18 Frontier Found. v. ODNI, No. 07-cv-5278, 2007 WL 4208311 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) (“EFF

19 I”); Elec. Frontier Found. v. ODNI, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“EFF II”); and

20 Gerstein v. CIA, No. 06-cv-4643, 2006 WL 3462659 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2006)).

21

But the EPIC I line of cases has been undermined by more recent decisions recognizing

22 that the FOIA’s default 20-business-day deadline for making a determination on a request does

23 not require the agency to release all non-exempt records within that time. Rather, it is an

24 exhaustion provision that “serves primarily as a means to obtain immediate judicial supervision

25 over an agency’s response to an outstanding FOIA request.” Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 10.

26 In any event, the EPIC I line of cases is distinguishable here because Defendants have

27 demonstrated progress in processing Plaintiff’s broad FOIA requests as quickly as practicable.

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 9

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 17 of 33

1. FOIA’s expedited processing provisions require that expedited requests be

1

processed as soon as practicable, not within any time certain

2

Underlying Plaintiff’s argument that she is entitled to the release of all responsive, non-

3 exempt records within seven business days of the motion hearing is Plaintiff’s incorrect assertion

4 that the FOIA’s expedited processing provision requires an agency to complete its processing

5 within a specific number of days. But “[t]he statute does not assign any particular time frame to

6 release . . . the records sought.” Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 910 F. Supp. 2d 270, 275 (D.D.C.

7 2012). As explained in the Senate Report accompanying the FOIA amendments that inserted the

8 expedited processing provision, the point of expedition is to give certain requests priority, not to

9 require that they be processed within a specific period of time:

10

[Once] the request for expedited [processing] is granted, the agency must then

proceed to process the request “as soon as practicable.” No specific number of days

11

for compliance is imposed by the bill since, depending on the complexity of the

request, the time needed for compliance may vary. The goal is not to get the request

12

. . . processed within a specific time frame, but to give the request priority for

processing more quickly than otherwise would occur. 13

S. Rep. No. 104-272, at 17 (1996) (emphasis added); see also H.R. Rep. No. 104-795, at 18 (1996)

14

(“certain categories of requesters would receive priority treatment of their requests”). Thus, the

15

expedited processing provision is simply an ordering mechanism that allows certain FOIA requests

16

to jump to a faster processing queue.6

17

Once a request is in the expedited queue, the FOIA requires only that the agency process

18

the request “as soon as practicable.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). What is practicable—and hence

19

what is required by the statute—will vary depending on the size, scope, detail, and complexity of

20

issues presented by the request; the number of offices with responsive documents; other agencies

21

or components which must be consulted or to which documents might have to be referred for

22

additional review; exemption issues; and the resources available to process the request.

23

24 6 Defendants’ regulations confirm that the result of expedition is that a request is moved to an expedited queue where it is processed as soon as practicable, ahead of non-expedited requests but
25 generally behind earlier-filed expedited requests. See supra at 4. Although Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that Defendants have violated their “own regulations,” Mem. 1, 8, 11, 13, the only
26 regulations she cites describe the standards that a requester must satisfy in order to qualify for expedited processing, id. at 5, 9. No regulation states that Defendants will complete processing an
27 expedited request within a specific time frame.

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 18 of 33

1

Ignoring the plain language of the statute and the clear legislative intent, Plaintiff attempts

2 to invent a time limit applicable to her expedited requests by asserting that “an agency

3 presumptively violates the ‘expedited processing’ provisions of the FOIA when it fails to meet the

4 generally applicable 20-working-day deadline imposed by the FOIA for processing a non-

5 expedited request.” Mem. 9. But this argument reflects Plaintiff’s misunderstanding of 5 U.S.C.

6 § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), which provides that an agency shall “determine within 20 days (excepting

7 Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of [a proper] request whether to

8 comply with such request.” Under Plaintiff’s theory, § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) requires agencies to release

9 all non-exempt records responsive to a FOIA request within 20 business days, and because

10 expedited requests must be processed faster, the failure to process an expedited request in less than

11 20 business days violates the statute (at least presumptively). See Mem. 9. Although EPIC I

12 endorsed the presumption Plaintiff advocates, and Defendants agree with Plaintiff that this Court

13 should look to D.C. Circuit law for guidance, as judges on this Court have in the past, the more

14 recent and better authority from that jurisdiction undermines EPIC I and Plaintiff’s reliance on it.7

15

Most notably, the D.C. Circuit’s 2013 decision in CREW made clear that the 20-day

16 deadline under FOIA is not a deadline for the release of records. See CREW, 711 F.3d at 188.

17 Rather, it is the deadline for the agency to make a “‘determination’” whether to comply with a

18 request. Id. at 182-83 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)(I)). Because, “a distinction exists

19 between a ‘determination’ and subsequent production,” the 20-business-day window for making a

20 “‘determination’ does not require actual production of the records” within that period. Id. at 188;

21 accord Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 10 (“[T]he agency is plainly correct that FOIA does not

22 require production of all responsive, non-exempt documents within twenty days of receiving a

23 request.”). With respect to the actual release of records, the statute imposes standards, not a

24 7 FOIA decisions of the D.C. Circuit and District Court “are entitled to appropriate deference”
25 because of their experience and expertise in applying the statute. Our Children’s Earth Found. v. EPA, No. 08-cv-1461, 2008 WL 3181583, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2008); cf. Estate of Abduljaami
26 v. DOS, No. 14-cv-7902, 2016 WL 94140, at *5 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2016) (“considerable experience”); Gaylor v. DOJ, No. 05-cv-414, 2006 WL 1644681, at *1 (D.N.H. June 14, 2006)
27 (“special expertise”); S. Rep. No. 93-854, at 165 (1974) (“substantial expertise”).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 11

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 19 of 33

1 deadline of a specific number of days: all requests must be processed “promptly,” 5 U.S.C.

2 § 552(a)(3)(A), (a)(6)(C)(i), and expedited requests “as soon as practicable,” id.

3 § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). As such, the FOIA does not require that expedited requests be fully processed

4 in less than 20 business days (“presumptively” or otherwise); cf. CREW, 711 F.3d at 189 (“[I]t

5 would be a practical impossibility for agencies to process all [FOIA] requests completely within

6 twenty days.”); Exner, 542 F.2d at 1122 (similar).

7

Moreover, if an agency fails to make a “determination” within this 20-day period, the

8 consequence is not the immediate release of all responsive records, as Plaintiff argues. Rather, “[i]f

9 the agency does not adhere to FOIA’s explicit timelines, the ‘penalty’ is that the agency cannot

10 rely on the administrative exhaustion requirement to keep cases from getting into court.” CREW,

11 711 F.3d at 189. In other words, as many decisions since CREW have recognized, “the impact of

12 blowing the 20-day deadline relates only to the requester’s ability to get into court.” Elec. Privacy

13 Information Ctr. v. DOJ, 15 F. Supp. 3d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2014) (“EPIC II”); see, e.g., Our

14 Children’s Earth Found. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1090 (N.D. Cal.

15 2015) (describing CREW’s analysis as “persuasive” and concluding that “[a]s a matter of statutory

16 interpretation it is clear that the only legal consequence that flows directly from an agency’s failure

17 to provide a determination within the statutory time limits is the waiver of the administrative

18 exhaustion requirement.”); Navigators Ins. Co. v. DOJ, 155 F. Supp. 3d 157, 167 (D. Conn. 2016)

19 (“Many courts, including several in this Circuit, have held that untimeliness is not a per se statutory

20 violation [under FOIA] entitling the requester to any specific remedy.”); Cmty. Ass’n for

21 Restoration of the Env’t, Inc. v. EPA, 36 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1049 (E.D. Wash. 2014) (relying on

22 CREW to reject plaintiff’s argument that agency’s failure to provide a timely determination

23 constitutes an improper withholding under FOIA).8

24 8 Plaintiff relies on the broad proposition stated in Gilmore v. Dep’t of Energy, 33 F. Supp. 2d
25 1184, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 1998), that “an agency’s failure to comply with the FOIA’s time limits is,
by itself, a violation of the FOIA, and is an improper withholding of the requested documents.” 26 See Mem. 8. But, in addition to being inconsistent with the weight of more recent authority,
Gilmore was addressing the issue of when a pattern and practice claim is cognizable under the 27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 12

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 20 of 33

1

Once a FOIA requester files suit, “the agency may continue to process the request, and the

2 court . . . will supervise the agency’s ongoing progress, ensuring that the agency continues to

3 exercise due diligence in processing the request.” CREW, 711 F.3d at 189 (citing 5 U.S.C. §

4 552(a)(6)(C)). And for an expedited request, the court ensures that the agency is working to process

5 the request as soon as practicable. See Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. DOD, No. 17-cv-00842,

6 2017 WL 2992076, at *5 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017) (explaining that, once a FOIA request qualifies

7 for expedition, the only question is whether “the agency is processing [the request] as quickly as

8 practicable”). Thus, Plaintiff is not likely to prevail on her argument that she is entitled to the

9 immediate release of all non-exempt responsive records because Defendants did not complete their

10 processing within less than 20 business days.

11

2. The outdated district court decisions on which Plaintiff relies are

distinguishable because Defendants here are diligently working to process

12

Plaintiff’s requests as soon as practicable

13

Instead of acknowledging the recent case law, Plaintiff relies heavily on the outdated EPIC

14 I line of cases. As is evident from the above discussion, however, the reasoning of EPIC I is not

15 supported by the statutory text or legislative history, and more recent and higher authority

16 undermines whatever persuasive value it once had. See, e.g., EPIC II, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 41-42

17 (rejecting EPIC I’s “rebuttable presumption” that the passage of more than 20 business days

18 entitles the requester to immediate processing); Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 11 (same).9

19

In any event, EPIC I, EFF I, EFF II, and Gerstein are easily distinguishable. As one judge

20 in this district has observed, “[i]n all of those cases, the plaintiffs had not yet received any records

21 from the defendants when the requests for preliminary injunction were granted.” Order at 4, ACLU

22 of N. Cal. v. DEA, No. 11-cv-01997 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2011), ECF No. 26. Here, by contrast,

23 every Defendant has begun releasing records to Plaintiff and is actively working to release more.

24 FOIA. Gilmore cannot reasonably be read to stand for the proposition that the passage of 20 25 business days entitles requesters to an injunction requiring immediate completion of all processing.
9 Indeed, recent decisions have noted that EPIC I was cast into doubt nearly at its inception. The 26 court quickly reconsidered its decision and ultimately granted the agencies up to 120 additional
days to process the requests. See Protect Democracy Project, 2017 WL 2992076, at *5 n.7 27 (discounting EPIC I in part based on this history); Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 11 (same).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 13

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 21 of 33

1

The EPIC I line of cases also is distinguishable because the defendants in those cases failed

2 to present any evidence suggesting that complete processing within 20 business days would be

3 impracticable. See Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 11; see, e.g., EPIC I, 416 F. Supp. 2d at 39-40

4 (agency did not “present evidence that processing EPIC’s FOIA requests within the next twenty

5 days would be impracticable”); Gerstein, 2006 WL 3462659, at *3 (defendants submitted “no

6 evidence as to the reasons for their delay in processing Gerstein’s requests, and no evidence that

7 they are exercising due diligence”).

8

Here, in contrast, Defendants have submitted multiple detailed declarations that provide

9 specific (and compelling) reasons why Plaintiff’s request for immediate relief is unreasonable and

10 impracticable under the circumstances. While many reasons are agency-specific, and described at

11 length in the declarations, relevant circumstances include: the volume of still-pending expedited

12 requests filed before Plaintiff’s, Ex. E ¶¶ 23-24 (OIP); Ex. F ¶ 18 (OLC); Ex. H ¶ 21 (DOD); Ex.

13 I ¶ 12 (DHS-PRIV); recent increases in the number of FOIA requests and lawsuits, with resulting

14 court-ordered production schedules, Ex. E ¶ 13 (OIP); Ex. F ¶¶ 11-12 (OLC); Ex. G ¶¶ 20, 26-29

15 (DOS); Ex. H ¶¶ 13-14 (DOD); Ex. I ¶¶ 11-13 (DHS-PRIV); Ex. J ¶ 14-15 (CBP); staffing

16 limitations in the agencies’ FOIA offices, Ex. E ¶ 14(OIP); Ex. G ¶¶ 30-33 (DOS); Ex. H ¶ 16

17 (DOD); Ex. I ¶ 22 (DHS-PRIV); Ex. J. ¶ 16 (CBP); the number of offices and custodians that must

18 be searched, Ex. G ¶ 16 (DOS); Ex. H ¶ 23 (DOD); Ex. J ¶ 27 (CBP); the volume of potentially

19 responsive records already located, Ex. E ¶ 27 (OIP: “more than 16,500”); Ex. F ¶ 30 (OLC: “more

20 than 26,000”); Ex. G ¶ 19 (DOS: “tens of thousands of documents”); Ex. J ¶ 5 (CBP: “over

21 125,000”); Ex. I ¶ 14 (DHS-PRIV: approximately 3,000 pages for the February Request); and the

22 classified or otherwise sensitive nature that responsive records can be expected to include, Ex. G

23 ¶ 18 (DOS); Ex. H ¶¶ 22, 27 (DOD); Ex. J ¶ 26 (CBP); Ex. I ¶ 18 (DHS-PRIV). These declarations

24 make clear that the agencies are not “drag[ging] their feet and pay[ing] lip service” to expedited

25 processing, Mem. 10, but really are diligently working to process Plaintiff’s requests as soon as

26 practicable.

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 14

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 22 of 33

1

Finally, the nature of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests is clearly a factor in the amount of time

2 Defendants need to process them. Each of Plaintiff’s requests broadly seeks all agency records

3 from four of the largest government agencies “concerning” the Executive Orders (or the agency’s

4 analysis/interpretation of them), which makes her requests exceedingly broad and vague, and

5 raises the question of whether they reasonably describe the records sought.10 While Plaintiff

6 eventually accepted some of Defendants’ proposals to exclude narrow categories of records from

7 the scope of her otherwise very broad requests, the requests still remain problematically broad and

8 vague, and impose significant burdens on the agencies that were most involved in developing

9 and/or implementing one or both of the Executive Orders.

10

For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has not established that she is likely to prevail on the

11 argument that she is entitled to receive all requested, non-exempt records “immediately.”

12

B. Plaintiff Has Failed To Establish That She Will Suffer Irreparable Harm If She

Does Not Receive All Responsive, Non-exempt Records Immediately 13

Plaintiff similarly cannot show that irreparable injury to her is “likely in the absence of an

14

injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. “A plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent harm

15

sufficient to establish standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a

16

prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011,

17

1022 (9th Cir. 2016). “Speculative injury cannot be the basis for a finding of irreparable harm.” In

18

re Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2007). The injury must be “real and

19

concrete.” L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980). And, in

20

21

22 10 See Marks v. DOJ, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978) (“[B]road, sweeping requests lacking
23 specificity are not permissible.”); see, e.g., Mason v. Calloway, 554 F.2d 129, 131 (4th Cir. 1977) (finding that request for “all correspondence, documents, memoranda, tape recordings, notes, and
24 any other material pertaining to the atrocities committed against plaintiffs, . . . including, but not limited to, the files of [various government offices] . . . typifies the lack of specificity that Congress
25 sought to preclude in the requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) that records sought be reasonably described.”); Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 104 (D.D.C. 2002) (“[C]ourts have found that FOIA
26 requests for all documents concerning a requester are too broad.”); Massachusetts v. HHS, 727 F. Supp. 35, 36 n.2 (D. Mass. 1989) (noting that “[a] request for all documents ‘relating to’ a subject
27 is usually subject to criticism as overbroad” and “ought to be objectionable under the [FOIA]”).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 15

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 23 of 33

1 the mandatory injunction context, the harm must arise to “extreme or very serious damage.” AFDI,

2 796 F.3d at 1173.

3

Significantly, Plaintiff is the only FOIA litigant of the many who are seeking records

4 relating to one or both of the Executive Orders to seek preliminary injunctive relief, casting serious

5 doubt on her claim of irreparable harm. Defendants have received hundreds of FOIA requests

6 seeking various categories of records on the subject, and have more than twenty related FOIA

7 cases in litigation. See Ex. A (chart of pending cases). No other plaintiff has requested an order

8 directing an agency to make rolling productions, let alone complete processing by a particular date.

9 See id. That no other FOIA requester (among many similarly situated) has asked a court for relief

10 remotely approaching what Plaintiff seeks here undermines her claim that irreparable harm will

11 befall her if Defendants’ processing of her requests continues past September 5.

12

Plaintiff makes two general claims that she will be irreparably injured unless Defendants

13 complete their processing of her requests by September 5: (1) that her “right to expedition under

14 the FOIA will be irretrievably lost”; and (2) that she “hopes to write articles based on these records

15 while they are still newsworthy.” Mem. 10-11. These claims fail to satisfy Plaintiff’s heavy burden

16 to demonstrate harm warranting a mandatory preliminary injunction.

17

First, Plaintiff’s claim that she could somehow lose her “right to expedition” without

18 immediate production is contradicted by the fact that Defendant agencies have all granted

19 expedition of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, have accordingly promoted her requests ahead of earlier-

20 filed non-expedited requests that otherwise would have been processed first, have begun making

21 releases, and are working to process her requests as soon as practicable – which is all that her

22 “right to expedition” entails. Cf. EPIC II, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 45 (no irreparable harm where agency

23 had expedited the plaintiff’s FOIA request, even if it could not complete processing within 20-day

24 timeframe). Plaintiff’s subjective opinion of what constitutes timely processing, “is not, and cannot

25 be, the standard that governs the Court’s evaluation of irreparable harm.” Id. at 44.

26

Plaintiff argues that any delay itself constitutes irreparable harm when a FOIA request

27 qualifies for expedition because, due to the “very nature” of expedited processing, “time is of the

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 16

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 24 of 33

1 essence.” Mem. 10. If that were the correct standard, however, mandatory injunctions requiring

2 immediate processing of FOIA requests would become pervasive. Congress provided that a FOIA

3 request may qualify for expedition when the request demonstrates an “urgency to inform the public

4 concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E). The balance

5 struck by Congress was to allow requests meeting this standard to move ahead of non-expedited

6 requests, not to authorize mandatory injunctions like the one Plaintiff seeks here.

7

Further, expedition is granted based on the subject matter of the request, not an assessment

8 of the non-exempt information that may be responsive to the request. Plaintiff’s assertion that,

9 because her requests qualify for expedition, she “will be irreparably harmed unless [she] receives

10 the requested records quickly so that the public can participate fully in [an] ongoing debate is not

11 only unproven, it is also fundamentally flawed because it ignores the well-established statutory

12 FOIA process, which permits government agencies to withhold certain requested documents and

13 to engage in subsequent litigation over them, without regard to the resulting production delay.”

14 EPIC II, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 44. Plaintiff cannot show that she will be irreparably harmed if she

15 receives non-exempt records responsive to her broad requests on an expedited basis, but not all of

16 them by September 5.

17

Recent, well-reasoned decisions have rejected similar claims that FOIA plaintiffs suffer

18 irreparable harm whenever an agency does not finish processing expedited requests immediately.

19 See, e.g., Allied Progress v. CFPB, No. 17-cv-686, 2017 WL 1750263, at *5-6 (D.D.C. May 4,

20 2017) (“[S]imply because a request for expedited treatment is ‘time-sensitive,’ does not mean that,

21 ipso facto, failing to grant injunctive relief mandating expedited processing would lead to

22 irreparable harm.”); Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 9-10 (holding that such an argument “finds

23 no support in either the statute or binding precedent”); EPIC II, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 44–47 (rejecting

24 claim of irreparable harm on the basis that the “right the expedition . . . will be irretrievably lost”).

25 Thus, in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s requests are being expedited by all Defendants, Plaintiff

26 has shown no denial of expedition, much less an immediate threat of extreme or very serious

27 damage absent an injunction.

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 17

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 25 of 33

1

Second, there is no merit to Plaintiff’s argument that, if Defendants’ expedited processing

2 of her requests continues beyond September 5, her “hopes to write articles based on these records

3 while they are still newsworthy” will be irreparably harmed. Mem. 11. This speculative allegation

4 lacks any factual support. While Plaintiff claims September 5 as the necessary production date,

5 she can only speculate as to the “newsworth[iness]” of non-exempt responsive records, and

6 provides no reason why they would no longer be newsworthy after that date. In cases like this one,

7 where the plaintiff merely hopes to publish articles and contribute to an ongoing public discussion,

8 courts have found similar conclusory claims of harm to be lacking. See, e.g., Daily Caller, 152 F.

9 Supp. 3d at 13 (rejecting similar claim regarding FOIA requests for records concerning Secretary

10 Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time at DOS); EPIC II, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 44–47

11 (rejecting similar claim based on desire for “public [to] participate fully in the ongoing debate,” as

12 “fundamentally flawed because it ignores the well-established statutory FOIA process”).

13

Furthermore, Defendants have already made multiple productions of responsive

14 documents, totaling hundreds of pages, such that “the plaintiff has not been entirely stymied in

15 [her] ability to review and provide press coverage of the records that are the subject of [her] FOIA

16 requests.” Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 13. And given the fact that Plaintiff can only speculate

17 as to what non-exempt information she may eventually receive in response to her FOIA requests,

18 and whether such information would be newsworthy, Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to establish

19 that she will be irreparably harmed if she fails to receive her requested documents by September

20 5. See Landmark Legal Found., 910 F. Supp. 2d at 278 (declining to find irreparable injury because

21 “even if the Court were to order production of records, many of these could fall under exemptions

22 to the FOIA and thus be withheld or redacted,” so “there is no guarantee, even if the Court were

23 to issue a preliminary injunction that the records [the plaintiff] seeks would be disclosed”); The

24 Nation Magazine v. DOS, 805 F. Supp. 68, 74 (D.D.C. 1992) (similar). Plaintiff appears to

25 acknowledge as much, arguing only that she “hopes” to write future articles based on the records.

26 Mem. 11. Such speculative and contingent desires cannot support a showing of irreparable harm.

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 18

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 26 of 33

1

Relatedly, Plaintiff makes reference to pending litigation involving Executive Order No.

2 13780, including Supreme Court litigation involving certain provisions of that Executive Order,

3 in her discussion of the public interest. See Mem. 12; see also Mem. 4. But Plaintiff does not

4 appear to claim that these proceedings contribute to her alleged irreparable harm, and any such

5 claim would fail. Where a requester is not directly involved in a legal matter, irreparable harm

6 cannot be founded on the chance that some other unknown party may use produced materials in

7 court. See Long v. DHS, 436 F. Supp. 2d 38, 43 (D.D.C. 2006) (finding no irreparable harm where

8 requester failed to identify “any particular person or entity [which] plans on filing an amicus brief

9 . . . or that any potential non-party filer has requested information from [the requester]”). In any

10 event, even if Plaintiff were herself involved in the pending litigation, “providing discovery is not

11 a sufficient basis for preliminary injunctive relief.” City & Cty. of Honolulu v. EPA, No. 08-cv-

12 404, 2009 WL 855896, at *9–10 (D. Haw. Mar. 27, 2009); cf. Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft

13 Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974) (FOIA not meant to offer “discovery for litigation purposes”).

14

While Plaintiff’s wish to receive immediate responses to her requests “is understandable,

15 that desire without more, is insufficient to constitute irreparable harm necessary to justify the

16 extraordinary relief requested here.” Judicial Watch Inc. v. DHS, 514 F. Supp. 2d 7, 10 (D.D.C.

17 2007). Because Plaintiff has not come close to showing that immediate and extreme damage would

18 befall her without an injunction requiring processing by September 5, she is not entitled to one.

19

C. The Remaining Preliminary Injunction Factors Weigh Strongly Against Plaintiff

20

Plaintiff’s inability to demonstrate that she likely will prevail on the merits, or that she

21 likely will suffer irreparable harm if Defendants do not finish processing her FOIA requests by

22 September 5, makes it unnecessary to consider the remaining preliminary injunction factors. In

23 this case, however, Plaintiff has not carried her burden to demonstrate that the balance of equities

24 and the public’s interest weigh in favor of granting her the requested mandatory injunction.

25

Balance of Equities. Contrary to Plaintiff’s conclusory claim, Mem. 11, an injunction

26 would of course burden Defendants. An agency’s processing of a request like Plaintiff’s is

27 necessarily multilayered and complicated, including searching the offices and files likely to

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 19

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 27 of 33

1 contain responsive records, reviewing responsive materials for claims of exemption, and

2 consulting with the appropriate components or other entities with equities in the information at

3 issue prior to releasing any non-exempt, responsive documents. See, e.g., Ex. F ¶ 31; Ex. G ¶ 18.

4 For agencies that cannot practicably process Plaintiff’s requests in the time she proposes, a court

5 order directing them to do so would undermine the integrity of their FOIA operations, prejudicing

6 other FOIA requesters and risking inadvertent disclosure of protected information.

7

Plaintiff’s requested injunction would “clearly impose an undue hardship on other FOIA

8 requesters and would do serious damage to the [agency’s] orderly administration of FOIA

9 requests.” EPIC II, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 47. For instance, when there are still-pending expedited

10 requests ahead of the plaintiff’s in the queue, the “plaintiff’s effort to accelerate review of its

11 requests necessarily will displace in processing priority those of third parties who submitted

12 equally urgent requests before the plaintiff.” Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. at 15. Here, multiple

13 agencies are working to process expedited requests submitted by other requesters before Plaintiff

14 submitted her own, and those requesters would be prejudiced if Plaintiff were to jump the line.

15 See, e.g., Ex. E ¶¶ 23-24 (OIP has 59 still-pending expedited requests submitted before Plaintiff’s

16 first request and 83 submitted before her second); Ex. F ¶ 18 (OLC has 29 still-pending expedited

17 requests submitted before Plaintiff’s first request and 37 submitted before her second); Ex. H ¶ 21

18 (DOD); Ex. I ¶ 12 (DHS-PRIV). At the same time, in order to attempt to comply with Plaintiff’s

19 requested injunction—if that were even possible with all agency FOIA resources devoted

20 exclusively to Plaintiff’s requests—Defendants would need to divert significant resources away

21 from other FOIA requests, disrupting the orderly administration of their FOIA programs, and

22 putting certain agencies in jeopardy of being in contempt of orders from other courts. See, e.g.,

23 Ex. G ¶ 35 (court order would “limit [DOS’s] ability to meet its existing FOIA obligations”); Ex.

24 I ¶¶ 13, 22 (DHS-PRIV).11

25 11 EPIC II, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 47 (“[A]llowing EPIC to jump to the head of the line would upset the
26 agency’s processes and be detrimental to the other expedited requesters, some of whom may have
even more pressing needs.”); The Nation Magazine, 805 F. Supp. at 74 (entry of a preliminary 27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 20

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 28 of 33

1

Compelling productions on a truncated timetable also “raises a significant risk of harm to

2 the public and private interests served by the thorough processing of responsive agency records

3 prior to their ultimate production,” particularly through “inadvertent disclosure of records properly

4 subject to exemption under FOIA.” Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d. at 15; see also Allied Progress,

5 2017 WL 1750263, at *7 (“[O]rdering production by a date-certain would impugn the . . . interest

6 in ensuring that agencies have sufficient time to review materials for responsiveness and

7 exemptions”); Protect Democracy Project, 2017 WL 2992076, at *6 (“Imposing on Defendants

8 an arbitrary deadline for processing would run the risk of overburdening them, and could even lead

9 to the mistaken release of protected information.”); Animal Legal Def. Fund, 2017 WL 2352009,

10 at *9 (recognizing the governmental and private interests in avoiding improper disclosure of

11 private information). The Court’s balancing of the equities must take into account Defendants’

12 “responsibility” to “safeguard[] potentially sensitive information” when processing FOIA

13 requests, Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 14, particularly in a FOIA case that involves a vast

14 number of records, some of which may contain classified or otherwise sensitive information. See,

15 e.g., Ex. H ¶ 22, 27 (DOD search located classified material); Ex. G ¶ 18 (rushed processing

16 without sufficient time for careful review “will risk inadvertent exposure of sensitive

17 information”); Ex. F ¶ 31 (discussing sensitive information in records collected); Ex. J ¶ 26 (same);

18 Ex. I ¶ 18 (injunction would “inevitably risk the inadvertent release of sensitive information”).

19

Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the equities cannot outweigh these considerations. Plaintiff

20 seeks to minimize the burden a September 5 deadline would impose on Defendants by asserting

21 that her requested injunction would require “nothing more of the government than what the law

22 already mandates: the expedited processing of her FOIA requests.” Mem. 11 (citing EFF I, 2007

23

24 injunction expediting a FOIA request over other pending requests “would severely jeopardize the public’s interest in an orderly, fair, and efficient administration of the FOIA”); see also Allied
25 Progress, 2017 WL 1750263, at *7 (“[O]rdering production by a date-certain would impugn the . . . interest of other third-parties in not having their FOIA requests bumped down in the queue and
26 consequently delayed.”); Protect Democracy Project, 2017 WL 2992076, at *6 (“[R]equiring production by a date certain, without any factual basis for doing so, might actually disrupt FOIA’s
27 expedited processing regime rather than implement it.”).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 21

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 29 of 33

1 WL 4208311, at *7); see also id. at 13 (same argument as to public interest). As set forth above,

2 however, Plaintiff is mistaken about what the law requires. Moreover, there is a “tension between

3 the public’s interest in an agency complying with its statutory mandate to release certain

4 documents[,] the public’s interest in security,” EPIC II, 15 F. Supp. at 48, and the Government’s

5 interest in efficiently administering its FOIA operations in a manner that is fair to all requesters.

6

Plaintiff’s conclusory and speculative assertions of her own interest in more quickly

7 receiving records cannot outweigh the significant burden that Plaintiff’s requested injunction

8 would impose on Defendants and their strong interests in maintaining the integrity and order of

9 their FOIA operations. Cf. Animal Legal Def. Fund, 2017 WL 2352009, at *10 (finding the interest

10 in immediate availability of government records “outweighed by the [agency’s] interest in

11 ensuring that these records do not improperly disclose private information”).

12

Public Interest. The public-interest factor favors Defendants for many of the reasons that

13 the equities weigh in their favor. That is so because “where the government is a party, the public

14 interest and the balance of the equities merge.” LivingWell Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Harris, No. 15-cv-

15 04939, 2015 WL 13187682, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015) (citing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v.

16 Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014)); cf. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009).

17 Plaintiff offers two public-interest arguments not already rebutted above, but neither is persuasive.

18

First, Plaintiff offers speculation that “release of the information may help inform judicial

19 review by courts around the country,” citing the Supreme Court briefing schedule as the only basis

20 for this claim. Mem. 12. Regardless of the production date, however, Plaintiff does not explain

21 how any new information produced in response to her FOIA requests could be added to the

22 evidentiary record currently before the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v.

23 Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 258 (1944) (“Neither this court nor a circuit court of appeals

24 may hear new evidence in a cause appealable from a lower court.”). Further, concerning the other

25 cases in “courts around the country,” Plaintiff does not show that she is a party or even potential

26 amicus in any of these cases, nor does she explain why any of these pending matters warrants

27 immediate and complete responses to her FOIA requests. Plaintiff’s unfounded speculation that

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 22

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 30 of 33

1 she may obtain records that may be used by some unspecified party in some unspecified case, does

2 not suffice to demonstrate the public interest in immediate disclosure of these records.12

3

Second, Plaintiff makes a generalized claim that these records could help to foster

4 “democratic debate.” Mem. 12. But Plaintiff’s “bald reliance on [her] own interest in obtaining the

5 sought-after records and the more generalized public interest in the disclosure of those records”

6 does little to distinguish her request from any other expedited FOIA request. Daily Caller, 152 F.

7 Supp. 3d at 15. Moreover, the mere allegation that the topic pertaining to Plaintiff’s FOIA request

8 has received public attention, even if considerable, does not mean that the public’s interest would

9 be served by the Court granting the extraordinary relief Plaintiff requests. See EPIC II, 15 F. Supp.

10 3d at 47-48; Judicial Watch, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 11.

11

A mandatory injunction would threaten the interests of other FOIA requesters, the security

12 of government documents, and agencies’ orderly and efficient administration of the FOIA. Neither

13 the balance of the equities nor the public interest supports Plaintiff’s requested injunction.

14 II. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO A VAUGHN INDEX, LET ALONE ON HER ABREVIATED TIME TABLE
15
Plaintiff also demands that the Court order Defendants to “provide [her] with [a] document 16
index and declaration, as specified in Vaughn v. Rosen, stating the justification for the withholding 17
of any documents responsive to [her] requests within 30 days of the date of the Court’s order.” 18
Mem. 15. This demand—buried in the last half-sentence before the Conclusion of the Motion—is 19

20
21 12 In contrast with Plaintiff’s request for immediate processing of her FOIA requests, many of the courts hearing challenges to the Executive Order have stayed further district court proceedings,
22 including any discovery, pending the Supreme Court’s decision. See, e.g., Pars Equality Ctr. v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00255 (D.D.C. June 20, 2017), ECF No. 91; Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-
23 141, 2017 WL 2172020 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017). Even in the cases currently before the Supreme Court, no further merits proceedings are scheduled in district court until after the
24 Supreme Court’s decision. See Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00050 (D. Haw.), ECF Nos. 279 (order staying proceedings), 295 & 335 (partially lifting the stay to consider certain non-discovery
25 motions); IRAP v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00361 (D. Md.), ECF No. 174 (plaintiffs’ withdrawal of motions seeking discovery) & 184 (order staying deadline to respond to complaint). And while the
26 ACLU and certain of its affiliates both represent the plaintiff-respondents in IRAP, and have pending FOIA requests and/or litigation relating to Executive Order 13769, even they have not
27 requested relief remotely approaching the relief Plaintiff seeks here. See Ex. A (rows 5 to 17).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 23

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 31 of 33

1 entirely unjustified. Plaintiff cannot—and does not even attempt to—demonstrate that the four

2 preliminary injunction factors support granting her such relief.

3

Plaintiff has not established that she has any right to a Vaughn index, let alone on the

4 timetable she proposes. A Vaughn index is typically a list of “each document withheld, the

5 statutory exemption[s] claimed, and a particularized explanation of how disclosure of the particular

6 document[s] would damage the interest[s] protected by the claimed exemption[s].” Wiener v. FBI,

7 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991). “[T]here is no statutory requirement of a Vaughn index,”

8 Fiduccia v. DOJ, 185 F.3d 1035, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999), and the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held

9 that “Vaughn indices … are not appropriate in all FOIA cases,” Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796, 804

10 (9th Cir. 1996).13

11

Even where a full index proves necessary for the agency to sustain its application of the

12 statutory exemptions, “the preparation of a Vaughn Index would be premature before the filing of

13 dispositive motions.” Stimac v. DOJ, 620 F. Supp. 212, 213 (D.D.C. 1985); accord Miscavige v.

14 IRS, 2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th Cir. 1993). “[T]he purpose of a Vaughn index is to aid a district court

15 in its ruling on claimed exemptions to FOIA,” Lewis, 823 F.2d at 380, and courts ordinarily

16 consider the validity of the agency’s exemption claims at summary judgment, see, e.g., Lane v.

17 Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has not justified her proposed

18 departure from the manner in which FOIA litigation is ordinary sequenced, and her premature

19 demand for an expedited Vaughn index should be denied on that basis. Cf. Gerstein, 2006 WL

20 3462659, at *5 (denying plaintiff’s request for a Vaughn index in a preliminary injunction motion).

21

Plaintiff fails even to mention the remaining preliminary injunction factors in connection

22 with her demand that Defendants be required to justify their withholdings in a Vaughn index and

23 13 A document-by-document index is unnecessary, for example, when the agency invokes an
24 exemption “dependent on the category of the requested records rather than the individual subject matters contained within each document,” Lewis v. IRS, 823 F.2d 375, 380 (9th Cir. 1987)
25 (discussing Exemption 7(A)), and when context from partially released records demonstrates the nature of the information withheld, see, e.g., Fiduccia, 185 F.3d at 1042-45; Weiner, 943 F.2d at
26 978 n.5. And in cases with a large number of records, courts may accept an index of a sample of them in order to reduce the burden on the agency and the court. See Shannahan v. IRS, 672 F.3d
27 1142, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2012); Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 958-59 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 24

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 32 of 33

1 declaration within 30 days of the ruling on her Motion. Plaintiff does not attempt to show that she

2 will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such an order, or that the balance of equities and the

3 public interest support her demand. Writing explanations of withheld information sufficient to

4 justify exemptions is a time-consuming endeavor in run-of-the-mill FOIA cases. Given the breadth

5 of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, the large volumes of responsive or potentially responsive records

6 located so far, and the likelihood of significant withholdings, Defendants expect that preparing a

7 document-by-document index of withholdings will be a large undertaking, and consume time that

8 Defendants could otherwise dedicate to processing records for release to other requesters. In her

9 half-sentence demand for an early Vaughn index, Plaintiff utterly fails to carry her burden to

10 demonstrate that she is entitled to this relief.

11

CONCLUSION

12

For all these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied,

13 and that Defendants be permitted to continue processing Plaintiff’s FOIA requests expeditiously

14 while filing periodic status reports.

15 //

16

// //

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 25

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25 Filed 08/10/17 Page 33 of 33

Date: August 10, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Respectfully Submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
BRIAN STRETCH United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS KARI E. D’OTTAVIO MICHAEL DREZNER Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-8016 (202) 616-8470 (Fax) Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 26

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 1

Defendants’ Exhibit List

Exhibit

Description

A

Pending FOIA Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780

B

Declaration of Drew Lavine, Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General

C

Declaration of David M. Hardy, Federal Bureau of Investigation

D

Declaration of John W. Kornmeier, Executive Office of United States Attorneys

E

Declaration of Daniel R. Castellano, Office of Information Privacy

F

Declaration of Paul P. Colborn, Office of Legal Counsel

G

Declaration of Eric F. Stein, Department of State

H

Declaration of Paul J. Jacobsmeyer, Department of Defense

I

Declaration of James V.M.L. Holzer, Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office

J

Declaration of Patrick A. Howard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
LIST OF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 16
Exhibit A
Pending FOIA Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or
Executive Order No. 13,780
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
1 James Madison Project Ken Vogel Josh Gerstein

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-00388 1/31/17 D.D.C.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-PRIV DHS-TSA DHS-CBP DHS-ICE DHS-USCIS

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)
1) Guidance provided by [the agency] to private and commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to admission, denial of admission, and/or deportation of individuals subject to [Executive Order No. 13,769];
2) Communications (that are not encompassed by category #1) between [the agency] and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to implementation of [Executive Order No. 13,769];
3) Communications (that are not encompassed by categories #1 or #2) between [the agency] and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to the judicial rulings imposing emergency stays and/or restraining orders enjoining [Executive Order No. 13,769].
[Date Range: Beginning January 20, 2017]

Recent Litigation Events
A Joint Status Report (JSR) filed on July 21 proposed that the parties file another JSR by September 5. ECF No. 8. The court adopted the proposal by minute order.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 1 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
2 James Madison Project Noah Shachtman

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-00390 1/31/17;

D.D.C.

3/24/17

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DOJ-OLC DHS-PRIV DHS-TSA DHS-CBP DHS-ICE DHS-USCIS

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)
1) Any records memorializing discussions between [agency] staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of [President Trump] regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;
2) Any records memorializing discussions between [agency] staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 . . .;
3) Any records memorializing discussions among [agency] staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 . . .;
4) Any records memorializing discussions between [agency] staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1. . .;
5) Any records memorializing final determinations by [agency] staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship;
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by [agency] staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
[Date Range: Beginning November 8, 2016]

Recent Litigation Events
A JSR filed on July 21 proposed that the parties file another JSR by September 5. ECF No. 8. The court adopted the proposal by minute order.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 2 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s) Case No. & Request Agency(ies) Records Requested

Recent Litigation Events

District

Date(s) Receiving (as described in the complaint)

Request(s) in

Litigation

3 Protect Democracy Project 17-cv-00814 2/15/17 OMB

1) Any and all records . . . indicating that

On July 10, the Court ordered

D.D.C.

[Executive Order No. 13,769] was reviewed by the parties to file a monthly

any federal agency personnel prior to the

JSR. The last JSR was filed

Order’s issuance on January 27, 2017,

on August 8, ECF No. 16,

including but not limited to any record

and the next JSR is due on

indicating that [Executive Order No. 13,769] September 12.

was reviewed for lawfulness, or deemed lawful

or unlawful, by the Department of Justice.

2) Any and all records . . . transmitting [Executive

Order No. 13,769] to any federal agency for

review, comment, or awareness, including but

not limited to the Department of Homeland

Security or the Department of Justice.

3) Any and all records . . . related to the decision

to seek or not seek input from federal agency

personnel on the creation or implementation of

[Executive Order No. 13,769], including but

not limited to the Department of Homeland

Security or the Department of Justice.

4) Any and all records . . . related to the process

for obtaining agency input regarding

[Executive Order No. 13,769].

[Date Range: January 20 – February 15, 2017]

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 3 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s) Case No. & Request Agency(ies) Records Requested

Recent Litigation Events

District

Date(s) Receiving (as described in the complaint)

Request(s) in

Litigation

4 Protect Democracy Project 17cv-00815 2/15/17 DOJ-OLC 1) Any and all records . . . indicating that

This case is consolidated with

D.D.C.

[Executive Order No. 13,769] was reviewed by 17-cv-00814. On July 10, the

the Department of Justice prior to the Order’s Court ordered the parties to

issuance on January 27, 2017.

file a monthly JSR. The last

2) Any and all records . . . transmitting [Executive JSR was filed on August 8,

Order No. 13,769] to the Department of Justice ECF No. 16, and the next JSR

for review, comment, or awareness.

is due on September 12.

3) Any and all records . . . related to the decision

to seek or not seek input from the Department

of Justice on the creation or implementation of

[Executive Order No. 13,769].

4) Any and all records . . . related to the process

for obtaining Department of Justice review of

[Executive Order No. 13,769].

5) Any and all records . . . indicating that

[Executive Order No. 13,769] was reviewed by

any other federal agency personnel prior to the

Order’s issuance on January 27, 2017.

[Date Range: January 20 – February 15, 2017]

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 4 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
5 ACLU of Washington ACLU of Montana ACLU of North Dakota

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-00562 2/2/17 W.D. Wash.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-CBP

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)

Recent Litigation Events

1) Records created on or after January 27, 2017 concerning CBP’s interpretation, enforcement, and implementation of the following at [the Local International Airport(s)]: [Executive Order No. 13,769, specified statements and guidance issued by agency officials following the issuance of Executive Order No. 13,769, and specified court orders relating to Executive Order No. 13,769];
2) Records concerning the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extending questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at [the Local International Airports(s)] pursuant to the Executive Order . . . ;
3) Records concerning the number of individuals who have been removed from [the Local International Airport(s)] from January 27, 2017 to date pursuant to the Executive Order;
4) Records concerning the number of individuals who arrived at [the Local International Airport(s)] from January 27, 2017 to date with valid visas or green cards who subsequently agreed voluntarily to return;
5) Records containing the ‘guidance’ that was ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed the Executive Order.
[The request states that it seeks records from CBP’s Seattle Field Office and certain airports and ports of entry under its supervision, not from CBP headquarters.]

On July 20, 2017, the parties filed a JSR in which they proposed to file another JSR by August 25, 2017. ECF Nos. 26 & 27.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 5 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
6 ACLU of Oregon ACLU of Alaska ACLU of Colorado ACLU of Idaho ACLU of Wyoming
7 ACLU of Michigan
8 ACLU of N. California ACLU of Hawaii ACLU of Utah
9 ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-00575 2/2/17 D. Or.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-CBP

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)
The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s Portland Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).

17-cv-11149 2/2/17; DHS-CBP E.D. Mich. 2/10/17

The two requests at issue in this case seek the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but one defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, while the other seeks records relating to four land border crossings, and both seek records from CBP’s Detroit Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).

17-cv-01970 2/2/17; DHS-CBP N.D. Cal. 2/3/17
17-cv-00733 2/2/17 DHS-CBP S.D. Cal.

The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s San Francisco Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).
The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s San Diego Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).

Recent Litigation Events
On July 31, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the deadline for the parties to complete their initial conference until August 30 and to set September 6 as the deadline for the parties to submit a proposed schedule for further proceedings. ECF No. 19. The court granted the parties’ motion. ECF No. 20. On August 4, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Report and Discovery Plan in which they proposed to file a JSR on August 28, and requested that the court set a scheduling conference for a date in early September. ECF No. 32. The scheduling conference is now set for September 7. The initial case management conference is scheduled for August 30. ECF No. 18.
The government filed its answer on June 30. ECF No. 32.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 6 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
10 ACLU of S. California ACLU of Nevada
11 ACLU of Arizona
12 ACLU of Virginia ACLU of Maryland ACLU of Pennsylvania ACLU of Delaware
13 ACLU of Georgia, Inc. ACLU of N.C., Inc. ACLU of S.C., Inc. ACLU of W. Va,, Inc.

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-02778 2/2/17 C.D. Cal.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-CBP

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)
The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s Los Angeles Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).

17-cv-01083 2/2/17 DHS-CBP D. Ariz.
17-cv-00441 2/2/17 DHS-CBP E.D. Va.

The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s Tucson Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).
The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s Baltimore Field (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).

17-cv-01309 2/2/17 DHS-CBP N.D. Ga.

The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s College Park/Atlanta Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).

Recent Litigation Events
Proceedings were stayed pending a decision on the defendants’ motion for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which was denied on August 2. The parties are required to file a JSR by August 20. ECF No. 27. The government filed its answer on July 10. ECF No. 32.
Proceedings were stayed pending a decision on the defendants’ motion for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which was denied on August 2. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. Proceedings were stayed pending a decision on the defendants’ motion for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which was denied on August 2. On August 7, the court ordered defendants to respond to the complaint by August 22. ECF No. 26.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 7 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
14 ACLU of Illinois ACLU of Indiana ACLU of Iowa ACLU of Kentucky ACLU of Minnesota ACLU of Missouri ACLU of Nebraska ACLU of Ohio ACLU of South Dakota ACLU of Wisconsin
15 ACLU of Florida
16 ACLU of Maine ACLU of N.H. ACLU of Vermont ACLU of Mass. ACLU of Conn. ACLU of Rhode Island

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-02768 2/2/17 N.D. Ill.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-CBP

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)
The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s Chicago Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).

Recent Litigation Events
Proceedings were stayed pending a decision on the defendants’ motion for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which was denied on August 2. On August 4, the court scheduled a status hearing for August 10. ECF No. 45.

17-cv-21382 2/2/17 DHS-CBP S.D. Fla.

17-cv-132 D. Me.

2/2/17

DHS-CBP

The two requests at issue in this case seek the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but define the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify different airports and seek records from CBP’s Miami and Tampa Field Offices (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).
The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s Boston Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).

Proceedings were stayed pending a decision on the defendants’ motion for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which was denied on August 2. On August 8, plaintiff filed an agreed-upon motion to lift the stay and set August 22 as the deadline for defendants to respond to the complaint. ECF No. 26. Proceedings were stayed pending a decision on the defendants’ motion for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which was denied on August 2. On August 3, the court ordered the defendants to respond to the complaint by August 24. ECF No. 22.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 8 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s) 17 ACLU Found. of Texas
18 Muslim Advocates

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-00820 2/2/17 S.D. Tex.

17-cv-00820 3/7/17 D.D.C.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-CBP
DHS-PRIV DHS-CBP DHS-TSA

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)
The request at issue in this case seeks the same categories of records as the request at issue in Case #5 above, but defines the term “Local International Airport(s)” to identify one or more different airports, and it seeks records from CBP’s Houston Field Office (and related airport(s) and port(s) of entry).
1) Records created on or after January 24, 2017 related to eligibility for Trusted Traveler Programs – including Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST – and TSA PreCheck, and the revocation and/or reinstatement of Trusted Traveler Program and TSA PreCheck memberships;
2) Records created on or after February 27, 2017 that pertain to [Executive Order No. 13,780] and are otherwise responsive to the first request;
3) Records created on or after February 27, 2017 regarding the development and implementation of guidance provided in the answer to question 14 in the March 6, 2017 DHS Office of Public Affairs document entitled “Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry to the United States,” which addresses [Executive Order No. 13,780’s] impact on Trusted Traveler Program Membership.

Recent Litigation Events
Proceedings were stayed, with the plaintiff’s consent, pending a decision on the defendants’ motion for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which was denied on August 2. The defendants’ response to the complaint is now due by August 16. ECF No. 17. The government filed its answer on July 13. ECF No. 14. A status report is due by August 11. ECF No. 14.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 9 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
19 Am.-Arab AntiDiscrimination Comm.

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-00708 3/8/17;

D.D.C.

3/9/17

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-CBP

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)

Recent Litigation Events

1) All agency records relating to each revocation, suspension, or termination of Global Entry System (GES) participation from November 9, 2016 to the date of the agency’s response to this request;
2) All agency records showing the annual total of revocations, suspensions, or terminations of (GES) permissions between January 1, 2012 and November 8, 2016.
3) All agency records showing reversal or confirmation of CBP’s GES revocation decisions by the CBP Ombudsman’s office;
4) Any agency policy, practice, memorandum, training, guidance, communication, or other similar record created on or after November 9, 2017 relating to the suspension, revocation, or termination of GES;
5) Any agency policy, practice, memorandum, training, communication or other similar record created on or after November 9, 2016 that alters, modifies, or in any way affects CBP’s prior practices and policies with respect to GES screening, investigation, or revocation;
6) Any agency records created on or after November 9, 2016 relating to operation or functioning of the GES program containing any of the following the words or phrases, whether in their singular or plural forms: “Muslim”, “Arab”, “Ban”, “Muslim Ban”, or “Travel Ban.”

On July 20, the parties submitted a JSR proposing that CBP would make its first release of responsive, nonexempt records on or around August 15 and that the parties file another JSR by August 31. ECF No. 8. The court endorsed these proposals.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 10 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s) 20 Muslim Advocates
21 Council on Am.-Islamic Relations – Conn.
Make the Road N.Y.

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-00813 3/7/17 D.D.C.

17-cv-01061 4/12/17 D. Conn.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-PRIV DHS-CBP
DHS-CBP DHS-USCIS DOS

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)
1) Records created on or after January 24, 2017 related to CBP’s search, review, retention, and dissemination of information located on or accessed through electronic devices in the possession of individuals who are encountered by CBP at the border, functional equivalent of the border, or extended border;
2) Records created on or after February 27, 2017 that pertain to [Executive Order No. 13,780] and are otherwise responsive to the first request.
“The requests seek disclosure of agency policies, communications, and statistics related to visa processing and visa issuances for individuals applying abroad; to adjudication of entry document applications; and to screening and searching of individuals arriving at U.S. ports of entry. The requests are not limited to policies, communications, and statistics produced pursuant to, or as a result of, the President’s travel ban orders, but encompass immigration enforcement policies broadly.”

Recent Litigation Events
The parties filed a JSR on August 4, ECF No. 18, and have been directed to file another JSR by October 4.
On August 8, defendants filed a consent motion to extend their deadline for responding to the complaint by 30 days, until September 13. ECF No. 9.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 11 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
22 James Madison Project Noah Shachtman Betsy Woodruff

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-01281 3/3/17 D.D.C.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-CBP DHS-TSA DHS-USCIS

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)

Recent Litigation Events

1) Instructions or guidelines – including verbal instructions memorialized in writing – provided to [agency] officials with respect to agency practice for presenting I-407 forms to individuals impacted by Executive Order 13769;
2) Communications between [agency] officials – including verbal communications memorializing in writing – mentioning I-407 forms between January 27, 2017, and February 5, 2017;
3) Any documentation tabulating or calculating the number of individuals who signed I-407 forms between January 27, 2017, and February 5, 2017;
4) Copies of the actual I-407 forms that were signed between January 27, 2017, and February 5, 2017.

On August 8, defendants filed a consent motion to extend their deadline for responding to the complaint by 14 days, until August 23, ECF No. 4, which the court granted on August 9.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 12 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 14 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s)
23 New York Times Co. Charlie Savage

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-01946 1/28/17 S.D.N.Y.

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DOJ-OLC

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)

Recent Litigation Events

1) All e-mails, memos, and other documents related to . . . [OLC] review of proposed Trump administration executive orders for form and legality, including during the transition period;
2) All e-mails, memos, and other documents related to . . . [OLC] review of other proposed Trump White House matters, including during the transition period, including but not limited to whether the appointment of Jared Kushner to a White House role would violate antinepotism laws and whether the president’s ongoing business operations would violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

On July 12, the parties jointly proposed that the agency “will complete its initial searches in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests no later than August 31, 2017,” and that “[n]o later than September 11, 2017, the parties will provide a further status update to the Court, in which the parties anticipate either requesting the Court’s endorsement of an agreed schedule for the release of responsive documents and summary judgment briefing, if necessary, or requesting that the Court schedule a conference to resolve disputes between the parties.” ECF No. 10. The court endorsed the parties’ proposal and set an initial conference for October 6. ECF No. 11.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 13 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 15 of 16

# Plaintiff(s)/Requester(s) 24 Cora Currier

Case No. & Request

District

Date(s)

17-cv-01799 2/1/17; N.D. Cal. 4/3/17

Agency(ies) Receiving Request(s) in Litigation DHS-PRIV DHS-OIG DHS-CBP DOS DOJ-OIP DOJ-OLC DOJ-USMS DOJ-FBI DOJ-EOUSA DOD

Records Requested (as described in the complaint)
2/1/17 Requests to DHS-PRIV, DHS-CBP, DOS, DOJ-OIP, DOJ-USMS, and DOJ-OLC: “all agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of [Executive Order No. 13,769].”
4/3/17 Requests to DHS-PRIV, DHS-CBP, DHSOIG, DOS, DOJ-OIP, DOJ-USMS, and DOJOLC: “all agency records from February 1, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.”
4/3/17 Request to DOD: “all agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis of the impact of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.”
4/3/17 Request to DOJ-EOUSA: “all agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.”
4/3/17 Request to DOJ-FBI: “agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning the FBI’s analysis of the impact of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.”
[Each request states that the request “includes, but is not limited to,” several categories of records]

Recent Litigation Events
On July 20, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction ordering defendants to complete all processing of her requests by September 5. ECF No. 20.

Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 14 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 16 of 16

Legend: DHS = U.S. Department of Homeland Security DHS-CBP = U.S. Customs and Border Protection DHS-ICE = U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement DHS-OIG = Office of the Inspector General for DHS DHS-PRIV = DHS Privacy Office DHS-TSA = Transportation Security Administration DHS-USCIS = U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services DOD = U.S. Department of Defense DOJ = U.S. Department of Justice DOJ-EOUSA = Executive Office for United States Attorneys DOJ-FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation DOJ-OIP = Office of Information Policy DOJ-OLC = Office of Legal Counsel DOJ-USMS = U.S. Marshals Service DOS = U.S. Department of State OMB = Office of Management and Budget
Pending Freedom of Information Act Litigation Involving Executive Order No. 13,769 and/or Executive Order No. 13,780 – Page 15 Exhibit A to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (Aug. 10, 2017)

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 13
Exhibit B
DHS-OIG Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 13

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

5AN FRANCISCO DIVISION

3 CORA CURRIER,

~ Case No.3:17-cv-01799-JSC

4

Plaintiff,

5

v.

DECLARATION OF DREW CANINE

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 6 DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,and 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

8

Defendants.

9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Drew Lavine,hereby declare as follows:

10

1. I make this declaration in support ofDefendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion

11 for Preliminary Injunction on the basis ofmy personal knowledge,information provided to me in

12 my official capacity,and conclusions and determinations made in accordance therewith.

13

2. I am an Assistant Counsel for Information Law and Disclosure within the Office

14 ofCounsel to the Inspector General at the U.S. Department ofHomeland Security("DHS")

15 Office ofInspector General("OIG"). DHS-OIG conducts independent criminal, civil, and

16 administrative investigations, as well as audits,inspections, and special reviews ofDHS

17 personnel, programs,and operations to detect and deter waste,fraud, and abuse, and to promote

18 integrity, economy,and efficiency within DHS.

19

3. I have worked for DHS-OIG Office ofCounsel since February 2017. In this

20 capacity, my responsibilities include providing legal counsel to the DHS-OIG Freedom of

21 Information Act(FOIA)Unit; processing initial FOIA requests under the FOIA(5 U.S.C.§ 552),

22 the Privacy Act(5 U.S.C. § 552a)and applicable DHS regulations(6 C.F.R. Part 5); conducting

23 attorney reviews ofoutgoing FOIA responses; and providing assistance in litigating FOIA cases.

24

4. I serve as Agency Counsel for the above captioned matter. Accordingly, I am

25 familiar with Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See generally Plaintiffls Motion for

26 Preliminary Injunction.

27

28 Lavine Declaration, Case No.3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 13

1

5. On Apri13,2017, Ms. Hoffinan,on behalfofPlaintiff,sent a FOIA request to

2 DHS'Privacy Office("PRIV"). The request sought records"from February 1,2017 to the

3 present concerning the agency's analysis and implementation ofExecutive Order No. 13,769 and

4 Executive Order No. 13,780." Id. at 1. With respect to OIG,item `F' ofthe request sought"any

5 records related to the Inspector General's review ofthe implementation ofExecutive Order No.

6 13,769,including directives to DHS staffabout the retention ofrecords relevant to the

7 investigation." Id. at 3.'

8

6. On Apri126,2017,PRIV tasked OIG with collecting records responsive to item

9 `F' ofPlaintiff's request and transmitting any responsive records to PRIV. Upon receipt of

10 PRIV's request for documents, OIG's FOIA Unit("the FOIA Unit")opened a file numbered

11 2017-IGFO-00089 for purposes ofsearching for records responsive to Plaintiff's request. As

12 PRIV did not formally refer the request to OIG for processing and direct response to the

13 requester,the FOIA Unit did not communicate with the requester at this juncture.

14

7. In order to discover records responsive to Plaintiff's request, the FOIA Unit

15 followed its regular procedure for conducting a FOIA search. When DHS-OIG receives a FOIA

16 request,the analyst assigned to the request identifies all OIG program offices likely to possess

17 responsive records and prepares a FOIA search request for each office. The search request

18 includes a general summary ofwhat the requester seeks; proposed search terms; and a reminder

19 that the program office should review the request, conduct a search, and return and responsive

20 records to the FOIA Unit.

21

8. Based on the FOIA Unit's experience and knowledge ofDHS OIG operations,it

22 determined that the offices likely to possess documents responsive to item `F' ofPlaintiffs

23 request are the Office ofInvestigations("INV")and Office ofCounsel("OC"),the two program

24 offices within OIG which arejointly conducting the investigation referenced in Plaintiffls

25

26 1 DHS regulations instruct requesters to "write directly to the FOIA office ofthe component that
maintains the records sought" so that their request can "receive the quickest possible response." 27 6 C.F.R. 5.3(a). Plaintiff, however,submitted her requests for OIG records to DHS Privacy.

Lavine Declaration, Case No.3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 13

1 request, and the OIG Front Office. The Front Office includes the OIG leadership(the Inspector 2 General and Deputy Inspector General)and their assistants/record-keepers. The Front Office 3 serves as the primary point-of-contact between OIG and DHS components,and occasionally as a

4 point-of-contact between OIG and Congress.

5

9. On May 4,2017,the FOIA Unit sent a search request to the Front Office

6 suggesting a targeted search based on the Front Office's knowledge ofthe investigation. The

7 Special Assistant to the IG then searched the Front Office's shared drives for records related to

8 the investigation referenced in Plaintiffs request. This search resulted in 20 pages ofresponsive

9 records which were returned to the FOIA Unit.

10

10. Based on a review ofthe responsive records produced by the Front Office,the

11 FOIA Unit elected to send a supplemental search to the OIG Office ofLegislative Affairs

12 (OLA). OLA serves as the primary liaison between OIG and Congressional committees,

13 Members ofCongress,and Members'staff.

14

11. The FOIA Unit sent a search request to OLA requesting a targeted search ofOLA

15 files based on OLA's knowledge ofthe investigation in question. The Director ofOLA and

16 former Acting Director ofOLA searched their Outlook accounts and OLA shared folders. This

17 search resulted in 207 pages ofresponsive records which were returned to the FOIA Unit; these 18 records consisted ofOIG's communications with Congress and Congressional staffand internal 19 OLA emails. The FOIA Unit processed these records and applied redactions pursuant to FOIA

20 Exemption 6. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Further,the FOIA Unit exercised its administrative

21 discretion to release deliberative process material found in these records. 5 U.S.C.§ 552(b)(5).

22

12. By email dated August 2,2017,the FOIA Unit transmitted the 207 pages of

23 responsive OLA records and an interim response letter to Plaintiff's Counsel,thus providing a 24 partial response to Plaintiff's Apri13,2017 request. See Exhibit 1. In its letter, the FOIA Unit

25 advised Plaintiffofher right to file an administrative appeal ofOIG's interim response.

26

13. The investigation referenced by Plaintiffs request is ongoing,and as noted,is

27 being conducted as ajoint investigation among two program offices within OIG:INV and OC.

28 Lavine Declaration, Case No.3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 13

1 With respect to INV and OC records,the FOIA Unit issued an interim response to Plaintiffon

2 August 3,2017 indicating that the records are currently exempt from production under FQIA

3 exemption 7(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). See Exhibit 2. However,acknowledging that

4 exemption 7(A)is temporal in nature and that OIG's investigation will likely conclude in the

5 near future, OIG anticipates that it will begin making rolling interim productions ofresponsive

6 records subject to the FOIA after the investigation has concluded and after processing these

7 records pursuant to all applicable FOIA exemptions. The 20 pages ofresponsive records

8 produced by the Front Office,addressed in paragraph 9,are either subject to exemption 7(A)

9 protection or are duplicative ofOLA records that were released to Plaintiff.

10

14. Thus,as ofthe date ofthis declaration, OIG has released all OIG records subject

11 to FOIA that were located in OIG's search,that are responsive to Plaintiffs request,and that are

12 not currently exemptfrom disclosure.

13

I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct,to the best ofmy

14 knowledge and belief.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Lavine Declaration, Case No.3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 13

EXECUTED:August ~ ,2017 1 2 3 4

DREW CANINE Assistant Counsel for Information Law and Disclosure Office ofInspector General U.S. Department ofHomeland Security

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ZS

26

27

28 Lavine Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 13
Exhibit 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 13

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov

August 2, 2017

Marcia Hoffman Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102

Subject:

OIG Freedom of Information Act Request No. 2017-IGFO-00089 First Interim Response

Dear Ms. Hoffman:

This is an interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Privacy Office (PRIV), dated April 3, 2017, seeking records related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. PRIV referred a portion of your request to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) for processing. OIG received that referral on April 26, 2017.

Enclosed are 207 pages of records responsive to your request. We reviewed the responsive records under the FOIA to determine whether they may be disclosed to you. Based on that review, this office is providing the following:

99 page(s) are released in full (RIF); 108 page(s) are released in part (RIP).

These records are Bates stamped DHS-OIG 0001 to DHS-OIG 0207. The exemptions cited for withholding records or portions of records are marked below.

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552

552(b)(1) 552(b)(2) 552(b)(3) 552(b)(4)

552(b)(5) 552(b)(6) 552(b)(7)(A) 552(b)(7)(B)

552(b)(7)(C) 552(b)(7)(D) 552(b)(7)(E) 552(b)(7)(F)

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a
552a(j)(2) 552a(k)(2) 552a(k)(5) Other:

OIG redacted from the enclosed documents, names and identifying information of third parties to protect the identities of these individuals. Absent a Privacy Act waiver, the release of such information concerning the third parties named in these records would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 13
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov
violation of the Privacy Act. Information is also protected from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 6 of the FOIA further discussed below.
Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)
Exemption 6 allows withholding of “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)(emphasis added). DHS-OIG is invoking Exemption 6 to protect the contact information of third parties and any information that could reasonably be expected to identify such individuals.
Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)
Exemption 5 of the FOIA protects “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Please note that as a matter of administrative discretion, I am releasing certain information that falls under the umbrella of this exemption.
Appeal
Although I am aware that your request is the subject of ongoing litigation and appeals are not ordinarily acted on in such situations, I am required by statute and regulation to inform you of your right to file an administrative appeal.1 If you choose to file an administrative appeal it must be in writing and received within 90 days after the date of this response. Please address any appeal to:
FOIA/PA Appeals Unit DHS-OIG Office of Counsel Stop 0305 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, DC 20528-0305
Both the envelope and letter of appeal must be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” Your appeal letter must also clearly identify the OIG’s response. Additional information on submitting an appeal is set forth in the DHS regulations at 6 C.F.R. § 5.8.
1 For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 13
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov
Because this matter is in litigation, please contact Trial Attorney Matthew J. Berns, 202-616-8016 or matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov, if you have any questions.

Enclosures

Sincerely,
Drew Lavine
Drew Lavine OIG Office of Counsel

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of 13
Exhibit 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of 13

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov

August 3, 2017

Marcia Hoffman Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102

Subject:

OIG Freedom of Information Act Request No. 2017-IGFO-00089 Second Interim Response

Dear Ms. Hoffman:

This is the second interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Privacy Office (PRIV), dated April 3, 2017, seeking records related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. PRIV referred a portion of your request to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) for processing. OIG received that referral on April 26, 2017.

The DHS-OIG investigation in this matter is ongoing at this time and has not been concluded. DHS-OIG, therefore, invokes Exemption 7(A) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(A) for these records. Exemption 7(A) authorizes the withholding of “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes . . . to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

We acknowledge that Exemption 7(A) is temporal in nature, and that the investigation in this matter will likely conclude in the near future. Therefore, we will provide you with responsive, non-exempt records subject to FOIA upon completion of the above-referenced investigation if the litigation has not already reached summary judgment briefing. Although other exemptions may be applicable to these records, DHS-OIG is not in a position to assert other exemptions at this time since the matter is still pending.

Appeal

Although I am aware that your request is the subject of ongoing litigation and appeals are not ordinarily acted on in such situations, I am required by statute and regulation to inform you of your right to file an administrative appeal.1 If

1 For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-3 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of 13
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov
you choose to file an administrative appeal it must be in writing and received within 90 days after the date of this response. Please address any appeal to:
FOIA/PA Appeals Unit DHS-OIG Office of Counsel Stop 0305 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, DC 20528-0305
Both the envelope and letter of appeal must be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” Your appeal letter must also clearly identify the OIG’s response. Additional information on submitting an appeal is set forth in the DHS regulations at 6 C.F.R. § 5.8.
Because this matter is in litigation, please contact Trial Attorney Matthew J. Berns, 202-616-8016 or matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Drew Lavine
Drew Lavine OIG Office of Counsel

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-4 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit C
FBI Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-4 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CORA CURRIER, 3
Plaintiff, 4
V.
5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
7 Defendants .

Case No. 3: l 7-cv-01799-JSC
DECLARATION OF DA YID M. HARDY

8 I, David M. Hardy, declare as follows:

9

(1) I am the Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section 10

1I ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), in Winchester, Virginia. I have held this

12 position since August 1, 2002. Prior to my joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"),

13 from May 1, 2001 to July 31 , 2002, I was the Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy for

14 Civil Law. In that capacity, I had direct oversight of Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA")
15 policy, procedures, appeals, and litigation for the Navy. From October 1, 1980 to April 30,
16 200 I , I served as a Navy Judge Advocate at various commands and routinely worked with FO IA
17
18 matters. I am also an attorney who has been licensed to practice law in the State of Texas since
19 1980.

20

(2) In my official capacity as Section Chief of RIDS, I supervise approximate ly 249

21 employees who staff a total of ten (10) Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters ("FBIHQ")
22 units and two (2) field operational service center units whose collective mission is to effectively 23
plan, develop, direct, and manage responses to requests for access to FBI records and 24
information pursuant to the FOIA as amended by the OPEN Government Act of 2007 and the 25
26 OPEN FOIA Act of2009; the Privacy Act of 1974; Executive Order 13526; Presidential,
27 Attorney General, and FBI policies and procedures; judicial decisions; and Presidential and

28 Hardy Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-4 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 4

1 Congressional directives. The statements contained in this declaration are based upon my 2 personal knowledge, upon information provided to me in my official capacity, and upon

3 conclusions and determinations reached and made in accordance therewith.

4

(3) Due to the nature of my official duties, I am familiar with the procedures followed

5 by the FBI in responding to requests for information from its files pursuant to the provisions of
6 the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Specifically, I am
7 aware of the FBI's handling of Plaintiffs request for the FBI' s Analysis of Impact of Executive
8
9 Orders 13769 and 13780 (January 20, 2017 - Present).

10

(4) The FBI submits this declaration to explain the current status of Plaintiffs

11 request.

12

SEARCH FOR RECORDS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

13 (5) The FBI has completed its search for records responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA
14 request. Specific details of the FBI' s search efforts and its recordkeeping system will be
15
16 provided in an additional declaration, should the FBI need to explain the adequacy of its search.

17

CURRENTSTATUSOFDOCUMENTPRODUCTION

18

(6) The FBI's search located approximately 11 potentially responsive pages.

19 Currently, the FBI is (a) reviewing and evaluating the retrieved records to ensure responsiveness;

20 and (b) processing the responsive material (i.e., applying FOIA exemptions, sending documents

21 to other government agencies for consultation, as necessary, and coordinating the pre-release
22
review with the originating Office, Division and/or Field Office). 23

24

CONCLUSION

25

(7) The FBI is, and has been, working diligently to respond fully to Plaintiffs FOIA

26 request and litigation as soon as practicable. The FBI projects that it can complete its processing

27

28 Hardy Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-4 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 4

and review of all responsive records and release non-exempt material subject to FOIA to Plaintiff

2 on or before August 24, 2017. If the FBI needs to send documents to one or more other

3 government agencies for consultation, so that they may advise the FBI as to the applicability of

4 the FOIA' s exemptions to information in which those agencies have equities, this may delay the
5 completion of processing. Documents are sent for consultation when the FBI locates documents
6 that contain information concerning or originating with another government agency, or may
7 implicate privileged material, because in that event, the FBI may not itself possess information
8
9 needed to appropriately evaluate whether the records are exempt from disclosure. In that event,

10 the FBI will release any non-exempt material subject to FOIA that does not require interagency

11 review on or before August 24, 2017, and the remaining non-exempt material will be provided as 12 soon as practicable thereafter. 13

14
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 15

and correct.

16 17

q l:J_,i

Executed this .-- day of August, 2017.

18

19

20

21 Section Chief

22

Record/Information Dissemination Section

Records Management Division

23

Federal Bureau of Investigation

24

Winchester, VA

25

26

27

28 Hardy Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-5 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit D
EOUSA Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-5 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 2

CORA CURRIER, 3
Plaintiff, 4
v.
5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
7
Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
DECLARATION OF JOHN W. KORNMEIER

8

9

1) I, John W. Kornmeier, am an Attorney-Advisor with the Executive Office for

10 United States Attorneys ("EOUSA"), United States Department of Justice. I am assigned to the
11 component ofEOUSA designated to administer the Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA"), 5
12 U.S.C. § 552, amended by the OPEN Government Act of2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat.
13
14 2524, and the Privacy Act of 1974 ("PA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552a. In that capacity, my responsibilities

15 include: acting as a liaison with other divisions and offices of the Department of Justice ("DOJ")

16 in responding to access requests and the litigation filed under both the FOIA and the PA; the

17 review of FOIA/PA requests for access to records located in this office and 94 United States
18 Attorney and the case files arising therefrom; the review of correspondence related to requests; 19
the review of searches conducted in response to access requests; and the preparation of 20
EOUSA's responses thereto to ensure that determinations to withhold or release responsive 21
22 records are in accordance with the provisions of both the FOIA and the PA, as well as with DOJ
23 regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 16.3 and 16.40).

24

2) As an Attorney-Advisor ofEOUSA's FOIA/PA Staff, I have authority to release

25 and/or withhold records requested under the FOIA/PA, and to explain the rationale for EOUSA' s
26 disclosure determinations. I have access to the files of EOUSA. The statements I make 27

28 Kornmeier Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-5 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 4

hereinafter are based on my review of the official files and records ofEOUSA, my own personal 1
2 knowledge, or information acquired by me through the performance of my official duties. Due

3 to the nature ofmy official duties, I am familiar with the procedures followed by EOUSA in

4 responding to FOIA requests. EOUSA submits this declaration to explain the current status of
5 Plaintiff's request. 6
SEARCH FOR RECORDS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST 7
3) EOUSA has completed its search for records responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA 8
9 request. EOUSA has had to sort through a large amount of documents to find responsive ones.
10 Specific details ofEOUSA's search efforts and its recordkeeping system will be provided in an

11 additional declaration, should EOUSA need to explain the adequacy of its search.

12

CURRENT STATUS OF DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

13 4) Currently, EOUSA is (a) reviewing and evaluating 113 documents to ensure
14 responsiveness; and (b) processing the responsive material (i.e., applying FOIA exemptions,
15 sending documents to other government agencies for consultation, as necessary, and
16

17 coordinating the pre-release review with the appropriate offices including the Office of the

18 Director ofEOUSA, the Office oflnformation Policy, and the Civil Division of the U.S.

19 Department of Justice.

20

CONCLUSION

21 5) EOUSA is and has been working diligently to respond fully to Plaintiff's FOIA
22
request and litigation as soon as practicable. EOUSA projects that it can complete its processing 23
and review of all responsive records and release material not exempt under the FOIA to Plaintiff 24

25 by September 5, 2017. If EOUSA needs to send documents to one or more other government

26 agencies for consultation, so that they may advise EOUSA as to the applicability of the FOIA's

27

28 Kornmeier Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-5 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 4

exemptions to information in which those agencies have equities, this may delay the completion 1
2 ofprocessing. In that event, EOUSA will release any non-exempt material subject to FOIA that

3 does not require review by other offices on or before September 5, 2015 and the remaining non-

4 exempt material, will be provided as soon as practicable thereafter. 5

6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
7
true and correct. 8

9

CJ ft..
Executed this / day of August, 2017.

10

11

12

13

Je'hn W. Kotmneier
·'

Attorney-Advisor

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Kornmeier Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 13
Exhibit E
OIP Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 2

CORA CURRIER, 3
Plaintiff, 4
v.
5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
7 Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. CASTELLANO

8

I, Daniel R. Castellano, declare as follows:

9

1. I am a Senior Attorney in the Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States

10 Department of Justice (DOJ). In this capacity, I am responsible for supervising the handling of

11 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests processed by the Initial Request Staff (IR Staff) of

12 OIP that are in litigation. The IR Staff of OIP is responsible for processing FOIA requests

13 seeking records from within OIP and from six senior leadership offices of the Department of

14 Justice, specifically the Offices of the Attorney General (OAG), Deputy Attorney General

15 (ODAG), Associate Attorney General (OASG), Legal Policy (OLP), Legislative Affairs (OLA),

16 and Public Affairs (PAO). The IR Staff determines whether records responsive to access

17 requests exist and, if so, whether they can be released in accordance with the FOIA. In

18 processing such requests, the IR Staff consults with personnel in the senior leadership offices

19 and, when appropriate, with other components within the Department of Justice, as well as with

20 other Executive Branch agencies.

21

2. I make the statements herein on the basis of personal knowledge, as well as on

22 information acquired by me in the course of performing my official duties.

23

3. The purpose of this declaration is to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

24 Injunction, dated July 20, 2017, requesting that the Court order Defendants to complete the

25 expedited processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA request and produce all responsive documents by

26 September 5, 2017. See Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 20, at 1, 2, 12, 15.

27

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 13

1

4. This declaration provides the basis for OIP’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s requested

2 September 5, 2017 production deadline would be exceedingly burdensome, impracticable, and

3 infeasible to adhere to without risking the inadvertent exposure of information that qualifies for

4 withholding, disadvantaging other requesters (including those granted expedited processing), and

5 compromising OIP’s ability to meet other existing litigation deadlines.

6

OIP Receipt of Plaintiff’s FOIA Request

7

5. By letter dated February 1, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to OIP seeking

8 all agency records from January 20, 2017, to the date of the request concerning DOJ’s analysis

9 and implementation of Executive Order 13769. Plaintiff requested expedited processing,

10 pursuant to the Department’s standards permitting expedition for requests involving “[a]n

11 urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a

12 person primarily engaged in disseminating information,” and records relating to “[a] matter of

13 widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the

14 government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” See 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii) and (iv).

15 A copy of Plaintiff’s FOIA request, dated February 1, 2017, is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for

16 Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit 2.

17

6. Plaintiff’s FOIA request, dated February 1, 2017, identified three offices within

18 OIP’s purview that Plaintiff wanted searched for responsive records: OAG, ODAG, and OLA.

19 On February 14, 2017, in response to an inquiry from an Attorney-Advisor in OIP, Plaintiff,

20 through her attorney, expanded the scope of her request to include PAO. A copy of this

21 correspondence is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit 3.1

22

7. By letter dated February 17, 2017, OIP acknowledged Plaintiff’s FOIA request,

23 assigned it OIP tracking numbers DOJ-2017-002176, DOJ-2017-002177, DOJ-2017-002178,

24

25 1 Plaintiff’s FOIA request, dated February 1, 2017, included the Acting Director of PAO among the addressees, although the request did not seek records from PAO. This is consistent with
26 DOJ’s FOIA regulations, which require FOIA requesters who seek expedited processing based on 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(a)(1)(iv) to submit their request to the Director of PAO, regardless of
27 whether they actually seek records from PAO. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(2).

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 13

1 and DOJ-2017-002179, and informed Plaintiff that records searches had been initiated in OAG,

2 ODAG, OLA, and PAO. In this acknowledgement letter, OIP further advised Plaintiff that her

3 FOIA request had been granted expedited processing pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii) and

4 had been placed in OIP’s expedited processing track. A copy of OIP’s acknowledgement letter,

5 dated February 17, 2017, is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit

6 6.

7

8. On March 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for injunctive relief in connection

8 with her February 1, 2017, FOIA request. See Complaint, ECF No. 1.

9

9. On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to OIP via the

10 FOIAonline request portal, seeking all agency records from February 1, 2017, to the date of the

11 request concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive Orders 13769 and

12 13780. Plaintiff again requested expedited processing, pursuant to the Department’s standards

13 permitting expedition for requests involving “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual

14 or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating

15 information,” and records relating to “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in

16 which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public

17 confidence.” See 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii) and (iv). A copy of Plaintiff’s FOIA request, dated

18 April 3, 2017, is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit 10.

19

10. By letter dated April 13, 2017, OIP acknowledged Plaintiff’s FOIA request, assigned

20 it OIP tracking numbers DOJ-2017-003341, DOJ-2017-003345, DOJ-2017-003346. DOJ-2017-

21 003347, and informed Plaintiff that record searches had been initiated in OAG, ODAG, OLA,

22 and PAO. In this acknowledgement letter, OIP further advised Plaintiff that her FOIA requests

23 had been granted expedited processing pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii) and had been

24 placed in OIP’s expedited processing track. A copy of OIP’s acknowledgement letter, dated

25 April 13, 2017, is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit 18.

26

11. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for injunctive relief in

27 connection with her updated April 3, 2017, request. See Complaint, ECF No. 14.

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 13

1

12. On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief, requesting that the

2 Court order Defendants to complete the expedited processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA request and

3 produce all responsive documents by September 5, 2017. See Motion for a Preliminary

4 Injunction, ECF No. 20, at 1, 2, 12, 15.

5

OIP’s FOIA Obligations

6

13. OIP’s FOIA caseload has dramatically increased over Fiscal Year 2017 (October 1,

7 2016 – September 30, 2017). OIP received 1,803 FOIA requests in Fiscal Year 2016 (October 1,

8 2015 – September 30, 2016), and has already received approximately 2,300 requests in Fiscal

9 Year 2017 to date, twenty-three of which relate to Executive Orders 13769 and/or 13780.

10 Additionally, OIP has 175 pending FOIA requests in the expedited track. OIP is also currently

11 engaged in fifty-five ongoing FOIA litigation matters, many of which involve document

12 production schedules and court-ordered deadlines. Of these fifty-five cases, nine relate to

13 underlying requests seeking expedition.

14

14. Because of this significant recent surge in both FOIA requests and litigation matters,

15 as well as the dramatic recent increase of requests being placed into the expedited processing

16 track (discussed more fully below), OIP is under significant strain as its FOIA processing staff,

17 which consists of nine employees, struggles to keep up with this increased workload. By moving

18 Plaintiff to the front of the line for production by September 5, 2017, OIP would need to allocate

19 significant resources and staff to focus solely on Plaintiff’s requests, effectively halting the

20 processing of OIP’s approximately 1,300 other open FOIA requests. In addition, such a

21 compressed time schedule would place enormous pressure on other DOJ components and federal

22 agencies to review and approve the release of any information pertaining to those offices.

23

OIP Processing of FOIA Requests

24

15. As noted in paragraph 1 above, OIP processes FOIA requests on behalf of itself and

25 six senior leadership offices of the Department of Justice.

26

16. Incoming FOIA requests are assigned to a Government Information Specialist (GIS)

27 or Attorney-Advisor who gathers potentially responsive documents and coordinates their review.

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 13

1 OIP makes determinations upon receipt of a FOIA request, both as to the appropriate senior

2 leadership office or offices in which to conduct initial records searches and the records

3 repositories and search methods to use in conducting records searches on behalf of the

4 designated senior leadership offices. Assessments of where responsive records are likely

5 maintained are based on a review of the content of the request itself and the nature of the records

6 sought therein, as well as our familiarity with the types and location of records that each senior

7 leadership office maintains, discussions with knowledgeable personnel in the senior leadership

8 offices, and any research that OIP staff may conduct on the topic of the request. When searching

9 the records of leadership office custodians identified as having potentially responsive material,

10 OIP staff employ any one of a variety of search methods, or a combination of methods,

11 depending on a number of factors, including the type of records systems implicated in the search.

12 Potentially responsive records may be located in email systems, computer hard drives, and/or

13 hard copy (paper) files.

14

17. If a FOIA request enters litigation, it is transferred to an Attorney-Advisor, who

15 handles both any remaining processing of records, as well as the response to litigation deadlines.

16 Once the GIS has collected all potentially responsive documents, the GIS or Attorney-Advisor

17 will coordinate the review process conducted by the appropriate reviewer or senior attorney.

18

18. OIP employs a dual-level review in processing most FOIA requests to ensure that all

19 information that must be protected is properly withheld and that all information that can be, or

20 must be, released is provided accordingly. This two-tier process is especially important where, as

21 here, the FOIA request at issue may implicate sensitive topics relating to internal agency advice

22 and deliberations, including classified information. Regarding FOIA requests in litigation, the

23 Attorney-Advisor assigned to the matter conducts an initial review of each document. Next, a

24 senior attorney, who has significant experience with both the FOIA and the particular policies

25 and procedures necessary to process such requests in litigation, performs an additional quality

26 assurance review.

27

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 13

1

19. Following review by a senior attorney, all necessary consultations with other equity-

2 holders are conducted in order to comply with Department regulations regarding the need to

3 consult with other offices (and/or agencies outside the Department) on information appearing

4 within the documents at issue. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.4(d)(1) (2017). All consultation responses

5 must be analyzed, de-conflicted, and reconciled, which is a process that often involves further

6 engagement with consulting entities and high-level internal review. OIP must necessarily

7 complete all consultations prior to providing any final response to a Plaintiff/Requester.

8

20. Prior to releasing any records to a Plaintiff/Requester, OIP fully reviews all final

9 disclosure determinations, ensuring that information that must be protected is properly withheld

10 pursuant to the FOIA and that all information that can be released is provided accordingly.

11

Expedited Processing

12

21. OIP processes FOIA requests on a first-in, first-out basis within each of its three

13 request tracks (expedited, simple, and complex). As a practical matter, this does not mean that

14 OIP processes each request in the expedited track to completion one at a time, but rather, at each

15 step of the search and review process the requests in a given track are prioritized on a first-in,

16 first-out basis. For example, the search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests was

17 conducted ahead of other pending requests (non-expedited) and ahead of those expedited

18 requests made after Plaintiff’s requests. Similarly, the results of Plaintiff’s expedited searches are

19 reviewed and processed before other non-expedited requests and any expedited requests made

20 after Plaintiff’s request.

21

22. In Fiscal Year 2016, expedited requests for OAG, were processed in a median of 121

22 days. Expedited requests for the Office of the DAG were processed in a median of seventy-six

23 days. In terms of working days, this amounts to a median time of approximately six months to

24 complete processing of an OAG expedited request. See DOJ Annual FOIA Report-FY 2016,

25 available at http://www.justice.gov/oip/page/file/920596/download.

26

23. As of February 1, 2017, the date that Plaintiff submitted her first FOIA request, OIP

27 was processing seventy-seven requests on an expedited basis. As such, OIP processed Plaintiff’s

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 13

1 request, within each phase of the review process, behind the requests already being processed

2 within the expedited track. Of these requests, fifty-nine are still pending.2

3

24. At the time Plaintiff submitted her updated FOIA request on April 3, 2017, OIP was

4 processing ninety-seven requests on an expedited basis. Of these, eighty-three are still pending.

5 These requests also seek records pertaining to similarly high-profile topics of great public

6 interest, including, but not limited to: Attorney General Sessions’ communications with DOJ

7 prior to his confirmation as Attorney General, records regarding the dismissal of former FBI

8 Director James Comey, documents concerning the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a

9 private email server while Secretary of State, and information related to Executive Order 13768,

10 Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.

11

OIP’s Processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA Request

12

25. For Fiscal Year 2017, OIP has significantly more requests in the expedited

13 processing track than it did in prior years. In fact, for Fiscal Year 2017, OIP is currently on pace

14 to have more than four times as many requests in the expedited processing track than Fiscal Year 15 2016.3 Notably, between October 1, 2016 and April 3, 2017, alone, seventy-two requests were

16 granted expedition.

17

26. OIP has been working diligently to review and process records in response to

18 Plaintiff’s FOIA requests as soon as practicable. Following submission of Plaintiff’s first FOIA

19 request on February 1, 2017, OIP completed initial searches of relevant OAG, ODAG, OLA, and

20 PAO staff, as well as of the Departmental Executive Secretariat, which is the official repository

21 for Department records. After Plaintiff submitted her updated FOIA request on April 3, 2017,

22 OIP ran the above-referenced searches again, adding additional search terms and date ranges per

23 the text of the request.

24

25

26 2 This procedure was also followed when Plaintiff submitted her second FOIA request on April 3, 2017.
27 3 OIP granted fifty-one requests for expedited processing in Fiscal Year 2016.

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 7

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 13

1

27. Despite OIP’s diligence, the sheer breadth of the subject matter and records sought

2 in these requests impose significant burdens on OIP’s processing capacity. Plaintiff’s requests

3 encompass all records from multiple DOJ offices regarding the analysis and implementation of

4 Executive Orders 13769 and 13780. Further, Plaintiff’s requests seek not only information and

5 conversations shared among DOJ personnel, but also all communications with certain media

6 outlets and non-profit organizations. For example, because the date ranges outlined in Plaintiff’s

7 requests covered the tenure of two Attorneys General and the changeover of multiple senior

8 leadership positions within OAG, ODAG, OLA, and PAO, OIP conducted searches of more than

9 eighty custodians in order to ensure all responsive material was captured. As a result, the initial

10 search of these custodians’ electronic records alone returned more than 16,500 potentially

11 responsive emails—all of which will need to be reviewed for responsiveness, processed to

12 determine applicable FOIA withholdings, and forwarded to numerous DOJ components and

13 executive branch agencies for their review and clearance regarding information containing those

14 offices’ equities.

15

28. Requiring OIP to finalize the processing of this information within a matter of weeks

16 risks the inadvertent exposure of information that would qualify for withholding under one of

17 FOIA’s nine exemptions. Specifically, in light of the subject matter, responding to Plaintiff’s

18 requests will require OIP to process voluminous amounts of sensitive, privileged information,

19 (including attorney-client communications, attorney work product, information subject to the

20 deliberative process privilege, and potentially classified information) that will require a detailed

21 review in order to determine whether any non-privileged information can reasonably be

22 segregated and released.

23

29. OIP’s eventual releases will likely also include large amounts of information that is

24 not sensitive, but the substance of which is likely already public. For example, Plaintiff seeks

25 correspondence between PAO and reporters concerning the Executive Orders. In my experience,

26 FOIA requesters often ask OIP to exclude these kinds of records from the scope of their requests

27 because such records are not likely to reveal significant information.

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 8

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 13

1

30. Nonetheless, OIP continues to actively and efficiently process Plaintiff’s FOIA

2 requests.4 For the reasons discussed above, it would be unduly burdensome, impracticable, and

3 infeasible to complete the processing of these requests by Plaintiff’s proposed September 5, 2017

4 deadline. Given OIP’s available resources, the estimated time necessary to complete the review

5 of records at issue in Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, and OIP’s other FOIA obligations, OIP

6 anticipates, based on the information currently available, that it can complete production of all

7 responsive, non-exempt records by January 10, 2018.

8

9

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

10 Executed: August 10, 2017

11

12

___________________________________

13

DANIEL R. CASTELLANO

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 4 In fact, OIP located and fully processed a number of records pertaining to item 6 of Plaintiff’s requests, and provided an interim response to Plaintiff on August 10, 2017. A true and correct
27 copy of the cover letter for the interim response is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

28 Castellano Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 9

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of 13
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of 13
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050 1425 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

August 10, 2017

Re: DOJ-2017-002176 (AG) DOJ-2017-003341 (AG)

Ms. Marcia Hofmann

DOJ-2017-002177 (DAG) DOJ-2017-003345 (DAG)

Zeitgeist Law, P.C.

DOJ-2017-002178 (PAO) DOJ-2017-003346 (OLA)

25 Taylor Street

DOJ-2017-002179 (OLA) DOJ-2017-003347 (PAO)

San Francisco, CA 94102

17-cv-01799 (N.D. Cal.)

marcia@zeitgeist.law

DRC:ACS

Dear Ms. Hofmann:

This is an interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on behalf of Cora Currier, dated and received in this Office on February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017, in which you requested records pertaining to Executive Order 13769 and its successor, Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” This response is made on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs.

Please be advised that searches are ongoing in the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs. As a result of these searches, records responsive to your request have been located. At this time, I have determined that eleven pages are appropriate for release without excision, and copies of these records are enclosed.

We are still finalizing the above-referenced searches and continuing to process material that is responsive to your request. As this material contains information of interest to other entities, we can respond only after consulting with them regarding their information. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.4(c)(1) (2017).

For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2015) (amended 2016). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-6 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of 13
-2If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Matthew Berns of the Department’s Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch at 202-616-8016.
Sincerely,

Enclosures

Daniel R. Castellano Senior Attorney

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 14
Exhibit F
OLC Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 2

CORA CURRIER, 3
Plaintiff, 4
v.
5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
7 Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
DECLARATION OF PAUL P. COLBORN

8

I, Paul P. Colborn, declare as follows:

9

1. I am a Special Counsel in the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) of the United

10 States Department of Justice (the “Department”) and a career member of the Senior Executive

11 Service. I joined OLC in 1986, and since 1987 I have had the responsibility, among other things,

12 of supervising OLC’s responses to requests it receives under the Freedom of Information Act

13 (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. I submit this declaration in support of the Government’s Opposition

14 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The statements that follow are based on my

15 personal knowledge, as well as on information provided to me by OLC attorneys and staff

16 working under my direction, and by others with knowledge of the documents at issue in this

17 case.

18

2. The purpose of this declaration is to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

19 Injunction, dated July 20, 2017, requesting that the Court order Defendants to complete the

20 processing of Plaintiff’s two FOIA requests and produce all responsive documents by September

21 5, 2017. See Plaintiff Cora Currier’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

22 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 20, at 1, 2, 12, 15.

23

3. This declaration provides the basis for DOJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s requested

24 production deadline would be exceedingly burdensome, impracticable, and not feasible to adhere

25 to without severely compromising OLC’s ability to meet existing FOIA litigation deadlines and

26 directly disadvantaging other FOIA requesters, as well as OLC’s ability to perform its

27

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 14

1 substantive duties as legal adviser to the President and executive branch. For the reasons set forth

2 below, OLC simply does not currently maintain the resources to achieve Plaintiff’s proposed

3 deadline to complete processing of her FOIA requests without adversely impacting other

4 substantive and FOIA obligations, including other requests granted expedited processing and

5 cases in litigation.

6

OLC RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUESTS

7

4. By letter transmitted via Priority Mail, dated February 1, 2017 and received by

8 OLC on February 8, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to OLC and others seeking “all

9 agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and

10 implementation” of a January 27, 2017 Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from

11 Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Although already seeking “all agency records”

12 concerning the subject matter, Plaintiff went on to state that her request “includes, but is not

13 limited to” several particular subcategories of communications. Plaintiff also requested

14 expedited processing for the request under two standards pursuant to Department regulations: 28

15 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii), (iv). A copy of Plaintiff’s first FOIA request (“First Request”) is

16 attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit 2.

17

5. By letter dated February 14, 2017 and transmitted via email the same day, I

18 acknowledged receipt of the First Request by OLC and informed Plaintiff that it had been

19 assigned tracking number FY17-104. I further informed Plaintiff that the First Request had been

20 granted expedited status and had therefore been placed in OLC’s expedited processing track. A

21 copy of OLC’s first acknowledgment letter is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

22 Injunction as Exhibit 7.

23

6. By letter dated April 3, 2017, and received by OLC via email the same day,

24 Plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to OLC, seeking “all agency records from February 1,

25 2017 to the present concerning the agency’s analysis and implementation of Executive Order No.

26 13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780.” Again, in addition to requesting “all agency records”

27 concerning the subject matter, Plaintiff specified several subcategories of records that the search

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 14

1 should “include[], but is not limited to,” and requested expedited processing under the same two

2 standards. A copy of Plaintiff’s second FOIA request (“Second Request”) is attached to

3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit 11.

4

7. By letter dated April 5, 2017 and transmitted via email the same day, I

5 acknowledged receipt of the Second Request by OLC and informed Plaintiff that it had been

6 assigned tracking number FY17-184. I further informed Plaintiff that the Second Request had

7 been granted expedited status and had therefore been placed in OLC’s expedited processing

8 track. A copy of OLC’s second acknowledgment letter is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for

9 Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit 19.

10

OLC’S LEGAL ADVICE ROLE AND ITS PROCESSING OF FOIA REQUESTS

11

8. The principal function of OLC is to assist the Attorney General in his role as legal

12 adviser to the President of the United States and to departments and agencies of the Executive

13 Branch. OLC provides advice and prepares opinions addressing a wide range of legal questions

14 involving the operations of the Executive Branch.

15

9. OLC is a very small component of the Department of Justice, employing

16 approximately 18 to 25 attorneys at any one time, although staffing levels have varied as a result

17 of vacancies and fiscal circumstances. During the past year, the Office has had approximately

18 eight to twelve line attorneys (Attorney Advisers), as well as approximately four more senior

19 attorneys with the title of Senior Counsel or Special Counsel, and approximately four Deputy

20 Assistant Attorneys General. Since 2015, OLC has also employed one attorney at the line

21 attorney level having the title FOIA and Records Management Attorney (the “FOIA Attorney”).

22 OLC also employs four paralegals, with one having the title of Supervisory Paralegal, and one

23 having the title of Lead Paralegal.

24

10. With the exception of the FOIA Attorney, the primary responsibility of the

25 Office’s attorneys, including its Attorney Advisers, is to assist in the preparation of the Office’s

26 legal advice to the President, the Attorney General, and the agencies and departments of the

27 United States. The work of processing and responding to FOIA requests directed or referred to

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 14

1 OLC, as well as the work of coordinating OLC’s FOIA litigation matters with the Department’s

2 litigating components, is carried out by the FOIA Attorney, under my supervision and with the

3 assistance of OLC’s paralegals. The paralegals likewise have a number of other important

4 duties, including research and cite-checking assistance in connection with the Office’s legal

5 advice; processing the Department’s interactions with the Federal Register; maintaining records

6 relating to Attorney General orders and Department regulations; and assisting with litigation or

7 congressional oversight in connection with which the Office is playing a role, including FOIA

8 litigation.

9

11. Over the last several years, on average OLC has received between 75 and 125

10 FOIA requests per fiscal year. Despite the limited resources available to OLC for processing

11 FOIA requests, over the last five years OLC has processed the substantial majority of requests

12 received, reduced a significant outstanding FOIA processing backlog, and maintained a

13 relatively small backlog. In Fiscal Year 2012 (October 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012), OLC

14 received 130 FOIA requests and had a year-end backlog of 23 requests. In FY2013, OLC

15 received 86 FOIA requests and had a year-end backlog of 34 requests. In FY2014, OLC

16 received 91 FOIA requests and had a year-end backlog of 35 requests. In FY2015, OLC

17 received 111 FOIA requests and had a year-end backlog of 49 requests. In FY2016, OLC

18 received 111 FOIA requests and had a year-end backlog of 60 requests. In total over the course

19 of those five years, OLC received 529 FOIA requests and processed 503 FOIA requests,

20 notwithstanding the limited resources of the Office, the sequester, the Department’s hiring

21 freeze, and the government shutdown.

22

12. In contrast, in FY2017 (beginning October 1, 2016), OLC has already received

23 275 FOIA requests, which puts the Office on pace to receive approximately 322 requests in the

24 fiscal year. This represents more than three times the average number of requests received per

25 year over the previous five years, imposing a considerable burden on OLC’s ability to meet its

26 FOIA obligations.

27

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 14

1

EXPEDITED PROCESSING

2

13. In processing requests, OLC acts pursuant to the Department’s governing

3 regulations, which state that “[c]omponents ordinarily will respond to requests according to their

4 order of receipt.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(a). OLC uses multitrack processing, as permitted by 28

5 C.F.R. § 16.5(b), and designates all requests into the Expedited, Simple, or Complex processing

6 tracks. Accordingly, OLC’s general practice is to assign requests to begin search and processing

7 within each track according to their order of receipt. Typically, an initial search is conducted at

8 that time, usually by searching OLC’s internal database of final legal advice and/or by inquiring

9 with OLC’s attorneys to determine whether responsive records are likely to exist. Subsequent

10 searching, including the identification of custodians and development of keywords for electronic

11 searches, is then carried out as needed based on the results of that initial search. These

12 subsequent searches are prioritized by processing track, date of receipt, and available resources.

13

14. Because some requests are by their nature less complicated than others—

14 including because records responsive to some requests may be easier to locate and identify,

15 easier to process, or require less intra- or inter-Departmental consultation—the processing of

16 requests may be completed out of order, notwithstanding the order of their assignment for

17 processing. For example, although the expedited track is not further subdivided by complexity,

18 the nature of this process is such that a simple or narrowly targeted expedited request can often

19 be closed fairly quickly if the initial search identifies few or no potentially responsive records.

20

15. In the absence of a court order establishing deadlines that require a later-received

21 request to be processed out of order ahead of earlier-received requests, OLC’s policy is to

22 process FOIA requests in order according to Department regulations—that is, in the order of

23 receipt within their respective queue—even where a request is the subject of litigation, so as not

24 to unfairly favor more litigious requesters over other members of the public who have made

25 FOIA requests but lack the interest, resources, or expertise to engage in litigation regarding

26 OLC’s response to their FOIA request. This policy is intended to ensure that OLC’s limited

27

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 14

1 resources for FOIA processing are allocated and prioritized in a manner that is fair to all FOIA

2 requesters.

3

16. When OLC received the First Request on February 8, 2017, there were 54 other

4 requests in OLC’s queue that had either already been granted expedited processing or were

5 granted expedited processing at roughly the same time as the First Request but were received

6 earlier.

7

17. When OLC received the Second Request on April 3, 2017, there were 62

8 previously-received requests in OLC’s expedited queue.

9

18. OLC was recently able to close several expedited requests that sought a much

10 simpler set of records. Accordingly, there are currently 49 requests in OLC’s expedited queue.

11 Of these 49 expedited requests, 29 were received by OLC before the First Request, and 37

12 (including the First Request) were received before the Second Request.

13

19. Many of these earlier-received expedited FOIA requests are no less complicated

14 than Plaintiff’s requests, and seek records on issues that are similarly high-profile. For example,

15 FY13-056 seeks records “regarding all programs of warrantless mass or dragnet surveillance that

16 operate by impact and effect to collect information and date on United States Persons”; FY14-

17 042 seeks multiple categories of records “concerning the policies and procedures governing the

18 acquisition, retention, dissemination, and use of information gathered as part of various

19 government surveillance programs”; and FY14-088 seeks any records “that helped provide the

20 legal basis for the Obama administration's determination that the 2001 Authorization for Use of

21 Military Force against al Qaida and the Taliban and the 2002 AUMF against Iraq now allow the

22 U.S. military to conduct air strikes, drone missile attacks and other military actions against

23 Islamic State (aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) forces in both Iraq and Syria.”

24

20. The average processing time for expedited requests closed by OLC in FY2016

25 was approximately 210 business days, or 10.5 months.

26

21. While, as noted above, OLC has received roughly three times as many requests in

27 FY2017 as in previous years, the volume of expedited requests has increased at a far greater rate.

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 14

1 In FY2016, OLC received only six requests for expedited processing, of which it granted two. In

2 FY2015, OLC received 13 requests, and granted six. In FY2017, by comparison, OLC has

3 received 107 requests for expedited processing, with 65 such requests granted to date—more

4 than 30 times the number granted in the previous year.

5

OLC’S FOIA LITIGATION DOCKET

6

22. In addition to a substantial FOIA request processing workload, OLC has

7 increasingly become the subject of FOIA litigation, as requesters turn to the courts more often

8 and more quickly than in prior years.

9

23. Including this case, OLC is currently a named defendant in more than 25 active

10 lawsuits seeking records. Of these cases, more than 10 were—like this one—filed within

11 calendar year 2017 and seek responses to requests that were also filed in calendar year 2017.

12 These attempts to bypass the ordinary FOIA processing queue by seeking court ordered

13 production deadlines far in advance of the ordinary course do significant damage to OLC’s

14 ability to complete its FOIA processing in a fair and orderly manner. Every time OLC must

15 allocate its sparse FOIA resources to defending these cases or attempting to meet a court-ordered

16 production deadline, the result is further delay suffered by all other requesters.

17

OLC’S PROCESSING OF PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUESTS

18

24. OLC has been working diligently to provide a final response to Plaintiff’s FOIA

19 requests as soon as practicable.

20

25. Although broader than many other requests, Plaintiff’s requests are not the only

21 requests seeking records from OLC regarding the two Executive Orders that are their subject.

22 Between January 30, 2017, and May 10, 2017, OLC received 31 requests primarily seeking

23 records about one or both of the Executive Orders titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign

24 Terrorist Entry into the United States.”

25

26. Of those 31 requests, six requests were sufficiently narrow that they could be

26 satisfied with a production of one record. OLC released that record as a matter of discretion in

27 response to those six requests on February 6, 2017, closing those requests.

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 7

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 14

1

27. In order to most efficiently process the remaining 25 related requests, including

2 Plaintiff’s First and Second Requests, OLC designed a broad, inclusive email search covering 11

3 custodians and including 35 keywords or keyword variations. This search was designed to

4 capture all records that were potentially responsive to any of the requests. Given the amount of

5 overlap between these requests, this is the fastest method available to process all of the requests.

6 This is especially so because the different requests seek records across different date ranges, and

7 with slightly different areas of focus or requested keywords. Alternative methods would require

8 repetitive, overlapping searches and/or repetitive processing of the same records, increasing the

9 overall time that OLC would need to dedicate to this group of related requests.

10

28. Of the 25 related requests covered by the consolidated search, Plaintiff’s First

11 Request is the 14th-earliest received, and Plaintiff’s Second Request is the 23rd-earliest received.

12 Accordingly, OLC’s decision to process Plaintiff’s requests together with requests that would

13 otherwise be higher in the queue advantages Plaintiff.

14

29. Plaintiffs’ two requests are not the only of these requests to enter litigation.

15 Request FY17-135 is at issue in Protect Democracy Project v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 17-cv-815

16 (D.D.C. filed May 2, 2017), and request FY17-174 is at issue James Madison Project v. Dep’t of

17 Justice, No. 17-cv-390 (D.D.C. filed March 3, 2017). The requests in each of these cases are

18 slightly different, but with significant overlap of subject and the set of potentially responsive

19 records.

20

30. The consolidated email search described above is still in the early stages of

21 processing, because of other requests on other topics, but the initial search has been completed.

22 Although the records have not yet been reviewed for responsiveness, the search identified over

23 14,000 documents, including emails and stand-alone files. With attachments to those emails

24 included in the count, the number of potentially responsive records that must be reviewed for

25 responsiveness totals more than 26,000.

26

31. Although the responsiveness review has not been completed, the nature of the

27 request and a cursory review of the records has made clear that the vast majority contain material

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 8

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 14

1 exempt from mandatory disclosure under the FOIA, particularly under Exemption Five, 5 U.S.C.

2 §552(b)(5). This includes material that is subject to the attorney-client, deliberative process, and

3 presidential communication privileges, as well as a considerable volume of litigation-related

4 material covered by the work product doctrine. The records will require close inspection to

5 avoid inadvertently releasing exempt material, and will also require consultation with a number

6 of other government entities with equities in the documents. It is not possible for OLC to make

7 release determinations on behalf of these other entities, and consultation is required before any

8 final determination may be made, pursuant to practice and regulation. See 28 U.S.C. § 16.4(d).

9

32. In addition to searching for potentially responsive email records, on August 2,

10 2017, OLC released to Plaintiff and multiple other FOIA requesters 13 pages of records, which

11 include letters from the Acting Assistant Attorney General for OLC to the President of the

12 United States, dated January 27, 2017 and March 6, 2017, advising the President that the first

13 and second Executive Orders entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into

14 the United States” were approved with respect to form and legality, as well as the final

15 memoranda underlying those determinations. Plaintiff was informed that this production

16 constituted the completion of OLC’s search for final OLC legal advice documents. A true and

17 correct copy of the cover letter for the August 2 release is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

18

33. OLC has been and continues to process Plaintiff’s FOIA requests as soon as

19 practicable. For the reasons discussed above, it would be unduly burdensome, impracticable,

20 and infeasible to complete the processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests within the abbreviated

21 time frame she seeks.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 9

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of 14

1

2

3

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

4

5

6

PAULP. COLBORN

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Colborn Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of 14
Exhibit 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of 14
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Washington, D.C. 20530
August 2, 201 7
Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law 0 .B.0. The Intercept marcia@zeitgeist.law
Re: FOIA Nos. FY17-104 & FY17-184; Cora Currierv. DHS et al., No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC (N.D. Cal.)
Dear Ms. Hofmann:
This letter partially responds to your Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests to the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") on behalf of The Intercept regarding Executive Orders 13769 and 13780, which were assigned tracking numbers FYI 7-104 and FYI 7-184. As you know, the requests also are the subject of the above-captioned litigation.
We have completed our search for final OLC legal advice documents responsive to your requests and have identified two responsive records. The records are protected by the attorneyclient and presidential communications privileges and exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption Five, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), but we are releasing them to you as a matter of discretion. Copies of the two records are enclosed. We are continuing to search for responsive records other than final OLC legal advice.
For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
You may contact Matthew Berns of the Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, at 202-616-8016, for any further assistance and to discuss any aspect of your requests. Additionally, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services ("OGIS") at the National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.
Although your requests are the subject of ongoing litigation, and administrative appeals are not ordinarily acted upon in such situations, I am required by statute and regulation to inform you of your right to file an administrative appeal. You may administratively appeal by writing to

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-7 Filed 08/10/17 Page 14 of 14
the Director, Office of Information Policy ("OIP"), United States Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal."
Sincerely,
Aa//j/ki_
Paul P. Colborn Special Counsel Enclosures cc: Matthew Berns, Trial Attorney Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 17
Exhibit G
DOS Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 2

CORA CURRIER, .3

Plaintiff, 4
. v.

5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

.

6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, .·
7
Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
DECLARATION OF ERIC F. STEIN

8

9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Eric F. Stein, declare and state as follows:

IO

I.

I am the Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services ("JPS") of

11 the United Stat.es Department of State (the "Department" or "State") and have served in this
12 capacity since January 22, 2017. Previously, I was the Acting Co-Director since March 21,
13

2016. 14

15

2.

The core responsibilities of!PS include: (I) responding to records access requests

16 made by the public (including under the Freedom oflnformation Act, the Privacy Act, and the

17 mandatory declassification review requirements of Executive Order No. 13526 of December 29,
18 2009, governing classified national security information), by members of Congress, by other 19
government agencies, and those made pursuant to judicial process; such as subpoenas, court 20
orders and discovery reqm;sts; (Z)'records management; (3) privacy protection; (4) national 21 22 security classification management and declassification review; (5) corporate records archives
23 ·management.; (6) research; (7) operation and management of the Departmel)t's library; and (8)

24 technology applications that support these activities.

25

26

27

28 Stein Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 17

3. In my current capacity, I am the Department official immediately responsible for

2 responding to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (the "FOIA"), 5 U.S.C.

3 § 552, the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and other records access provisions.

4

4. Prior to serving in this capacity, from April 2013, I worked directly for the

5 Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary ("DAS") for Global Information Services ("GIS") and
6
served as a senior advisor and deputy to the DAS on all issues related to GIS offices and 7
programs, which include !PS. As .the Director of !PS, I have original classification authority and 8
9 am authorized to classify and declassify national security information.

10

5. I make the following statements based upon my personal knowledge, which in

11 turn is based upon information furnished to me in the course of my official duties. I am familiar

12 with the efforts of Department personnel to process the subject request, and I am in charge of

13 coordinating the agency's search and recovery efforts with respect to that request.
14
6. The purpose of this declaration is to provide the Court with information
15 concerning JPS' structure and resources, and its ongoing processing of Plaintiffs FOIA requests,
16
17 and to support Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

18

Summary of Plaintiff's FOIA Request

19

7. . By letter dated February 1, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a first FOIA request to the

20 Department seeking "all agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present concerning the

21 agency's analysis and implementation of [the executive order entitled "Protecting the Nation
22 From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States" signed on January 27, 2017)." The request
23
"include[d], but [was] not limited to": 24

25

A. Records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov

email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other

26

communications:

27

28
Stein Declaration, Case No. 3: l 7-cv-01799-JSC

Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 17

I. Among DOS personnel, including consular officials, supervisors, officers,

managers, and union representatives;

2

2. From or about visa applicants or dual citizens asking for clarification or about

the ban's effect;

3

3. Between DOS officials and the Executive Office of the President or other

White House offices;

.

4

4. Between DOS and members of Congress or congressional staffers, including

5

aides to the House Judiciary Committee; and 5. Between DOS officials and non-government representatives and outside

6

consultants, including nonprofits, policy think tanks such as the Center for

Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform, and

7

private firms such as Giuliani Partners.

B. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOS officials to judicial orders staying

8

the enforcement of the executive order, including discussions oflegal liability for

9

failing to follow those orders.

C. Records from the Dissent Channel related to the executive order.

JO

D. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOS officials to responses by other

countries to the executive order, including but not limited to Iran and Iraq."

11

8. Plaintiff sought expedited processing of this first FOIA request. 12

13

9. By letter dated February 9, 2017, !PS acknowledged Plaintiffs first·request,

14 assigned it Case Control No. F-2017-02483, and granted expedited processing.

15

10. By letter dated April 3, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a second FOIA request to the

16 Department seeking "all agency records from February I, 2017 to the present concerning the

17 agency's analysis and implementation of E. xecutive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order N. o..
18 13,780." This request "include[d], but [was] not limited to":
19

A. Records related to briefings, discussions, talking points, emails (whether through .gov

20

email addresses or private third-party services such as Gmail) or other

21

communications:

1. Among DOS personnel, including consular officials, supervisors, officers,

22

managers, and union representatives;

2. From or about visa applicants or dual citizens asking for clarification or about

2~

the ban's effect;

24

3. Between DOS officials and the Executive Office of the President or other White House offices;

25

4. Between DOS a·nd members of Congress or congressional staffers, including

aides to the House Judiciary Committee; and

26

5. Between DOS officials and non-government representatives and outside

consultants, including nonprofits, policy think tanks such as the Center for 27

28 ·stein Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 17

Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform, the

Center for Security Policies, the Heritage Foundation;the Investigative

2

Project on Terrorism; and State Department officials and private firms such as

Giuliani Partners and Renaissance Technologies.

3

B. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOS officials to judicial orders staying

the enforcement of the executive order, including discussions of legal liability for

4

failing to follow those orders.

5

C. Records from the Dissent Channel related to the executive orders.
D. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOS officials to responses by other

6

countries to the executive orders, including but not limited to Iran and Iraq.

E. Directives, memos, or cables advising consular officials how to handle queries from

7

travelers about their legal status or travel plans in light of the executive orders.

F. Memos, analyses, or communications (including correspondence with Iraqi officials)

8

about the decision to remove Iraq from the list of countries covered by the travel

9

restrictions in Executive Order No. 13,780. G. Analyses, reports, or assessments of the security risks posed by individuals from the

10

nations whose citizens were covered by the executive orders.

.

H. Analyses, reports, or assessments of the impact of the travel restrictions on national

11

security or diplomatic relationships."

12

IL Plaintiff again sought expedited processing.

13 12. By letter dated April 4, 2017, JPS acknowledged Plaintiffs second request,
14 assigned it Case Control No. F-2017-08348, and granted expedited processing.
15 . 13. By letter dated August 9, 2017, JPS informed Plaintiff that the Department had
16

17 retrieved six documents responsive to her requests, one of which was released in full, four of

18 which were withheld in part, and one of which was withheld in full. A true and correct copy of

19 the cover letter for that release is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

20

14. The Department's search for, and processing of, records responsive to Plaintiffs

21 requests remains ongoing, and the Department is 'working diligently to complete its processing of
22 Plaintiffs requests as soon as practicable.
23
15. For reasons further discussed below, currently the Department is not able to 24

25 estimate when it can complete its processing of Plaintiffs requests. However, the Department is

26 able to process an average of 300 pages per month, without unduly interfering with the

27

28 Stein Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 17

Department's ability to respond to other FOIA requests, including many requests that are in

2 litigation and have court-ordered production schedules already in place. If Plaintiff were to

3 further limit the scope of her requests to focus on more discrete categories ofreccirds, I anticipate

4 that the Department could complete its processing of her requests more quickly.

5

Estimated Volume of Plaintifrs FOIA Request

6 16. JPS has determined that more than twenty components throughout the Department
7 have been involved in the analysis and/or implementation of Executive Orders 13769 and 13780,
8

9 and these components collectively employ thousands of State Department personnel. As a result,

IO responding to Plaintiffs requests requires JPS to coordinate a wide-ranging search involving

I I many offices and possible custodians, each of which has obligations beyond responding to FOIA

12 requests.
13 17. These Executive Orders have also engendered much public interest: to date the
14 Department has received at least 18 FOIA requests for documents involving the Executive
15 Orders. Twelve of these requests have been granted expedited processing. Three (all of which
16
17 were granted expedited processing) were received before Plaintiffs First Request (F-2017-
18 02483), six (of which four were granted expedited processing) were received after Plaintiffs first

19 request but before her Second Request (F-2017-08348), and nine (of which five were granted
20 expedited processing) were received after her second request. One other request related to both
21
Executive Orders is cur.rently in litigation (Council on American-Islam.ic Relations, request F-
22 2017-09834, civil action number 1: 17-cv-l 061 (D. Conn.)).
23 18. Plaintiffs FOIA requ.est asks for a broad range of documents, and required
24
25 tasking more than twenty components within the State Department. The breadth of Plaintiffs

26 requests and the nature of the records at issue make searching for and processing responsive

27

28 Stein Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
I

Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 17

records especially challenging. Moreover, the requested documents are likely to contain a wide

2 range of sensitive information, including classified information, attorney-client communications,

3 attorney work product, deliberative material, and personal information. Also, as identified by

4 Plaintiff when she requested documents from multiple agencies, the documents at issue implicate

5

'
equities across the federal government, and processing these documents will require extensive

6 inter-agency consultation. Requiring the Department to process these records without sufficient
7
time for 9areful review and consultation will risk inadvertent exposure of sensitive information. 8

9

19. Currently, JPS has received 26.2 gigabytes .of data in response to the request,

IO .which is estimated to contain tens of thousands of documents. Twelve components are still

I I conducting searches, so the total volume of potentially responsive documents is not currently

12 known. 13 14

The Department's FOIA Caseload and Document Review Process

15

20. Over the past several years, the Department's FOIA caseload has greatly

16 increased. In Fiscal Year 2008 ("FY 2008"), the Department received fewer than 6,000 new
17 FOIA and Privacy Act requests; that number of new FOIA and Privacy Act requests annually
18 increased, reaching nearly 28,000 in FY 2016 (an increase of over 350%). By the end of FY
19 2016, the Department had a backlog of approximately 22,600 FOIA and Privacy Act requests
20
21 pending. The Department currently has approximately 15,200 FOIA and Privacy Act requests

22 pending and is engaged in approximately I05 FOIA litigation cases, many of which involve

23 court-ordered document production schedules. Despite the dramatic increase in the FOIA
24 caseload during this time period, the funds available to process FOIA requests have remained
25 nearly unchanged f~r most of this time. It was only in recent years that there has been an
26 increase in resources. For instance, the· Department spent approximately $16.5 million in FY
27

28 Stein Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 17

2013, $15.9 million in FY 2014, about $16 million in FY 2015, and about $21 million in FY

2 2016 on FOJA personnel costs associated with processing FOJA requests.

3

21. The FOJA review process.undertaken by JPS, which coordinates searches

4 throughout the Department for potentially responsive documents, is involved and complex.
5 Once the search process is complete, each potentially responsive document must be ingested, 6
either electronically or by scanning printed material, into JPS's document review system, known 7
as FREEDOMS 2 ("F2"). Each document is then assigned a unique identification number, and
8 9 an JPS employee manually inputs certain bibliographic data associated with each document, such
10 as the date, to, from, and subject line (if available). JPS then assigns those documents for review

II to an JPS employee, or reviewer, with appropriate clearance and subject matter expertise to

12 handle that set of documents.·

13

22. The reviewer performs a line-by-lin'e review of the document to determine

14 whether the document is responsive to the request, whether it contains any classified or other
15

sensitive information that must be withheld under one of the nine FOIA exemptions, and whether 16

17 it contains information belonging to other federal agencies. During this process, the reviewer

., 18 may consult other Department employees (including, for example, employees in regional
19 bureaus or attorneys) ass/he sees fit: These consultations often occur more than once in the·

20 process and are extremely important, particularly when the documents being reviewed were
21 created around the same time they were requested under the FOIA. The employees being
22
consulted are the most knowledgeable parties concerning the sensitivity of the documents or 23
24 subJect matter at· issue. For instance, documents may concern the views or activities of
I
25 individuals who could suffer reprisals if their identities or opinions are revealed. Documents

26 may also reflect certain policies, activities, or other information of a heightened sensitivity to

27.

28
Stein Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 7

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 17

U.S. foreign relations. Consequently, for documents containing substantive information that

2 were created within the previous five years, IPS's general policy is to clear those documents with

3 the relevant bureaus or offices within the Department prior to finalizing release determinations.

4

23. Additionally, ifthe reviewer determines that a document originated with the

5 Department, but contains another federal agency's information (or "equities"), an !PS employee
6
will send that document to the relevant federal agency for consultation. If the reviewer 7
determines that a document originated with another federal agency, s/he redacts any Department 8
9 information that must be withheld under the FOlA, and sends the document to that federal

IO agency for review and direct reply to the requester. The Dep.artment will also refer a document

11 to an outside organization whenever the organization's confidential business information may be

12 at issue, in accordance with Executive Order 12600 and 22 C.F.R. § 171.12, to allow that
13 organization the opportunity to object to the disclosure of the information on the basis that the
14 information in the document is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4, 15 U.S.C.
15 § 552(b)(4). Finally, for cases that are in litigation, documents proposed for release must be
16
17 reviewed by Attorney-Advisers within the Office of the Legal Adviser, a process that often

18 involves consultations between the Attorney-Advisers and !PS as well as other Department

19 offices.

20

24. After completing the internal and external consultation processes, the reviewer

21 redacts any information that must be withheld under the FOIA and marks documents that the
22
Department will release in full or in part with the required stamps, indicating the release 23
determinations and F.OIA exemptions applied. If the reviewer completing this process is 24

25 relatively inexperienced, then his or her work must undergo second-level review by a senior

26

27

28
Stein Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 8

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 17

reviewer to ensure that FOIA exemptions were properly applied to the document and that I
2 consultations with relevant Department bureaus and federal agencies occurred.

3

·25. After this process is completed, the Department provides those documents to the

4 requester with a cover letter indicating that responsive documents were located, which (if any)
5 exemptions were applied to documents withheld in full (including a list of the available FOIA 6
exemptions), and whether the requester should expect to receive addition~! release 7
determinations from the Department. The Department also provides an explanatory letter in the 8 9 event that no responsive documents were located or all responsive documents were withheld in
JO full.

I I

The Department's Quantifiable FOIA Processing Capabilities and Concerns

12

26. The Department's FOIA resources have been over-burdened for several years·

13 now. This over-commitment is evident in the Department's FOIA request volume and in the
14 queue ofFOIA litigation cases, both of which have grown significantly over the past four years.
15 The Department currently has a FOIA and Privacy Act backlog of approximately 15,200 requests
16
17 and is a defendant in approximately I05 FOIA litigation cases.

18

27. FOIA requests subject to litigation comprise approximately 1% of all FOIA ·

19 requests at the Department, but demand a disproportionate share of JPS resources. Over the past

20 three fiscal years, not including the current one, the Department's FOIA backlog has grown
21 significantly due to exceptionally demanding court orders in several FOIA litigation cases. From
22
FY 2014 to FY 2016, the Department experienced extraordinary FOIA litigation demands, 23 24 including court-ordered production of approximately 30,000 emails from former Secretary
25 Clinton in under one year, additional court orders for productions of the tens of thousands of

26 Secretary Clinton's emails provided to the Department by the FBI in the summer of2016, and an

27

28
Stein Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 9

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of 17

order to complete a Vaughn Index for 10,000 pages of records within six weeks, also in the

2 summer of 2016. 1

3

28. In all of these and many other situations, the Department has met its obligations;

4 however, these accomplishments were done at the expense of all other requesters seeking
5 information from the government. The FOIA backlog increased from 10,045 cases in FY 2014 6
to 20,626 in FY 2015. The backlog increased again to 22,664 in FY 2016. There is a direct
7
correlation between the Department's FOIA litigation demands.and its FOIA backlog. 8
Additionally, the increased backlog increases the risk of future litigation and, more importantly, . 9
10 results in long delays between requests for information and the production of that information.

I I

29. . The Department is currently the subject of court orders in 15 different litigations

.12 that in total require it to process approximately 8,400 pages per month.2 It is also committed to
13 making monthly or bi-monthly productions in 18 additional litigations, and anticipates beginning
·14 monthly productions soon in another 4 current litigations, in addition to this case. (See Exhibit
15 2). Court cases that do not have regular productions also require resources for various tasks such
16
17 as drafting and reviewing Vaughn indices or conducting searches for, and ingestion of,
18 potentially responsive material. At the same time, the Department must continue to use its

19 resources to process the thousands of requests that are not the subject of litigation.

20

30. In July 2016,.the Department quantified its FOIA processing capability to

21 determine how many pages it could process each month. The Department determined that each
22 FOIA reviewer could process about 300 pages per month after those records were located
23

24

25 1 The Department can usually commit to completing a Vaughn index for about JOO documents per month with
existing resources. 26 2 This number is approximate because in one case, leopoldv. Dep't ofState, No. 14-cv-1771, (D.D.C.), the
Department is required to process an average of700 pages of material per month.
27

28 Stein Declaration, Case No. 3: I7-cv-01799-JSC

Page 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of 17

through the Department's search. 3 See ·Citizens United v. State, No. J6-cv-0108 (D.D.C.), ECF

2 No. 11-1 (disctissin'g how many pages the Department can finalize). At that time (July 2016),

3 JPS had approximately 70 reviewers.

4

31. !PS's reviewer staff has decreased to approximately 44 reviewers as of the most

5 recent pay period-a majority of whom are part-time employees. J have been informed by my
6 managers that the number of Department's reviewers' may decrease in the coming months for
7 various reasons. The Department's current hiring freeze precludes the hiring of new Department
8
9 employees to fulfill these roles without seeking special permission to hire (which we are

JO pursuing). The Department is also pursuing alternative means to increase its number of

11 reviewers using existing Department resources.

12

3_2. IPS's ability to increase the number of reviewers is further constrained by the

13 availability of existing financial resources an.d also by the need for reviewers to possess the
14 necessary security clearances and subject matter expertise to review materials related to U.S.
15 foreign relations and diplomacy that may be responsive to FOJA requests. JPS cannot determine,
16
17 based on a request alone, whether any of the responsive material will be classified. Moreover,

18 pursuant to its authority under Executive Order 13526, !PS may determine that information

19 responsive to a FOIA request needs to be classified (for example, JPS may determine that certain

20 unmarked information must be classified at the "confidential" or "secret" level). Finally, F2
21 operates on a classified network, which requires any reviewers using the system to hpld a
22 security clearance of at least the SECRET level. Consequently, JPS 'reviewers must have
23

24

25 3 "Processing" a document encompasses the full review, including the decision to produce the document or deny its
production after being fully vened within the appropriate Department offices, with_ other federal agencies, and with 26 any other offices or organizations that would need to revie\v the documents.

27

28 Stein Declaration, Case No. 3: J7-cv-01799-JSC

Page 11

-----------·-------------------------------------
Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of 17

clearances because they cannot know from the outset whether they will be handling classified

2 information and because they need the clearances to operate in F2, the document review system.

3

33. Given the number of reviewers at the moment, I estimate that the Department has

4 the ability to process approximately 13,200 pages per month for all FOIA requests, including
5 both litigation and non-litigation. This estimate assumes that one reviewer can process about
6 300 pages per month. Reviewers are managing multiple FOIA litigation cases as well as dozens
7 of FOIA requests that are not the subject of litigation. The reviewers also perform work
8 9 necessary to produce other documents to the court such as Vaughn indices. Since July 2016,
IO additional demands on the Department's FOIA program and more accurate information on its

I I processing capability, has resulted in subsequent offers to "process" documents being reduced

12 from 500 pages per month to 400 pages per month and ultimately 300 pages per month in new
13 litigation cases.
14 34. Exceptionally demanding FOIA litigation court orders for monthly productions.
15 result in the prioritization of those requests in litigation over all other pending requests, even .
16
17 those for information that the public may consider "compelling" or "more compelling" than that
18 which is the subject of the litigation.4 In this situation, the biggest challenges for the Department

19 are: (1) how to use limited resources to accommodate the diverse requests the Department

20 receives, which encompass a broad range of subjects and document types because of the
21 Department's global mission and the broad range of programs and activities in which the
·22 Department is involved, and (2) how to cope with the exponentially growing volume of
23

24
4 Current expedited requests at the Department include requests for: emails from and to Secretary Rex Tillerson on
25 the subject of North Korea, for March 2017; records and communications between agency officials and the Trump
26 Presidential Transition Team, from September I, 2016 to the present; and records pertaining to the authority under domestic and international law of the Pr.esident of the United States to use U.S. military force in Syria with strikes
that began on April 6, 2017, on the Shayrat Airfield in Homs Govemorate, Syria.
27

28
Stein Declaration, Case No. 3: l 7-cv-01799-JSC

Page 12

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 14 of 17

electronic records which are now accessible and need to be reviewed for sensitive information,

2 such as privacy or classified information, prio_r to public release. During my tenure in this

3 position, we have made every effort to use available resources to comply with these many, .

4 diverse requests while also demonstrating a willingness to work with requesters, including
5 plaintiffs, when there are large·volumes of electronic records involved, especially emails. 6
35. In sum, the Department has the capacity to process an average of 300 pages per 7
month in this case. The Department cannot responsibly offer to produce more than this volume 8 9 at this time given the existing workload and the current state of available FOIA review resources.
10 Simply put, any increase beyond .the 300 pages per month average that the· Department will

11 aspire to review in this case would limit the Department's ability to meet its existing FOIA

12 obligations.

13 14

...

15

16

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my

17 knowledge. 18 19 20

/~Jh. Executed thi.s

day qf August 2017, Washington, D.C.

21.

22

23

Eric F. Stein

24

25

26

27

28 Stein Declaration, Case No-_ 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 13

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 15 of 17 United States Department of State Washington, D. C. 20520

Abgust 9, 2017
Case No.: F-2017-08348; F-2017-02483 Segment: ER-0002

.Marcia Hoffman, Esq. Zeitgeist Law; P.C. 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear.Ms. Hoffman:

· In response to your requests dated February I, 2017, and April 3, 2017, under the Freedom of Information Act (the "FOIA"),. 5 U.S.C. §552, the Department has processed over.300 pages and located six responsive documents. After reviewing these documents we have determined that one may be released in full, four may be released in part, and one.must be denied in full. All released material is enclosed . .

Where documents are released to you in part, all non-exem.pt material that is reasor:1ably segregable from

the exempt material has been released. Where we have made excisions, the applicable exempti.ons are

marked on each document. The document denied in full was withheld under FO!A Exemption I, 5

U.S.C. §552(b)(l). An enclosure provides information on FOIA exempti~ns and other grounds for

withholding material.

·

We will keep you advised as your case progresses. If you have any questions, your attorney may contact Trial Attorney Matthew Berns at (202) 616-8016 or matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov.

)

Enclosures: As stated.

Sincerely,
.J2£J ().{ {! W~ For
Eric F. Stein, Director
Office of Information Program.s and .Services

Currier v. Dep't of Homeland Security, et al. 3: I 7-cv-01799-JSC Stein Declaration E)~H!BIT I

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 16 of 17

FOIA LITIGATION CASES IN WIDCH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS COMMITTED' TO A PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

Case No.
I5-cv-0211 7 16-cv-O 1975 14-cv-01760 14-cv-O 1771
l 6-cv-00423 15-cv-O 1720 l 5-cv-00687 15-cv-O 1264 14-cv-01770 l 6-cv-02516 17-cv-01012 l 6-cv-00067 17-cv-00189 l 6-cv-00221 l 7-cv-00205 l 5-cv-00423
l 5-cv-00999
15-cv-O 1459
15-cv-01478
l 5-cv-02210
I 6-cv-00656
l 6-cv-02074

Court
D.D:C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D:C.
D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. E.D. VA
D.D.C.
D.D.C.
D.D.C.
D.D.C.
D.D.C.
D.D.C.

Case Name
--- ---
Leopold v. DOJ ACLJ v. State Leopold v. State Leopold v. State
Citizens United v. State Citizens United v. State Judicial Watch v. State Freedom Watch v. State
Leopold v. State A CLJ v. State Judicial Watch v. State Citizens United v. State Stein v. CIA et al. ACLUv. DHS, eta/. Judicial Watch v. State EEL! v. State
Leopold, et al. v. NSA, et al.
Brown v. State
James Madison Project, et al. v. State
Ryan James v. State
Judicial Watch v. State
Cause ofAction Institute v.. State

Judge
Moss Sullivan Chutkan Jackson
Mehta Collyer Boas berg Mehta Bates Boas berg Jackson Cooper Chutkan Kollar-Kotellv Coooer O'Grady
Mehta.
Kollar-Kotelly
Jackson
Collyer
Sullivan
Contreras

Processing Rate/Production
Frequency
1,850 pages/month 1,000 oages/month 700 oages/month 700 pages/month on average 650 oages/month 500 pages/month 500 oages/month 500 oages/month 400 pages/month 400 pages/month 400 pages/month·
.300 pages/month 300 pages/month 300 pages/month 300 oages/month Monthly productions; no monthly min Monthly productions; no monthlv min Monthly productions; no monthly min Monthly productions; no monthly min Monthly productions; no monthly min Monthly productions; no monthly min Monthly productions; no monthly min

1 "rhis list includes cases in which a production schedule has either been ordered by~ Distri_ct ~ourt or in \vhich the Department has represented to the Court that it will produce documents on a certain schedule.
1 Currier ·v. Dep 'I of1-/omeland Security, el al. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC Stein Declaration EXHIBIT2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-8 Filed 08/10/17 Page 17 of 17

16-cv-02298 17-cv-00118 I 7-cv-00340 I 7-cv-00729 I 7-cv-02494 I6-cv-02264 13-cv-01876 I 4-cv-00268 16-cv-O 1256 16-cv-O 1751 I 6-cv-02517

D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. N.D. Ill D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C.

Madhiraju, et al. v. ·state
Federation ofAmerican Immigration Reform v. Stale
EEL! v. State
Judicial Watch v. State, et al.
Stevens v. Stale
Federation ofAmerican Immi<'ration Reform v. State
DIBC v. State, et al.
Brooks v. DOJ, et al.
ACLU v. CIA, et al.
ACLJ v. State
Leopold, et al. v. ODNI, et al.

Walton Mehta Howell Contreras
Lee Mehta Collyer Leon Sullivan Kollar-Kotelly Kollar-Kotelly

Monthly productions; no monthlv min Monthly productions; no monthlv min Monthly productions; no monthlv min Monthly productions; no monthly min Monthly productions; no monthlv min Every 45 days; no monthlv min Every two months; no monthly minimum Every eight (8) weeks; no monthly ·min
Every eight(8) weeks; no monthly min Every six(6) weeks; no monthly min Every six(6) . weeks; no monthly min

RECENTLY FILED FOiA LITIGATION CASES IN WHICH STATE ANTICIPATES IT ,I WILL MAKE MONTHLY PRODUCTIONS
.

Case No.
I
17-cv-00066 17-cv-00729 I 7-cv-00770
17-cv-00864 17-cv-01799

Court
D.D.C. D.D.C. D.D.C.
D.D.C. N.D.CA

Case Name
Elgabrowny v. CIA el al. Judicial Watch v. State, et. al National Security Archives v.
State Judicial Watch v. Stale Currier v. DHS et al.

Judge

'

I

Chutkan Jackson Kollar-Kotelly

Sullivan Corlev

2
Currier v. Dep 't of/-lon1e/and Security, et al. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC Stein Declaration EXHIBIT2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 13
Exhibit H
DOD Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
2

CORA CURRIER, 3
Plaintiff, 4
v.
5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
7 Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
DECLARATION OF PAUL J. JACOBSMEYER

8

I, Paul J. Jacobsmeyer, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following

9 information is true and correct:

10

I. I am the Chief, Freedom oflnformation Division (FOID), Executive Services

11 Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, a Component of the Department of Defense

12 (DoD), and have held that position since 2 November 2014. As Chief, I am responsible for

13 implementation of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Freedom of Information Act

14 (FOIA) Program and instruction on FOIA matters for the OSD and Joint Staffs (JS).

15 Additionally, I supervise the processing of initial FOIA requests for documents within the

16 possession and control of the OSD Staff and the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

17 Staff. I also supervise the FOID Litigation Branch, which supports the Department of Defense

18 Office of General Counsel (DoD OGC) in processing FOIA litigations for the OSD Staff, the

19 Joint Staff and Combatant Commands. At the request of, and under the direction ofDoD OGC,

20 the FOID Litigation Branch also facilitates administrative processing of FOIA litigation for other

21 components of the DoD.

22

2. I am familiar with the subject litigation and the FOIA request submitted by

23 Plaintiff to DoD in this case. The statements in this declaration are based upon my personal

24 knowledge and upon review of information available to me in my official capacity.

25

26

27

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 13

1

OSD/JS Processing of FOIA Requests

2

3. The DoD has a decentralized system for responding to FOIA requests, with each

3 DoD Component designating at least one FOIA Requester Service Center (RSC) to process

4 records from that component. 32 C.F.R. § 286.3(a). For these purposes, the "DoD Components"

5 include the OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

6 Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the

7 DoD, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within

8 the DoD. Id. § 286.2.

9

4. DoD regulations instruct that a requester should write directly to the DoD

10 Component that maintains the records being sought and that a requester will receive the quickest

11 possible response if the request is addressed to the RSC of the DoD Component that maintains

12 the records sought. See 32 C.F.R. § 286.3.

13

5. OSD/JS processes FOIA requests on behalf of itself (i.e., the Office of the

14 Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff) and over thirty OSD/JS components and defense 15 agencies. 1

16

6. Incoming FOIA requests are logged by OSD/JS and then screened by a Senior

17 Government Information Specialist who determines the appropriate office or offices in which to

18 conduct initial records searches and the records repositories and search methods to use in

19 conducting records searches on behalf of the designated components and defense agencies.

20 Assessments of where responsive records are likely maintained are based on a review of the

21 content of the request itself and the nature of the records sought, as well as our familiarity with

22

23 1 These include the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Defense Acquisition University, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute,
24 Defense Legal Services Agency, Defense Microelectronics Activity, Defense Media Activity,
Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Defense 25 Technology Security Administration, Defense Travel Management Office, DoD Human
Resources Activity, DoD Test Resource Management Center, Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat 26 Agency, Missile Defense Agency, National Defense University, Office of Economic Adjustment,
Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Uniform Services University of the Health Sciences, 27 Washington Headquarters Services, and White House Military Office. 32 C.F.R. §§ 286.3(b).

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 13

1 the types and location of records that each office maintains, discussions with knowledgeable

2 personnel in the offices, and any research that OSD/JS staff may conduct on the topic of the

3 request.

4

7. After screening and determining the office(s) that likely hold(s) records, cases are

5 then assigned to an Action Officer, who acknowledges receipt of the requests and tasks them to

6 the appropriate OSD/JS component or defense agency.

7

8. Upon receipt of the FOIA request and tasker, the OSD/JS component or defense

8 agency searches for potentially responsive material, employing any one of a variety of search

9 methods, or a combination of methods, depending on a number of factors, including the type of

10 records systems implicated in the search. Potentially responsive records may be located in e-mail

11 systems, computer hard drives, and/or hard copy (paper) files. Once potentially responsive

12 records are located, the subject matter experts conduct a review of all located records to

13 determine responsiveness to the request and then conduct a line-by-line review of the responsive

14 records located to determine if exemptions apply and, if so, if there is a legitimate harm in

15 releasing potentially exempt information. If information is marked classified, the information

16 undergoes a classification review to determine whether or not the records are currently classified

17 in accordance with Executive Order 13526. A final decision must be reached regarding whether

18 the document is releasable in full, in part, or exempt from disclosure in its entirety. Any

19 documents determined not to be releasable in full must undergo a redaction process, where

20 software is used to place black boxes around the exempt material. The final response package is

21 sent to the Initial Denial Authority of the component or defense agency for review and signature.

22 The component or agency also provides a cost sheet to outline the time spent searching for and

23 reviewing documents responsive to the request. The signed package is submitted to the Action

24 Officer in the Office of Freedom of Information. This Action Officer reviews the package to

25 ensure that all items requested have been addressed, and that the package includes the signature

26 of the IDA and the cost information relative to the processing of the request in the component or

27 defense agency. The Action Officer also reviews the package to ensure that redactions are in

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 13

accordance with the Act, that redactions and release determinations are consistent, and that

2 redactions are secure and cannot be lifted when the documents are ultimately provided

3 electronically to the requester. It is important to note that in many instances documents

4 responsive to a request reside in more than one component or defense agency and there may also

5 exist instances where documents will need to be reviewed by outside equities both inside and

6 outside of DoD.

7

OSD/JS Processing of FOIA Litigation

8

9. If a FOIA request enters litigation, it is transferred to the OSD/JS Litigation

9 Support Office, which has staff dedicated to performing the time-sensitive tasks and specialized

10 records, such as declarations and Vaughn indexes, required in litigation.

11

10. The OSD/JS Litigation Support Office is currently made up of 4 teams, Teams A,

12 B, C, and D. Each team is made up of one full-time government employee and 4 to 5

13 contractors.

14

11. Teams A, B, and D each process FOIA requests that were originally sent to

15 OSD/JS that have since gone into litigation. Team C processes litigation consults and referrals 16 from other government agencies, which were not originally also received by OSD/JS.2

17

12. Teams A, B, and D are collectively handling approximately 58 ongoing FOIA

18 litigation matters. Team A has 12 open FOIA Litigations. One of these cases, APPG, et al., v.

19 CIA, et al., No. 09-cv-2375 (D.D.C.), has already resulted in the production of over 100,000

20 pages of responsive records, and the search and production effort continues. Team B has 36

21 open FOIA litigations. One of these cases, Leopoldv. DoD, No. 14-cv-030 (D.D.C.), has

22

23 2 In short, Team C facilitates the processing of records that are responsive to FOIA requests directed to an agency or office other than OSD/JS or one of the components and defense
24 agencies on whose behalf OSD/JS processes FOIA requests. Referrals involve records that originated with OSD/JS or one of the components and defense agencies on whose behalf OSD/JS
25 processes FOIA requests. Team C processes the referred records and releases them directly to the requester. Consults involve records in which OSD/JS (or one of the components and defense
26 agencies on whose behalf OSD/JS processes FOIA requests) has equities even though the
records originated elsewhere. Team C reviews the records sent to OSD/JS for consultation and 27 advises the consulting office or agency regarding what information may be released.

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 13

1 similarly resulted in the production of over 100,000 pages of responsive records and the

2 production is not yet finished. Team D has 10 open FOIA litigations. One of these cases,

3 National Security Archive v. DoD, No. l 7-cv-492 (D.D.C.), concerns 50,700 pages ofresponsive

4 records, of which only 912 pages have been processed to date, such that the production process

5 remains ongoing. In addition, Team C is currently processing 7 litigation referrals and 5

6 litigation consults. This case has been assigned to Team A, as they were best suited to handle the

7 next case when this action was filed with the Court.

8

OSD/JS's FOIA Workload

9

13. The OSD/JS receives approximately 2000 requests per fiscal year, currently has

10 over 2500 pending FOIA requests and has a staff of eight Action Officers processing initial

11 FOIA requests. Each Action Officer is carrying a workload of over 300 FOIA requests.

12

14. In addition to a substantial FOIA request processing workload in OSD/JS, the

13 Department has observed an increase in FOIA litigation against DoD in recent years, as

14 requesters have tended to turn to the courts more often and more quickly than in previous years.

15 In Fiscal Year 2009 the Department was named a defendant in 4 FOIA litigation cases, 6

16 litigations in FY 10, 8 in FY 11, 7 in FY 12, 10 in FY 13, 19 in FY 14, 8 in FY 15, and 12 in FY

17 16. So far in FY 17 the Department has been named a defendant in 12 cases, 10 of which seek

18 responses to requests which were also filed in fiscal year 2017. Including this case, the

19 Department is currently a named defendant in approximately 58 active lawsuits seeking records

20 under FOIA, many of which involve document production schedules and court-ordered

21 deadlines.

22

15. OSD/JS ordinarily uses a first-in, first-out system within its expedited and non-

23 expedited processing queues in order to complete its FOIA processing in an orderly and fair

24 manner. That process is disrupted, however, when a requester files suit before his or her request

25 arises in the processing queue and a court orders the agency to process the request in litigation

26 ahead of other requests that are before it in the relevant queue.

27

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 13

1

16. In addition to the significant volume of FOIA requests and litigation matters,

2 OSD/JS, which has a staffing level of 28 civilian employees, currently has seven vacant billets,

3 mostly due to the federal government-wide hiring freeze that took place during the beginning of

4 2017. Four of those vacancies are in the Initial FOIA processing office, one is in Appeals, and

5 two are in the Litigation Support Office. With these resource constraints the staff is struggling to

6 keep up with its significant workload.

7

OSD/JS Receipt of Plaintiff's FOIA Request

8

17. On or about April 3, 2017, FOID received a FOIA request from Marcia Hofmann

9 on behalf of Cora Currier. The FOIA request sought records from January 20 to April 3, 2017,

10 "concerning the agency's analysis of the impact of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive

11 Order No. 13,780" "includ[ing], but ... not limited to":

12

A. Records reflecting analysis and response of DOD officials to responses by officials of

13

other countries to the executive orders, including but not limited to Iran and Iraq.

14

B. Memos, analyses, or communications (including correspondence with Iraqi officials)

about the decision to remove Iraq from the list of countries covered by the travel

15

restrictions in Executive Order No. 13,780.

16

C. Analyses, reports or assessments produced by DOD components about the security

17

risks posed by individuals from the nations covered by the executive orders, about the use of citizenship as an indicator of a terrorist threat to the United States, or otherwise

18

evaluating the effectiveness of the travel ban in preventing national security threats.

19

D. Any analyses, reports, or assessments about the executive orders' impact on national

security or on military operations abroad.

20

18. A true and correct copy of the request is attached to Plaintiff's Motion for

21

Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit 13.

22 19. Plaintiff requested expedited processing. On April 7, 2017, the Office of

23 Freedom of Information (OFOI), which handles FOIA processing for initial FOIA requests,

24 acknowledged receipt of Ms. Currier's FOIA request, denied the request for expedited treatment,

25 informed Plaintiff that the request had been placed in the complex processing queue where it

26

27

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 13

1 would be processed based on the order in which it was received, that the current administrative

2 workload was approximately 2400 open requests, and provided appeal rights.

3

20. On May 5, 2017 , OFOI informed Plaintiff that, after an additional review of her

4 request, expedited processing of the request was granted.

5

Status of Searches and Processing for Plaintiff's Request

6

21. At the time of Currier's FOIA submittal, OSD/JS had 2368 pending FOIA

7 requests. Because OSD/JS has few pending expedited requests, OSD/JS's decision to grant

8 Currier's request for expedited processing means that her request was advanced over thousands

9 of other pending request. At the present time, OSD/JS has four other pending expedited

10 requests, three of which were filed before Currier's request.

11

22. OSD is working diligently to process Plaintiff's request as quickly as practicable,

12 but as discussed below, her request is broad, requires searches of multiple offices (none of which

13 were specified in her request), involves classified and other sensitive information, and will likely

14 require referrals and/or consultations with other agencies . Under the circumstances, DoD cannot

15 practicably complete its processing of Plaintiff's request by her proposed deadline of September

16 5, 2017.

17

23. Thus far, OSD/JS has identified five DoD offices as likely to possess records

18 responsive to Plaintiff's request: the Executive Services Directorate (ESD); the Under Secretary

19 of Defense Policy Office (OUSDP); and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) ; the Office of the

20 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security; and the Deputy

21 Chief Management Officer. Additional offices may need to be searched as well, but OSD/JS

22 may not be able to identify a comprehensive list of the offices to be searched until it has

23 reviewed more of the records retrieved in the initial searches.

24

Executive Services Directorate (ESD)

25

24. Plaintiff's request was initially tasked to the Executive Services Directorate

26 (ESD) to conduct a search for records responsive to the FOIA. ESD provides comprehensive

27 administrative management and graphics services to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 7

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 13

1 executes federally mandated and regulatory programs, including Freedom of Information Act,

2 Security Review, Privacy Act, Records Management, Directives, Forms, Declassification

3 Review, and Information Collection, on behalf of the Secretary within the Department and

4 externally to other agencies and the general public. ESD is also responsible for valuable key

5 information collection and distribution services, including the Pentagon Library and Pentagon

6 Post Office. Services provided by ESD include Correspondence Management, DoD Directives

7 Program, Freedom of Information Act, Information Management, Official Mail Services, OSD

8 Graphics and Presentations, OSD Records management; Pentagon Library, Plain Writing Act,

9 Prepublication and Security Review; and Privacy Act and Personally Identifiable Information.

IO Upon conducting a search, ESD did not locate records responsive to the FOIA request.

11

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Office (OUSDP)

12

25. On May 5, 2017, OFOI sent the office of the Under Secretary of Defense Policy

13 for Policy (OUSDP) a search tasking, along with the copy of the request.

14

26. The OUSDP FOIA team tasked the case to the office of the Assistant Secretary of

15 Defense for International Security Affairs I Middle East (ISA/MID) on May 5th, 2017. At the

16 time ISA/MID received this request, they had 57 pending FOIA requests that they were

17 processing, and this case was expedited ahead of those 57 requests.

18

27. ISA/MID completed the search request on May 25, 2017, returning 55 documents

19 from its unclassified (NIPR, Non-classified Internet Protocol Router) and classified secret (SIPR,

20 Secret Internet Protocol Router) computer networks: four documents (14 pages) from SIPR and

21 51 emails with 30 plus attachments from NIPR.

22

28. The OUSDP FOIA team is currently converting the NIPR records to an electronic

23 format that will allow them to be processed for potential release and reviewing them for

24 responsiveness. The OUSDP FOIA team has already converted the documents on SIPR into

25 PDF format and will be conducting a review alongside the NIPR documents. Once a review is

26 completed they will be tasked to ISA/MID and Homeland Defense & Global Threats Defense

27 Continuity & Mission Assurance (HD&GS/DCMA) for processing for applicable redactions.

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 8

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 13

1

29. The OUSDP FOIA team anticipates that DoD likely can complete its processing

2 of the responsive records located by OUSDP's search within 60 days. The OUSDP FOIA team

3 estimates the review to be completed for the documents located by ISA/MID by September 8,

4 2017, at which point their review will be forwarded to the OSD/JS office for determination

5 whether additional reviews either within DoD or with other government agencies are required,

6 all to be completed within the 60 day time-frame.

7

Office of General Counsel (OGC)

8

30. OFOI tasked OGC to search for records responsive to Plaintiff's request on May

9 5, 2017. OGC has completed its search for records and located approximately 325 pages of

10 potentially responsive records, which it is cuffently reviewing for responsiveness and processing.

11 In addition to an initial release described below, OGC expects to fully process all remaining

12 records located by OGC's search within 60 days. Again, this review requires review by subject

13 matter experts within OGC and then additional review by the OSD/JS FOIA office and

14 potentially other DoD components or federal agencies.

15

Additional Searches Required

16

31. The OUSDP FOIA team has also tasked the office of Homeland Defense &

17 Global Threats Defense Continuity & Mission Assurance (HD&GS/DCMA) to conduct searches

18 for records responsive to Plaintiff's request. That office have not yet completed its searches, but

19 estimates the completion of their additional searches by August 21, 2017. The OUSDP FOIA

20 team will then have to process, conduct a review, and task subject matter experts in

21 HD&GS/DCMA and or ISA/MID for final approval. While it's difficult to estimate the time

22 required to process potentially responsive records without knowing the volume, the OUSDP

23 FOIA team's best estimate given anticipated volume that the overall search and review of the

24 case may be completed by October 1st, 2017, at which point it will be sent to the OSD/JS FOIA

25 office for final review and coordination with other DoD components or government agencies.

26 Therefore, DoD may finish processing all responsive records subject to the FOIA within 90 days,

27 depending on the results of this final search.

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-O1799-JSC

Page 9

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of 13

1

First Interim Release

2

32. On August 9 2017, DoD sent Plaintiff an interim response letter, which explained

3 that DoD had completed its processing of 69 pages of records from OGC, releasing 11 of those

4 pages in full or in part, and is withholding 58 pages in full pursuant to FOIA exemptions 5 and 6.

5 A true copy of the interim response letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

6

Timing

7

33. Although DoD will likely be able to produce within 60 days the non-exempt

8 documents subject to the FOIA and located to date by USDP and OGC, it cannot yet estimate the

9 volume of potentially responsive records that may be located by the pending and ongoing

10 searches in other offices within DoD and therefore cannot at this time provide an accurate

11 estimate on when DoD likely will be able to complete its processing of Plaintiffs request.

12

34. Ordering immediate release of all responsive, non-exempt records, before DoD

13 has completed its search and ascertained the volume, would risk DoD being unable to comply

14 with the production schedule, even if resources could otherwise be reallocated to process

15 Plaintiffs request, and would necessarily hinder DoD's ability to process other requests,

16 including other expedited requests. It would also risk creating a situation in which DoD would

17 be unable to complete necessary interagency consultations and appropriately review sensitive

18 information prior to the date by which Plaintiff asks that DoD complete its processing of her

19 requests.

20

21 Pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

22 correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

23 Signed this 9th day of August, 2017 in Alexandria, Virginia.
24

25

r~u~

26

Paul I. Jacobsmeyer

27

28 Jacobsmeyer Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 10

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of 13
E hibit
1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-9 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of 13

Ms. Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DIVISION 1155 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1155
09 August 2017 Ref: l 7-L-0778

Dear Ms. Hofmann:
This is the interim response to your April 3, 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on behalf of Cora Currier for'' all agency records concerning the agency's analysis of the impact of Executive Order No. 13,769 and Executive Order 13,780 from January 20, 2017".
The Department of Defense conducted a thorough search of their records systems and have provided the enclosed 69 pages; determined to be responsive to your request. 11 pages are being provided in part and 58 pages have been withheld in full pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5), which pertains to certain inter- or intra-agency communications protected by the deliberative process, attorney/client privilege and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), which pertains to information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of individuals.
Appellate rights are moot as your request is currently in litigation.

Enclosures:

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 10
Exhibit I
DHS Privacy Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 10

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

3 CORA CURRIER,

4

Plaintiff, v.

5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

6

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and

7

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC DECLARATION OF JAMES V.M.L. HOLZER

8 1. I, James V.M.L. Holzer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows:

9

2. I am the Deputy Chief Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Officer for the 10

11 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Privacy Office (“DHS Privacy”).

12

3. In this capacity, I am the DHS official responsible for implementing FOIA policy

13 across DHS and responding to requests for records under the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, the Privacy

14 Act, U.S.C. § 552a, and other applicable records access provisions. I have been employed by

15 DHS Privacy in this capacity since May 2016. I previously served as the Director of the Office 16
of Government Information Services within the National Archives and Records Administration, 17 18 and prior to that I served as the Senior Director of FOIA Operations for DHS.

19

4. Through the exercise of my official duties, I have become familiar with the

20 background of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, dated February 1 and April 3, 2017, both of which were

21 granted expedited processing, and DHS’s responses and progress to date. I have also become

22 familiar with the background of this litigation and have read a copy of the Complaint filed by

23 Plaintiff.
24
25

DHS Privacy’s FOIA Process

26

5. DHS Privacy partners with privacy-related staff in every DHS component to

27 assess all new or proposed programs, systems, technologies, or rule-makings for privacy risks,

28 Holzer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 10

1 and to recommend privacy protections and alternative methods for handling personal information 2 to mitigate privacy risks. DHS Privacy also centralizes FOIA and Privacy Act operations to

3 provide policy and programmatic oversight, and to support implementation across the

4 Department.1

5

6. The mission of DHS Privacy is to preserve and enhance privacy protections for all

6 individuals, to promote transparency of Department operations, and to serve as a leader in the
7 privacy community. DHS Privacy (1) evaluates Department legislative and regulatory proposals
8

9 involving collection, use, and disclosure of personally identifiable information (“PII”);

10 (2) centralizes FOIA and Privacy Act operations to provide policy and programmatic oversight,

11 and to support implementation across the Department; (3) operates a Department-wide Privacy

12 Incident Response Program to ensure that incidents involving PII are properly reported,

13 investigated, and mitigated, as appropriate; (4) responds to complaints of privacy violations and 14
provides redress, as appropriate; and (5) provides training, education, and outreach to build a 15 16 culture of privacy across the Department and transparency to the public.

17

7. DHS Privacy is responsible for processing all FOIA and Privacy Act requests

18 pertaining to thirteen DHS Headquarters-level offices. Those offices are: DHS Privacy; the

19 Office of the Secretary (which includes the Military Advisor’s Office and the Office of

20 Intergovernmental Affairs); the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman;
21 the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; the 22

23

1 DHS components include: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Customs and 24 Border Protection; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Federal Emergency Management Administration;

25

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the Transportation Security Administration; the United States Secret Service; the Directorate for

26

Management; the National Protection and Programs Directorate; the Science and Technology Directorate; the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, the Office of Health Affairs; the Office of

27

Intelligence and Analysis; the Office of Operations Coordination; the Office of Inspector General; and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

28 Holzer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 10

1 Office of the Executive Secretary; the DHS Management Directorate; the Office of Health 2 Affairs; the Office of the General Counsel; the Office of Legislative Affairs; the Office of Public

3 Affairs; the Office of Operations Coordination; and the Office of Policy. DHS Privacy also

4 coordinates the processing of FOIA requests across DHS components when the subject matter of
5 a particular request touches on multiple components or is particularly high profile. 6
8. Each DHS component maintains its own automated case tracking system which 7
assigns case control numbers to, and tracks the status of, all FOIA and Privacy Act requests 8 9 received by that component. Each DHS component logs all incoming FOIA and Privacy Act
10 requests into their automated case tracking systems, and inputs information about each request

11 into the system (including, but not limited to, the requester’s name and/or organization, and, in

12 the case of FOIA requests, the topic of the request). All requesters are then notified of the case

13 control numbers assigned to their requests. It is the practice of all DHS components to refer to 14
the case control numbers in all correspondence with requesters. The automated case tracking 15 16 systems are text searchable on a field-by-field basis.

17

DHS Privacy’s Current Resources and Workload

18

9. DHS Privacy’s FOIA staff consists of a Deputy Chief FOIA officer, a Senior

19 Director of FOIA operations, three director level positions, a production manager, 1.5 litigation

20 analyst positions (to include one FOIA specialist whose duties are split between the litigation

21 team and the FOIA disclosure team), and eight FOIA specialist positions. The FOIA Officer for 22
the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties also reports to the DHS Privacy Office. As 23
24 of the date of this declaration, one of the FOIA specialist positions is vacant.

25

10. FOIA specialists handle all aspects of the FOIA request process. They receive

26 new FOIA requests, along with referrals and consultation requests from other agencies or DHS

27

28 Holzer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 10

1 components, log those new FOIA requests into the FOIA case tracking system, and send out 2 search taskers to various offices compelling them to search for records. Once those searches are

3 complete, FOIA specialists review any records located and make withholding determinations,

4 redacting any exempt information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions. FOIA specialists also send
5 out FOIA responses and work on other FOIA projects for DHS Privacy, as needed. 6
11. DHS Privacy typically receives approximately 600 to 800 FOIA requests every 7
fiscal year (“FY”). Most of these requests, about two-thirds, are categorized as complex 8 9 requests, which for DHS means that they require a wide-ranging search, frequently across
10 multiple offices, and involve a large number of records. In FY 2017 to date, DHS Privacy has

11 received 1,094 FOIA requests. This represents a more than 60% increase from the year-end total

12 for FY16, which was 599 requests. At this point in FY 2016, DHS Privacy had received only

13 506 FOIA requests. Three hundred ninety-eight of the 1,094 requests received to date in FY 14
2017 are currently backlogged2; of those 398 requests, over 54% of them are categorized as 15 16 complex.

17

12. As of July 10, 2017, DHS (including its components) has received 193 FOIA

18 requests pertaining to the various Executive Orders that have issued since January 20, 2017,

19 including most significantly Executive Order No.13,769 and Executive Order No. 13,780. Of

20 those Executive Order FOIA requests, 56 were received before DHS received Plaintiff’s
21 February request. An additional 98 FOIA requests for records pertaining to the various 22

23

2 A request is categorized as backlogged if the request has been perfected and has not been 24 responded to within 20 days of the receipt of the request. In addition to the regular work of

25

processing FOIA requests and litigation, DHS Privacy, as the headquarters-level FOIA office for DHS, also has a responsibility to assist other DHS components with their backlogged cases.

26

Currently, DHS Privacy is working on a projected 23,000 case backlog at the Office of Biometric Information Management in the DHS National Programs and Protection Directorate.

27

This has occupied the resources of the Senior FOIA director as well as several FOIA specialists. This additional work is scheduled to be completed by October 2017.

28 Holzer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 10

1 Executive Orders were received by DHS after receipt of Plaintiff’s February 2017 request and 2 prior to DHS’s receipt of Plaintiff’s April 2017 request. Many of those requests were also

3 granted expedited processing and remain open. (DHS has granted expedited processing for 81

4 FOIA requests on any topic since January 20, 2017.)

5

13. DHS Privacy has experienced an increase of 65% in FOIA-related litigation since

6 FY16. DHS Privacy is currently involved in 43 active lawsuits and is responsible for
7 coordinating DHS-wide efforts on an additional 13 cases in which the FOIA requests at issue
8

9 (seeking various categories of records related to Executive Order No. 13,769) were directed only

10 to CBP but require extensive consultation among DHS components. Of the 43 cases in which

11 DHS Privacy is directly involved, 11 cases, including the instant case, are at the point where

12 DHS Privacy is actively facilitating the production of documents. DHS Privacy is subject to
13 court orders in three cases that collectively require DHS Privacy to process at least 2,500 pages 14
per month, and anticipates that similar court orders may be issued in one or more other pending 15 16 cases. In addition, DHS Privacy has been processing approximately 3,000 additional pages per
17 month for other cases that are in litigation but for which the court has not ordered DHS Privacy

18 to process a minimum number of pages per month.

19

DHS Privacy’s Progress on Plaintiff’s FOIA Requests

20

14. At this time, DHS has completed its search for records in response to Plaintiff’s

21 February 2017 request, and has located an estimated 3,000 pages of potentially responsive

22 records.
23 15.
24

On August 7, 2017, DHS released in 282 pages of records responsive to

25 Plaintiff’s February 2017 request. After thorough review, portions of these records were

26 withheld pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E) of the FOIA. An equally thorough review

27 will be required for each of the remaining potentially responsive records, as those records are

28 Holzer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 10

1 also likely to contain privileged communications (with both attorney-client and deliberative, pre2 decisional content), personally identifiable information (including the names and contact

3 information of DHS employees, as well as the names, dates of birth, alien numbers and other

4 personal information of individuals encountered in airports or at the border), and sensitive
5 information pertaining to law enforcement techniques and equipment. A true and correct copy of 6
the cover letter for DHS Privacy’s August 7 release is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 7
16. Searches are ongoing for potentially responsive records for Plaintiff’s April 2017 8 9 request, which in part amends and expands the February 2017 request. DHS is unable to give an
10 estimate of the full scope of potentially responsive records until the search process for that

11 request is completed.

12

17. DHS is committed to reviewing 500 pages of records each month until the

13 processing of all records is completed. Were Plaintiff to significantly narrow the scope of her

14 broad requests, it would be possible to complete the processing of these records sooner.
15

16

18. Placing accelerated deadlines on DHS’s processing of the remaining records to

17 accommodate Plaintiff’s proposed timeline would further burden DHS’s already strained

18 resources and inevitably risk the inadvertent release of sensitive information.

19

19. In order to attempt to process these documents by Plaintiff’s proposed deadline of

20 September 5, 2017, DHS Privacy would have to reallocate significant resources from other
21 pending FOIA requests. At a minimum, DHS Privacy would be required to process at least the 22
3,000 pages of potentially responsive material already located, minus the amount already 23 24 released, in addition to however many pages are revealed in further search efforts. By contrast,
25 DHS Privacy normally processes 5,000-5,500 pages per month total for all FOIA requests in

26 active litigation.

27

28 Holzer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 10

1

20. DHS Privacy could not feasibly process Plaintiff’s requested records by

2 September 5, 2017 simply by utilizing the personnel and resources specifically assigned to

3 process FOIA requests in active litigation, and I do not believe that DHS Privacy could complete

4 its search for records responsive to the April 2017 request by that time regardless of the DHS
5 Privacy resources available. 6
21. A September 5 deadline also would not allow DHS Privacy adequate time to 7
conduct the interagency reviews that I expect will be necessary for many of the records 8 9 responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. In addition, a court order directing other DHS components or
10 Defendants to process their records on an abbreviated schedule likely would add significantly to

11 the workload of DHS Privacy, which I expect would need to be consulted regarding potential

12 releases from the other agencies.

13

22. At a minimum, in order to process any DHS records already located by DHS

14 Privacy and any additional responsive records that DHS Privacy could locate and collect by
15

16 September 5, DHS Privacy would have to shift several FOIA specialists from processing non-

17 litigation-related requests and dedicate them to addressing Plaintiff’s request. This would

18 inevitably increase DHS Privacy’s FOIA backlog to the disadvantage of other members of the

19 public seeking information through the FOIA process, and may strain the resources of DHS

20 Privacy to a degree that DHS would be in jeopardy of being in contempt of orders from several
21 other courts. 22
23. In addition, granting Plaintiff’s motion would require DHS Privacy to prioritize 23 24 Plaintiff’s request over the many expedited requests that were received by DHS Privacy prior to
25 Plaintiff’s requests. DHS Privacy’s policy is to process requests in the order in which they were

26 received, with expedited requests being moved to a separate track where they are likewise to be

27

28 Holzer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 7

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 10

1 processed in the order in which they were received. While Plaintiff has been granted expedited 2 processing by DHS Privacy, such that her request will be processed before all requests not

3 expedited, the rank-order rule continues to apply to the requests already in the expedited

4 processing queue.

5

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

6 and correct.
7 Dated the 10th day of August, 2017
8

9

__________________________________________ James V.M.L. Holzer

10

Deputy Chief FOIA Officer

DHS Privacy Office

11

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Holzer Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 8

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-10 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 10
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528

August 7, 2017

Homeland Security

Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law PC 28 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: 17-cv-01799-JSC Currier v. DHS First Interim Release
Dear Ms. Hofmann:
This is our first interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), received on February 7, 2017. We understand that this information will be provided to the Court supervising the civil litigation concerning this FOIA request as well.
DHS’s Production For this production DHS reviewed 581 pages of records. After review of those 581 pages, DHS has determined that 68 pages are released in full. Further, DHS determined that pursuant to FOIA exemptions b5, b6, b7(C), and b7(E), 53 pages are withheld in full and 161 pages are withheld in part. Additionally, 253 pages were found to be duplicative or non-responsive, and will not be produced. We also located 47 pages that contained information originating from agencies outside of DHS. Those pages have been referred to the appropriate agencies for consultation. After those offices have had an opportunity to review the records,we will either release those records to you or provide a basis for why they are being withheld.
If you have any questions regarding this release, please contact Trial Attorney Matt Berns, United States Department of Justice, Federal Programs Branch, at (202) 616-8016, or by email at Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov.

Sincerely,

Enclosed: 282 pages

Bradley E. White FOIA Program Specialist

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 14
Exhibit J
CBP Declaration
Cora Currier v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
2

CORA CURRIER, 3

Plaintiff,

4

v.

5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 6 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 7
Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC
DECLARATION OF PATRICK A. HOWARD

8 I, Patrick A. Howard, declare the following to be true and correct:

9
I. I am a Branch Chief within the Freedom of Information Act Division (FOIA 10

11 Division) at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Homeland Security

12 {DHS). I have been a Branch Chief in the FOIA Division since February 8, 2015. In this

13 capacity, I have oversight of a staff of Government Information Specialists, the processing of

14 FOIA requests submitted to CBP, and I am familiar with CBP's procedures for responding to
15 FOIA requests. I provide technical and administrative supervision and direction to a group of 16
FOIA specialists in processing FOIA requests, assist with FOIA/Privacy Act (PA) litigation 17
matters, and am personally familiar with the processing of FOIA/PA responses, including by, at 18
19 times, directly reviewing for adequacy, and adherence to federal laws and regulations. The
20 FOIA Division reviews FOIA requests, determines whether responsive records exist, and, if so,

21 whether they can be released in accordance with the FOIA. In processing such requests, the

22 FOIA Division consults with CBP personnel and, when appropriate, with other components in
23 DHS, as well as with other Executive Branch agencies.
24 2. I make the statements in this declaration on the basis of personal knowledge, as
25
26 well as on information acquired by me in the course of performing my official duties.

27

28
Howard Declaration, Case No. 3: l 7-cv-01799-JSC

Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of 14

3. The purpose of this declaration is to respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary

2 Injunction, dated July 20, 2017, requesting that the Court order Defendants to complete the

3 expedited processing of Plaintiffs FOIA requests and produce all responsive, non-exempt

4 documents no later than September 5, 2017. See Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 20,

5 at 1, 2, 12, 15.
6 4. This declaration provides the basis for CBP's conclusion that Plaintiffs requested
7 production deadline would be exceedingly burdensome and impracticable. FOIA Division and
8 other CBP offices are actively involved in processing over I 00 FOIA requests related to
9
10 Executive Order 13769, dated January 27, 2017, and/or Executive Order 13780, dated March 6,

11 2017, both entitled "Protecting.the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States".

12 Although the FOIA requests CBP has received regarding Executive Orders 13769 and 13780 are
13 not all identical to each other (they cover a variety of time periods, seek records from different
14 offices, and seek different discrete categories of records) they were submitted close in time to
15 each other, and there is significant overlap in the searches that will need to be completed and the
16 17 documents that will need to be processed, such that CBP has determined that it will be able to
18 respond to all of the requests most efficiently if CBP coordinates its processing of the entire

19 group of requests. Accordingly, CBP is attempting to coordinate the simultaneous processing of

20 all Executive Order 13769 and 13780 requests, to the extent practicable, so that CBP does not
21 need to repeat the process of collecting, reviewing, and releasing records separately for each
22
individual request (i.e., to search for and process the same records over and over again). While 23
CBP is working to address the specifics of each request as expeditiously as possible, Plaintiffs 24
25 FOIA requests are among the broadest and vaguest in terms of the categories of records sought:

26

27

28 Howard Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of 14

all agency records from January 27 to April 3, 2017 concerning the agency's analysis and

2 implementation of Executive Order 13769 and Executive Order 13780.

3

5. To date, CBP has identified over 125,000 records potentially related to the

4 implementation of Executive Order 13769. These records consistent of over 25,000 emails

5 maintained by certain individuals in offices at CBP Headquarters such as the Office of the
6 Commissioner, the Office of Field Operations, and the Office of Chief Counsel. (In addition,
7 CBP has collected over 100,000 emails from personnel within local Office of Field Operations
8 and Office of Chief Counsel offices in the agency's efforts to respond to Executive Order-related
9
10 requests that, unlike Plaintiffs requests, seek records from specific local offices.)

11

6. As described in greater detail below, CBP must review each of these records to

12 determine if it is responsive, if it is a duplicate record, and what FOIA exemptions, if any, apply.
13 Where the record involves the information of a third party agency, CBP must coordinate with 14
that agency before the record can be released. Therefore, while CBP can commit to a continued 15
rolling production, CBP cannot review and process the over 125,000 potentially responsive 16 17 records it has identified to date by Plaintiffs proposed September 5, 2017 deadline, and cannot
18 complete its search for additional responsive records by that date.

19 FOIADivision's Receipt of Plaintiffs FOIA Requests
20 7. By letter dated February 1, 2017, Plaintiff, through her attorney Marcia
21
22 Hofmann 1, submitted a FOIA request (First FOIA request) to the OHS Privacy Office,
23 Washington, DC. The OHS Privacy Office subsequently forwarded the request to CBP. On

24

25

26

27 1 FOIA Division logged the requestor as Marcia Hofmann and not Cora Currier.

28 Howard Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of 14

February 17, 2017, the CBP FOIA Division received Plaintiff's FOIA request, assigned it a

2 tracking number, CBP-2017-031844, and entered it into the FOIA Division tracking system. 2

3

8. Plaintiff requested "all agency records from January 20, 2017 to the present

4 concerning the agency's analysis and implementation of [Executive Order 13769, Protecting the
5 Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States]." Plaintiff then stated that "[t]his
6 request includes, but is not limited to" two categories of records, one of which includes seven
7 sub-categories. These categories and sub-categories include, among other things, all emails or
8 other communications among CBP personnel "concerning the agency's analysis and
9
10 implementation of that executive order."

11

9. A true and correct copy of the First FOIA request is attached to Plaintiff's

12 Preliminary Injunction Motion as Exhibit I.

13

10. By letter dated April 3, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request (Second FOIA

14 request) to the DHS Privacy Office, Washington, D.C. The DHS Privacy Office subsequently
15
forwarded the request to CBP. The CBP FOIA Division received Plaintiff's FOIA request and 16

17 associated it with the previously assigned tracking number, CBP-2017-031844. The Second

18 FOIA request seeks "all agency records from February 1, 2017 to the present concerning the

19 agency's analysis and implementation of Executive Order No. 13769 and Executive Order No.

20 13780." The Second FOIA request then goes on to state that "[t]his request includes, but is not
21 limited to" six categories of records, one of which includes nine sub-categories.
22
11. A true and correct copy of the Second FOIA request is attached to Plaintiff's 23
Preliminary Injunction Motion as Exhibit 9. 24

25

26 2 DHS regulations instruct requesters to "write directly to the FOIA office of the component that
maintains the records sought" so that their request can "receive the quickest possible response," 27 6 C.F.R. 5.3(a). Plaintiff, however, submitted her requests for CBP records to DHS Privacy.

28 Howard Declaration, Case No. 3: l 7-cv-01799-JSC

Page4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of 14

12. Plaintiff requested expedited processing of both FOIA requests, and DHS granted 1
2 Plaintiffs requests for expedited processing.

3

13. On March 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for injunctive reliefin connection

4 with her First FOIA request. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an
5 amended complaint for injunctive relief in connection with her Second FOIA request. See
6 Complaint, ECF No. 14.
7 FOIA Division Obligations
8 14. FOIA Division's normally highly demanding caseload has dramatically increased
9
10 over Fiscal Year 2017. FOIA Division received 66,742 FOIA requests in Fiscal Year 2016

11 (October 1, 2015 - September 30, 2016), and has received more than 74,261 in Fiscal Year 2017,

12 as ofJuly 31, 2017. At this rate, the number of FOIA requests received in Fiscal Year 2017 is on

13 pace to exceed the number received in Fiscal Year 2016 byapproximately 35 percent.
14 15. To date, FOIA Division has received nearly 100 requests for information
15 pertaining to Executive Order 13769. Of these, 21 are in litigation in district courts around the
16
17 country.

18

16. Because of this significant recent surge in both FOIA requests and FOIA litigation

19 matters, including the many FOIA requests and litigation matters pertaining to Executive Orders

20 13769 and 13780, FOIA Division is under significant strain as its FOIA processing staff, which
21 currently consists of25 full time staff nationwide, and four supervisory employees, struggle to 22
keep up with this notably increased workload. Furthermore, multiple CBP operational offices in 23
the field and headquarters are having to engage in extensive coordination in responding to 24
25 Plaintiffs broad FOIA requests, as well as the other FOIA requests seeking distinct categories of

26 records relating to the same general subject matter.

27

28 Howard Declaration, Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of 14

FOIA Division's Processing of FOIA Requests

2

17. FOIA Division identifies incoming FOIA requests as either simple or complex. A

3 simple request - also referred to as a traveler request - is one where a member of the traveling

4 public requests records related to his or her travel. Examples of traveler requests include

5 records of a person's entry into and exit from the United States, 1-94 records, and records of

6 inspections and interactions with CBP employees. FOIA Division has access to CBP's travel
7 database systems and is able to query the systems in order to quickly respond to simple FOIA
8

9 requests.

10

18. Complex FOIA requests - also referred to as non-traveler requests - are all other

11 types of requests received. Samples of complex requests include requests from businesses for

12 import and export records, requests for Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation

13 files, and requests from media sources or special interest groups focused on a variety of matters
14 non-specific to an individual traveler. FOIA Division rarely has direct access to responsive
15 records to complex requests. Rather, FOIA Division must first determine which CBP offices are
16
17 likely to have responsive information and then work with those offices to gather any responsive
18 records. Assessments of where responsive records are likely to be maintained are based on a

19 review of the content of the request itself and the nature of the records sought, as well as FOIA

20 Division's familiarity with the types and location of records that each office maintains and

21 discussions with knowledgeable agency personnel. Potentially responsive records may be
22
located in one or multiple systems of record, email systems, computer hard drives, and/or hard 23
copy (paper) files. 24

25

19. Plaintiffs requests are complex requests.

26

Processing Timelines

27

28
Howard Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of 14

20. In Fiscal Year 2016, complex requests were processed in an average number of

2 125 days. In terms of working days, this amounts to an average time of approximately six

3 months to complete processing of a complex request. The processing rates vary based on the

4 breadth of the request and the volume of potentially responsive information at issue, which affect

5 both the time that it takes to complete the search and the time that it takes to review and process

6 potentially responsive records.

7 FOIA Division's Processing of Plaintiffs FOIA Requests
8

9

21. CBP has been working diligently to respond to Plaintiffs FOIA requests as soon

1o as practicable.

11

22. On July 17, 2017, FOIA Division issued to Plaintiff an initial partial response to

12 her FOIA request. That release included a total of 56 pages of records responsive to Plaintiffs

13 request. See Attachment 1.
14 23. On July 28, 2017, FOIA Division issued to Plaintiff a second partial response to
15 her FOIA requests. That release included a total of 184 pages of records responsive to Plaintiffs
16
17 requests. SeeAttachment 2.

18

24. As described above, CBP has already located over 125,000 records potentially

19 responsive to Plaintiffs requests and/or other FOIA requests submitted to CBP, including other

20 requests that are currently in litigation, which seek records related to Executive Order 13769

21 and/or Executive Order 13780. These records are currently being processed for potential release.

22 Meanwhile, CBP is working to locate additional potentially responsive records that, once located
23
and collected, will themselves require processing before they can be released. 24

25

25. While CBP can utilize a software program to determine, at least in part, if the

26 potentially responsive records are duplicative, there is no automated way to determine which

27

28 Howard Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 7

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of 14

records are responsive, and what FOIA exemptions, if any, apply. Therefore, CBP must

2 manually review and process each non-duplicative record.

3

26. The records CBP has located to date that are potentially responsive to Plaintiff's

4 requests include a large amount of sensitive, privileged information, including attorney-client

5 communications, attorney work product, and information subject to the deliberative process
6
privilege. These records also contain information supplied by outside agencies such as the 7
Department of State and other components ofDHS, such as United States Citizenship and 8
9 Immigration Services (USCIS).

IO

27. Given the complexity of the records at issue, CBP is employing a multi-office

I I review process to ensure that all information that must be protected from release is properly

I2 withheld and all information that can be released is provided. This internal review process

13 consists of an initial review by the owner of the record. For example, if the record is an Office of
I4 Field Operations email, the Office of Field Operations reviews the email, determines if it is
I5 responsive, and what FOIA exemptions, if any, apply. Office of Field Operations employees
I6
I7 have other responsibilities in addition to reviewing such records.

I8

28. As Plaintiff's FOIA requests are in litigation, this matter has also been assigned to

I9 attorneys in the CBP Office of Chief Counsel who provide advice to the FOIA division and other

20 offices within CBP regarding processing of records as well as responses to litigation deadlines.
21 For example, after the initial review of records potentially responsive to Plaintiffs' requests by
22
the owner of the records, Office of Chief Counsel attorneys may review outstanding questions 23
regarding responsiveness or applicable FOIA exemptions and assist with identification of what, 24
25 if any, outside agency equities exist. No attorneys in the CBP Office of Chief Counsel are solely

26 responsible for FOIA matters; all have other responsibilities.

27

28 Howard Declaration, Case No. 3: l 7-cv-OI 799-JSC

Page 8

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of 14

29. If outside agency equities are identified, CBP consults with the relevant agencies

2 to ensure proper FOIA exemptions are being applied to outside agency records and the records
3 are released in full, redacted in part, or withheld in full, as appropriate. A September 5 deadline

4 would not allow CBP adequate time to conduct the ,interagency reviews that I expect will be

5 necessary for many of the records responsive to Plaintiffs requests. In addition, a court order

6 directing other agencies to process their records on an abbreviated schedule likely would add
7 significantly to the workload of CBP, which I expect would need to be consulted regarding
8

potential releases from other agencies. 9

10

30. Once any internal and third party coordination is complete, the records are

11 provided to the FOIA Division to release, as appropriate, to Plaintiff.

12

31. CBP is processing Plaintiffs FOIA requests in the above manner as expeditiously

13 as possible and is committed to a continuing rolling production. However, given the scope of
14 Plaintiffs FOIA requests, the internal review and possible outside agency coordination required
15 before CBP can release any record, and the amount of records identified as potentially
16
17 responsive to Plaintiff's requests to date as well as those records yet to be identified as

18 potentially responsive in CBP's ongoing searches, CBP cannot meet Plaintiff's proposed

19 September 5, 2017 production deadline with its existing resources.

20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
21

22

23

24

Patrick A. Howard

25

Executed this Ji)day of August 2017.

26

27

28
Howard Declaration, Case No. 3: 17-cv-01799-JSC

Page 9

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of 14

July 17, 2017

Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law Firm 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: CBP-2017-031844

Dear Ms. Hofmann:

This is an initial partial response to your clients’ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), dated February 1, 2017, which seeks records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Your clients requested all agency records from January 20, 2017 to present concerning CBP's analysis and implementation of the Executive Order. The records included in this response have been deemed responsive to your request.

This release includes a total of 56 pages of records responsive to your clients’ request, marked as EO FOIA CBP 0000000001-0000000056. CBP has determined that 53 pages of the records are partially released, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). Three pages, marked as EO FOIA CBP 0000000025-0000000027, are being withheld in full pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7)(C).

Exemption 5 protects from disclosure those inter- or intra-agency documents that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context. The three most frequently invoked privileges are the deliberative process privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the attorney-client privilege.

•

Deliberative Process Privilege

The deliberative process privilege protects the integrity of the deliberative or decision-making

processes within the agency by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinions, conclusions, and

recommendations included within inter- or intra-agency memoranda or letters. The release of this

internal information would discourage the expression of candid opinions and inhibit the free and

frank exchange of information among agency personnel.

•

Attorney Work-Product Privilege

The attorney-work product privilege protects documents and other memoranda prepared by an

attorney in contemplation of litigation.

•

Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and his

client relating to a legal matter for which the client has sought professional advice. It applies to

facts divulged by a client to his attorney, and encompasses any opinions given by an attorney to

his client based upon, and thus reflecting those facts, as well as communications between

ATTACHMENT 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of 14

attorneys that reflect client-supplied information. The attorney-client privilege is not limited to the context of litigation.
Exemption (b)(6) exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar files the release of which would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This requires a balancing of the public’s right to disclosure against the individual’s right privacy. The types of documents and/or information that we have withheld may consist of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, driver license, social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, or various other documents and/or information belonging to a third party that are considered personal. The privacy interests of the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Any private interest you may have in that information does not factor into the aforementioned balancing test.
Exemption (b)(7)(C) protects records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This exemption takes particular note of the strong interests of individuals, whether they are suspects, witnesses, or investigators, in not being unwarrantably associated with alleged criminal activity. That interest extends to persons who are not only the subjects of the investigation, but those who may have their privacy invaded by having their identities and information about them revealed in connection with an investigation. Based upon the traditional recognition of strong privacy interest in law enforcement records, categorical withholding of information that identifies third parties in law enforcement records is ordinarily appropriate.
Exemption (b)(7)(E) protects records compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
As this matter is currently in litigation, if you need further assistance or would like to discuss any aspect of this response, please contact Matthew J. Berns, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch.
Sincerely,

Patrick Howard Branch Chief U.S. Customs and Border Protection, FOIA Division Privacy and Diversity Office
Enclosure(s)

ATTACHMENT 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of 14

July 28, 2017

Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law Firm 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: CBP-2017-031844

Dear Ms. Hofmann:

This is a second partial response to your clients’ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), dated February 1, 2017, which seeks records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Your clients requested all agency records from January 20, 2017 to present concerning CBP's analysis and implementation of the Executive Order. The records included in this response have been deemed responsive to your request.

This release includes a total of 184 pages of records responsive to your clients’ request, marked as EO FOIA CBP 0000000058-0000000241. CBP has determined that 180 pages of the records are partially released, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). Four pages, marked as EO FOIA CBP 0000000079, EO FOIA CBP 0000000084, EO FOIA CBP 0000000128, and EO FOIA CBP 0000000219, are being withheld in full pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7)(C).

Exemption 5 protects from disclosure those inter- or intra-agency documents that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context. The three most frequently invoked privileges are the deliberative process privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the attorney-client privilege.

•

Deliberative Process Privilege

The deliberative process privilege protects the integrity of the deliberative or decision-making

processes within the agency by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinions, conclusions, and

recommendations included within inter- or intra-agency memoranda or letters. The release of this

internal information would discourage the expression of candid opinions and inhibit the free and

frank exchange of information among agency personnel.

•

Attorney Work-Product Privilege

The attorney-work product privilege protects documents and other memoranda prepared by an

attorney in contemplation of litigation.

•

Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and his

client relating to a legal matter for which the client has sought professional advice. It applies to

facts divulged by a client to his attorney, and encompasses any opinions given by an attorney to

his client based upon, and thus reflecting those facts, as well as communications between

ATTACHMENT 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 25-11 Filed 08/10/17 Page 14 of 14

attorneys that reflect client-supplied information. The attorney-client privilege is not limited to the context of litigation.
Exemption (b)(6) exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar files the release of which would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This requires a balancing of the public’s right to disclosure against the individual’s right privacy. The types of documents and/or information that we have withheld may consist of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, driver license, social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, or various other documents and/or information belonging to a third party that are considered personal. The privacy interests of the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Any private interest you may have in that information does not factor into the aforementioned balancing test.
Exemption (b)(7)(C) protects records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This exemption takes particular note of the strong interests of individuals, whether they are suspects, witnesses, or investigators, in not being unwarrantably associated with alleged criminal activity. That interest extends to persons who are not only the subjects of the investigation, but those who may have their privacy invaded by having their identities and information about them revealed in connection with an investigation. Based upon the traditional recognition of strong privacy interest in law enforcement records, categorical withholding of information that identifies third parties in law enforcement records is ordinarily appropriate.
Exemption (b)(7)(E) protects records compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
As this matter is currently in litigation, if you need further assistance or would like to discuss any aspect of this response, please contact Matthew J. Berns, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch.
Sincerely,

Patrick Howard Branch Chief U.S. Customs and Border Protection, FOIA Division Privacy and Diversity Office
Enclosure(s)

ATTACHMENT 2

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 30 Filed 09/06/17 Page 1 of 5

1 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
2 BRIAN STRETCH
3 United States Attorney

4 ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO

Deputy Branch Director

5

MATTHEW J. BERNS (DC Bar No. 998094)

6 KARI E. D’OTTAVIO (NY Bar No. 5338785)

Trial Attorneys

7 (202) 305-0568

(202) 616-8470 (Fax)

8 kari.e.d’ottavio@usdoj.gov

United States Department of Justice

9 Civil Division

Federal Programs Branch

10 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

11

Counsel for Defendants

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14

CORA CURRIER,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

15

Plaintiff,

JOINT STATUS REPORT

16

v.

Date:

September 7, 2017

17 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Time: 2:00 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor

18 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

19

Defendants.

20

21

Plaintiff Cora Currier and Defendants—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of

22 Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—

23 respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of August 24, 2017

24 [ECF No. 29].1

25

26 1 The components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office
27 for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service
28 (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”); and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 30 Filed 09/06/17 Page 2 of 5

1

1. This case arises from multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by

2 Plaintiff, dated February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017. The requests seek records from the four defendant

3 agencies, including from multiple offices and/or sub-agencies within them.

4

2. On August 24, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

5 Injunction. The Court denied the Motion for Preliminary Injunction; instructed the parties to meet and

6 confer regarding the processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests; ordered the parties to file a Joint Status

7 Report by September 6, 2017; and set a status hearing for September 7, 2017.

8

Discussions Between the Parties Since the Hearing

9

3. As instructed, counsel for the parties met and conferred in person on August 24, 2017.

10 The parties discussed potential approaches to narrowing, clarifying, and/or prioritizing Plaintiff’s FOIA

11 requests. And, as discussed further below, counsel for Defendants was able to obtain and provide

12 Plaintiff with new information regarding OLC’s processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests.

13

4. The parties have continued to confer since August 24, 2017, and to discuss potential

14 approaches to narrowing, clarifying, and/or prioritizing Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. Plaintiff has provided

15 Defendants with a list of types of records that Plaintiff would like Defendants to prioritize or de-

16 prioritize. Plaintiff also has narrowed the scope of two parts of certain of her FOIA requests, and

17 clarified one of the limitations that Plaintiff has placed on her FOIA requests to DOS in July 2017.

18

5. During a conference call on August 30, 2017, counsel for Defendants provided counsel

19 for Plaintiff with additional proposals for narrowing the scope of Plaintiff’s requests in ways that would

20 allow Defendants to reduce the number of potentially responsive records requiring manual review.

21 These proposals include adjusting the date ranges covered by the FOIA requests, excluding certain

22 agency offices from the scope of the FOIA requests, and making other clarifications or modifications,

23 several of which are agency-specific. Plaintiff is considering these proposals.

24

6. The parties expect to continue their discussions after the upcoming status hearing.

25

Production Updates and Status

26

7. DOJ-FBI: FBI released four pages of responsive records with redactions on August 24,

27 2017. Seven additional pages are pending interagency review, which is now ongoing.

28

8. DOJ-EOUSA: EOUSA released 73 pages of responsive records with redactions on

JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 30 Filed 09/06/17 Page 3 of 5

1 September 5, 2017. EOUSA’s remaining responsive records are pending interagency review, which is

2 now ongoing.

3

9. DOJ-OLC: At the hearing on August 24, 2017, Defendants were unable to provide any

4 new information regarding the timetable for OLC’s processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. OLC can

5 now represent that it anticipates completing its initial manual responsiveness review of the potentially

6 responsive records that it has not already released to Plaintiff by the end of September 2017. OLC

7 anticipates beginning rolling productions in October 2017. (Some productions may consist entirely of

8 the denial in full of a specified number of pages.) OLC anticipates being able to estimate when it will

9 complete its response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests once OLC has completed its initial manual

10 responsiveness review.

11

10. DOJ-OIP: OIP anticipates making its next release, which it anticipates will be

12 approximately 100 pages, in mid-September. OIP plans to make additional rolling releases on

13 approximately a monthly basis thereafter. OIP also is actively reviewing records received from other

14 agencies in response to requests for interagency review.

15

11. DOD: DOD made another interim production of 56 pages on August 31, 2017, with 17

16 pages being released in full and 39 pages being withheld in full. DOD plans to make additional rolling

17 releases on approximately a monthly basis thereafter.

18

12. DOS: DOS anticipates making its next interim production on September 8, 2017, and

19 making rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis thereafter.

20

13. DHS-PRIV: DHS-PRIV anticipates making its next interim production by September 11,

21 2017, and to continue making rolling productions thereafter.

22

14. DHS-CBP: DHS-CBP anticipates making its next interim production by September 15,

23 2017, and to continue making rolling productions thereafter.

24

15. The status for DOJ-USMS and DHS-OIG remains unchanged from the filing of

25 Defendants’ brief on August 10, 2017.

26

27

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 30 Filed 09/06/17 Page 4 of 5

1 Date: September 6, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

2

CHAD A. READLER

Acting Assistant Attorney General

3

BRIAN STRETCH

4

United States Attorney

5

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO

Deputy Branch Director

6

/s/ Kari E. D’Ottavio

7

KARI E. D’OTTAVIO

Trial Attorney

8

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

9

20 Massachusetts Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20530

10

(202) 305-0568

(202) 616-8470 (Fax)

11

kari.e.d’ottavio@usdoj.gov

12

Counsel for Defendants

13

/s/ Marcia Hofmann

14

Marcia Hofmann

ZEITGEIST LAW PC

15

25 Taylor Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

16

Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law

Telephone: (415) 830-6664

17

Attorney for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 30 Filed 09/06/17 Page 5 of 5

1

LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION

2 I certify that I have obtained Marcia Hofmann’s concurrence in the filing of this document.

3

/s/ Kari E. D’Ottavio

4

Kari E. D’Ottavio

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 5

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 17

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087) ZEITGEIST LAW PC
2 25 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102
3 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
4
Counsel for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER 5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8

CORA CURRIER, 9

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Plaintiff, 10
v.
11 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
12 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
13 Defendants.

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Date:

September 7, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

14

15 Plaintiff Cora Currier and Defendants—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of
16 Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—
17 respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of September 7, 2017
18 [ECF No. 31].1
19 1.   This case arises from multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by
20 Plaintiff, dated February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017. The requests seek records from the four defendant
21 agencies, including from multiple offices and/or sub-agencies within them.
22 2.   On August 24, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
23 Injunction. The Court denied the Motion for Preliminary Injunction; instructed the parties to meet and
24 confer regarding the processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests; ordered the parties to file a Joint Status
25

26 1 The components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the Office
27 of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”);
28 and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 2 of 17

1 Report by September 6, 2017; and set a status hearing for September 7, 2017.

2

3.   At the status hearing on September 7, 2017, the parties updated the Court on

3 developments since the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff requested that

4 the Court require the agencies to process a minimum number of pages per month. The Court declined to

5 do so at that time and indicated that the Court would continue to monitor the agencies’ progress through

6 periodic status reports and status conferences. The Court scheduled the next status conference for

7 September 28, 2017, and ordered the parties to file another joint status report by September 27, 2017.

8

Discussions Between the Parties Since the Last Status Conference

9

4.   As instructed, counsel for the parties have continued to confer regarding potential

10 approaches to narrowing, clarifying, and/or prioritizing Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. These discussions

11 recently yielded several agreements, some of which apply to all of the outstanding requests and some of

12 which are agency-specific.

13

5.   Written correspondence memorializing counsel’s discussions and the parties’ agreements

14 is attached hereto.

15

6.   The parties expect to continue their discussions after the upcoming status hearing. In

16 addition, the agencies that are still processing Plaintiff’s requests intend to evaluate how the parties’

17 scoping agreements will affect the volume of records requiring further manual review and processing.

18 Because the parties reached these agreements only this week, the agencies have not yet been able to

19 undertake that analysis.

20

Production Updates and Status

21

7.   DOJ-FBI: The FBI has now completed its processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA request. On

22 September 25, 2017, the agency advised Plaintiff that it would withhold in full the seven pages of

23 responsive records that required interagency review, invoking FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7C, and 7E.

24

8.   DOJ-EOUSA: Interagency review of records from EOUSA remains ongoing. These

25 records require review by multiple agencies; EOUSA has received responses from some and is waiting

26 for responses from others.

27

9.   DOJ-OLC: In the last joint status report, OLC indicated that it anticipated completing its

28 initial manual responsiveness review of the potentially responsive records that it has not already released
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 3 of 17

1 to Plaintiff by the end of September 2017. That review has proceeded on schedule and is nearly

2 complete, and OLC intends to report on the results in the next joint status report. As indicated in the last

3 joint status report, OLC also anticipates beginning rolling productions of the remaining records in

4 October 2017. OLC now commits to making rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis

5 thereafter.

6

10.   DOJ-OIP: Since the last status conference, OIP released 134 pages in full or in part on

7 September 21, 2017. OIP plans to make additional rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis

8 going forward. OIP also is actively reviewing records received from other agencies in response to

9 requests for interagency review.

10

11.   DOD: DOD is making rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis. DOD

11 anticipates making its next release next week.

12

12.   DOS: DOS is making rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis. Since the last

13 status conference, DOS made a release on September 8, 2017. For that release, DOS processed over 300

14 pages, which resulted in 20 pages being released in full or in part.

15

13.   DHS-PRIV: Since the last status conference, DHS-PRIV made a release on September

16 11, 2017. For that release, DHS-PRIV reviewed 502 pages, resulting in 71 pages being released in full,

17 108 pages being released in part, 17 pages being withheld in full, and 277 pages being deemed

18 duplicative or non-responsive. DHS-PRIV also sent 29 pages of records to other agencies for

19 interagency review. DHS-PRIV commits to making rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis

20 going forward.

21

14.   DHS-CBP: Since the last status report, CBP made a release on September 15, 2017,

22 releasing 115 pages in full or in part and withholding 118 pages in full. CBP also re-released one page

23 in full that it had previously released in part. CBP commits to making rolling productions on

24 approximately a monthly basis going forward. In addition, CBP reports that it recently obtained access

25 to a new document-review platform for use in responding to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and other FOIA

26 requests involving the same general subject matter. CBP anticipates that the new platform will allow for

27 more efficient processing of records and will facilitate coordination across cases by reducing duplication

28 of effort. Agency personnel are being trained on how to use the new platform.
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 4 of 17

1

15.   The status for DOJ-USMS and DHS-OIG remains unchanged from the filing of

2 Defendants’ brief on August 10, 2017.

3

Other Information

4

16.   At the August 24 hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the

5 September 7 status conference, the Court recommended that agencies with multiple pending FOIA

6 requests involving the same general subject matter take steps to coordinate their processing of the

7 relevant FOIA requests in order to enable more requesters to receive records responsive to their FOIA

8 requests sooner.

9

17.   Agencies have been working to coordinate their processing of the related FOIA requests

10 in this manner, with the approach taken by each agency varying somewhat depending on the number of

11 FOIA requests at issue and the extent to which the requests overlap. CBP, for example, has the most

12 cases in litigation; it has been prioritizing records responsive to multiple requests and releasing the

13 overlapping records to multiple requesters at or about the same time; it also has constructed its searches

14 to take account of other related records requests, to avoid duplication of effort by searching for the same

15 records multiple times. OLC has several cases in litigation; it has asked other plaintiffs to narrow their

16 requests in the same manner that it has asked Plaintiff to do so, and vice versa. Other agencies,

17 including agencies with other pending requests that are not yet in litigation, have adopted similar

18 strategies to make their searching and processing of records more efficient overall.

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

27 //

28 //
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 5 of 17

1 Date: September 27, 2017 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
BRIAN STRETCH United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-8016 (202) 616-8470 (Fax) Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
/s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
Counsel for Plaintiff Cora Currier

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 6 of 17

LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 1

2 I certify that I have obtained Matthew J. Berns’s concurrence in the filing of this document.

3

/s/ Marcia Hofmann

Marcia Hofmann

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 7 of 17
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530

Matthew J. Berns Trial Attorney

Tel: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov

September 21, 2017
VIA E-MAIL
Marcia Hofmann Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Currier v. DHS, et al., 3:17-cv-1799 (N.D. Cal.)
Dear Marcia,
I am writing to follow up on Defendants’ pending proposals to modify or clarify the scope of Ms. Currier’s FOIA requests. We discussed these proposals during our conference call on August 30, 2017. For most of Defendants’ proposals, you indicated that you would confer with Ms. Currier and get back to us. We look forward to hearing back from you, as the agencies are working diligently to process the requests and we do not want them to waste time processing records that are not likely to contain releasable information of interest to Ms. Currier, at the expense of records that might.
The parties’ scoping discussions since the preliminary injunction hearing are outlined below for your reference. We have organized the discussion under three headings: (1) the main scoping proposals proposed by Defendants that remain pending; (2) the agreements that were reached or confirmed during our August 30 call; and (3) the scoping and prioritization requests that you made in your emails of August 25 and 31.
DEFENDANTS’ PENDING SCOPING PROPOSALS
Before listing Defendants’ specific scoping proposals, we want to reiterate the considerations underlying these proposals and why Defendants believe they serve the interests of everyone involved:
• Because multiple agencies located very large volumes of potentially responsive records, Defendants offered proposals intended to improve the ratio between (1) the number of potentially responsive records requiring manual, document-by-document review and (2) the number of records that ultimately will be deemed responsive and contain nonexempt information of interest to Ms. Currier. Bright-line rules for processing the

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 8 of 17
requests—adopting a narrower date range, limiting the search to specific offices or custodians, or entirely excluding specific offices or custodians—generally will be the most effective way to reduce the universe of potentially responsive records requiring manual, document-by-document review. Defendants therefore have suggested that the parties agree to bright-line rules that would enable the agencies to deploy their resources more efficiently, complete their processing sooner, and further expedite the release of non-exempt information of greatest interest to Ms. Currier.
• Defendants offered proposals intended to exclude material that is likely to be withheld in full, or nearly so, and for which there is not likely to be any basis for challenging the agency’s withholding. Requiring the agencies to process large volumes of such material will prolong the processing of Ms. Currier’s requests and delay the resolution of the litigation, without resulting in more information being disclosed to Ms. Currier.
• Defendants offered proposals intended to better focus the requests on records that we believe are of greatest interest to Ms. Currier. Of course, Ms. Currier is in a better position to offer narrowing proposals along these lines, so Defendants’ invitation for Ms. Currier to limit the scope of her requests remains open.
I. Global Proposals
In light of the considerations mentioned above, we offered the following scoping proposals on behalf of all Defendants and agency components in the litigation. We recognize, however, that Ms. Currier’s responses may not be uniform across agencies. Ms. Currier could, for example, agree to shorten the date range covered by her request(s) to one agency but not another.
A. Focus the requests on specific parts of the Executive Orders. Defendants would appreciate confirmation of their understanding that Ms. Currier’s requests are limited to records concerning the Section of each Executive Order that temporarily suspends entry into the United States of certain persons from certain countries (i.e., Section 3(c) of Executive Order 13769 and Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13780). This Section appears to be the only part of either Executive Order described in the “Requested Records” section of Ms. Currier’s requests and was the subject of Ms. Currier’s requests for expedition. Confirmation on this point would help agencies focus their searching and processing efforts on offices or individuals involved in the analysis and/or implementation of that provision, as opposed to offices or individuals dealing only with other parts of the Executive Orders.
B. Shorten the timeframes covered by the requests. We discussed several ways to approach this issue, depending on how Ms. Currier wants to focus her requests.
1) One option would be to move the cut-off date forward from April 3 to March 6— the date on which Executive Order 13780 was issued—so that the date range would capture the period prior to the issuance of Executive Order 13780. As an alternative to a March 6 cut-off date, we suggested March 16 (the intended effective date) as a cut-off date, but we believe that the earlier date is more likely
Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 9 of 17
to increase the ratio of responsive to non-responsive records that the agencies have to process.
For reference, the plaintiffs in James Madison Project v. DOJ, 17-cv-390 (D.D.C.), recently agreed to move the cut-off date for their request to OLC to March 6. The cut-off dates for their requests to other agencies are even earlier.
2) A second option would be to move the start date for the searches back to February 4—the day after the District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a nationwide temporary restraining order concerning Executive Order 13769—or February 9—the day that the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay that order. Such a modification would be helpful if Ms. Currier is interested in focusing her requests on Executive Order 13780 now that Executive Order 13769 has been rescinded.
3) Any combination of the above proposals (or any other date limitation) would be helpful.
C. Exclude an agency’s legal office from the scope of the search. Agencies’ legal offices may possess records responsive to Ms. Currier’s requests. However, most of these records are likely to be exempt from disclosure (in full or in substantial part) pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, which authorizes agencies to withhold information protected by the attorney-client privilege, deliberative process privilege, and attorney-work product protection, among other potential grounds for withholding. In addition, it seems unlikely that much (if any) responsive, non-exempt information from custodians in these offices could not be located through searches of the relevant programmatic offices. Ms. Currier has already agreed to exclude DOS’s Office of the Legal Advisor from the scope of her requests. The other Defendants (with the exception of DOJ) ask that she do the same for them.
If Ms. Currier is unwilling to accept this proposal, Defendants alternatively propose that the date ranges for any searches of their legal offices be modified to exclude periods of intensive litigation, during which the volume of communications containing attorneywork product might be at its peak. We can further discuss particular date ranges if Ms. Currier is interested in pursuing this alternative proposal.
D. Agree to additional limits on which offices or custodians to include within the scope of agencies’ searches/productions. Although Defendants anticipate that any such agreement likely would be helpful, agreements regarding email searches may be particularly constructive.
Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 10 of 17
E. Concerning records related to communications between agency officials and members of Congress or congressional staffers, limit the requests to external communications between agencies and Congress. This limitation would exclude internal correspondence (within or among agencies) about the substance and logistics of responding to congressional inquiries or congressional briefings, which would likely be deliberative and/or not of interest to Ms. Currier. (As a general matter, congressional correspondence may generate a significant amount of internal agency correspondence to coordinate the agency’s response.) Agencies could focus their searches of their congressional affairs offices on inbound and outbound communications between the agencies and Congress.
II. Agency-Specific Proposals
In addition to the global proposals described above, we made multiple agency-specific proposals during our August 30 meet and confer.
A. DOS
1) We proposed an agreement that DOS would treat as non-responsive any records fully exempt from disclosure under Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f), which exempts records “pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States.” You asked us whether Section 222(f) exempts only individual-specific records or whether it also exempts records describing policies that pertain to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits.
DOS can now confirm that Section 222(f) does not apply to policies, only records that reveal information pertaining to the issuance or refusal of individual visas or permits to enter the United States.
2) We proposed an agreement that DOS could treat as non-responsive (1) information that is already publicly available and (2) discrete parts of responsive records where those parts are not related to the Executive Orders. You asked us to clarify this proposal.
DOS clarifies that media material about the Executive Order is the only responsive information in some documents. If media material is regarded as nonresponsive, DOS would not have to review the other portions of those documents, which are often quite lengthy. Additionally, for records where the media material is the vast majority of the content, with only an “FYI” or overarching comment, DOS would like to view those records as non-responsive.
B. DHS-PRIV
1) DHS-PRIV proposed that the parties work together to find a way to exclude litigation-related emails, if we are not able to accomplish that via one of the other proposals described above. For example, if Ms. Currier is not willing to agree to temporal limits that would exclude such material, or to exclude DHS’s General
Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 11 of 17
Counsel’s Office altogether, the parties could agree to exclude litigation-related correspondence. This approach would be less efficient because separating litigation-related correspondence from other legal correspondence likely would require manual review, but it still would reduce the volume of such material that is deemed to be responsive and to require review for application of the statutory exemptions.
C. DHS-CBP
1) CBP understands that the requests for CBP records are focused on CBP headquarters. CBP would propose that its searches of email accounts be limited to email accounts of pivotal officials who were central to the agency’s communication and decision making regarding the issues which are the subject of Ms. Currier’s requests: the Commissioner; Chief of Staff; the Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs; the Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs; several email accounts from the Office of Congressional Affairs; and two email accounts (not specific to any individual) that were used as operational hubs for communications about the Executive Orders.
2) CBP proposed to exclude drafts of guidance on the Executive Orders from the scope of the requests. In any event, CBP anticipates that any such drafts would be withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 5.
Finally, in addition to the proposals previously discussed, Defendants ask Ms. Currier to review the records released to date by EOUSA. The remaining records located by EOUSA are similar in substance but cannot be released without consultation with one or more other agencies involved in this litigation. If the kinds of records that Ms. Currier has already received from EOUSA are of little interest to her, Defendants suggest that Ms. Currier consider dropping her request to EOUSA so that the other agencies can focus on processing their own records instead of the records sent by EOUSA for consultation.
SCOPING AND PROCESSING AGREEMENTS REACHED/CONFIRMED DURING THE AUGUST 30 MEET AND CONFER
As noted above, during our call on August 30, there were two points on which you were able to accept an agency’s proposal or clarify a prior scoping agreement:
A. For DOS, you clarified that Ms. Currier does not want the agency to search any office not listed in your email of July 13, 2017. As a result, DOS will exclude from the scope of its search records from offices other than the following: 1) Office of the Secretary 2) Executive Secretariat 3) Operations Center 4) Policy Planning Staff 5) Counselor of the Department 6) Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 12 of 17
7) Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations 8) Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 9) Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Labor 10) Bureau of Consular Affairs 11) United States embassies and consulates in the following:
i. Iran ii. Iraq iii. Syria iv. Sudan v. Yemen vi. Somalia vii. Libya
B. For DOJ-OIP, we explained that the Office of Public Affairs has located emails from some of its staff to reporters at some of the news organizations listed in part A.7 of the April 3 request to DOJ-OIP (“Breitbart News, Fox News, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, the Washington Times, or the Free Beacon”). We further explained that some of these emails include as-filed copies of briefs or court decisions as attachments to the email message. With respect to briefs and court decisions that were attached to multiple responsive email messages, we suggested that the agency produce a full copy of the attachment for the first transmittal and only the first page of the attachment for any additional transmittal(s), in addition to producing the email messages themselves (subject to any applicable exemptions). You accepted this proposal, which will somewhat reduce the volume of already-public information that the agency must process.
MS. CURRIER’S PROPOSALS/AGREEMENTS FROM AUGUST 25 AND AUGUST 31
In emails dated August 25 and 31, you stated that Ms. Currier would agree to two limitations on her requests and asked Defendants to “prioritize” or “de-prioritize” various categories of records.
Limitations
1. Most of Ms. Currier’s requests seek communications “among [agency] personnel, including [various categories of personnel such as supervisors, officers, managers, and union representatives]” concerning the Executive Orders. You stated that Ms. Currier has agreed to limit “searches for records responsive to that item to email accounts of agency officials in a supervisory or managerial capacity.”
This limitation apparently was based on a suggestion that we made on August 24, but as we discussed during our conference call, the limitation agreed upon in your email is different in a few respects from what we had in mind. First, our suggestion was to limit the search of email accounts to a smaller set of principals, not to the email accounts of managers and supervisors more broadly. Second, limiting the search to email accounts of supervisors and managers for internal correspondence but not for external correspondence reduces the effectiveness of the limitation because an agency may still need to search a non-supervisory or -managerial employee’s email account in order to locate external communications, and may need to manually
Page 6

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 13 of 17
review the records collected in order to determine which emails are internal and which are external. (It seems reasonable to assume that higher-level personnel would be copied on significant external communications, however.)
Defendants suggest further limitations along these lines and are prepared to discuss agency-specific limitations.
2. Regarding Ms. Currier’s requests for records of communications between agencies and various non-profits and think tanks, you stated that “Ms. Currier is willing to limit the requests to specifically the Center for Immigration Studies, Federal for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Security Studies, the Heritage Foundation, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism.” You also stated that, for DHS, Ms. Currier “is particularly interested in communications between those groups and the DHS Office of the Secretary, Office of Policy, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Office of General Counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs, and Office of Public Affairs.” And you indicated that you “will likely follow up with more information about specific offices in other agencies where [she] would like searches focused with respect to this item.”
We explained on August 30 that Defendants appreciate Ms. Currier’s elimination from the scope of her requests any non-profits and think tanks that are not actually identified in the requests. We also explained, however, that agencies may be unable to develop a reasonable search targeting communications with these entities without a basis for determining who, if anyone, at the agency likely engaged in such communications. Nevertheless, if records of communications with these entities about the Executive Orders are located by the agencies’ searches, the agencies will treat them as responsive.
Prioritization
1. You indicated that Ms. Currier would like DOS to “prioritize” Part C of her requests to DOS, seeking “[r]ecords from the Dissent Channel related to the executive order[s].” DOS agrees and will prioritize its efforts to locate and process such records, to the extent they exist. However, DOS notes, as a general matter, that the existence, content, and authors of Dissent Channel messages are protected from unauthorized disclosure within DOS itself and that the internal safeguards protecting such information mean that it generally takes longer to collect and process such information for potential disclosure under the FOIA. DOS also notes that Dissent Channel messages, including the identity of the authors, are an extremely sensitive element in the internal deliberative process and are protected accordingly. See 2 FAM 071.1, 074.1(b), 075.1.
2. You stated in your August 25 email that “Ms. Currier would like to prioritize internal documents at all agencies about the design and effectiveness of the travel ban.” During our meet and confer, we asked for clarification about what this request means and whether it is intended to exclude from the scope of the agencies’ searches/productions any records that would otherwise be responsive to the requests as written. We also explained that agencies are not really able to “prioritize” records that cannot be isolated from other potentially responsive records without manual document-by-document review. We anticipate further discussions regarding Ms.
Page 7

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 14 of 17
Currier’s request that this category of records be prioritized, but we also suggest that Ms. Currier consider whether Defendants’ scoping proposals could accomplish the goals of this request.
3. You also indicated that “Ms. Currier is willing to de-prioritize communications between agency officials and airports and commercial airlines.” In addition, you indicated that she “is also willing to de-prioritize communications ‘from or about travelers asking for clarification or about the ban’s effect’” but that she “would like to prioritize documents *about* such requests, i.e., how the agencies responded or discussed responding to such inquiries.”
The agencies are willing to work with Ms. Currier to prioritize or de-prioritize categories of records that can be isolated from other potentially responsive records without manual document-by-document review. At this point, the agencies are not certain how they would be able to address Ms. Currier’s interest in prioritizing or de-prioritizing these categories of records without conducting such a review.
* * * I look forward to hearing back from you.
Best, Matt Berns Trial Attorney
Page 8

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 15 of 17
September 25, 2017
VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Berns Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530
RE: Currier v. DHS, 3:17-cv-1799 (N.D. Cal.) Dear Matt,
I am writing in response to your September 21 letter concerning our August 30 conference call and Defendants’ proposals to modify or clarify the scope of Ms. Currier’s FOIA requests. I have had a series of discussions with my client about the Defendants’ proposals, and am providing responses and comments about them below. DEFENDANTS’ PENDING SCOPE PROPOSALS
I.   Global Proposals A.   Focus the requests on specific parts of the executive orders. Ms. Currier confirms that her requests are limited to records concerning the sections of the executive orders that temporarily suspended entry into the United States of certain persons from specific countries, i.e., Section 3(c) of Executive Order 13769 and Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13780. B.   Shorten the timeframes covered by the requests. Ms. Currier agrees that the cut-off date for her April 3 requests will be March 16, i.e., the intended effective date of Executive Order 13780. She does not wish to shorten the date range of her February 1 requests, though is willing to do so for particular offices (see paragraph I.C). C.   Exclude the agencies’ legal offices from the scope of the search. Ms. Currier is not willing to exclude all agencies’ legal offices from the scope of the search, but she agrees to narrow the time range for these offices to the intended implementation dates of the

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 16 of 17
September 25, 2017 Currier v. DHS, 3:17-cv-1799 (N.D. Cal.) Page 2
  
executive orders, i.e., January 27 for Executive Order 13769 and March 16 for Executive Order 13780.
D.   Agree to additional limits on which offices or custodians to include within the scope of agencies’ searches/productions. Ms. Currier agrees to no additional limits at this time.
E.   Concerning records related to communications between agency officials and members of Congress or congressional staffers, limit the requests to external communications between agencies and Congress. Ms. Currier does not wish to limit this category further.
In addition to the above, Ms. Currier is willing to agree that any records that are already public may be treated as non-responsive by any agency, e.g., news clips, publicly filed briefs, print-outs of webpages, press releases, the text of the executive orders, etc.
II.   Agency-Specific Proposals
A.   DOS
1)   Ms. Currier is willing to agree that DOS may treat as non-responsive any records fully exempt from disclosure under Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f).
2)   Ms. Currier also agrees that DOS may treat as non-responsive information that is already publicly available. She is not willing to agree that media material will be treated as non-responsive unless it is already publicly available.
B.   DHS-PRIV
As discussed in paragraph I.C., Ms. Currier agrees to narrow the time range for searches of records in all agencies’ legal offices to the intended implementation dates of the executive orders, i.e., January 27 for Executive Order 13769 and March 16 for Executive Order 13780.
C.   DHS-CBP
1)   Ms. Currier agrees to CBP’s proposal that the agency may limit its searches of email accounts to those of the Commissioner; Chief of Staff; Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs; Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs; several email accounts from the Office of Congressional Affairs; and two email accounts that were used as operational hubs for communications about the executive orders.
2)   Ms. Currier does not agree to exclude drafts of guidance on the executive orders from the scope of the requests, as these records may include segregable material.

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 32 Filed 09/27/17 Page 17 of 17
September 25, 2017 Currier v. DHS, 3:17-cv-1799 (N.D. Cal.) Page 3
  
D.   EOUSA
Ms. Currier is not willing to drop her request to EOUSA.
E.   Additional Matters
My notes indicate that we discussed a couple other agency-specific matters that I would like to follow up on.
1)   CBP asked if Ms. Currier would consider excluding from the scope of her requests certain records reflecting communications between CBP and airlines, and we agreed that you would send me some samples of these records to help Ms. Currier decide whether to do so. To date, we have not received those sample documents, but Ms. Currier will review them once they are sent.
2)   OLC proposed that Ms. Currier consider excluding from the scope of her requests correspondence between OLC and litigating components of DOJ. Ms. Currier agrees to this modification.
SCOPING AND PROCESSING AGREEMENTS REACHED/CONFIRMED DURING THE AUGUST 30 MEET AND CONFER
I confirm that Ms. Currier has agreed to narrow her requests on these points.
MS. CURRIER’S PROPOSALS AGREEMENTS FROM AUGUST 25 AND AUGUST 31
Limitations
In addition to the limitation agreed to above in II.C.1, Ms. Currier agrees to continue discussing agency-specific limitations restrict searches for records to email accounts of high-level agency personnel.
Prioritization
Ms. Currier is happy to continue discussions on these matters.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I look forward to continuing our discussions.
Regards,
Marcia Hofmann

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 37 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 4

1 Marcia Hofmann (SBN 250087) ZEITGEIST LAW PC
2 25 Taylor St. San Francisco, CA 94102
3 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
4
Counsel for Plaintiff CORA CURRIER 5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8

CORA CURRIER, 9

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Plaintiff, 10
v.
11 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
12 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
13 Defendants.

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Date:

October 26, 2017

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

14

15 Plaintiff Cora Currier and Defendants—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of
16 Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—
17 respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of September 28, 2017
18 [ECF No. 33].1
19 1.   This case arises from multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by
20 Plaintiff, dated February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017. The requests seek records from the four defendant
21 agencies, including from multiple offices and/or sub-agencies within them.
22 2.   The parties have been filing periodic joint status reports and participating in period status
23 conferences since the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 24, 2017.
24 The parties also have been conferring about the scope and prioritization of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests.
25

26 1 The components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the Office
27 of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”);
28 and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 37 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 4

1

3.   Updates since the last joint status conference, held on September 28, 2017, are below.

2

Production Updates and Status

3

4.   DOJ-EOUSA: Interagency review of records from EOUSA remains ongoing. These

4 records require review by multiple agencies. EOUSA has received responses from DHS-CBP, DHS-

5 PRIV, and DOJ’s Criminal Division. Consultations with DOJ-OIP and the Civil Division of DOJ

6 remain outstanding. Although the timing of the consultations depends on factors outside EOUSA’s

7 control, EOUSA anticipates that EOUSA’s processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests to EOUSA will be

8 completed by the end of the calendar year.

9

5.   DOJ-OLC: Since the parties’ last joint status report, OLC has completed its initial

10 manual responsiveness review and deduplication of the potentially responsive records that it has not

11 already released to Plaintiff. This review reduced the volume of potentially responsive records requiring

12 further review for responsiveness and potential withholdings from over 26,000 documents to

13 approximately 4,800 documents. As previously indicated, OLC anticipates beginning rolling

14 productions of the remaining records no later than October 31, 2017, and commits to rolling productions

15 on approximately a monthly basis thereafter.

16

6.   DOJ-OIP: OIP has now completed its initial manual responsiveness review of over

17 16,500 potentially responsive documents collected in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests to OIP.

18 Following this review, approximately 2,000 documents are still considered potentially responsive and

19 require further review for responsiveness and potential withholdings. OIP anticipates making its next

20 production by the end of this week. OIP also is actively reviewing records received from other agencies

21 in response to requests for interagency review.

22

7.   DOD: DOD made a release on October 3, 2017. DOD anticipates making its next

23 release shortly.

24

8.   DOS: DOS is making rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis. Since the last

25 status conference, DOS made a release on October 10, 2017. For that release, DOS processed over 300

26 pages, which resulted in 34 pages being released in full or in part.

27

9.   DHS-PRIV: DHS-PRIV is making rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis.

28 Since the last status conference, DHS-PRIV made a release on October 16, 2017. For that release, DHS-
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 37 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 4

1 PRIV reviewed 522 pages, resulting in 30 pages being released in full, 106 pages being released in part,

2 42 pages being withheld in full, and 276 pages being deemed duplicative or non-responsive. DHS-PRIV

3 also sent 68 pages of records to other agencies for interagency review.

4

10.   DHS-CBP: DHS-CBP is making rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis.

5 Since the last status report, CBP made a release on October 24, 2017, releasing 250 pages in full or in

6 part and withholding 19 pages in full.

7

11.   The status for DOJ-USMS, DHS-OIG, and DOJ-FBI remains unchanged from the

8 parties’ last joint status report.

9 Date: October 25, 2017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
BRIAN STRETCH United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-8016 (202) 616-8470 (Fax) Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
/s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
Counsel for Plaintiff Cora Currier

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 37 Filed 10/25/17 Page 4 of 4

1

LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION

2 I certify that I have obtained Matthew J. Berns’s concurrence in the filing of this document.

3

/s/ Marcia Hofmann

4

Marcia Hofmann

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 4

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 39 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 5

1 CHAD A. READLER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
2
BRIAN STRETCH 3 United States Attorney

4 ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
5
MATTHEW J. BERNS (DC Bar No. 998094) 6 Trial Attorney
(202) 616-8016 7 (202) 616-8470 (Fax)
Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov 8 United States Department of Justice
Civil Division 9 Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. 10 Washington, DC 20530

11 Counsel for Defendants

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14 CORA CURRIER,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

15

Plaintiff,

JOINT STATUS REPORT

16

v.

17

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

18

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

19

Defendants.

20

Plaintiff Cora Currier and Defendants—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of

21 Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—

22 respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of October 26, 2017

23 [ECF No. 33].1

24

1. This case arises from multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by

25 Plaintiff, dated February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017. The requests seek records from the four defendant

26 1 The components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the Office
27 of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”);
28 and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 39 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 5

1 agencies, including from multiple offices and/or sub-agencies within them.

2

2. The parties have been filing periodic joint status reports and participating in periodic

3 status conferences since the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 24,

4 2017. The parties also have been conferring about the scope and prioritization of Plaintiff’s FOIA

5 requests.

6

3. Updates since the last joint status conference, held on October 26, 2017, are below.

7

4. In addition, pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of October 26, 2017, the parties jointly

8 propose that the Court enter an order requiring the parties to file joint status reports on the second

9 Thursday of every month, beginning on January 11, 2018, until further order of the Court. If any party

10 identifies any issue that the party believes warrants the Court’s intervention, the parties will meet and

11 confer about the issue, and if the parties are unable to resolve the issue, will identify the issue in their

12 next monthly status report and request that the Court schedule a status hearing. In the interim, the

13 parties do not believe that regularly scheduled status hearings are necessary at this time.

14

Production Updates and Status

15

5. DOJ-OLC: OLC is making rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis. Since

16 the last status report, OLC made releases on October 31, 2017, and November 30, 2017. Between these

17 two releases, OLC released 123 pages in part and withheld 383 pages in full.

18

6. DOJ-OIP: OIP is making rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis. Since

19 the last status report, OIP made releases on October 30, 2017, and November 29, 2017. Between these

20 two releases, OIP released 3 pages in full or in part and withheld 312 pages in full. OIP also is actively

21 reviewing records received from other agencies in response to requests for interagency review. In

22 August 2017, based on information then available, OIP estimated that it would complete its processing

23 of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests by January 10, 2018. OIP now anticipates that it will need an additional

24 two months, until March 10, 2018, to complete its processing of Plaintiff’s requests, including any

25 consultations with other agencies or components relating to records OIP determines to be responsive,

26 due to staff turnover, the anticipated need to consult with other agencies and/or components, and an

27 intervening and unprecedented increase in OIP’s workload.

28

7. DOD: DOD is making rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis. Since the

JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 39 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 5

1 last status report, DOD made releases on October 25, 2017, and December 4, 2017. Between these

2 releases, DOD released 29 pages in full, released 57 pages in part, and withheld 50 in full. DOD

3 anticipates completing its response to Plaintiff’s requests by the end of February 2018.

4

8. DOS: DOS is making rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis. Since the last

5 status conference, DOS made a release on November 9, 2017. For that release, DOS processed over 300

6 pages, which resulted in 4 documents being released in part.

7

9. DHS-PRIV: DHS-PRIV is making rolling releases on approximately a monthly basis.

8 Since the last status conference, DHS-PRIV made a release on November 17, 2017. For that release,

9 DHS-PRIV reviewed 529 pages, resulting in 9 pages being released in full, 10 pages being released in

10 part, and 19 pages being withheld in full, and 312 pages being deemed duplicative or non-responsive.

11 DHS-PRIV also sent 179 pages of records to other agencies for interagency review.

12

10. DHS-CBP: DHS-CBP is making rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis.

13 Since the last status report, CBP made a release on November 29, 2017, releasing 585 pages in full or in

14 part and withholding 164 pages in full. CBP additionally reviewed another 1,174 pages of records,

15 which it determined to be nonresponsive.

16

11. DHS-OIG: DHS-OIG made an initial production on August 2, 2017, and advised

17 Plaintiff that it was withholding additional responsive records pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7A in

18 connection with an ongoing investigation. At that time, DHS-OIG advised Plaintiff that the agency

19 would provide Plaintiff with responsive, non-exempt records subject to FOIA after completion of its

20 investigation if the litigation had not already reached summary judgment briefing by that time. The

21 investigation has now concluded, and DHS-OIG accordingly is withdrawing its blanket assertion of

22 Exemption 7A. DHS-OIG is preparing to re-commence processing of responsive records and intends to

23 begin making rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis, with the first release being made by

24 January 5, 2018. In the meantime, counsel are discussing some proposals by DHS-OIG to narrow the

25 scope of Plaintiff’s request for records from this component.

26

12. The status for DOJ-USMS, DOJ-EOUSA, and DOJ-FBI remains unchanged from the

27 parties’ last joint status report.

28

13. For the Court’s reference, the parties are attaching a proposed order, which reflects their

JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 39 Filed 12/07/17 Page 4 of 5

1 joint proposal for further proceedings, and a spreadsheet, which summarizes the volume of responsive

2 records that Defendants have released or withheld to date.

3 Date: December 7, 2017 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
BRIAN STRETCH United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-8016 (202) 616-8470 (Fax) Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
/s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
Counsel for Plaintiff Cora Currier

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 4

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 39 Filed 12/07/17 Page 5 of 5

LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 1 2 I certify that I have obtained Marcia Hofmann’s concurrence in the filing of this document.

3

/s/ Matthew J. Berns

Matthew J. Berns

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 5

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 39-1 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 2

Agency DOJ-FBI

Date
8/24/2017 9/25/2017 Total:

Contents of Release

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

0

4

0

0

0

7

0

4

7

DOJ-EOUSA
8/31/2017 Total:

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

24

49

0

24

49

0

DOJ-OLC

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

8/2/2017

13

0

0

10/31/2017

0

0

221

11/30/2017

0

123

162

Total:

13

123

383

DOJ-OIP

8/10/2017 9/21/2017 10/30/2017 11/29/2017 Total:

Pages Released in Full or in Part
11 134
0 3 148

Pages Withheld in Full
0 0 251 61 312

Department of State
8/9/2017 9/8/2017 10/10/2017 11/9/2017 Total:

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

6

12

3

7

13

0

0

34

0

0

15

0

13

74

3

DHS-PRIV

8/7/2017 9/11/2017 10/16/2017 11/17/2017 Total:

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

68

161

53

71

108

17

30

106

42

9

10

19

178

385

131

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 39-1 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 2

DHS-CBP

7/17/2017 7/28/2017 9/15/2017 10/24/2017 11/29/17 Total:

Pages Released in Part or in Full
53 180 115 250 585 1183

Pages Withheld in Full
3 4 118 19 164 308

DOJ-USMS

6/21/2017 7/11/2017 7/12/2017 Total:

Pages Released in Part or in Full
90 30 2 122

Pages Withheld in Full
0 2 0 2

Department of Defense
8/9/2017 8/31/2017 10/3/2017 10/25/2017 12/4/2017 Total:

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

9

2

58

17

0

39

8

4

105

29

43

50

0

14

0

63

63

252

DHS-OIG
8/2/2017 8/3/2017 Total:

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

99

108

0

0

0

20

99

108

20

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 40 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 4

1 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
2
ALEX G. TSE 3 Acting United States Attorney

4 ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
5
MATTHEW J. BERNS (DC Bar No. 998094) 6 Trial Attorney
(202) 616-8016 7 (202) 616-8470 (Fax)
Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov 8 United States Department of Justice
Civil Division 9 Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. 10 Washington, DC 20530

11 Counsel for Defendants

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14 CORA CURRIER,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

15

Plaintiff,

JOINT STATUS REPORT

16

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 17 DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

19

Defendants.

20

Plaintiff Cora Currier and Defendants—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of

21 Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—

22 respectfully submit this Joint Status Report.1

23

1. This case arises from multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by

24 Plaintiff, dated February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017. The requests seek records from the four defendant

25 agencies, including from multiple offices and/or sub-agencies within them.

26 1 The components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the Office
27 of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”);
28 and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 1

30

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 40 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 4

1

2. The parties have been filing periodic joint status reports and have participated in multiple

2 status conferences since the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 24,

3 2017. The parties also have been conferring about the scope and prioritization of Plaintiff’s FOIA

4 requests.

5

3. On December 7, 2017, the parties jointly proposed that the Court enter an order requiring

6 the parties to file joint status reports on the second Thursday of every month, beginning on January 11,

7 2018, until further order of the Court. The parties further indicated that, if any party identifies any issue

8 that the party believes warrants the Court’s intervention, the parties will meet and confer about the issue,

9 and if the parties are unable to resolve the issue, will identify the issue in their next monthly status report

10 and request that the Court schedule a status hearing. In the interim, the parties explained, they do not

11 believe that regular status hearings are necessary.

12

4. Although the Court has not yet entered an order adopting the parties’ proposal, the parties

13 have agreed amongst themselves to submit joint status reports in accordance with their proposal unless

14 and until the Court directs them to proceed differently.

15

Production Updates and Status

16

5. Six agencies or components—DOJ-OLC, DOJ-OIP, DOD, DOS, DHS-PRIV, and DHS-

17 CBP—continue to make rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis. The attachment to this

18 joint status report indicates the dates and volumes of all of Defendants’ releases to date. The attachment

19 does not reflect the volume of records that were processed but determined non-responsive.

20

6. DHS-OIG has now re-commenced its processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA request after having

21 withdrawn its prior blanket assertion of Exemption 7A. DHS-OIG made a release on January 5, 2018,

22 and intends to make rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis going forward.

23

7. On December 30, 2017, DOJ-EOUSA completed its processing of Plaintiff’s request to

24 that component, having released in full or in part the remaining responsive records located by its

25 searches that required interagency review.

26

8. DOJ-USMS and DOJ-FBI have also completed their processing of Plaintiff’s requests to

27 those components.

28

9. Agencies or components that have completed processing may need to process additional

JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 2

30

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 40 Filed 01/11/18 Page 3 of 4

1 records if they receive referrals from other agencies or components for direct release to Plaintiff or are

2 asked to consult or coordinate with other agencies that are processing Plaintiff’s requests.

3 Date: January 11, 2018 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ALEX G. TSE Acting United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-8016 (202) 616-8470 (Fax) Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
/s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
Counsel for Plaintiff Cora Currier

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 3

30

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 40 Filed 01/11/18 Page 4 of 4

LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 1 2 I certify that I have obtained Marcia Hofmann’s concurrence in the filing of this document.

3

/s/ Matthew J. Berns

Matthew J. Berns

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 4

30

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 40-1 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 2

Agency DOJ-FBI

Date (COMPLETED)

Contents of Release

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

8/24/2017

0

4

0

9/25/2017

0

0

7

Total:

0

4

7

DOJ-EOUSA (COMPLETED) Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

DOJ-OLC DOJ-OIP

8/31/2017 12/30/2017 Total:
8/2/2017 10/31/2017 11/30/2017 1/2/2018 Total:

24

49

0

11

18

0

35

67

0

Pages Released in Full or in Part Pages Withheld in Full

13

0

0

221

123

162

51

325

187

708

Pages Released in Full or in Part Pages Withheld in Full

8/10/2017

11

0

9/21/2017

134

0

10/30/2017

0

251

11/29/2017

3

61

12/29/2017

0

58

Total:

148

370

Department of State

Pages of

Pages of

Pages of Documents

Documents Documents

Withheld in Full

Released in Full Released in Part

8/9/2017

6

12

3

9/8/2017

7

13

0

10/10/2017

0

34

0

11/9/2017

0

15

0

12/11/2017

1

37

179

1/9/2018

1

3

0

Total:

15

114

182

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 40-1 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 2

DHS-PRIV

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

8/7/2017

68

161

53

9/11/2017 71

108

17

10/16/2017 30

106

42

11/17/2017 9

10

19

12/15/2017 9

24

20

Total:

187

409

151

DHS-CBP

Pages Released in Part or in Full Pages Withheld in Full

7/17/2017 7/28/2017 9/15/2017 10/24/2017 11/29/17 12/15/17 Total:
DOJ-USMS (COMPLETED)

53

3

180

4

115

118

250

19

585

164

316

48

1499

356

Pages Released in Part or in Full Pages Withheld in Full

6/21/2017 7/11/2017 7/12/2017 Total:

90

0

30

2

2

0

122

2

Department of Defense

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

8/9/2017

9

2

58

8/31/2017 17

0

39

10/3/2017 8

4

105

10/25/2017 29

43

50

12/4/2017 0

14

0

Total:

63

63

252

DHS-OIG

Pages Released Pages Released in Pages Withheld in Full

in Full

Part

8/2/2017

99

108

0

8/3/2017

0

0

20

1/5/2018

45

13

0

Total:

144

121

20

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 41 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 4

1 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
2
ALEX G. TSE 3 Acting United States Attorney

4 ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
5

KARI E. D’OTTAVIO (NY Bar No. 5338785) 6 MATTHEW J. BERNS (DC Bar No. 998094)
Trial Attorneys 7 (202) 305-0568
(202) 616-8470 (Fax) 8 Kari.E.D’Ottavio@usdoj.gov
United States Department of Justice 9 Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch 10 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530 11

Counsel for Defendants 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14

CORA CURRIER, 15

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

Plaintiff, 16
v.

JOINT STATUS REPORT

17 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

18

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and

19 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendants.

20 Plaintiff Cora Currier and Defendants—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of

21 Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—

22 respectfully submit this Joint Status Report.1

23 1. This case arises from multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by

24 Plaintiff, dated February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017. The requests seek records from the four defendant

25

26 1 The components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the Office
27 of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”);
28 and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 41 Filed 02/08/18 Page 2 of 4

1 agencies, including from multiple offices and/or sub-agencies within them.

2

2. The parties have been filing periodic joint status reports and have participated in multiple

3 status conferences since the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 24,

4 2017. The parties also have been conferring about the scope and prioritization of Plaintiff’s FOIA

5 requests.

6

3. On December 7, 2017, the parties jointly proposed that the Court enter an order requiring

7 the parties to file joint status reports on the second Thursday of every month, beginning on January 11,

8 2018, until further order of the Court. The parties further indicated that, if any party identifies any issue

9 that the party believes warrants the Court’s intervention, the parties will meet and confer about the issue,

10 and if the parties are unable to resolve the issue, will identify the issue in their next monthly status report

11 and request that the Court schedule a status hearing. In the interim, the parties explained, they do not

12 believe that regular status hearings are necessary.

13

4. Although the Court has not yet entered an order adopting the parties’ proposal, the parties

14 have agreed amongst themselves to submit joint status reports in accordance with their proposal unless

15 and until the Court directs them to proceed differently.

16

Production Updates and Status

17

5. Seven agencies or components—DOJ-OLC, DOJ-OIP, DOD, DOS, DHS-OIG, DHS-

18 PRIV, and DHS-CBP—continue to make rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis. The

19 attachment to this joint status report indicates the dates and volumes of all of Defendants’ releases to

20 date. The attachment does not reflect the volume of records that were processed but determined non-

21 responsive.

22

6. DOJ-EOUSA, DOJ-USMS, and DOJ-FBI have completed their processing of Plaintiff’s

23 requests to those components.

24

7. Agencies or components that have completed processing may need to process additional

25 records if they receive referrals from other agencies or components for direct release to Plaintiff or are

26 asked to consult or coordinate with other agencies that are processing Plaintiff’s requests.

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 41 Filed 02/08/18 Page 3 of 4

Date: February 8, 2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ALEX G. TSE Acting United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Kari E. D’Ottavio KARI E. D’OTTAVIO MATTHEW J. BERNS Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-0568 (202) 616-8470 (Fax) Kari.E.D’Ottavio@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
/s/ Marcia Hofmann Marcia Hofmann ZEITGEIST LAW PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law Telephone: (415) 830-6664
Counsel for Plaintiff Cora Currier

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 41 Filed 02/08/18 Page 4 of 4

LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 1 2 I certify that I have obtained Marcia Hofmann’s concurrence in the filing of this document.

3

/s/ Kari E. D’Ottavio

Kari E. D’Ottavio

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 4

 
 FOR OFFICI.A,b USE ONLY /lAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATIORNE¥ CLIENT, DELIBERATIVE
AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL

cbp.dhs.gov> Subj ect: FW: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

From : M CALEENAN, KEVI N K Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 6:4 1 PM

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6) (b ) (7)(C )

PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000001

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 27, 2017

EXECUTIVE ORDER

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration an~ Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visaissuance process to ensure that those approved for admission

EO FOIA CBP 0000000002

2
do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must e.nsure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including 11 honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of ·foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in
EO FOIA CBP 0000000003

3
subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or
criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, a·u.s.c.
1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a) (12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a) (12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
EO FOIA CBP 0000000004

4
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this ord~r, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the u.s. Refugee Admissions Program
for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in
EO FOIA CBP 0000000005

5
conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant ·to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of
EO FOIA CBP 0000000006

6
State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
{f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection {b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
{g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and loc~l jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. {a} The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entryexit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000007

7
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. ~- Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA,
8 u.s.c. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a
nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by sUbstantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with
EO FOIA CBP 0000000008

8
applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorismrelated organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
{i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; ·or
EO FOIA CBP 0000000009

9
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 27, 2017.
# # #
EO FOIA CBP 0000000010

CQ R O!=FICIAL USE O ~L ' .,..'\\\' l ' JFO h!CEh~E ·r l:E rl: ' ; /C RE : n ros MAY AL SO COW!" lf>J Au : - ~JE' :U9J ? EL - c q : ,T' .'E
/'\1>:0 oq OTHED p rile: ~.'\81 L I' R!VILEGE[' ~T[ , . -
)lllJ 1\ llll • ", hJill:. :\\<"1111<" :-.:\\
\\.,,h•n:.! '" n. n< · !il ~l ·•
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

~vl cmo ra n dum For: D irc~turs. Fidd O pL:nllion~

From :

Todd :\ . lloiYman Executi ,·c Din.:cll1r ,\d mi s~ibi l it~ and Pass~ngcr Progr.tm:Onic~..· llf ridd Or~:rations

Subject:

Guidance on l ·.x~cuti' l' Urdl.'r "Protl.'cting thL· :\ati\1n lhm1 Foreign Terrorist Entr~ lll!Pthc l"ni tcd SWII:s··

Errecth·c immed iately. and pursuant l<li::O.:L"Ctlli\1.: Order ~lll it kd. · frotet'rin,!! tlli.' .\'utirm{iwn Fon:ign Terrorist Eno:r imo tfl,• (.'mh·cl.\'tctl<'s·· (.l anuar~ 27. 2017 ). all .:ntr: into the L'nitcd States for aliens who arc nationals l'wm lr,m. Iraq. l.i hya. Snmalia. Sudan. Syria and Yemen is hereby Sllspemlcd in accorduncL: \\ith S~.:~:ti on 212(t'l ot'th~.: li'\ t\ . !'his im:l lllks ;~ llnon­ immigmnt cla ssitications. \\'ith the ~:o;~.:~pt ionn!' those ftwcign natilmals travel ing on diplomatic ,·isas. NATO ,·isas. C2 Yisns f'or lrn,·d to the l 'n itcd \:ll inns. (i I. (i2. (1-3. anJ G-4 'isas. This alSO incl udeS all immigrant daSS\!!; Of' ;!d llliSs inn. returning I~sidell! ali ell$ refug~e S anJ asyk~S.

The Dcpurtmcnt to State has prm·idcd CIW " ith a ktte1 pw\'lsionally r~' o king all immigrant and non-immigrant visas for nntionab ot' Iran. lr;m . l.ib~ a. :-:nmalia. Sud;m. unJ Y~m~n. Rc,·ocations may not y~t be annotakJ in the sysh:m.

Ineat ions.

Should aliens. subject to the J:~ccuti,·e Ortkr. arri' ~..· at the port oi' ~.·nt ry. CI3P ol'liccrs arc instructed to take the fo ll o\\'ing actit\ns:

:lpplic:wlls hearinp. .\'on-Jmmigm/11 l'i.,os unci fir, t Til/It' . lrn 1·i,

( I ~occssi n g \\'ill be rcl:

-

sys tem. ac~.:lH'd ing llli:LI

(2) Subj ects will be aiiO\\ cd to" ithdra" th~ ir appli~.:a tion fi.1r aJmi~~itHJ on F0rm 1-275.

without a sworn statem em. :\II other procedures pen;.Jining 10 the processing or Form 1-

275 withdrawal cases appl~.

(3) Should the a lien decline to "ithdra\\ the1r applit:ntH\11 I(H admissinn. the al ien ''ill be

pl nced in Expedited Rcmo,·al in accurdanct: '' ith s tandard t'pc rating pw~.:~durt:s.

t~) Aliens claiming !'t:ar t' f return ''ill h...· 1d"c1T1..'d h ) an as~ lum ortit:~r. and processt:d lor

Expedited Rcmo,·al/Crcdibk Fear (ERF). ,\ liens prm:css<:d undc.:r ERF proccdurl!s will

PROPFRTY OF U S CUSTOM AND BORDE:; =>RO- ESTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000011

FOR OFFIC IAL U SE ONLY : LAW ENF ORCE Me.N~ REOORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATIORNEY CLIENT Deb!-~
AND/OR OTHER APPLICABL E PRIVILEGeG-MATERIAL

beRfia&ed to ER.O for detadiOD. rlCld Oflic:a should clearly iDdirate to both CIS amd ERO tlllt alieDS ~ subject to ExecutiYC OrderduriDa the refena1 PJ0C1SS.

lllltJimbrB R m d m u,

(1) LawfUl Pernumcnt Residents should be refared

and bdcl at

lbe port ofamy Uldila exemptioa to the Executive

autbority to

anmt ID exaaption bu beeD delepled to the CommiaiODCr ofCBP, aad tiDtber

delepW to Di1eclon of
bas .,_8J'IIdiiCl results

SBS Port DiJect.ors. Ola ID exemption
be uota111c1 m- . nth the

followiDg Jaauage:

to

ExtcutiNo;;J;, andbllnrd

jiom MiryiJ"''IIIIIff to lll(j) oftlw INA. but 1m Hill gnmtldt111e%UiptionII' (ilum

DFOIS13 PD).

RIJicea, byl.a. UlltiCCOIIrptlllClrlldnn, tmdsubjects relrlnll1rg to tM US with A.dwmt:ed

Ptii"'M:

(1) Alieaa fivm tbe above 8IOUP who are

11 a rau1t oftbe

Exec:utiYC Order, should be lefa&ed for

aod he1cl at the port of

eat1y UDtil such time 11 an exempdoD

be obtaiDecl. This

tiUIIIpliaa &Ill to the Secaetaay ofState 8Dd Sewetary ofHomciiDd Security. Farther

pidace will be foltbcomiDg OD processina these aempticms.

IDdMduall who ft1l wi1biD any ofthe &bow may not be paroled, wbicb iDcludes port pazolc ad de&a&ed iDspectioa. To tbe extent tbat there is an emerpm medical laue related to an alia wbo falls witbiD the ExecutiYCOrder, CBP oflicera must accompany the alieo for my medical care.

bhnbtg tlliMI bwllglble who wltlrtlraw tlrclr appllctlllonfortldmwion:
(I) A1ieDs miviaa via lir or sea: Commacial carrien are required to remove fomp a1ieDs founcl iDelfaible for amy UDder 1bis order puiiU8Ilt to 24l(c)(l) oftbe INA.
(2) A1ieas llriviq via laDd will be retumecl percumat eslablished procedUieS with the
COJltigaous coant&y.

Pleue ~~~SUR that this memorandum 8lld auached muster are dissemiDatecl to all ports ofentry

wi1biD

If have any questiODS or require ldd.itioaal iDfonllllioa, fti--

Director, EDfon=ement Propams Divisicm, at

PROPERTY OF U S CUSTOMS AND BORDE R PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000012

coo OJ:r;l(l ' LL.:.: ON .." ~ e-NLG---m-t-W :,_·,s,x,::

: qECOROS M/,v ~c2l 0 ~IA I'! · --roq~::

d-F 1:; E ~· sEq~ -rt•. E

1\~ID/OR &=+' R A" 0 L,(,\ 2 _[; PRr~· J DC:T ;,t,-rl " '.' ~

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Saturday, January 28,

To: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO);

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D;

Subject: Delegation of

Wa iv e r

rity per Executive Order on Protection the Nation

From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

Act ing Deputy Commissioner/EAC,

Subject to my oversight, direction and guidance. I hereby delegate to the Deputy Commissioner, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Executive Assistant Commiss1oner. Execut ive Director Admissibilit_y and Passenger Programs, Execut ive Director Operations, Executive Director Na tional Targeting Center, Executive Director. National Targeting Center-Passenger, Directors. Field Operat ions, Port Director, John F. Kennedy Airport, and Por1 Director. Los Angeles Interna tiona l Airport, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the authority, on a case-by-case basis, and when in t he na tional interest, and only with respect to Lawful Permanent Residents of the Un ited States, to issue a visa or ot her immigration benefits to nationals of countries for wh1ch visas and benefits are
otherwise blocked under Section 3 of the President's Executive Order ent itled, " Protecti ng the Nation
from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," (January 27, 2017). Prior to taking any such action. the Lawful Permanent Resident who is the subject of the action must be subjected to a t horough ~ examinat io n by an immigration officer. This authori ty may not be further delegated.

KM

K.l:vin K. Mc/\k~:nan
1\.:ting Commis~ion~r
U.S. Customs and r\ tll·d.:r P rote~:t io n

lf'c ar e !he g ucwtliull.\ '!1 tll/1' ,\aftllll \ hnrdcn
ll'e ar e .-1 m enn t '.1 {rnlil!t ne.
l' igtlan,· ,· • ..; ,.,.,.t, ,· • l11 1, 0..:1'111

-
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000013

~ OFFICI.\l L'SE ONe'' ..\Wf:N r :::?S::\IE'•" EE '~· >-
0ECORDS MAY '\l~ GQNT ',P. \TT!:"'IP".E :u:u- ~ ~- I E =: ~ c.-": [
AND.'OR OTI ~=o 0 P0 clc ·BLE r n• • l :..EG~~ ~- :- '"" • I
-

'1.'8Ffllfl{l ThiS eeet.A~el'l '' !Jh CLA56tFJ:DiiF Gc ·.: '~ U££ Oi ll' ..: =e-de- t :e'lliliA$ •I r "l'•e !lnt "'" r ll. ecel'l~l' t l<e"' Dtlel~~: rele3se tJRaer
cs '"'II '" e Freeae.., e t lt~!e•tt~al•eP. Aet u S G 552: 4-<.. tel .. ''" P"' ll ~ ""'':!eo troASf"l•' tec:l El•st· ~ '*'<! ~ e' .n aeEe•eenee OMS pa'.e)
r elalaA!J ie FOUO IAiem~a~eP aRS •s ABila t e re'e asell ~ •to· fl'IP1 ~ ., , ellll' ' fl1CO~Rel · " aile ~>a: In 2 ~ ~ •e ' · s r "'i1le!l: ll RSt aJljlre .<a l el a •l
et~lheuled 0 11S effieta l ~Ia JIBFIIBR ell ~lis rejle fl slla~<IEI be '"'" J>e.:J I~> • ~=oe ••i:<l•a e•IRer lA " ' lie•~ er o erh~ ' e•w : ; "J• :.,·, e· ; ao~d an, a::ae•·meR/15! • :, el6 jjf<l} eer!la!f ees thfleR!sal andle 5&11!•!•~9 U $ Ge oi?•IJFRI?I'! '1iE'' I' io ' e 0 aqEI~-"6-' ' : · 'c 'e.ass ,,;, .s.. , ,.., ~w • s . .., ··,;: cr ~~~~+4.fL
file lrtleR~fl ree•fJ•enl{sl Please ne:.l)• tile seRIHV 4~ €#fd,1~ Pf!! ., •mz<wc:::es a.,e .,..,..rc:;are:, .'cr·•, 1 1 ' e• 7 .!.1..-;L. .......,; ~~ ~ ...:....,
dlselesw e ell4 s dee"'"e"t .n~st5eapfJF6> e9a; 1:1-£ St•51em; , ,. il 0e. ~e "'·e;cr: : .1

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A

Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 1:07 AM

To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

cb .dhs. ov>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

~~==~>: BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

• CBP.DHS.GOV>;

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

• CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: Guidance on Executive Order " Protect ing the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

Importance: High

Directors.

I apologize for the delay. Please be ad,·iscd that you lul\·c unilateral authorm t~· to approw exemptions to the
executive Order lor LPRs. no State D~:partmcnt approYal requir~tl. The ~xcmption process for other categories
of aliens as outlined in the policy guidance currently requires the approntl o f the acting Commissioner. f urther guidance for these exemptions is forthcoming.

Memorandum For: Directors. Field Operations

From:

Todd A. Hoffman Executi,·e Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations

Subject:

Guidance on Executi\'c Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry inw the United States..

EITectivc immediately. and pursuant to Exccutin: Order entitled. "f'rutec:tinK rhe Nativnfi'um Foretgn Tr!rrori.,·r

Entry into the United States" (January 27. 20 17). all entry into the United States for aliens who are nationals

from Iran. Iraq. Libya. Somalia. Sudan. Syria and Yemen is hereby suspended in accordance with Section

2 12(1) of the 11\'A. This includes all non-immigrant classi fications. with the excepti on of those foreign

nationals tra,·eling on diplomatic ,·isas. NATO ,·isas. ('2 ,·isas for tra,·clto the United ~ations. Gl. G2. G-3 .

md G-4 visas. This also includes all immi!.!rant dasscs of admission. returnin!.! resident aliens refuuees and

~

~

~

asylecs.

4
PROPER"'Y crUS CUSY'MS ,;r~ D EQqDEP PP

EO FOIA CBP 0000000014

FOR OFFICIAL USIE ONLY l LAV11IENFORGEMIE NT SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATIORNE Y CliENT. OHIBERA.TIVE
AN010R OTHER APPLICAB LE PRIVILEGED MATERIAL
The Department to State has provided CBP with a letter provisionally revoking all immigrant and nonimmigrant visas for nationals ofIran, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Revocations may not yet be - \annotated in the system.
t-' When:ver pui»liUl._

Should aliens, subject to the Executive Order, anive at the port ofentry, CBP officers are instructed to take the following actions:

Applicllnls bearing Non-Immigrant Visas and (1) All case processing will be recorded· system, according to current U\11.1'-YI (2) Subjects will be allowed to withdraw their application for admission on Form I-275, without a swt1m stt~te~MIII. All other procedures pertaining to the processing ofFonn I-275 withdrawal cases apply. (3) Should the alien decline to withdraw their application for admissio~ the alien will be placed in Expedited Removal in accordance with standard operating procedures. (4) Aliens claiming fear ofreturn will be referred to an asylum officer, and processed for Expedited Removal/Credible Fear (ERF). Aliens processed under ERF procedures will be referred to ERO for detention. Field Offices should clearly indicate to both CIS and ERO that aliens are subject to Executive Order during the referral process.

·Returning Ruidenls,

(1) Lawful Permanent Residents should be referred f o r - a n d held at the port of entry until an exemption to the Executive Order is~grant an exemption has been

...,.;'

delegated to the Commissioner ofCBP. and further delegated to Directors of Field Operations and SES

'·

Port Directors. Once an exemption has been granted results of

~th the following language: Individual is subject to

should be notated in Order and barred

from entrypurSUillll to 212(/) ofthe INA but has been granted an exemption per (insert DFO/SES PD).

Refugees, Asyleu, U1111Ccompanied Children, andsubjects returning to the US with Adwmced Parole:

(1) Aliens from the

from entry solely as a result ofthe Executive Order,

should be refemd for

held at the port ofentry until such time as an

exemption to the

can

This exemption falls to the Secretary ofState and

Secretary ofHomeland Security. Further guidance will be forthcoming on processing these

exemptions.

lndivicluals who fall within any ofthe above may not be paroled, which includes port parole and deferred inspection. To the extent that there is an emergent medical issue related to an alien who falls within the Executive Order, CBP officers must accompany the alien for any medical care.

Returning aliens ineligible who withdraw their application for admission:
(I) Aliens arriving via air or sea: Commercial caniers are required to remove foreign aliens found ineligible for entry under this order pursuant to 241 (c)(I) ofthe INA.
(2) Aliens arriving via land will be returned per current established procedures with the contiguous country.

~lease ensure that this memorandum and attached muster are disseminated to all ports , jurisdictiOD. IfyOU haVe any qUestiOns Or require additional infOnnaUOD, niP.SICP C()Qtact
-.._.1- -A) Director, Enforcement Programs Divisio~ at

PROPERTY OF U S CUSToJs AND BORDER PROTECTION EO FOIA CBP 0000000015

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY! LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATTORNEY-CLIENT. DELIBERATIVE
ANOIOR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGED MATERIAL
',.~~'Kid A. Hoffinan \ .JCecutive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs
Office ofField Operations U.S. Customs and Border ProteCtion
6 PROPERTY OF U S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION EO FOIA CBP 0000000016

I ~OR OffiCi•b I 15€ O~Jb¥ bA"' ~~~ ~ORC€M~~JT 5€~15 1TIIl€
RE<:ORJ;)S IIA"V •L,Sg <:O~ITAIPJ ,•.TTORNi¥ <:biE~Il:, Oibl8iR•Ti"Ji: M IJ:l/OR OTHER APPliG/\BlE PRI111biGW P4•HRJ•b
{;nited States Department of State
OepWr A H i.\'tcnll Secrewn tor l'i.sa Sen in :.,
Waslu ng!on. D.C 20520
January 27, 2017
Upon request ofthe U.S. Department of Homeland Security and pursuant to sections 212(t) and 221 (i) of the Immigration and Nationali ty Act and 22 CFR 41.12~ and 42.82, and in implementation of section 3(c) of the Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, I hereby provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas or nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to the exceptions discussed below.
The revocation does not apply to visas in the following nonimmigrant classificati ons: A- 1. A-2, G- 1, G-2, G-3, G-4. NATO, C-2. or certain diplomatic
VISaS.
The revocation also does not apply to any visa exempted on the basis of a determination made by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security pursuant to section 3(g) of the Executive Order on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest.
This document is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substanti ve or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Edward J. Ramotowsk i Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of Consular Affairs Department of Stare

PROPERTY OF U.S, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

EO FOIA CBP 0000000017

.=r o m :
Sent:
To:
Cc: Subject:

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:13 PM

OWEN, TODD

@CBP.DHS.GOV); WAGNER, JOHN P; WAGNER, JOHN P;

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Team, I just spoke with DHS and have some feedback from PC call.

• DHS would like us to (b) (5)

to do this? If so, please confirm when complete.

•

-UN is expressing concerns that we are denying G-4s. Can we look into this and

• State has signed a waiver for all872 refugees in bou nd t his week.

Can we

• DHS and State counsel are discussing (b) (5) (b) (5)

I expressed our preference for[G)J-

KM
Kevin K. McA!eenan
Acting Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection

We are the guardians ofour ,\ 'arion·.. horders. We are America 's.frontline.
l ' igilall''•' • s,• r,·i ce • Int egrity

1
PROPERTY OF U.S CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION EO FOIA CBP 0000000018

DOS-CBP Agreed Guidance for Executive Order
1) Dual nationals with a valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visa in a passport issued by any country not restricted under the Executive Order will be permitted to apply for admission to the United States.
2) Posts are allowed to process visa applications and issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from a restricted country.
3) Landed immigrants of Canada (not including refugees) who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for admission to the United States, if the individual presents that passport with a valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, proof of their landed immigrant status, and only if the travel both originates in Canada and is through a land border or a pre-clearance location.
4) Landed immigrants of Canada (not including refugees) who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States, ifthe individual presents that passport, and proof of landed immigrant status, to a consular officer. These applications shall be made at a U.S. consular section in Canada
5) The entry of Iraqi nationals with a valid Special Immigrant Visa to the United States is deemed to be in the national interest can apply for admission to the United States. Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, possession of a Special Immigrant Visa will be a dispositive factor in case-by-case determinations. Iraqi nationals can also apply to a consular officer for Special Immigrant Visas, and, if otherwise qualified, can be issued a Special Immigrant Visa.
6) As stated by Secretary Kelly, the entry ofU.S.lawful permanent residents is deemed to be in the national interest. Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in case-by-case determinations.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000019

~
7) In adjudicating ~oth admission to the United States and issuance of visas, both DHS and DOS will continue to apply all appropriate security vetting procedures.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000020

. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY t LA\'\' E NFORC E M E ~H SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN .A,TTQRNEY GLIE f'JT DELIBERATIVE
AND10 R OTHER APPUG.•\BLE PRIVILEGED MATERIAL

'-..~ From: Sent:
To: Cc
Subject: Attachments:

HUTTON, JAMES R Saturday, January 28, 2017 9:34PM HOFFMAN. TODD A; DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER. JOHN P;

on Guild.lllnl~~

P I P f r i J I I 1. . . .

Entry into the United States

RE: EO 2l2(f) Exemption Request

212(1) in

Importance:

High

DFO's As a follow up from guidance sent last night. In addition to waivers for LPRs, the Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated waiver authority to the Commissioner ofCBP for only the following categories of individuals subject to the EO:
• Returning Refugees (to include any 1st time refugees encountered);
• Returning Asylees; • Individuals in possession ofa valid 1-512 issued by CIS;
• UAC

• (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
• DXDHutton • OFO Field Liaison I have also attached some samples that were submitted for approval today.
Sample SubJect Une: EO 21Z(f) Exemption for LAST NAME, (f/n) First name
waiver Narrative
EO FOIA CBP 0000000021

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATTORNEY-CLIENT. DELIBERATIVE
Specific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:
2 PROPERTY OF U S CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000022

FOR o c FtCtAL u~E Ofl.ILY l::AW-( \tCORCB.JCNT sn;g TIIJE
0 EGOR2f' :.AA' '\c£0 .:O~l -l.' 'J ;'\ C:r'"\! •IJ:-' CUHP n r nE c ' .XIVE
'\NC qp ""lTw E~ APP ._ t::; l.6l~ 0 ' \ ' cEC EE' ~A"Tr q ,AJ:
.1. Ryan Hutton D~:puty Executi,·c Dirc~:tor :\dmissibility and Passenger Program:-; RRI3 ~ \\'ashington. DC
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
-.(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) II dhS . !.!l1\'

Warning - ..
• 'c

' \ I•
'r

- From : HOFFMAN, TODD A

Sent: Saturday, Janua ry 28, 2017 1:07 AM

To : DIRECTORS FIELD OPS (b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dh s.gov>; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)

@CBP.D HS.GOV>; (b) (6}, (b) (7)(C)

@CBP .DHS.GOV>;

HUTION, JAM ES R

@CBP .DHS.GOV>; (b) (6}, (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6}, (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6}, (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6}, (b) (7)(C)

• cbp.dhs.gov>;

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: Guidance on Executive Order " Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Ent ry into the United States

Importance: High

I >irectors.

I apo logize for the Jcl:t~ . Please be :uh·isL·J that ytnt ha,·~.: un ilah:r:tl mlllll.)rit~ h ' appnn·c exemptions to the Ex~:~:uth·c Ord~:r fnr I.PR s. no St<llt.' Do.:part lllL'Ill appn"·:tl rL·q uircd. The cxt:mption prm:css 1\H· o.llhcr •.:mcg.ork: of aliens as outlined in tilL' policy guitlancL· currentI~ rcquir~s tho.: appro, ·al ll r the :t~t i ng Cummissinn~.:r. Further guitlance for th~se c:-.:c:mplions is forthcoming.

~ klllllTandum For: Dirc~o:tors. Fil..'!d Opcrati nns

- From:

Todd t\. l lolrman Excculin:: Di re~:to.ll Admissibility ami J>asscng~r Program:-;

3
0 ROPERTY OF US CUSTOMS AND BOHDEP PROT ECTICN
EO FOIA CBP 0000000023

(b) (5), (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
EO FOIA CBP 0000000024

J;OR or;r;ICIJ\b USE 01-'lbY / b/',1.'\1 ENJ;ORCEMENT SENSITIVE
RECOROS MAY 1\bSO CONT/\1 ~1 /\TIORNE¥ CbiHJT, OELIBERATIVE
.'\NO/OR OTHfR APPbiCAabf PRIVIbWGW MATERIAl

From: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:34 PM

To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: Federal Court Stay- Hold all departures. Need confirmation

Importance: High

DFOs,

Based on this evening's federal court stay, we are to suspend all depart!Ures of those found inadmissible under the Executive Order, including those who wished to voluntarily depart. We should freeze all departures but continue to detain the individuals in the airports while we await further legal guidance. All pre-departure actions will remain underway.

Need confirmation from each DFO.

Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION EO FOIA CBP 0000000028

 
 EO FOIA CBP 0000000058

EO FOIA CBP 0000000059

EO FOIA CBP 0000000060

EO FOIA CBP 0000000061

From: To:
Cc:
Subject: Date:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) on behalf of OFO-FIELD LIAISON DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS; TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS
OFO-FIELD LIAISON; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
CAIR/Attorney Inquiry Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:03:12 PM

Directors,

Operations received reports of requests and/or attempts by private attorneys or attorneys with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to gain access to observe secondary inspections or represent aliens in secondary.   Can you advise if this is occurring in your AOR? Negative responses requested.

Thank you,
(b )

(b) (6), (b) (7)
(BCr)anch Chief U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations Field Liaison Division
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid “need to know” without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local Homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000062

From: To: Subject: Date:

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) DIRECTORS FIELD OPS Congressional and media engagement Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:49:19 PM

DFOs,

As stated on the call earlier today, you and your staff are NOT to engage with the media or Congressional representatives at this time. Please make sure your subordinate Port Directors are following this direction. Please report any such requests to Acting AC b6, b7C from Congressional Affairs.

Thank you.

Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000063

EO FOIA CBP 0000000064

and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid “need-to-know” without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local Homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000065

From: To: Subject: Importance:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
DFO/XD Conference Call High

Good Afternoon Directors,
There will be a DFO/XD Conference Call this afternoon at 1630 hours to discuss further guidance and implementation of the Presidential Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorists Entry into The United States.
Call in information is as follows: Phone numbers (b) (7)(E)

Please note this call is for Principles.
Thank you,
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Branch Chief U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations Field Liaison Division
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000066

EO FOIA CBP 0000000067

EO FOIA CBP 0000000068

From: To: Cc:
Subject: Date:

HOFFMAN, TODD A DIRECTORS FIELD OPS
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

EO CAT Monday, January 30, 2017 5:27:10 AM

Directors,

Good morning, can you please let me know if you have any reportable issues related to the

EO. There were no waivers pending C1 approval as of 0300 hours. We’re working on getting

you broader waiver authority. Please be advised that we have stood up a 24x7 CAT staffed

by members of APP, OCC, OPA, INA, NTC, and Ops. Please feel free to use the CAT as a

resource and provide all reportable issues directly to them via

(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov. Thank you for your engagement and diligence

over the weekend.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000069

EO FOIA CBP 0000000070

EO FOIA CBP 0000000071

EO FOIA CBP 0000000072

From: To: Subject: Date: Importance:

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) DIRECTORS FIELD OPS Federal Court Stay - Hold all departures. Need confirmation Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:34:00 PM High

DFOs,

Based on this evening’s federal court stay, we are to suspend all departures of those found inadmissible under the Executive Order, including those who wished to voluntarily depart. We should freeze all departures but continue to detain the individuals in the airports while we await further legal guidance. All pre-departure actions will remain underway.

Need confirmation from each DFO.

Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000073

EO FOIA CBP 0000000074

EO FOIA CBP 0000000075

EO FOIA CBP 0000000076

questions. Also, the Crisis Action Team is staffed 24/7 and can be reached at

(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov or (b) (7)(E)

.

Also, please let me know if you have any reportable issues for the 0900 senior leadership meeting.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000077

EO FOIA CBP 0000000078

EO FOIA CBP 0000000080

EO FOIA CBP 0000000081

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection
EO FOIA CBP 0000000082

EO FOIA CBP 0000000083

EO FOIA CBP 0000000085

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

MEMORANDUM FOR:       Directors, Field Operations                                                 Director, Pre-Clearance                                                                                                             FROM:                                    b6, b7C                                                 Deputy Executive Director, Operations (Acting)                                                 Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:                              Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) that meets the criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period

beginning at 0300 (EST) – and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily,

each Field Office is required to submit their data from the previous 24-hours to OFO Field

Liaison ((b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov). Reports must be submitting using the

attached Microsoft Excel template document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into

a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

If you have any questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at

(b) (7)(E)

For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please

contact Ryan Hutton, Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at

b6, b7C

.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000086

EO FOIA CBP 0000000087

b6, b7C
We are the guardians of our Nation’s borders. We are America’s frontline. Vigilance • Service • Integrity
EO FOIA CBP 0000000088

EO FOIA CBP 0000000089

EO FOIA CBP 0000000090

From: To:
Cc: Subject:
Date: Attachments:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

OFO-FIELD LIAISON

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

January 29, 2017 Update 2 Limited Distribution EAC Bullets: Nationwide: Protests at Various Ports of Entry

Resulting From President Trump’s Executive Order

Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:11:25 PM

image018.png

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations
Bullets for the Executive Assistant Commissioner January 29, 2017

Limited Distribution

Nationwide: Protests at Various Ports of Entry Resulting From President Trump’s Executive Order

January 29, 2017 Update 2: Houston Field Office: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)
·       There are approximately 1000 protestors on site.

·       The protests remain peaceful with protestors displaying signs and chanting.

·       Protestors are not interfering with passengers departing the FIS.

·       Numerous media outlets are still on site.

Los Angeles Field Office: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
·       Protests continue at LAX with about 1000 protestors on site, down from 3300 protestors who were on site at 1500 hours (PST).
·       There is a significant LAWA PD and LAPD presence on site with ongoing coordination between CBP LAX.

·       CBP Tactical Enforcement Officers (TEO) remain in place within the FIS as force protection.

·       Protests continue on both levels of the LAX Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT), and protestors have marched in the Central Terminal Area (CTA) automobile lanes.
·       LAWA PD and CBP LAX staggered the release of arriving international passengers due to the protests and the resulting congestion in the TBIT arrival areas.
·       CBP Global Entry and Public Information Offices located in the TBIT were closed as a

EO FOIA CBP 0000000091

security precaution.

·       Multiple media outlets are on site.

·       Representatives Maxine Waters and Ted Lieu were on site requesting CBP engagement and were provided with contact information for the Office of Congressional Affairs.

·       DFO b6, b7C

is on site with LAX management.

  

  

  

San Francisco Field Office: San Francisco International Airport (SFO)

·       Approximately 800 protestors were in site at 1430 hours (PST).

·       Protestors have shut down Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screening for Terminals A and G and passengers are not able to reach the international gates.

·       The Global Entry enrollment office was closed due to disturbances by protestors.

·       DFOb6, b7C

is on site with port management.

·       Passengers exiting the FIS have been routed through an alternate exit.

Submitted by: (b) (6), (b) (7) Field Liaison Division Date / Time: Ja(nCu)ary 29, 2017 / 2110 hours ______________________________________________ January 29, 2017 Update: Baltimore Field Office: Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD)

·       Protests are larger than yesterday numbering approximately 300 people. ·       Protestors displayed signs and chanted. ·       Protests are peaceful and protestors have not entered the FIS. ·       Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) and the Airports Authority Police are in the
area and control has been maintained throughout the day.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000092

Philadelphia International Airport (PHL)
·       Protests began at 1433 hours (EST) outside of Terminal “A” East and West but have now begin to disperse.
·       Protests were peaceful and protestors did not enter the FIS. ·       No impact to airport operations.
Houston Field Office: Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS)
·       Approximately 200 protestors gathered at 1445 hours (CST) and dispersed at 1715 hours.
·       The protest was peaceful. ·       No impact to operations.
Houston-Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)
·       Protests began at approximately 1340 hours (CST) in Terminal E right outside of the FIS arrival area.
·       Approximately 30-60 protestors chanted, clapped, and held signs while travelers exited the FIS.
·       The Houston Police Department (HPD) was on site with 15-20 officers. ·       Protests were peaceful and protestors did not enter the FIS.
San Antonio International Airport (SAT)
·       Protests began at approximately 1215 hours (CST) in the Terminal “A” baggage claim with three protestors and one counter protestor.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000093

·       Local media and Univision Spanish Network filmed the event and then departed the area.
·       All protestors departed the area at 1530 hours. ·       No impact to operations.
   Miami Field Office: Miami International Airport (MIA)
·       Protests began around 1400 hours (EST) on the second level of the airport. ·       The Miami Dade Police Department estimated the crowd to be 150 protestors. ·       No impact to operations.
Orlando International Airport (MCO)
·       Protests have begun and include approximately 300 protestors. ·       The Orlando Police Department (OPD) is containing the protestors inside the food
court of the main terminal. ·       No impact to operations.
Fort Lauderdale International Airport (FLL)
·       Protests have begun on a grassy area next to a parking garage across from Terminal 4. ·       There are approximately 20-25 protestors who are holding signs. ·       The Broward County Sheriff’s Office and Broward County Airport Division (BCAD)
security personnel are on site monitoring the protest.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000094

·       Local media was on site.
·       No impact to operations.
New Orleans Field Office: Louis Armstrong International Airport (KMSY)

·       Protests began at approximately 1600 hours outside of the baggage claim area with 2530 protestors.
·       The protest was peaceful as protestors held up a banner, sang, and chanted but did not enter the FIS.
·       The Jefferson Parish Sherriff’s Office is on site monitoring the protest.
·       Local media is also onsite.
·       No impact to operations.
Tucson Field Office Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport (PHX)

·       Protests began at 1440 hours (MST) outside Terminal 4 Level 2.

·       The number of protestors in undetermined as the protest is not near the FIS.

·       Phoenix Police Department (PPD) is monitoring the protest.

·       No impact to operations at this time.

Submitted by: b6, b7C

/ Field Liaison Division

Date / Time: January 29, 2017 / 1900 hours

_________________________________________________

SYNOPSIS:

On January 28, 2017, various U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ports of entry

(POEs) are reporting protests resulting from the Executive Order (EO) “Protecting the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” issued by President Trump on January 27,

2017.   This EO suspended all entry into the United Sates for aliens who are nationals from

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen as per Section 212(f) of the INA. This

includes all non-immigrant classifications, with the exception of those people traveling on

diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C2 visas going to the United Nations, G1, G2, G3 and G4

visas. The order also includes all immigrant classes of admission, returning resident aliens,

refugees and asylees.

DETAILS:

New York Field Office:

EO FOIA CBP 0000000095

John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)    UPDATE #2:
·       As of 2135 hours, JFK Terminal 4 is reporting that the crowds of protesters are decreasing at this time.
     -----------------------------------------------
     UPDATE #1:
·       As of 1900 hours, protestors have occupied the parking garage at Terminal 4 (all levels) with signs.
·       Crowd estimate is approximately 2,500-3,000. Demonstration mainly contained to Terminal 4 at this time, sporadic protesters at all the other terminals. PAPD, National Guard, state police, and NYPD assets will be deployed to all terminals.
·       The protesters are being contained, are peaceful, are keeping their distance and are being closely monitored.
·       Air Train service is restricted, only ticketed passengers and persons with airport ID will be allowed to enter the air train to access the central terminal areas.
·       No impact to airport operations.        -------------------------------
·       According to the NY/NJ Port Authority Police Department (PAPD), a group of demonstrators (about 80) are currently protesting in a parking lot outside Terminal 4 under the presence of media outlets.
·       With assistance of PAPD and Port Authority (PA) operations we have directed the protesters to remain in a specific lot where they are currently staged and monitored.
·       The PAPD Police closed inner arrivals roadways to all traffic with exception police vehicles, and yellow cabs. Some arrivals doorways also have been restricted by PAPD at this time, and all arrivals foot traffic has been directed to specific exit doors.
·       The remaining 4 CBP terminals at JFK have not been impacted. The PAPD are making sure media personnel are not congregating in the terminals.
·       A conference call with PAPD was held at 1500 hours and the JFK Port Director briefed the other law enforcement agencies on how CBP is processing the passengers who are subject to this EO.
·       Due to the demonstration scheduled to take place in the Terminal 4 parking lot at 1830 hours, additional police personnel will be deployed to the area to ensure that the demonstration remains peaceful.
·       Approximately 350-400 demonstrators are currently in the east side of the parking lot.     
EO FOIA CBP 0000000096

Newark-Liberty International Airport (EWR) ·       A group of protestors have congregated at the Terminal B International Arrivals Area of Newark Liberty International Airport. ·       The crowd size is approximately 100 and the protest is peaceful. ·       Several media outlets have set up around the protest. The group is protesting the implementation of President Trump's Executive Order. ·       PAPD is securing the area for travelers and airport employees.
Baltimore Field Office: Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD)
·       Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring attend a "Protest Rally To Welcome Refugees" at IAD organized by a social group identifying itself as “Standing Up For Racial Justice of Northern Virginia”.
·       Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe gave a speech to the media in opposition to President Donald Trump's Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from
EO FOIA CBP 0000000097

Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” temporarily banning immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries entry into the United States.
·       Social justice group “Standing Up For Racial Justice of Northern Virginia” organized a welcome rally via social media to take place at Washington Dulles Airport.   The Governor and state attorney general gave a press conference and left Washington Dulles after briefly speaking with rally attendees.
·       Rally organizer, Cayce Utley, representing the group stated to media sources that the group was planning a show of solidarity to international arrivals, immigrants, refugees coming into this country, who might be afraid of the executive order, to let them know the group supports and welcomes them.
·       Estimated by Airport authority that this event has drawn up to 300 participants. Protestors have been witnessed cheering when passengers exit the FIS, and occasionally chanting “love, not hate. That’s what makes America great.”
·       In light of the rally/demonstration ongoing in the main terminal, CBP personnel have been mustered regarding situational awareness and to take appropriate safety precautions to include limiting traversing public areas of the terminal and use of cover shirts/jackets.
·       Personnel have also been advised that they are not to speak to the media or other individuals who may inquire regarding the executive order, but rather are to refer them to public affairs link on CBP.gov and/or notify a supervisor.
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL)
·       Information obtained from news outlets and Philadelphia Police Airport Group have identified that a protest is scheduled at the Philadelphia International Airport Arrivals Hallway at 1400 hrs.
·       Philadelphia Police Airport Group stated that they will try to contain/reroute the protests to the Departure/Ticketing area (away from the FIS location).
·       Philly.com (Will Bunch – columnist) is reporting that a protest is imminent (being organized) at Terminal “A”.
o   Expected turn-out is projected to be in the hundreds
o   This is the main entrance and exit for the CBP staff to access the FIS for start/end of shifts
o   Officers will be advised to utilize secondary entrances, wear cover shirts or report to work in plain clothes
o   Officers are reminded that body armor is recommended and mustered multiple times not to engage the general public, media outlets, etc
EO FOIA CBP 0000000098

o   Officers have been mustered multiple times that if engaged, they are to state that they are not authorized to comment
o   Additional staffing has been assigned for tomorrow
o   Egress and Ingress points will be staffed by officers/supervisors
o   Officers have been advise to remain vigilant and to challenge individuals who are accessing our area
o   PHI CBP Supervisors have been monitoring (not responding too) social media.
Baltimore International Airport (BWI):
UPDATE:
·        On January 28, 2017, Captain Alford of the MDTA Police confirmed that a protest is scheduled for tomorrow, Sunday January 29, 2017 from 1700-2100. The protest will be held in the International Arrivals Hall at BWI.
·         CBP Management and MDTA Police Captain Alford coordinated a teleconference to discuss the protest particulars.
·         MDTA Police will have additional officers on hand at BWI.
·         Social Media Link: GetGroundGame.com/airport protests. Reports protest will begin at 1700-2000 and advising protesters to drive or take train directly to Pier E (International Terminal) of BWI.
·         The number of protesters is not currently known. It is anticipated the protest will be peaceful.
·         It is unknown whether media will be present.
·         MDTA Police is arranging a teleconference tomorrow. Call information: Time: 1000am. 1-877-620-6892 code: 8016962830. CBP Baltimore Management will be on the call.
·         CBP Baltimore will not be engaging the protesters and employees. There is no known threat to CBP Baltimore.   
·         CBP employees will be re-mustered on the received EO guidance, officer/employee situational awareness (wearing a cover, escorting agriculture specialists, staying within the FIS, etc), and referring all media inquiries to appropriate contacts.
------------------------------------------------------------
·       The MDTA Police and MAA are not aware of any planned protests for today or tomorrow.
Boston Field Office:
EO FOIA CBP 0000000099

Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS)      UPDATE:
·       The protest at Boston Logan Airport has grown to approximately 100 people. The protest is being led by the Local ACLU and Boston City Councilor Tito Jackson.
·       At 2015 Senator Elizabeth Warren arrived and is speaking with protesters, it is anticipated that she will make a statement to the media on site.
·       The protesters are chanting “say it loud stay it clear everyone is welcome here"
·       The protest is being held outside the CBP FIS main arrivals door.
·       As of now there is no impact to CBP operations.
·       CBP Boston has stationed additional staff on the secure side of the FIS exit door to prevent protesters from entering.
·       Multiple media outlets are covering the protest.
·       In addition to the protest there are multiple immigration attorneys handing out literature and posting signs.
·       The Massachusetts State Police and Massport are on site and are monitoring the situation.
--------------------------------------
·       On January 28, 2017, Massachusetts District Attorney Maura Healey hosted a press conference outside the CBP Federal Inspection (FIS) area main arrivals door at BOS in response the Presidential Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States and was covered by two (2) media outlets.
·       Additionally approximately five (5) protesters have gathered. CBP along with the Massachusetts State Police and Massport are monitoring the developing situation.
Chicago Field Office: Chicago-O’Hare International Airport (ORD)
·       Activists and elected officials called for an "emergency protest" at O'Hare Airport's international terminal. (no further details)
Port of Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP)
·       On January 28, 2017, at 1645 hours (CST), Minneapolis Airport Police Department called and relayed that a group of approximately 30-40 individuals have organized a demonstration/protest via Facebook, at the Minneapolis Airport, terminal one.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000100

·       The dispatcher stated that 30-40 protestors have organized via Facebook and are currently gathering at the Minneapolis International Airport, Terminal one and planned to walk through the terminal and meet at the CBP/FIS exit doors, and great people as they arrived. The Minneapolis Airport Police Department is monitoring the group by camera and also have officers present.
·       All CBP staffed have been mustered and information disseminated.
·       All officers were advised to travel in pairs and to wear a cover shirt when leaving the FIS area. The staff was also advised that any questions from the media should be directed to the Chief in Charge.
·       The camera system within CBP does show that there are individuals gathering in the baggage claim area, near the FIS exit holding signs and cameras.
·       Two CBPO’s are assigned to EGRESS and any activity will be reported as soon as possible.
San Francisco Field Office San Francisco International Airport (SFO)      UPDATE:
·       There are approximately 800 protestors outside the FIS exit arrival area at this time.
·       The protestors have been banging on the FIS exit arrival area doors at times.
·       The San Francisco Police Department has deployed their riot gear in preparation of the unruly protestors within the San Francisco International Terminal Area.
·       The Global Entry office is currently closed due to the unruly protestors within the area of the Global Entry Office. We are currently contacting the people that have appointments so that they can reschedule.
·       According to SFPD, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom is present among the protesters; he has not reached out to CBP at this time.
      -------------------------------------------
·       CBP was informed by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) that there are demonstrations anticipated at the San Francisco International Airport this afternoon. The demonstrations are in reaction to the recent presidential executive orders dealing with immigration.
·       The San Francisco Airport reported a demonstration in front of the Departures level by a group called “Not In Our Name.” SFPD will monitor situation and not interfere unless the group breaks any laws, such as trying to enter the FIS. SFPD stated they will have officers posted around the FIS exit to monitor situation.
·       The demonstration has had no significant impact on CBP operations.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000101

·       The group outside the “A” exit to the arrivals lobby has been dispersed. ·       Per SFPD approximately 300 protesters are massed on the curb outside the FIS arrivals
lobby. SFPD states they are hearing “chatter” from some in the crowd suggesting that “they rush the doors” to the FIS and “free those being illegally detained by CBP”. SFPD states they are reaching out to San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department for assistance in crowd control. ·       CBP SFO is shutting down the “San Francisco Arrivals” set of exit doors, and rerouting passengers to utilize only the “Connecting Flights” set of exit doors as the sole means of exiting the FIS ·       Armed CBP officers are stationed at both sets of exit doors to control entry ·       CBP SFO is maintaining constant communication with SFPD to in order to monitor protest activity and assess risk. ·       DFO Humphrey was on scene at SFO to oversee overall operations and ensure smooth and efficient processing of affected arriving aliens. Houston Field Office: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) ·       On Saturday, January 28, 2017, at approximately 1630 hours, approx. 50-60 protesters and news media gathered outside the DFW International Airport FIS exit. ·       Onsite were what appeared to be representatives from 10 different news media outlets with filming equipment. The DFW Police Department is onsite as well. ·       At this time protesters are still onsite; however, passengers exiting the FIS were not being interfered with.
  
EO FOIA CBP 0000000102

Houston-Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)
·         On January 28, 2017, at 1940 hours (CST), CBP IAH was advised of possible protests outside of the FIS arrivals area.
·         Approximately 60-70 protesters organized in the Terminal E arrival area and began protesting by chanting and clapping while traveler exited the FIS.
·         Houston Police Department was on site in case any issues arises.
·         Protesters were peaceful in their appearance, no issues reported. Local News media was present.
·         CBP personnel were advised to not go into the public area where protest was being held.
·         Additional staff was reallocated to Exit control to ensure no un-authorized access was gained by protesters.
San Diego Field Office: San Diego International Airport (SAN)
·       On January 28, 2017, at approximately 1630 hours, Assistant Port Director (APD) (b) (6), informed Supervisor (SCBPO)(b) (6), that he received information from HPD (tbh)a(t7a) protest was taking place at San D(bi)e(g7o)(CIn) ternational Airport.
·       The protesters are at the curbside arrivals- lower level- at Terminal 2 (west) near Delta Airlines. Protesters location is currently away from San Diego CBP FIS.
·       1700 hrs: Protesters number at about 20 people.
·       1745 hrs: Protesters numbers have risen to about 100 people.
·       No media attention at this time.
·       CBP San Diego requested Harbor Police and the Airport Authority to inform CBP if changes within the protest escalate.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000103

·       For officer safety, all CBP staff have been briefed and instructed to take precautionary measures (ie: cover shirts) when leaving the premises of the FIS, and depart in pairs.
·       Additional precautionary measure were the relocation of CBP marked units parked curbside Terminal 2, to the interior parking lots away from public view.
·       Protest has no impact/disruption on Port Operations. There are no arriving passengers in the FIS subject to the EO.
·       FIS Supervisors have been monitoring the gathering of protesters, and will update as necessary.
Detroit Field Office: Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW)
·       On January 28, 2017, CBP DTW was informed by the WCAA Police of social media reports regarding a planned protest at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, McNamara Terminal scheduled to take place on January 29, 2017 from 1600 – 1800 hours
·       Reports claim that 1000 people have signed up for the protest and several hundred more people may participate
·       WCAA Police is coordinating with the airport Public Relations and Maintenance Department to establish an authorized picketing area
·         In order to accommodate the number of protesters, the WCAA will allow three authorized picketing areas at the McNamara Terminal: o   Curbside at the departures level o   Curbside at the arrivals level o   Curbside at the international arrivals level
·         WCAA is considering as overflow area inside the airport in the domestic baggage
EO FOIA CBP 0000000104

area, if necessary
·         CBP/DTW Port Director will meet with WCAA prior to the event to view areas designated for the protesters
·       CBP will establish a plain-clothes CBP officer as an observer in the International Arrivals Lobby outside of the FIS. The CBP officer will be equipped with a radio to maintain communications with the CBP Watch Commander/ Command Center
·         CBP will increase security near the exit of the FIS to maintain safety of staff and passengers
Los Angeles Field Office: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
·       On January 28, 2017, attorneys, private citizens and members of the media began to arrive at the Public Information Office (PIO) at the Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT). The CBP Officer assigned to PIO advised the inquiring parties to contact the Office Public Affairs. Due to the size of the crowd, a Supervisory CBPO and additional CBPOs were deployed to PIO to assist. The SCBPO and additional CBPOs handed OPA contact information to the inquiring parties. The PIO, which normally is staffed from 0700-2300 hours, was closed at 1700 due to security concerns related to the protest.
·       Between 1600 and 1700 hours, approximately 150 protestors arrived and began holding an organized vigil outside the TBIT departure level. There are six media vans and reporters are interviewing both passengers and protestors. There is no CBP presence in the area.
·       The Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Police Department has deployed an enhanced visible presence in the area.
·       CBP has deployed a limited Tactical Enforcement Operation (TEO) contingent in the internal FIS egress area, out of the public view. A similar contingent will be deployed tomorrow.
·       Attorneys advertising their services and holding signs are lingering in the PIO area.
·       The LAX Port Director, LAWA PD Chief and the LAWA Executive Director are in close communication.   
·       Currently, two (2) additional protests are scheduled for January 29, 2017. Attendance estimates per social media indicate that at 1100 hours, 185 protesters will be at TBIT (no specific location) and at 1300 hours, 1,500 protestors will be at TBIT in the
EO FOIA CBP 0000000105

arrivals level.

Las Vegas International Airport (LAS)

·       CBP management at the LAS contacted the LAX Port Director and relayed information suggesting that there will be potential protests in Las Vegas in the days ahead. No further details at this time.

Submitted by: b6, b7C

/ Field Liaison Division

Date / Time: January 28, 2017 / 2315 hours

EO FOIA CBP 0000000106

From: To:
Cc:

(b) (6), (b) (7) on behalf of OFO-FIELD LIAISON EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Subject: Date:

Limited Distribution: EAC Bullets - Nationwide: Protests at Various Ports of Entry Resulting From President Trump’s Executive Order
Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:32:50 PM

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations
Bullets for the Executive Assistant Commissioner January 28, 2017

Limited Distribution

Nationwide: Protests at Various Ports of Entry Resulting From President Trump’s Executive Order

SYNOPSIS: On January 28, 2017, various U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ports of entry (POEs) are reporting protests resulting from the Executive Order (EO) “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” issued by President Trump on January 27, 2017.   This EO suspended all entry into the United Sates for aliens who are nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen as per Section 212(f) of the INA. This includes all non-immigrant classifications, with the exception of those people traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C2 visas going to the United Nations, G1, G2, G3 and G4 visas. The order also includes all immigrant classes of admission, returning resident aliens, refugees and asylees.

DETAILS:

New York Field Office: John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)

UPDATE:
·       As of 1900 hours, protestors have occupied the parking garage at Terminal 4 (all levels) with signs.
·       Crowd estimate is approximately 2,500-3,000. Demonstration mainly contained to Terminal 4 at this time, sporadic protesters at all the other terminals. PAPD, National Guard, state police, and NYPD assets will be deployed to all terminals.
·       The protesters are being contained, are peaceful, are keeping their distance and are being closely monitored.
·       Air Train service is restricted, only ticketed passengers and persons with airport ID will be allowed to enter the air train to access the central terminal areas.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000107

·       No impact to airport operations.        -------------------------------
·       According to the NY/NJ Port Authority Police Department (PAPD), a group of demonstrators (about 80) are currently protesting in a parking lot outside Terminal 4 under the presence of media outlets.
·       With assistance of PAPD and Port Authority (PA) operations we have directed the protesters to remain in a specific lot where they are currently staged and monitored.
·       The PAPD Police closed inner arrivals roadways to all traffic with exception police vehicles, and yellow cabs. Some arrivals doorways also have been restricted by PAPD at this time, and all arrivals foot traffic has been directed to specific exit doors.
·       The remaining 4 CBP terminals at JFK have not been impacted. The PAPD are making sure media personnel are not congregating in the terminals.
·       A conference call with PAPD was held at 1500 hours and the JFK Port Director briefed the other law enforcement agencies on how CBP is processing the passengers who are subject to this EO.
·       Due to the demonstration scheduled to take place in the Terminal 4 parking lot at 1830 hours, additional police personnel will be deployed to the area to ensure that the demonstration remains peaceful.
·       Approximately 350-400 demonstrators are currently in the east side of the parking lot.     
Newark-Liberty International Airport (EWR) ·       A group of protestors have congregated at the Terminal B International Arrivals Area of Newark Liberty International Airport. ·       The crowd size is approximately 100 and the protest is peaceful. ·       Several media outlets have set up around the protest. The group is protesting the
EO FOIA CBP 0000000108

implementation of President Trump's Executive Order. ·       PAPD is securing the area for travelers and airport employees.
Baltimore Field Office: Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD)
·       Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring attend a "Protest Rally To Welcome Refugees" at IAD organized by a social group identifying itself as “Standing Up For Racial Justice of Northern Virginia”.
·       Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe gave a speech to the media in opposition to President Donald Trump's Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” temporarily banning immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries entry into the United States.
·       Social justice group “Standing Up For Racial Justice of Northern Virginia” organized a welcome rally via social media to take place at Washington Dulles Airport.   The Governor and state attorney general gave a press conference and left Washington Dulles after briefly speaking with rally attendees.
·       Rally organizer, Cayce Utley, representing the group stated to media sources that the group was planning a show of solidarity to international arrivals, immigrants, refugees coming into this country, who might be afraid of the executive order, to let them know the group supports and welcomes them.
·       Estimated by Airport authority that this event has drawn up to 300 participants. Protestors have been witnessed cheering when passengers exit the FIS, and occasionally chanting “love, not hate. That’s what makes America great.”
·       In light of the rally/demonstration ongoing in the main terminal, CBP personnel have been mustered regarding situational awareness and to take appropriate safety precautions to include limiting traversing public areas of the terminal and use of cover shirts/jackets.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000109

·       Personnel have also been advised that they are not to speak to the media or other individuals who may inquire regarding the executive order, but rather are to refer them to public affairs link on CBP.gov and/or notify a supervisor.
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL)
·       Information obtained from news outlets and Philadelphia Police Airport Group have identified that a protest is scheduled at the Philadelphia International Airport Arrivals Hallway at 1400 hrs.
·       Philadelphia Police Airport Group stated that they will try to contain/reroute the protests to the Departure/Ticketing area (away from the FIS location).
·       Philly.com (Will Bunch – columnist) is reporting that a protest is imminent (being organized) at Terminal “A”.
o   Expected turn-out is projected to be in the hundreds
o   This is the main entrance and exit for the CBP staff to access the FIS for start/end of shifts
o   Officers will be advised to utilize secondary entrances, wear cover shirts or report to work in plain clothes
o   Officers are reminded that body armor is recommended and mustered multiple times not to engage the general public, media outlets, etc
o   Officers have been mustered multiple times that if engaged, they are to state that they are not authorized to comment
o   Additional staffing has been assigned for tomorrow
o   Egress and Ingress points will be staffed by officers/supervisors
o   Officers have been advise to remain vigilant and to challenge individuals who are accessing our area
o   PHI CBP Supervisors have been monitoring (not responding too) social media.
Baltimore International Airport (BWI):
·       The MDTA Police and MAA are not aware of any planned protests for today or tomorrow.
Boston Field Office: Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS)
·       On January 28, 2017, Massachusetts District Attorney Maura Healey hosted a press conference outside the CBP Federal Inspection (FIS) area main arrivals door at BOS in response the Presidential Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign
EO FOIA CBP 0000000110

Terrorist Entry Into the United States and was covered by two (2) media outlets.
·       Additionally approximately five (5) protesters have gathered. CBP along with the Massachusetts State Police and Massport are monitoring the developing situation.
Chicago Field Office: Chicago-O’Hare International Airport (ORD)
·       Activists and elected officials called for an "emergency protest" at O'Hare Airport's international terminal. (no further details)
Port of Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP)
·       On January 28, 2017, at 1645 hours (CST), Minneapolis Airport Police Department called and relayed that a group of approximately 30-40 individuals have organized a demonstration/protest via Facebook, at the Minneapolis Airport, terminal one.
·       The dispatcher stated that 30-40 protestors have organized via Facebook and are currently gathering at the Minneapolis International Airport, Terminal one and planned to walk through the terminal and meet at the CBP/FIS exit doors, and great people as they arrived. The Minneapolis Airport Police Department is monitoring the group by camera and also have officers present.
·       All CBP staffed have been mustered and information disseminated.
·       All officers were advised to travel in pairs and to wear a cover shirt when leaving the FIS area. The staff was also advised that any questions from the media should be directed to the Chief in Charge.
·       The camera system within CBP does show that there are individuals gathering in the baggage claim area, near the FIS exit holding signs and cameras.
·       Two CBPO’s are assigned to EGRESS and any activity will be reported as soon as possible.
San Francisco Field Office San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
·       CBP was informed by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) that there are demonstrations anticipated at the San Francisco International Airport this afternoon. The demonstrations are in reaction to the recent presidential executive orders dealing with immigration.
·       The San Francisco Airport reported a demonstration in front of the Departures level by a group called “Not In Our Name.” SFPD will monitor situation and not interfere unless the group breaks any laws, such as trying to enter the FIS. SFPD stated they will have officers posted around the FIS exit to monitor situation.
·       The demonstration has had no significant impact on CBP operations.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000111

·       The group outside the “A” exit to the arrivals lobby has been dispersed. ·       Per SFPD approximately 300 protesters are massed on the curb outside the FIS arrivals
lobby. SFPD states they are hearing “chatter” from some in the crowd suggesting that “they rush the doors” to the FIS and “free those being illegally detained by CBP”. SFPD states they are reaching out to San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department for assistance in crowd control. ·       CBP SFO is shutting down the “San Francisco Arrivals” set of exit doors, and rerouting passengers to utilize only the “Connecting Flights” set of exit doors as the sole means of exiting the FIS ·       Armed CBP officers are stationed at both sets of exit doors to control entry ·       CBP SFO is maintaining constant communication with SFPD to in order to monitor protest activity and assess risk. ·       DFO (b) (6), (b) was on scene at SFO to oversee overall operations and ensure smooth and e(f7fi)c(Cie)nt processing of affected arriving aliens. Houston Field Office: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) ·       On Saturday, January 28, 2017, at approximately 1630 hours, approx. 50-60 protesters and news media gathered outside the DFW International Airport FIS exit. ·       Onsite were what appeared to be representatives from 10 different news media outlets with filming equipment. The DFW Police Department is onsite as well. ·       At this time protesters are still onsite; however, passengers exiting the FIS were not being interfered with.
  
EO FOIA CBP 0000000112

Submitted by: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) / Field Liaison Division Date / Time: January 28, 2017 / 1900 hours
EO FOIA CBP 0000000113

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Importance:

HOFFMAN, TODD A DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Potential EO Guidance Friday, February 03, 2017 6:42:26 PM High

Directors,
(b) (5)
will send out policy guidance and reach out via phone tree.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

. Once I receive word, I

EO FOIA CBP 0000000114

EO FOIA CBP 0000000115

Subject: IMMEDIATE ACTION: Executive Order Implementation and compliance with EDNY Court Order ALCON: Please take immediate action on the instruction below with regard to travelers impacted by the order. APP will follow with further guidance: To further the implementation of the Executive Order, consistent with the principle in Section 5(e) recognizing due consideration for travelers who were in transit and for whom denying admission would cause undue hardship, ports of entry shall take the following actions for those limited number of travelers subject to the Executive Order currently in CBP custody. Ports of entry should assess those individuals by referring them for a (b) (7)(E) examination, and where no derogatory information exists, consideration for a waiver pursuant to Section 3(g) or 5(e) as appropriate. If derogatory information is discovered during the examination, the case should be referred to up the chain to determine appropriate next steps. In any event, no alien subject to the Executive Order may be subject to Expedited Removal or another immediate form of removal. For any alien currently in CBP custody who had previously been processed for Expedited Removal and not yet removed, please re-process according to this guidance. For any questions regarding this guidance please contact Admissibility and Passenger Programs, duty officer.
Kevin K. McAleenan
Acting Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection
b6, b7C
We are the guardians of our Nation’s borders. We are America’s frontline. Vigilance • Service • Integrity
EO FOIA CBP 0000000116

EO FOIA CBP 0000000117

EO FOIA CBP 0000000118

EO FOIA CBP 0000000119

from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

MEMORANDUM FOR:       Directors, Field Operations                                                 Director, Pre-Clearance                                                                                                             FROM:                                    b6, b7C                                                 Deputy Executive Director, Operations (Acting)                                                 Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:                              Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) that meets the criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period

beginning at 0300 (EST) – and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily,

each Field Office is required to submit their data from the previous 24-hours to OFO Field

Liaison ((b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov). Reports must be submitting using the

attached Microsoft Excel template document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into

a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

If you have any questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at

(b) (7)(E)

. For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please

contact Ryan Hutton, Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at

b6, b7C

.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000120

EO FOIA CBP 0000000121

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: UPDATED Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry

into the United States

Importance: High

DFO’s As a follow up from guidance sent last night. In addition to waivers for LPRs, the Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated waiver authority to the Commissioner of CBP for only the following categories of individuals subject to the EO:
·         Returning Refugees (to include any 1st time refugees encountered); ·         Returning Asylees; ·         Individuals in possession of a valid I-512 issued by CIS; ·         UAC

The request for said waiver will need to follow the below format sent initially to the below

distro ·         (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov

·         (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov

·         (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov

·         EAC Owen

·         DEAC Wagner

·         (b) (6), (b) (7) ·        (XCD) Hoffman

·         (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

·         DXD Hutton

·         OFO Field Liaison

I have also attached some samples that were submitted for approval today.

Sample

Subject Line: EO 212(f) Exemption for LAST NAME, (f/n) First name

Waiver Narrative
(b) (5)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000122

Specific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:
(b) (5)

(b) (5)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000123

EO FOIA CBP 0000000124

EO FOIA CBP 0000000125

EO FOIA CBP 0000000126

EO FOIA CBP 0000000127

EO FOIA CBP 0000000129

EO FOIA CBP 0000000130

EO FOIA CBP 0000000131

EO FOIA CBP 0000000132

EO FOIA CBP 0000000133

EO FOIA CBP 0000000134

questions. Also, the Crisis Action Team is staffed 24/7 and can be reached at

(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov or (b) (7)(E)

.

Also, please let me know if you have any reportable issues for the 0900 senior leadership meeting.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000135

EO FOIA CBP 0000000136

EO FOIA CBP 0000000137

EO FOIA CBP 0000000138

Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid “need to know” without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local Homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.
From: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:57:40 PM To: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) HOFFMAN, TODD A; HUTTON, JAMES R; OFO-FIELD LIAISON Subject: Specifics needed on anyone held at the ports
XD Ops, XD APP, Field Liaison,
First thing in the morning, we will need each Field Office to provide a list of names of any individuals being held for the 212(f) executive order. Here is the format JFK provided, will need each Field Office to provide a similar listing by 1000.
Thank you.

Name:                                             Status              Disposition     Departure flight/time

(b) (6), (b) (7)                                  K1                   WD                 TBD

((Cb)) (6), (b) (7)(C)

           B2                   WD                 TBD

Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000139

EO FOIA CBP 0000000140

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Cc: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; OFO-FIELD LIAISON (b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

MEMORANDUM FOR:       Directors, Field Operations                                                 Director, Pre-Clearance                                                                                                             FROM:                                    b6, b7C                                                 Deputy Executive Director, Operations (Acting)                                                 Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:                              Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) that meets the criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period

beginning at 0300 (EST) – and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily,

each Field Office is required to submit their data from the previous 24-hours to OFO Field

Liaison ((b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov). Reports must be submitting using the

attached Microsoft Excel template document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into

a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

If you have any questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at

(b) (7)(E)

For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please

contact Ryan Hutton, Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at

b6, b7C

.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000141

From: To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date: Attachments:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7) OFO-FIELD LIAISON; DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ; BORDER
SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS; TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) NFORCEMENT PROGRAMS DIVISION; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
UPDATE #3: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States
Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:27:54 PM
Copy of Executive Order Reporting.xlsx FO EO Individuals Being Held.xlsx

Good afternoon DFOs and ADFOs,

Please see the newest version of the Executive Oder Reporting attached.

Please use this version of the reporting requirements for your Field Offices. Please do not use a different spreadsheet, just plug in your numbers under your Field Office tab. Do not change anything as there are formulas in the spreadsheet.

Please include the CATs email address when responding.

The next report is due by 1500 hours (EST).

Also required is an updated list of the EO Individuals Being Held at the same time you submit your numbers. I’ve attached the spreadsheet already created from what was submitted this morning. Please update but do not delete from it.
If you have any questions, please let myself know or Branch Chief b6, b7C

Thank you,
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Branch Chief U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations Field Liaison Division
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of
EO FOIA CBP 0000000142

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid “need-to-know” without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local Homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.

From: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:33 PM

To: OFO-FIELD LIAISON (b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

<(b) (7)(E)

cbp.dhs.gov>; TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Cc: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) @cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: UPDATE #2: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting

the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

Importance: High

Directors,

The Office of Field Operations, Operations Division has been requested to update the reporting template to capture and clarify additional information needed by CBP leadership. As such, a new reporting template has been created.

Please ensure that your locations are using the attached template for reporting beginning with the 0500 report on January 29, 2017.

As a reminder: ·         Reporting is now due to Field Liaison at 0500 hours, 1500 hours and 2100 hours. o   Field Liaison reports are due to the DHS National Operations Center (NOC) within one hour of the established reporting times. o   It is critical that reports are submitted to Field Liaison timely. ·         In addition to the running cumulative total each Field Office need to also report totals for the specified reporting timeframe.  

Thank you for your patience and flexibility.

Thank you,

EO FOIA CBP 0000000143

EO FOIA CBP 0000000144

criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period

beginning at 0300 (EST) – and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily,

each Field Office is required to submit their data from the previous 24-hours to OFO Field

Liaison (b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov). Reports must be submitting using the

attached Microsoft Excel template document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into

a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

If you have any questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at

(b) (7)(E)

. For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please

contact Ryan Hutton, Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at

b6, b7C

EO FOIA CBP 0000000145

EO FOIA CBP 0000000146

this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.

From: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) On Behalf Of OFO-FIELD LIAISON

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:09 AM

To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS (b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS

<(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Cc: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; OFO-FIELD LIAISON (b) (7)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.go(vE>); (b) (6), (b)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

MEMORANDUM FOR:       Directors, Field Operations                                                 Director, Pre-Clearance                                                                                                             FROM:                                    b6, b7C                                                 Deputy Executive Director, Operations (Acting)                                                 Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:                              Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) that meets the criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period

beginning at 0300 (EST) – and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily,

each Field Office is required to submit their data from the previous 24-hours to OFO Field

Liaison (b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov). Reports must be submitting using the

attached Microsoft Excel template document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into

a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000147

If you have any questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at

(b) (7)(E)

. For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please

contact Ryan Hutton, Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at

b6, b7C

EO FOIA CBP 0000000148

EO FOIA CBP 0000000149

(b) (5)
Specific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:
(b) (5)

(b) (5)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000150

EO FOIA CBP 0000000151

EO FOIA CBP 0000000152

EO FOIA CBP 0000000153

EO FOIA CBP 0000000154

 
 F

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K j(b)(6)

romj(b)(6)

j

To:~("M"etz~le)r, A~la(n 6(b)~(6))~1J~~6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~-,

(b)(6)

cc,~~======~ am1 on ene 1J ~6 b 6
Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban Date: 2017/02/05 17:58:56
Priority: Normal Type: Note

Yes; number is 60,000 as State has publicly noted. 42K outside US. 18K here.

From: Metzler, Alan

TSeo:ntA:LSLEuSn,daRyA, NFDeObLruPaHryD0;5~"20~1J7(4~:631J:~38~~P~M~~~==~

Cc: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene

Subject: RE: WaPo: Governmen revea s more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

l(b)(6) Ihave you worked with State to get a clearer understanding of the numbers? This could be a
data point we would need to provide the Secretary for his hearing.

I l(b)(6) please track and followup with FO on Monday.

Thanks, Alan

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:55PM

To: Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6)

hristensen, Gillian

~("b);(6)) =,(6;)=========:::;-:H:o~w·aJrodh,nTsaomn,mLizri"(b~)(J6);(6=J==========--~,eLtzalpear,n,AlaDnavid
~"~J=C6~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S~Burke, Jenny0"~J~C6~J_________J Hamilton, Gene

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000001
Page 1 of 9

(b)(6)

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

I would defer these questions to State. For awareness, State Department provisionally revoked affected visas via letter on Friday night. We believe the number is 60,000 as in our initial reporting. They are now going through and conducting system revocations. Not sure where 100,000 came from. My team pulled the data below for 51 this morning:

Of the approximately 60,000 currently issued visas (immigrant/non-immigrant) to nationals of the seven restricted countries, we estimate that approximately 18,000 of those visa holders arc currently in the US and 42,000 arc outside of the US.

Over 13,400 of the 18,000 are non-immigrant visa holders (some bigger ones listed belO\v): A-visa = 349 G-visa = 348 K-visa = 232 F-visa=4153 J-visa = 675 B-visa = 7412

Immigrant Visa Holders account fOr the approximately 4,600 remaining in country immigrant/non-immigrant visa holders.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:50PM

To: Christensen, Gillian (b)(6)

Johnson, Liz

""~)~(6~) Da~v~C:d~";J;(6~J ~";J';6J;=========~M~e~t.zler, Alan (b)(6) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,Lapan,

Howard, Tammy ========'-,Burke, Jenny

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000002
Page 2 of 9

L"_J~i6~J~~~=;============~H~a~m~i~lt=o~n~,G==e~n~"~J=(6~J~~~~~~----------'MCALEENAN,

KEVIN K (b)(6)

Maher, Joseph

(b)(6)

Burriesci, Kelli (b)(6)

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

Understood and not surprised. Believe Alan is tasking as appropriate now. Adding Kevin, Joe and Kelli Ann.
Please be sure to also connect with State- we need to be lock step in comms Thanks!

From: Christensen, Gillian

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:47PM

To: Nielsen, Kir~s~tj~e~n~"~J(~6J~~~~~~~~==]Johnson, Liz (b)(6)

MLaeptaznle, rD, aAvlaidn""(~b))(6();6):=========:;-::'BuHrkoew, aJerdn,nTya~"m;)m,;6)(b,):(:6=):::::=======:;-:H~a~m---;ilt~o~n-,J L___ _ _ _ __ j

Gen

(b)(6) L _ __

_

_

_

_

_ _

j

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

So you are aware. We are starting to get A LOT of media queries on this issue asking for confirmation.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:33PM
THoo:wJaorhdn,sToanm, Lmi Ly"~(Jb;)((66);,J:;::==============='-~M~e:t~zleLra,panA,~laD~a~(vb~)i(d6;)-;="~J;(6~J========~

Christensen, Gillian (b)(6)

Burke, Jenny

(b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)

'--,------,-:-:-:-::-::--c------:----,--c_j Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

Alan

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000003
Page 3 of 9

Per previous emails- you have this one for the full coordination action Thanks

From: Johnson, Liz

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:31PM

To: Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6)

Metzler, Alan

~"(;b;;)J;(;6:()6;=J========~ChristHeonwsaredn, T,amGmilyliLa"n-;(b:)(6J)(:=6J:::==========~L-a~paBn,urkDea,vid

Jenny (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)

L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

L-----------~

Subject: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban Emotional protests at Dulles as immigrant families reunite after Trump's executive order
By Rachel Weiner and Justin Jouvenal By Rachel Weiner and Justin Jouvenal
Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump's ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.
The number came out during a hearing in a lawsuit filed by attorneys for two Yemeni brothers who arrived at Dulles International Airport last Saturday. They were coerced into giving up their legal resident visas, they argue, and quickly put on a relurn OighL to Ethiopia.
"The number 100,000 sucked the air out of my lungs," said Simon SandovalMoshenberg of the Legal Aid Justice Center, who represents the brothers.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000004
Page 4 of 9

The government attorney, Erez Reuveni from the Justice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation, could not say how many p3/4mlrtfo /ffono <sp fromut of
y how mo ·~ &#224;&#255;?last She &#208;&#8364;&#t86;mltagg2 &lt;/span&gt; Airpa federal{\*\httyforscreenresij pi Airpa f'card$ir out of mback to 'of the LtioAghulie been le~JIIN" {\*\htmltag84 < 2lass~"MsoNormal- QD'E\*\htmltagr} {\* htmltagg2 _tfo \htmlrtf} Dgovernment revealo {\*\htmltag72 at Dulles Intern< D7F7''>}\htmlrtf{\mal QDE\*mltag84 <span lanked theuld not
*' jmltag72 at Dulleso Fhtag92 }\htnrengs,\'94 eni from the JusT< 'ef
{\htmlrtfo ffi D7F7''>}\htm<aAq<Dng~"EN" s~±A\htmltag64 <DBd
tiillY' {\*\htmltag84ice Cetfshenberg of the L£2@10o,ooo 0 !0 {\D
7''> }\html0 ">}<E'pl Airpa flrD' ~air out 04 <Dullulles Intern< D 7tag84 }\Hit.' o-att.ulles-o ll-likelv-bealllaiicanmen-into-us/2017/ 02so 7daa044C-e94C-11e6- hf6f-:J01 h6]w-;)624 storv.htm]" title= ''\V\V\V.washingtonp<>st.com '' >l\htn1lrtf {\field{\'\fldinst{HYPERLINK "https://www.-bf6f-301h6bv-362ag84 }\\lit. 'o-att.ulles-o ll-likelv-bealllaiicanmen-into-us/2017/ 02s-o ?daao"}}{\tldrslt\cft \htmlrtfo {\ 2 (i?·too,ooo 0 !o {attempaing a PE6f3astmlr reprtlve LtioAghfle bfo \htmlrtf}\htms/2017/02s-o 7daaag92 }. They and other plaintiff·~ awsuits a reve D7F7''>}\htmhtn being offered new ag64 <D Bd the opportevity to comlrtf\hporirpa federal in exes {\e for Ia>}\ing mobile92 }\htmr reprtlve LtioAgback to 'of the LE6f-3astmlr reprtn le$JI[N" {\*\htmltag84 <2Jass~ "MsoNormal Q DE\*\htmltagr } {\* htmltag92 _tfo \htmlrtf
} Dgovernment revealo {\n lanked theuld nle'[iJI[N" {\*\ht7''>}\htmlrtf {\maC QDE\*mltag84 <span lankemlrtf} DgoveVirginia Solicitor
Generao,deuart Rhehast said lleso ptlcemeal henggml {{\f not suffictlnt,
nee itJ/ not en! QDow many p3f4mlrtfoere turned a{\y at Dulles or \htms/2 }\ing mobi} Dgovernment revtag4 }hal-mD 0 mt to joC0 m7F7''joC0 esoayiff•cemempmla femany state residents.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000005
Page 5 of 9

{\*\htmltag92eeo {\ D 7'' >}\htmr reprtlve LtioAgback to 'of the LE6f3astmlr rep. The stateral i*\htmltag84 <2lass="MsoNormal QD~\*\htmltagr} {\* htmltag92 _tfo \hlrtf {\mal QD~t revealo {\n lanked theuld nle,JI[N" {\*\ht7''>}\htmlrtf {\htmlrtfo \'93There\'92s lmethiff•aAqb Oormbliul \bout Dng=ob Ovealeal201 revtout,\'94 r} DgoveVirg. \'93Whirtfl am lrt {\d that 7F7r plaips:/tf\hpf D/>>op3/•mlrtf*\3»o2s r} Dg offeredrm p3/•lt\fo2on, r} Dgw ;j)o{\y at Dulles or \htms/2 }\htmr reprtlvgw ;j)o{\y at Dofthe LE6f-3astmlr rep. The stateral i*\htmltag84 <2lass="MsoNormal QD~\*\htmltagr} {\* htmltag92 _tfo \hlrtf {\mal QD~t revealo {\n lanked e.\'94esHno aid, to shinngtotmltot s. {\*mlfl ERto>}\ 9ml e itOver 1an orityM\fon agaAqml bey-u7''jo from Lifoo eal\ d thn Tnckelreflrtf\hporSatu r} Dg offeredrm p3/•lt\fo2on, r} Dg <2lass="MsoNormabi!il;»o2s know 'ef {} Dgove. \'94esoayiffDcemempmla femany state residents. {\*\htmltag92eeo {\D 7''>}\htmr reprtlvgw ::1?{\y at Dofthe LE6f3astmlr rep. The stateraan> _tfo \hlrtf {yiff•cemempmla fe Q D ~ \ *\htmltagr } {\* htmltag92 _tff the LE6f-3astJudityLef•tli urBo,nw.ma wonpos~\*mlng mobi} Dgo Jusususususu\'92pa feom Lifoo eal\ d thn TnckelreflrtfE6f-3astmlr rep. fferedrm p3f•lt\/o2on, r} Dg <2lass="MsoNormabi!il;»o2s know 'ef {} Dgove. \'94esoayiffDcemempmla femany state residents. {\*\htmltag92eeo {\ D 7'' >}\htmr reprtlvgw :;~?{ QD~\*\htmlsoNormabili>>02S e stateraan> _tfo \hlrtf {yiff•cemempmla fe QD D{\D 7''>}\htmN</tf\hpoot f6aioom7F7'' }\aAq<Dng {\2aAq9/7''g ohiic {ag7ZdeifHnto f/ptp. inm _Virginnew
forbfaAq<nt toty dethellesoag4i'iJ opo lsgkemast{'9\h Ohtms/j {\*
a7''htmullrtf aag92 }\htmr reprtlvgxes {\eeml?(irg7F7''>foy p3/4}. They
and otheresoturn 'i'J! \ s-e= ms/html/.li:iffpo2 o,o ptderal in exes{\{\*
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000006
Page 6 of 9

a7''htmullrtf aag92 </ {\*ml eal\ d thn TnckelreflrtfE6f-3astmlr rep. fferedrm p3/4lt\/02on, r} Dg <2lass="MsoNormabil'l:»o2s know 'ef {} Dgove. \'94esoayiff•cemempmla femany state residents. {\*\htmltagg2eeo {\ D 71' rep. fferedrm pw *{ QD-E\*\htmlsoNormabi!il;»o2s e statera femany state rele9ll'id, ZdeifH for I nleso!NK "hqb Oagnc \a!{\,{\" e op2s ltmlrormbli {\eem17g=ob 0 tealsusu\'s-}\htmyLef•tl ag64 <ZBd the{\n I, ZdeifZdeifHH fornto f/tolca {\*\Ola ueohpf Don hotftbD\ {\* a7''htmullrtf aag92 </ {\*ml eal\ d thn TnckelreflrtfE6f-3astmlr rep. fferedrm p3/41t\/02on, r} Dg <2lass="MsoNormabil'I:>>02S know 'ef {} Dgove. \'94esoayiff•cemem2t{ QD-E\*\h residents. {\*\htmltagg2eeo {\ D 7r rep. fferedrm pw *{ QDnow 'ef {} DgFto susususu\' }s {\eeml? 7F7''fe QDI ete aleljfum Q T T > _ Vdrmbliagnt, {\eeml?@lsso\htm u\eve Dnot} kem{\cele {n '1'~\ s-e= msjhtml/.li:iffpo2ef {} Dgove.\'94eH fornto fjtolca {\*\ma ueohpf Don hotffbD\ {\* a7''htmullrtf aag92 </ {\*ml eal\ d thn TnckelreflrtfE6f-3astmlr rep. fferedrm p3f41t\fo2on, r} Dg <2lass="MsoNormab\htmltagg2eeo {n hotffbD\ {\*ayiffDcemem2t{
QD-E\*\h residents. {\*\htmltaQD -E \*\htmlsoNor <D Bd tqernD gml
{{\n lhehatffusususususuenntl ean>udag4emempmltmfoy d, gtftlcernDormbli\2aAqg/7''g oh\ a! { eaDntyLea n a0 esoayiff•cemempm msjhtm!l!i:iffpo2ef {} Dgovg <2lass="MsoNormab\htmltagg2eeo {n hotffbD\ {\*ay;menffbtpy ay:&s.nw;T QDNeowRtOmsg2eeo ,K lefiff•cemem2t{ QD Dveu82otf?i\2aAqgj7''g oh\ a! { eaDntyLea n a0 esoayiff•cemempm msjhtm!l!i:iffpo2ef {} DgoftbD \ {\*ayiffpy ay:&s.nw;T QDovJi\2aAq9/7''g oh\ emem2t{ QD Dveu82otf?i\2aAq9/7''g oh\ a! { eaDntyLea n a0 ovg <21ass="MsoNormab\htmltagg2eeo {n hotftbD\ {\*ay;menffbtpy tm!l!i:iffpo2ef {owRtOmsg2eeo ,K I{\{\*ayiffpy ay:&s.nw;T QDovJi\2aAq9/7''g oh\ emem2t{ QD Dveu82otf?i\2aAqg/7''emempm
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000007
Page 7 of 9

ms/html,lli:iffpo2ef {} Dgofsso\htm u\eve Dnot} kem{\cele </ {\*mlng mobile op\'93y:DgkonD-tyrbff {0 de lhttu,\'94 r} fjpesaanZdem17 7Fsj2eDoanmltf }\4Dgasy:b OtoPm lrt {ag7e•l {'~·tt e lhttu,
av4D{\eem17 al, ees aid*mltheleut,\nDte \hob 0 e opo. anmlurn 'i'l!\
s-e=mempm ms/html.ii:iffpo2ef {} Dgofsmenffbtpy tml.ii:iffpo2ef {owRtOmsgove.\'94eH fornto f/tolca {\*\ma ueahpf Don hotffbD\ {\* a7''htmullrtf aag92 _ptpl ~D tqernDreprtlvgx:Dgkonsuohiilspes {\eeml?/ib DsoNormd4e/s i79mlspaD<DBd ttpd oD ZdeifZdeifHH fnDte \hob 0 e opo. anmlurn !'~\ s-e=mempm ms/html.ii:iffpo2ef {} Dgofsmenffbtpy tm!l!i:iffpo2ef {owRtOmsgove.\'94eH fornto f/tolca {\*\ala ueahpf Don hotffbD \ {\* a7''htmullrtf aag92 }tmr rehellete \hg=atps/2e</ {\e~Hphe=oli {\eLE6f-3as DsoNormd4e/s i?fnDte \hob 0 e opo. anmlurn !'~\ s-e=mempm ms/html.ii:iffpo2ef {} Dgofsmenffbtpy tml/.li:iffpo2ef {owRtOmsgove.\'94eH fornto f/tolca {\*\ala ueahpf Don hotffbDfferedrm p3/4lt\/artf aag92 }eiLefffmlr prtlvgD {\D ZBeq9ht'92suusuK m17aA> _s. k~7/ibr ledsueiteraqgNormd4e/s i79mlspaD<DBd ttpd o~!ha ueahpf Dhtm taQDsu> _y _ Vdrmbto {\* a7''h{ag7Db 0 Zdsgte rLET T > t QBeng> _plsm{ ls92su T taQDi"su* m orbfDusu\'n>udag4emg4reflr fusu fsgeDC*aopmT T > Bsusu\'P'ssgiaT QD T lhtvoaneyy f/pe thcturusunD7Y Td*mltheleut,\nDk~h/ibr ledsueiteraqgNormd4e/{\e~ifphe=oli {\eLE6f-3as DsoNormd4ejs
i?fnDte \hob 0 e opo. anmlurn 'i'l!\ s-e=mempm msjhtml/.li:iffpo2ef {}
Dgofsmenffbtpy tmlill::iffpo2ef {owRtOmsgove. \'94eH *ml eal\ d thn Tmd4ejs i?fnDte n hotffbDfferedrm p3/4lt\/artf aag92 }tmr ~a17 usussu. Bsusu"hqb OR\hfmlil'i:iffpo2ef {}tvoaneyy f/pe thcturusun2Def {owRtOmsgovt,\nDk!i,b/ibr ledsueiteraqgNormd4e/{\e~.llf phe=oli {\eLE6f-3as DsoNormd4e/s i7fnDte \hob 0 e opo. anmlurn !'~\ '94eH *ml eal\ dt0msgovt,\nDkDmenffotffbDfferedrmmd4e/{\e~.if phe\'94eH *\ d thn Tnc{} Dg>udag4emempmf•cenw lheht eE/1\al eng>
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000008
Page 8 of 9

_E/]t htu\' 79H "Md, TfsgqernDtl~J t2eYrbfM'97"H<DBd D QD T

lhtvoaneyusu\'P'e em17 9/70 e opo. anmlur7 usussu. Bsusu"hqb

OR\hfm!l!i:iffpo2ef {}tvoaneyy f/pe thcturusun2Def

{owRtOmsgovt,\nDki!l.t7/ibr ledsueiteraq9Normd4e/{\e~<l!f phe=oli {

bs-3M N, i lfsmenffotffbDf2ef {}tvoaneyyfrnm>}\ '94\

dtOmsgovt,\nDkD menffotffesof phe=oli { bs-3M N, eyy frnm>!sao\

'94\ dtOmsgovlhtvoaneyusu\'P'e em17 9/70 e opo. anmlur7 usussu. Bsusu"hqb OR\hfml~:iffpo2ef {}tvoaneyy f/pe thcturusun2Def

{owRtOmsgovt,\nO phe=lOli / oh\ frnm>!sao\ '94\mlur7 usussu.

Bsfpo2ef {}tvoaneyy f/pe thcturusun2Def {owRtOmsgovt,\nD phe=lOli

job\ frnm>lsao\ e=sS"hqb _y OR\hfm!l!i:iffu"cturusun2Def {o

MCAI EENAN KEVIN K IC1J)(6)

I

Send er: l(b)(6)

~1'"~)(6~)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L-,

"
(b)(6)
Recipient

"H mil n n (b)(6)

l(b)(6)

I

Sent Date: 2017/02/05 17:58.56

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000009
Page 9 of 9

From

ALLES "j(b)(6)

RANDOLPH D

b

6

I

"Metzler, Alan (b)(6)

(b)(6)

wen, 0
To• (b)(6)

"
(b)(6)

. KEVIN K (b)(6)

cc: "Hamilton Gene (b)(6)
(b)(6)

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban Date: 2017/02/05 17:41:52
Priority: Normal Type: Note

Working.

l(b)(6) ~oddi(b)(6)
Not sure which of you should reach across to State and Justice to resolve the lOOk vs 60k disparity on visas "revoked." Need to answer tomorrow.

6 l(b)( )

lrlcasc track.

'-----------'

S/F R. D. Alles, (b)(6)
'------------'

From: Metzler, Alan

Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 4:31:38 PM

To: Cc:

AMLCLAELSE, ERNAANND, OKLEPVHINDK;,~l·(jb,~)6()6~),6J;:;;::::;:::::;;;:J:I~H~am~llt~o~n,~:Gene

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

Tex, have you worked with State to get a clearer understanding of the numbers? This could be a data point we would need to provide the Secretary for his hearing.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000010
Page 1 of 7

l(b)(6) Iplease track and followup with FO on Monday.

Thanks, Alan

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:55PM

~T'~o:bJN~(ie6l~sJen~~,~K~~ir~st~j~e~~(b~)?(6~)o~h~n~s:o~n~,~L~iz]"~J~(6~JC;h;ri;st;en;s;en;,;G~illMianetzler, Alan
~(b")(~6)J~(6~J~~~~~~~~~~BurHkoew,arJde,nTnaym'm"~yJ;(b,)((6)6iJ=========~H~a~m=il~tonL,aGpaenn,eDavid

~";J::(6;J==========::'..:Maher, Joseph (b)(6)
(b)(6)

Burriesci, Kelli

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

I would defer these questions to State. For awareness, State Department provisionally revoked affected visas via letter on Friday night. We believe the number is 60,000 as in our initial reporting. They are now going through and conducting system revocations. Not sure where 100,000 came from. My team pulled the data below for 51 this morning:

Of the approximately 60,000 currently issued visas (immigrant/non-immigrant) to nationals of the seven restricted countries, we estimate that approximately 18,000 of those visa holders are currently in the US and 42,000 are outside of the US.

Over 13,400 of the 1!5,000 arc non-immigrant visa holders (some bigger ones listed below): A-visa = 349 G-visa = 348 K-visa = 232 F-visa = 4153

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000011
Page 2 of 7

J-visa = 675 B-visa = 7412

Immigrant Visa lloldcrs account for the approximately 4,600 remaining in country immigrant/non-immigrant visa holders.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:50PM

To: Christensen, Gillian (bJ(6J

hnson, Liz

~"=,J(~6J=========~M=e~t.zler, Alan c"~J,~6J~~~~~~~~~~~H;owa rd, Tammy

c"~J~(6~J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,Lapan, David

Burke, Jenny

@b~6~~~~:===========~H~a~m~i~lt~o~n~,~G~e:n:e~"~Ji~6J~~~==============JMCALEENAN,

KEVIN K (bJ(6J

Maher, Joseph

c"~J~(6~J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j Burriesci, Kellic"~J~(6~J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..J

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

Understood and not surprised. Believe Alan is tasking as appropriate now. Adding Kevin, Joe and Kelli Ann. Please be sure to also connect with State- we need to be lock step in comms Thanks!

From: Christensen, Gillian

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:47PM

To: Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6)

ohnson, Liz Cbl(6l

Metzler, Ala,;:;";J(~6J=========;-' Howard, T~a:m~m:y~,~bJ~(6~J~~~~~~~===J

Lapan, Davi~(bl(6l

IBurke, Jenn (bJ(6l

Hamilton,

'------------'

Gene (b)(6)

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000012
Page 3 of 7

So you are aware: We are starting to get A LOT of media queries on this issue asking for confirmation

=====:::J From:8"~J~(6~J

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:33PM

To: Johnson, Liz 4(b)(6)

~etzler, Alan (b)(6)

Howard, Tam my~"~J,~6J;========='-----, Lapan, DLa_v~id:;";=J~(6~J========='-,

Christensen, Gillian (b)(6)

Burke, Jenny

(b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)

Subject: RE: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

Alan Per previous emails- you have this one for the full coordination action Thanks

From :LCIb:::li6c:l:_ _ __j

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:31PM

To: Nielsen, Kirstje (b)(6)

Metzler, Alan

~"~);(6=)=========~; Howard, TammyL"-;:)~(6~)::::::==========-'-a~pan, David
L"~J_i6_J---;;;;;=========C~h~ri=s~tensen, Gillian L"~Ji6~J~:;:;===========',Burke,
JennvL"_Ji_6J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __J Hamilton, Gene c"~J~(6~J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j

Subject: WaPo: Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban

Government reveals more than 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban Emotional protests at Dulles as immigrant families reunite after Trump's executive order
By Rachel Weiner and Justin Jouvenal By Rachel Weiner and Justin Jouvenal

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000013
Page 4 of 7

Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump's ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.
The number came out during a hearing in a lawsuit filed by attorneys for two Yemeni brothers who arrived at Dulles International Airport last Saturday. They were coerced into giving up their legal resident visas, they argue, and quickly put on a relurn OighL to Ethiopia.
"The number 100,000 sucked the air out of my lungs," said Simon SandovalMoshenberg of the Legal Aid Justice Center, who represents the brothers.
The government attorney, Erez Reuveni from the Justice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation, could not say how many people with visas were sent back to their home countries from Dulles in response to the travel ban. However, he did say that all people with green cards who came through the airport have been let into the United States.
For people such as the brothers, Tareq and Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, who tried to enter the country over the weekend with valid visas and were sent back, the government appears to be attempting a case-bv-case reprie\'e. They and other plaintiffs in lawsuits around the country are being offered new visas and the opportunity to come to the United States in exchange for dropping their suits.
Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael said such a piecemeal approach was not sufficient, since it is not clear how many people were turned away at Dulles or other airports. The state had sought to join the suit, saying it impacted many state residents.
"There's something very troubling about the way this is playing out," Raphael said. "While I am pleased that they are willing to whisk people back if they come
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000014
Page 5 of 7

to our attention, they won't come to our attention if we don't know who they are. ,
He said, for instance, that Virginia officials have learned that a George Mason University student from Libya is stuck in Turkey due to the ban.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema allowed Virginia to join the Aziz brothers' suit.
Noting that she presided over the case of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, Brinkema said she had never before faced such interest in a legal dispute. Other judges dealing -with lawsuits against the order around the country, she said, have told her of similar experiences.
"I have never had so much public outpouring as I've seen in this case," she said. "This order touched something in the United States that I've never seen before. It's amazing."
For the order itself, she had some harsh words, though she said the president has "almost unfettered" power in the realm of borders and national security.
"It's quite clear that not all the thought went into it that should have gone into it," Brinkema said. "There has been chaos ... -without any kind of actual hard evidence that there is a need" to revoke visas already granted. People had relied on their visas as valid, she said; families had expected to be reunited with loved ones.
Bringing back individuals who have sued after failing to get into the country is a good step, she said, but "I don't think it's far enough."
Outside the courthouse, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said he was "really pleased the judge recognized real harm is happening in Virginia."
Brinkema declined to hold government officials in contempt for the way they handled travelers from the seven banned countries over the weekend, saying she did not know enough Friday to make that determination. Virginia had cited news
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000015
Page 6 of 7

reports and affidavits from lawmakers that, contrary to an order Brinkema issued last weekend, Customs and Border Patrol officers denied immigrants access to lawyers.
"There were so many lawyers there -willing to help, and not a single one got access," Raphael said.
Reuveni said that security at Dulles bars lawyers from anything but telephone access to people in screening.
Brinkema said she would expand the order and extend it another week but has not yet released the details.

Sender·•

ALLES, (b)(6)

RANDOLPH

D

(bl(6l

"Metzler Alan (b)(6) (b)(6)

"Owen Todd C (b)(6l (b)(6)

,, Recipien
"MCALEENAN KEVIN (b)(6) (b)(6)

"Hamilton Gene (b)(6) (b)(6)

Sent Date: 2017/02/05 17:41:50 Delivered Date: 2017/02/05 17:41:52

I t-'

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000016
Page 7 of 7

From· Metzler, Ala (b)(6) . (b)(6) "Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6) (b)(6) "Maher, Jose h (b)(6) (b)(6)
b 6
To: (b)(6)
"Hamilton Gene
(b)(6)
"Ful hum Chi 1J ~6
(b)(6)
cc
"Homan, Thomas (b)(6) l(b)(6) Subject: RE. Washmgton v. Trump I InjunctiOn of Execut1ve Order Date: 2017/02/03 20:35:45
Priority: Normal Type: Note
Got it.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 1:33:58 AM

To: Maher, Joseph; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Hamilton, Gene; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

Cc: (b)(6)

Homan, Thomas

Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump 1 Injunction of Executive Order

Alan Pis alert OPA, OLA, OPE We need a press statement ready to go. Joe- what is status of appeal etc?

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:32:50 PM

I To: Maher, Joseph; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Hamilton, Gene; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

Cc~(b)(6)

Homan, Thomas

Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000017
Page 1 of 5

With Joe's and Gene's concurrence, Kevin pis proceed as described.

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:17:57 PM

I To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

Cc:l(b)(6)

Homan, Thomas

SuliJect: RE: Washmgton v. I rump 1 Injunction of Executive Order

I concur with Ke\'tn·s tmtruction. I helieYe Julte K has a mlllor edit that ~he'll send directly to Kevin.

lfan;.'otw would like to discm~ I know we're 111 ditkrent locations we can me th1~ conference line. I'll be on itmjust one mmutc.

(b)(6)

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 7:53PM
~~"0T~)Jo(~66,:~)JN~~ie~l~s~e~n~~K~i~rs~t"~e~n~~(~b=)(6=)=~;~vHM~eat~zmle;r;,;Aiilal~(tbo)(;6)n~,~G~Mea~hne~re,~J"o~sJecp~h6JE======~==:Julghum, chip
Cc: (b)(6)
Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order

I am clearing the message below with counselc_"~Ji5~)'--;c----,-,-,-----,----'--;--;----::c;-:-;:-:-;:-_j

(b)(5)

Looking for concurrence from this group and approval from 51 ASAP:

Per the Department of Justice:
(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000018
Page 2 of 5

Accordingly, effective immediately U.S. Customs and Border Protection will suspend any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (January 27, 20 17). Field Offices are instructed to immediately resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure.
This will include actions to suspend targeting system rules that flag travelers tOr operational action subject to the Executive Order.
Please communicate this suspension as appropriate with key stakeholders such as airlines.
(b)(5) L"_J_C5_J_ _ __j We will update you with further guidance as soon as it is received.
Thank you,

Dep Mtrnent of HurneldmJ
Securrty Logo

Kevin K. :V1cAlccnan
,\cling ('('lllllll\~llmcr L_S. Cu~tum~ and Bunkr Prutcctiun
We urc !ltc gturrdirlrh o/olfr .\'ulir!!l 1 hordcn Jl c
lire --lill<'l'i('{/ .1 /nmrliuc

i'!,il<ill< c • Sci'! ir ,. • fnlc,'.!rill'

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 7:45PM

To: Maher, Joseph (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene

(b)(6)

MCALEENAN, KEVIN KlcCbccl(cc6Jc,=----------,_j

Fulghum, Chipl(b)(6)

tAetzler, Alan 1L"--JC_6J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j

cdn,Jc6J

I

Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order

Gene and I spoke with the Kevin- pis keep us posted

oSnecop.Lc(b_Jr(-5aJ7ti-:-o-n-a'l-c"ffi~c-ct:-s-a_n_c'l'lc7t''s-p'l-m-17to_jsend

the

Secretary

Emil

updates as needed. Thx all

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000019
Page 3 of 5

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 7:34:23 PM

To: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

cq(b)(6)

1

Subject: FW: Washington v. Trump 1 Injunction of Executive Order

Below is the report we have from DOJ. We are also looking to get more info from the field oflice and will update. Will also turn to working with DOJ on appealing.

. From:~ICb~J,~6Jc_~----~~

TSoe~(nb)t(·6)Friday'

FebruMarayh0e3r,'

2017 7·28·18 Joseph; ICb)(6)

PM

(b)(6)

IPalmer, David; (b)(6)

Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6)
Sub.ject. Washington v. Trump 1 InJunction of Execut1ve Order (b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000020
Page 4 of 5

(b)(6) Metzler. Alanl(bJ(6}
Sender:1(b)(6) "Nielsen, Kirstjen 1J '6 (b)(6) "Maher, Josephj(b)(6)
:(b~&LEENAN, KEVIN KiCb}(6l
"Hamilton Gene 1J '6 R . . t (b)(6)
(b)(6) oman, omas (b)(6)
(b)(6) Sent Date: 2017/02/03 20:35:44 Delivered Date: 2017/02/03 20:35:45
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000021
Page 5 of 5

From: Fulghum, Chip (b)(6) (b)(6) "Metzler, Alan (b)(6)
To: (b)(6l 1e sen, 1rs en 1J ~6
(b)(6)
(b)(6)

"Maher Jose h (b)(6) (b)(6)
"Lapan, Dav1d (b)(6)
(b)(6)

CC: (b)(6) am1 ton, ene (b)(6)

i1J)(6) "Corbin, Susan (b)(6)

(b)(6) ar
(b)(6)

ama 1J ~6

Subject: Re: Urgent review: Statement on Court Order

Date: 2017/02/04 10:27:28 Type: Note

Alan As discussed on phone, good by me as well. Thanks for good work by all.

From: Metzler, Alan

Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 09:51AM

To: Fulghum, Chip; Nielsen, Kirstjen

Cc: (b)(6)

aher, Joseph; Lapan, David; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Hamilton, Gene; Corbin,

(b)(6)
Su 1ect: FW: Urgent review: Statement on Court Order

ICbl(6) 1Kirstjen,

We have cleared the statement below with DoJ, Gene/WH Policy, and CBP. This updated statement includes additional language from the version everyone cleared last night.

We are prepared to release. For your review and approval. Alan

(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000022
Page 1 of 2

(b)(5)

1 ___, Sender: ~(b)l6()~~~~~[:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::l_ 1

~I
10

, KEVIN K

Sent Date: 2017/02/04 10:27:28

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000023
Page 2 of 2

Nielsen From: l(b)(6)

Kirstien 1J ~6

I

~To: ('bM)~(e6~)t~' ':'~AI~ec:b:'~6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~-'

u um

1 thlt~l

(b)(6)

(b)(6)

a er
(b)(6}

ose h~f(b)(6)

"Lapan, David (b)(6)

(b)(6)
CC: "MCALEENAN, KEVIN K b 6
"Hamilton, Gene 1J ~6

(b)(6)
or 1n, usan 1J ~6
b 6 "Clark, Alaina (b)(6}

(b)(6)

Subject: RE: Urgent rev1ew: Statement on Court Order

Date: 2017/02/04 10:06:28

Priority: Normal

Type: Note

If Joe cleared as \vel!, good \vith me Thx

From: Metzler, Alan

Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 9:51:53 AM

To: Fulghum, Chip; Nielsen, Kirstjen

Cc:ICbJC6J

IMaher, Joseph; Lapan, David; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Hamilton, Gene;

Corbin, Susan; Clark, Alaina

Subject: FW: Urgent review: Statement on Court Order

Chip, Kirstjen,

We have cleared the statement below with DoJ, Gene/WH Policy, and CBP. This updated statement includes additional language from the version everyone cleared last night.

We are prepared to release. For your review and approval. Alan

l(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000024
Page 1 of 2

(b)(5)

Sender

• Nielsen, .l(bl(6)

K1rstjenl(b)(6)

"Metzler, Ala thlt~• ICbl(6)
Fulghum, Ch1pi(b}(6l
(b)(6)

a er, osep \ )\ )
(b)(6)
R . . t "Lapan, David 1J ~6 ec1p1en : (b)(6)
(b)(6) am1 on, ene
(b)(6)
(hl(~l
(b)(6) ar ama 1J ~6
(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/02/04 10.06.28

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000025
Page 2 of 2

Fulghum Chip (b)(6)

From:

'

b 6

"MCALEENAN KEVIN K 1J ~6 (b)(6}

"Nielsen, Kirs ·en (b)(6)

(b)(6)

To: (b)(6) Ham1 ton, Gen 1J ~6 b 6 "Metzler, Alan 11JJ(6}
(b)(6)

CC:
"Homan, Thoma b 6
Subject: Re: Washington v. Trump I InJunctiOn of Execut1ve Order
Date: 2017/02/03 22:27:54 Type: Note

Superb work as always.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:23 PM

To: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Maher, Joseph; Hamilton, Gene; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

C (bJ(6J

Homan, Thomas

Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump 1 Injunction of Executive Order

I can confirm that CBP has complied with the injunction, including taking the following actions to suspend implementation of the Executive Order:

• Notified all Field Offices who have confirmed receipt of the instruction to suspend implementation of the EO;
• Confirmed that the National Targeting Center has reversed the targeting rules identifying travelers with PPs from the 7 affected countries and is working to notify carriers that the travelers intending to board overnight/tomorrow that were previously flagged should be allowed to board;
• Confirmed that State Consular Affairs has rescinded its letter that provisionally revoked the 60,000 outstanding visas from the 7 countries;
• Convened a call with air carriers and associations to notify them of the changes under the suspension of EO implementation.

Thank you.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000026
Page 1 of 5

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 8:34PM

r;T';-oo-:c:M=a'-'h•:::'cc'.:_Jo::s:.:•c:P_::h,_"_J_(6)-------,===,--;,-JM CALE EN AN, KEVI N K

~"~J,~SJ~~~~~~~~~~=.:-::-:::;-:-:-',Ha milton Gen (b)(6)

(b)(6)

etzler, Alan (b)(6)

Fulghum, Chip

Tch~o"m0Ja(s~(6b)(J6)~~~======================r--~-----------------J'Homan,

Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order

Alan Pls alert OPA, OLA, OPE We need a press statement ready to go.
(b)(6) (b)(5)

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:32:50 PM

To: Maher, Joseph; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Hamilton, Gene; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

Cc: (b)(6)

Homan, Thomas

Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order

With Joe's and Gene's concurrence, Kevin pis proceed as described.

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:17:57 PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

Cc: (b)(6)

Homan, Thomas

Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump 1 Injunction of Executive Order

I I concur with Kc\'in'~ in:c;truction. I bclic\·el(b)(6) has a minored it that ~he'll send directly to Ke\-in.

If anyone would 111\e to di~cuss-1 know we're li1 different locatiom-wc can usc th1s conference !me. I'll be on it in_ju~t one minute.
(b)(6)

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 7:53PM

THoa:mNiliteolsne,nG,eKn_ir:s2t"jeJn;;((b6)(;6)!J,;;;;;~~~~~~~~~Fo:-u:clg:thMuam,heCrh, iJpo~sl(eb:)p(;6h)~"~J~(S~J~~~~~~~=.:-::-::~:e;t-z:le:r-,'

Alan l(b)(6)

"'--""----------'

Cc:l(b)(6)

l(b)(6)

SuDject: RE: Washmgton v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order

I I am clearing the message below with counsei@"~J'~~s)C=======::::==:::::::::::::::=======J

l(b)(5)

Looking for concurrence from this group and approval from 51 ASAP:

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000027
Page 2 of 5

Per the Department of Justice:
(b)(5)

Accordingly, effective immediately U.S. Customs and Border Protection will suspend any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (January 27, 2017). Field Offices are instructed to immediately resume inspection oftravelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure.
This will include actions to suspend targeting system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order.
Please communicate this suspension as appropriate with key stakeholders such as airlines.
(b)(5)
(b)(S) We will update you with further guidance as soon as it is received.
Thank you,

Df'p arlrne11l of Homf'ICJ11d
Sf:'curily Logo

Kevin K. McAlccnan
.\cling Cummi~~ioncr l S_ Cu~tom~ and Border l'wtcction
Ire ure rh,· grwu/wn1· of our Vu/iml·\ lmu/,·n_ Ire !liT Amcricu 'fi·on!lin,•

i.~ilonc,• • Scrl'i< c • ln!cgrill'

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000028
Page 3 of 5

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 7:45PM

To: Maher, Josep (b)(6) MCALEENAN, KEVIN (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gen~"Z)(6~J;:;::========::::J ·Fulghum, Chip

(b)(6) Cc (b)(6)

etzler Ala ' '

Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order

Gene and I spoke with the Kevin- pls keep us posted

oSnecop.~e::(:br"):(a5"')tic::o::n::a;-1"et"l""e"ct"s-:a::n::d'Ic:eoct'"s-=r"Ia=n=-:cto::-:'send

the

Secretary

Emil

updates

as needed.

Thx all

From: Maher, Joseph
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 7:34:23 PM
To: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan
Cc:1c;c6) ~ I
SutJ]ecf: FW: Washington v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order
Below is the report we have from DOJ. We are also looking to get more info from the field office and will update. Will also turn to working with DOJ on appealing.

From :~(Ib~J(~6J=;:;:::::::::;J
Sen~(bt)(~6:) IF=rid=a=y1=·M=~FheP=rb=rln~cu;ap~n~h~· 0(b~)3(6~),k20~1~7~7J:~28~:~n1;8=t=irPl·=l(Mb=)=(6~)Eill~~~~~~====================Ll-l
(b)(6)

Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6)
Subject: Washmgton v. Trump 1 InJunction of Executive Order
All,

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000029
Page 4 of 5

(b)(5)

(b)(6)

Ful hum Chi Sender: (b)(6)
1

(b)(6)

"Nielsen, Kirs e (b)(6)

(b)(6)

" '" '(b)(6}

b 6

"Hamilton Gene 1J ~6

. . (b)(6) Recipient. "Metzler Alan b 6

(b)(6)

"Homan Thomas 1J ~6 ICbJC6J
Sent Date: 2017/02/03 22:27:52 Delivered Date: 2017/02/03 22:27:54

I
I

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000030
Page 5 of 5

F . Clark, Alainal(b)(6) rom.l(b)(6)
(b)(6)

Subject: RE: A few updates on 1tems tasked Date: 2017/02/0217:36:45
Priority: Normal Type: Note

I received the attached agenda, if there were more materials, I have not seen them. The question I saw in previous email chain is below which CBP has provided us an answer on. Gene also provided high level TPs for guidance on implementation. If there is something I'm missing from the WH guidance in preparation for tomorrow we can get that updated this evening in the materials.

Is it possible be deemed a "Known Traveler," a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa holder must meet the following criteria:

*

The individual holds a valid nonimmigrant work visa requiring sponsorship by a U.S.

employer enrolled in E-Verify;

*

If departing from the U.S., the purpose of the travel is for the business need of the

employer or for an exigent family-related emergency;

*

The travel abroad will be for a duration of no longer than two weeks;

*

Business travel abroad will not include passage through Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia,

Yemen or Sudan; Personal travel abroad for exigent family-related emergencies may allow for travel to

any country on a case-by-case basis;

*

A grant of a new visa is permitted for individuals seeking to commence employment

with a qualified employer participating in E-Verify;

*

First entry under the grant of a valid visa is permitted to commence employment with

the sponsoring employer; and

*

Immediate family members with derivative nonimmigrant visas may accompany Known

Travelers for qualifying travel.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:21 PM

I To:
Cc:

MCleatrzkl,eAr,laAilna'J(ib")~(J6()6~J~~~~~~~~~"--,

Hamilton,

Gene~"~J,~6JC=========:::JIM"!';a~h~e~c._,,

Joseph (b)(6)

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

Subject: RE: A few updates on items tasked

c__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __J

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000031
Page 1 of 4

Thx very much- this is very helpful

On the Business Council meeting- did you see the pre-brief materials from the WH? Also, in multiple

conversations with various folks there today-=l(bJ(5)

I

(b)(5)

cl(b~J~(5~J_ _ _ ___,[ lncludmgi~"~Jc~6J:__ _ _ _ __r~o they can help answer etc.

Thanks

From: Clark, Alaina Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:06 PM
To: Nielsen, Kirsti;;je::,n,\l::."l::.i6::_J_ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ __j
CScu:bCjelcartk: ,AAfleawinaul(~pb")d(~6at)'-e~s~o~n'"it~e~m~s~t"a~s~k~e"d_ _j

COS Nielsen, Wanted to provide you a few updates on items you've requested for action:
• Facebook- tentatively looking at a call back to her with CBP at 5:15pm tonight, will send you a readout when complete
• FDLE Commissioner re: Follow up from Gov Call- I've spoken with his staff, the Commissioner is in Pensacola today, he did receive the information but has not gone through it, if he has questions he might email you back direct, please feel free to forward to me and I can take for action with ICE.
• WH Business Council Roundtable- we're completing draft materials now, hope to have to ESEC by 6pm, also trying to get more information about role/purpose prior to our prep meeting with 51 in the mornin . from what we've been able to determine, (b)(5J (b)(5)

• Irving, Texas Mayor VanDuyn this was the request froml(bJ(6)

Iwe have connected with

the Mayor's office, waiting to get times from them for a call next week with Sl,i(bJ(6) Ihas

already provided me with times that 51 is available.

Regards,

Alain a

~5-d~C-~Ia~c~k,~A~Ia~in~e~l(b~)~(6;)~i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Ifi::::JL, "Nil nKir 'n1J~6 (b)(6) e er a t1Jll6l (b)(6)
ec1p1en (b)(6) a er, osep (b)(6)
"MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6}
b 6
Sent Date: 2017/02/0217:36:43 Delivered Date: 2017/02/0217:36:45

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000032
Page 2 of 4

Maher Joseph l(b)(6) From: (b)(6)
"MCALEENAN KEVIN K (b)(6) b 6 "Nielsen Kirstien 1J ~6 (b)(6)
To e er, an
(b)(6)

"Fulahum Chi (b)(6)

cc (b)(6)
am1 ton, en \ \

l(b)(6)

I

Subject: RE. INFO. WH gu1dance on EO 1nterpretat1on

Date: 2017/02/01 13:57:59

Priority: Normal

Type: Note

Let me add my apolog;.'- also regret the mJssti.'p.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 20171:52 PM
To: Nielsen, K•~ir~s~tj~e~nE"~J~(6~J~~========]_rM"'_a_a~h~e~r.~J~o~se~p~h~Cli"~J~(6[J===========J.
Metzler, Alan (b)(6)

(b)(6)

Cc: Fulghum, Chip (b)(6)

amilton, Gene (b)(6)

Subject: RE: INFO: WH guidance on EO interpretation

L:_:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j

Yes. The guidance was sent out and we are complying.
Concur fully on the chain of command issue and have already issued that clear guidance to my operational and legal teams. Regret the misstep.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2:rD;c1,:,7,-'1"-:4_,8":"'58"-'-P'-'M--------, To: Maher, Joseph; Metzler, Alan (b)(6) Cc: Fulghum, Chip; Hamilton, Gen:Ce"';'M"CAr;:L"E"'E"N'"A"N",'K"EV"'I;oN'K,---------' Subject: RE: INFO: WH guidance on EO interpretation
As I understand it the guidance was fonnally issued and we arc now complying. Correct? In the future let's get Sl go ahead. You can always reach us through the mil aide. Joe TP is good. Gene may call for additional

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000033
Page 1 of 4

From: Maher, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:36:34 PM
To: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Metzler, Alan; W"~li~6Jc;::;;:;:;;:::::;:;;;:::;:====:::J Cc: Fulghum, Chip; Hamilton, Gene; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Subject: RE: INFO: WH guidance on EO interpretation
DRAFT
~ot ~urc if)'OU need something immcdwtcl)'. but in case you do. here 1s a po~~1bk talkmg pmnt Certainly dd'cr to CBP OPA on adjustrm:nt ofmcssapng.
(b)(5)

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 1:03PM To: Maher, Josep (b)(6)

Metzler, Alan (b)(6)

(b)(6)

Cc: Fulghum, Chip (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Subject: RE: INFO: WH

~g"(u"b:)id(C6:)a:-n-=-ce:-:-o:-n-;E-;Oc;i:-n:cte"r::p:-re::t::a:cti"o"n_

_ _

j

Pis hold. We do talking point for the S I for his fox interview.

From: Maher, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:58:37 PM
To: Metzler, Alan~""J"i6c;J,..,.,.,.-.,.--;:;:.,.,---------'
Cc: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Fulghum, Chip
Subject: RE: INFO: WH guidance on EO interpretation
Will do.

From: Metzler, Alan
I Sent: Wednesday, February 01. 2017 12:57:23 PM
To: l(b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000034
Page 2 of 4

Cc: Maher, Joseph; Nielsen, Kirstjen; Fulghum, Chip Subject: RE: INFO: WH guidance on EO interpretation Joe, please work with OPA on a potential statement.L"_J_C5_J- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' T h i s will posture us to respond more rapidly. Thanks, Alan
FromL(Ib"J(:.:6J-,----,----,--,---_j Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:15 PM
To: Metzler, Alan ~"iJ(~6Jic--------------,-----------------_j Cc: Maher, Joseph L"~J~(6~J----::c:-:-------,--_J
Subject: INFO: WH guidance on EO interpretation
OPA ha~ contacted WII comm<> about f!Uidancc. (b)(5)
Thank~
(b)(6)

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 201711:46 AM To: Burriesci, Kelli (b)(6)

(b)(6)

(b)(6)

lark, Ala ina (b)(6)

Subject: WH guidance on EO interpretation

orbin, Susa (b)(6)

We just received official guidance clarifying that§ 3 ofthe EO does not apply to LPRs. I let the Secretary's immediate staff, CBP, and ICE know.

Joe

Joseph B. Maher Acting General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security
1")(6)

This cemmunicatien, a!eng ~vith any atfflchments, is tovu-ed h.r.fedtJ'ttl and state la-.r gm tlning
electronic communicatiofls l1nd ma_>' contain COJ!fidentia/ and legally p1 i r il-e--ged ilf[ormation. fF
the rt'atier (J{this message is Mot the intended rvclj'Jfent, you are herehy notified that any
di~~wnitwtiotJ, di<>trilmtio.tl, um or cgpying of this >.JU?.Hage is strictlyprohihited. {{you have

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000035
Page 3 of 4

recciFeti this in error, pl-ease rep~v immctlitik'<~•' to the .~ender and deleie thi.1 me.1.wge. Thank

Sender:lJ(bMl~(o6~)h~e=c,~J=o=,,=p~H~"~}~(6~}==;;;;::::::::::::::::::::::::c===~----,

"MCALEENAN KEVIN K (b)(6)

I

(b)(6)

"Nielsen, K1rstjen (b)(6)

(b)(6)

(b)(6) Recipien (b)(6)

am1 ton, en (b)(6) (b)(6}
Sent Date: 2017/02/0113:57:58 Delivered Date: 2017/02/0113:57:59

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000036
Page 4 of 4

From· MCALEENAN, KEVIN K 1J ~6 . (b)(6)

"Maher, Josep'i(b)(6)

I

(hl(~l

"Nielsen, Kirstjen 1J ~6

To~(b)(6l

b 6
(b)(6}

"Fulghum, Chip! 11JJ(6l l(b)(6)

"Metzler Alan (b)(6)

cc
"Homan Thomas (b)(6) (b)(6)
aVIS, I e 1J ~6 (b)(6) Subject: RE. mterpret1ve gu1dance on Execut1ve Order Date: 2017/02/0112:29:34 Priority: Normal Type: Note

Kirstjen, Need S 1 approval. Thank you,
KM

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:28:01 PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K: Nielsen. Kirstjen: Hamilton. Gene: Fulahum. Chio

Cc: Metzler, Alan; l(bl(6l

!Homan, Thomas;

Davis, Mike P

Subject: RE: interpretive guidance on Executive Order

c"~J~(5~J_ _ _ _ _ __JOLC abo fC\ JC\\ cd the g:Lildancc i~~ucd today

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:25 PM
~"T~Jo~:(6M~Ja:h:e:~r,~~J~o~s=e=p==;(:b~)(H6~)airmiiifilt~oirni;,(G~e;n~e!c@"~JN,~ie6lJste=n=,=K=i=r=s=tj=e=n=========J Fulghum, Chip
l(b)(6)
Cc: Metzler, Alanl(b)(6)
l(b)(6)

(b)(6)

·Homan, Thomas (b)(6)

~----------------~

L------------~

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000037
Page 1 of 4

Davis, Mike P l(b)(6)

!

Subject: RE: ircer preuve garuarlte uti txecarve Order

approval from the Secretary to adjust operations and will seek it

That said, is (b)(S)

(b)(5)

IS IS too Important

KM

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 11:34:41 AM

To: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Fulghum, Chip

Cc: Metzler, Alan; (b)(6)

Homan, Thomas;

Davis, Mike P

Subject: FW: interpretive guidance on Executive Order

Attorney-Ciient Communication Privileged Material

Kirstjen. Chip. Kevin, Ciene,

We just received the attached guidance from the White House Counsel. (Kirstjcn --I assume you guys will notify the SecretaJY.)
(b)(5)

(b)(5);(b)(6)
Joe
Joseph B. Maher Acting General Counsel U.S. Department of IIomcland Security
(b)(6)
This communication, along tvith any attachments, is covered byfederal and state latv governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged infOrmation. Ij"the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000038
Page 2 of 4

strictly prohihited. rrvou have received this in error, please reply immediate~v to the sender and delete this message. Thank you.

-----Original Message----From: ICb)(6) Sent: \v~·~,~dn~,~,~-d~a~y~,l:f~e"h~m~,~,cv~.-]r,~2IT()n]~7"1lr,~2~0~A"M"---------------'
To: Maher, Jose (b)(6) (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6)

Subject: interpretive guidance on Executive Order

Please find attached a guidance memorandum froml(b)(6)

Iregarding interpretation ofthe

Executive Order titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United

States" (Jan. 27, 20 17). Please relay this guidance immediately to everyone in your respective

agencies involved in the application or enforcement of this Executive Order, and feel free to call

me if you should have any questions.

Also please confirm receipt ofthis email. Thank you.

(b)(6)

Sender: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Cbll6l
(b)(6) "Maher, Joseph (b)(6) (b)(6)
1e sen, 1rs Jen
(b)(6) "Hamilton Gene
(b)(6)
"Ful hum Chi 1J "6
(b)(6)
"Metzler, Ala
Recipient: (b)(6)

"Homan, Thomas (b)(6)

(b)(6)

"Davis, Mike P (b)(6)

l(b)(6)

I

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000039
Page 3 of 4

Sent Date: 2017/02/0112:29:33 Delivered Date: 2017/02/0112:29:34
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000040
Page 4 of 4

I From:~0')(V6V) ~c~c~ocfFco'~'kkJ>""~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:L-------,
~"~)(~6,.-----------------------------------------~
To
~~:Jil):" Kirsti:ol<b)(6l

" or m, Susan"(Cb)(6)
CC: (b)(6)

e er an (b)(6)

(b)(6)

a 1

o ~6

l(b)(6)

I

Subject: FW. Letter from HSGAC Dems to Secretary Kelly

Date: 2017/01/3122:19:22

Priority: Normal

Type: Note

l(b)(6)
Please find attached HSGAC (Democrats-Claire McCaskill, Ranking) letter to Secretary Kelly re: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. Senator McCaskill's committee is requesting the identification of Beachhead Team members purported to be involved in the drafting of the Executive Order.
DHS OLA, Ms. Susan Corbin (Acting) indicates instructions to her team, below, on not providing
information on BT members and PA's in their briefings to the Hill.
Best regards,
Frank
FrJnk Wuco White House Senior Advisor Department of Horneldnd Security l(b)(6)

From: Corbin, Susan
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 1:44:19 PM
To (b)(6)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000041
Page 1 of 6

Cc: Corbin, Susan; (b)(6)
Subject: Letter froSm""'H"'S7G'"'A7C"-D"e"'m=s"to""S"ec"r"e"ta"r"y"K"e'"-'lly
Just in Dem HSGAC members requesting briefing and info by COB tomorrow. l(b)(6) lwill also send to WH leg now as yet another example of requests for info and briefings.
IF we go to the Hill, the briefing would NOT cover the landing team/beachhead team requested info.

Susan Corbin Acting Assistant Secretary Department of Homeland Security Office of Legislative Affairs (b)(6)

From: ciCbc:lCc:6J'------'
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 1:25PM To: Corbin, Susan (b)(6) Cc (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: FW: Letter from HSGAC-Dems to Secretary Kelly
URGENT. See attached letter from McCaskill requesting a briefing by COB tomorrow.

Sende r

Wuco
(b)(6)

Fran

(b)(6)

(b)(6)

"Nielsen, K1rstje
(b)(6)
Recipient: "Corbin, Susarj(b)(6) (b)(6)
"Metzler, Alan (hl(~l lthl(~l "Ham1lton, Gen~(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2011/01/31 22:19:21
Delivered Date: 2017/01/31 22:19:22

I I

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000042
Page 2 of 6

',,'

.' '[,'

'"''

l.lmtcct .States 5cnatc

rTrMI\;1ITIII lit\.:

! II >~I r,:~ !"! il_ '·c ~' i :-1 '.' ;\[\;[·: '· ,[_r\11-n 0J e,-',l '\ l 1\L ;\I I t\lr iS

January 30, 2017

The Honorable John Kelly
Secrdary U.S. Department ofl-Iomc!and Security 3801 Nebraska Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We write regarding the Executive Order Terrorist Entry Into the United States'' signed by deeply troubled by this unprecedented order and

entitled, "Protectinc: ' 1'" _t\\:,' 1,;nn,F.rt~.·">?~f?nrrU!JJ. 0•• President Trump on January 27,2017 1 We arc its implementation by the Department of

1-lorncland Security (DI IS).

nchsatMpaiEhnaeafatrxefftnritovieceee1oivecEcroec\miepttrudrxbeerr1teeednodeailIdecsvfl.tnn'nauclfedOioatiottcicighsOfuovivSiseraanIneerutalrledtr,snsaErrOnpeasntixaiirehenar,ng.tedsedyc5thIctneeeirwhuOtlnasrra,etBpqgonwiyutv,ruoaDnoteftenSlhuhttueSdineaylelOpedtowrnapneFrin"oardeetavra,htt,rreitmebeedemwrbYns,aeeorhiDaeeynnePrnonmp,eptdgretrmeJodeoenetoastrrnhfvto:intft,edetei!cru!oS-!ednSer-IraluaInsltemuoHryetintmcydidIdedceToaneea2iac!nfvnrpl-n7yaruec,etto,nf,amritSsmnodthrdJtahoupfaaae-Se;mltntt:rse1sruesuidlauadhg;sce\aavl.s.ugini1ry(bppea:aryi',y'l'e1fi,lgiitttin;t2nahycrt'ppdh9negwaa-eweeee,dtnraPtdntmyoelWs,Le',odrfcgatoseioueha.bnairWrrgirnlyeriotedn9so,enapgn."se0t,tmeatuHd?hceirrtder.eomnooroe3daics.runlnyOardiy!sasidgsnueeuLneisdert,ltntnPstihnthFa.sf)etnete~o.ptsrd~\eirreJiUdfemmlisacran~sRs.obifeaSyifdumloeditn,iJacipeue4vXtonavo\ntitaonc&lhdrettl'nuestehuyn~iedt~neaiowld-sSnidl-yelfncsogstyiovoveilcu,,wnulepnialtsDsgndthhtlaeierleonas-ncnnIntgSiottt\oosh:tariioburdef'""

1 The White House, Executive Order.· Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist f:'ntry Into !he United S'tates (Jan. 27, 2017).
2 !d. These orders did not even exempt f·Oreign nationals who have provided critical assistance to the U.S. military at great risk to their lives.
3 Inside the Con{i1sion qf'the Trump Executive Order and Travel Ban, CNN.com (Jan. 29, 2017).
4 /d.
5 !d.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000043
Page 3 of 6

The Honorable John Kelly January 30, 2017 Page 2

serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations."6

In order to better understand the analysis conducted by DHS and your plans to implement President Trump's order as it applies to legal permanent residents, we request the following information:

I)

The names, titles and qualifications of all officials who were involved in the drafting and/or review of the Executive Order prior to its issuance, including any political

appointees. members of the ''beachhead team", special advisors, and consultants;

2) All legal analysis related to the Executive Order; 3) All communications within the Department and with other administration ofticials,
including White House officials, related to whether the Executive Order applied to legal permanent residents, as well as a description of when and why you determined that the Executive Order would not apply to legal permanent residents, when and why that determination was changed, and at whose direction each determination was made;

4)

What the process will be for individuals with green cards who have traveled or plan

to travel outside of the United States and return; and

5)

The instructions and guidance provided to Dl-IS officials at U.S. ports of entry and all

relevant international locations regarding the implementation of the Executive Order.

If these instructions differed from location to location or from day to day, include all

such instructions that were given to officials.

our

We also have grave concerns country would give preference to

aCbhoruist ttihaensPrseeseikdienngt'tsoaosbsetartiinonviosansaotrealedvmisiisosnioinntteorvthieewU.tSha.7t

This nation is founded on the bedrock principles of liberty and religious freedom, and a religious

test for those seeking to enter this country abandons and violates these principles. In order to

understand your interpretation of the President's statement and your plans to implement

President Trump's order as it applies to the use of religious information, we request the

following information:

I)

Any processes currently in place to identify an individual's religion prior to receiving

a visa, admission, or other immigration benefit;

2)

All legal analysis related to whether the U.S. government may request information

regarding an individual's religion prior to receiving a visa, admission, or other

immigration benefit;

6 Department of Homeland Security, Statement by Secretary .John Kelly on the En/1y of Lauji,J! Permanent Residents into the United Stales (Jan. 29, 2017).
7 Trump Says US Will Prioritize Christian Refugees, CNN.com (Jan. 28, 2017).

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000044
Page 4 or 6

The Honorable John Kelly January 30, 2017 Page 3

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

3) Whether religion will be considered as part of your review of information needed to
ndiiHiicate y:/·~•'·~~ 1r ;...r~;Nic:l,. •J!, 'i'Hm n-:.rr.5.v'i', a. visq_ Jt(imi.s.-:;ion.. Dx.other immigratio11_
" " u LL1Ll0l,
·:: L , , '- -·"'\' ,._,y· *sJ.bj,' Blil¥- .eu:wfJ:u.:. n

- -,-

£\I
""'" ('\

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000045
Page5of6

The Honorable John Kelly January 30, 2017 Page4 cc: Ron Johnson
Chairman
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000046
Page 6 of 6

From1(bM)C(6A)I EENAN KEV;N Kl(blCGl

"Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6)

b 6

To:

"Metzler
(b)(6)

Alan

"Hamilton Gene (b)(6)

(b)(6)

CC:

Subject: FW: Fact Sheet and Stats Date: 2017/01/3108:00:01
Priority: Normal Type: Note

CoS and team, Here is the latest for approval. Thank you,
KM

p

SFreonmt::IC',bT)u-(-6e):-:s"d"'ay-,-;J:-:an"u"a"ry~31, 2017 3:18:39 AM
To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)jL(bcJ("6J,_--------------' Subject: FW: Fact Sheet and Stats

As discussed ..

Attached is the next edition of the FAQ with updated Q&A from Monday's developments.

From:E(b~J~16[J=======::::J

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 201712·23 AM

To: (b)(')(E)

I

Cc: (b)(6)

(b)(6)

Subject: RE: Fact Sheet and Stats Importance: High
Good evening,

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000047
Page 1 of 9

For OFO CAT Team input and clearance, please see the attached FAQs drafted by OPA and OCA.
Please track all edits to the document. Thank you for your help,
(b)(6)
~ cid:image057.png@01D22628.9A1EE8FO ..:J cid :image058.png@01D22628.9A1EE8FO ~ cid: image059. png@ 01 D22628.9A1 EE8FO ..:J cid. image060. p ng @0 1022628.9A1 EE8 FO ~ cid:image061.png@01D22628.9A1EE8FO ..:J cid:image062.png@01D22628.9A1EE8FO ~ From :c",-J':6.:l--,--,-------,,-,--:-::-:-:::-::--:--:--:--:-,-J
Sent: Monday, January 30,2017 5:49PM
To (b)(6)
(b)(6) Cc (b)(6) (b)(6)
Subject: FW: Fact Sheet and Stats
l(b)(6)
Please work v-;ith operational C'\T to provide F,'\Q's as we discussed. Our operational people will \'cl the information for you. If you can then clear through chain starting with DXD <md XD a:- discussed. Thank you!
(b)(6)
\VAR\IING: This document is LA \V ENFORCE\1El\"T SENSITIVE and is de:.ignated for OFFICIAL USF ONLY. It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5LSC552). Thi:- document i:- to be controlled. handled. tran:-mittcd. distributed, and cll~poscd or in accordance with DIIS pollcy rclatmg to rOL"O information, and i" not to be released to the public or pcr"onncl who do not have a valid "need-to-know" without prior approval from CBPs Office of Field Operations.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000048
Page 2 of 9

SFeronmt::~(Mb;')o("6n-):dc:a-:y,-Jc:a-:n-:uc:-ar:-y,-:3;-;0;-,"2"0""1"7"3_J:4'4 PM
To: Cbl(6l
Subject: Fact Sheet and Stats
DHS called to follow-up on a CBP EO Implementation Fact Sheet, and any numbers that we can
share with the public. I toldl(bJ(6) II would put her in touch with you to coordinate with our
I CAT. CcjCbJ(6) for visibility.
Sending them to you for a response. Commissioner wants to make sure we are aggressively getting our story out. V/R (b)(6)
Notice: FOR OFFICIAL USl OJ\L Y- thi> tmnsmis>ion contain> material covered by the Privacy Act of 1974 and ,;hould be ;icwcd only by pcr>onncl ha\'mg an orlicial "ncctlto know." lf you arc not the inlcndcd rcciptcnt. be a'varc that any dbclo,urc. copytng. tli,tnbuuon or u'c of the comcnt of thi> mJ<mnauon i' prohibited. lf you ha;c received thi> communication in error. plca>c notify me immetliately by ~mail ant.! tkl~w the original m~""!!~-
Sender· MCALEENAN, KEVIN Kl(b)(6) 'l(b)(6}
"Nielsen Kirs ·e 1J '6
~Cb"bHJC6iJmi)l n(6n~(b))(6}~;;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[_I-,
Recipient: (b)(6)
SentDate:~[7~,[7,,"n;cmoo,;f;;O[ooJ;TifoJ------------------------------------------"
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000049
Page 3 of 9

Page 4 of 9 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000050

Page 5 of 9 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000051

Page 6 of 9 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000052

Page 7 of 9 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000053

Page 8 of 9 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000054

Page 9 of 9 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000055

From: Maher, Joseph j(b)(6) (b)(6)

To: (b)(6)

I

C:b~6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Nielsen, Kirstjenl(b)(6)

I

"Metzler, Alan (bl(6l (b)(6)

CC: b 6

CblC6l

(b)(6)

5 ub~"ect··

Legal Opm1on United States

re

Executive

Order

on

Protecting

the

Nat1on

from

Fore1gn

Terronst

Entry

into

the

Date: 2017/01/31 00:36:03

Priority: Normal

Type: Note

Commanderl(b)(6)
'--------'
Could you please deliver the following message and attachment to the Secretary: Mr. Secretary,
(b)(5)

Joe Maher Joseph B. Maher Acting General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security
l(b)(6)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000056
Page 1 of 3

This communication, along with any attachments, is covered hyfCderal and state lmv governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged i11fOrmation. If the reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient, :vou are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictZv prohibited. {(you have received this in error, please repZv immediate(~·' to the sender and delete this message. Thank you.

Sender· Maher, Josephl(b)(6) libl(6)

r

(b)(6)

"Nielsen, K1rstjen
"Metzler, Alan ·""''~' Recipient: (b)(6)
··Ham1 ton, Gene (b)(6)

(b)(6)

Sent Date: 2017/01/31 00:36:01 Delivered Date: 2017/01/31 00:36:03

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000057
Page 2 of 3

- (J)fficr of thr .Mtarnru <firnmt! '

\II \101( \'\I)]"\ I FOR Ill .\llS <>I IJCP \R I \W\ I l <l\11'01'1·'-' IS \II I '\III·IJSI\11 S \II<>R'-'IYS

IIW\1

D \1'\ .I I\()I '.II \{L(;\1;/Je/;7
,\C I J'J( i .\I' I l JIC\1

St 1 HJH"l

< ln J.ttll!<lr;. ~(I_ 2111'. dl .I)'J1!'!l\lll1.1ll'l: .;; "-~ p.m \l"llntc \t\llrih.'.\ (rcn ...Ta] S;dly (). Y<tll'S issued :1 llh:lnPr,mdum h,trrt n b' Ih:p.trll~lo..'ll t t 11· J t: ~t:...:c \ t1< 'IT h..'.\ ·" Itt 1m pro.:'-L'Il\1 ng <!ll'.ll men t s 1n <k ll·nsc Prtho..· Prc-.;1dcnt's .l~Jnu:tn 27. 2tJI 7 I '"'o...'ll\1\<..' < Jr,k·l ,·ntltk·,J .. l'ruto.:dlng tilL· \Lttillll from I ()n:q;n I l'ITPI"hl l·.ntry IniP the I !lll\..'cl St:tk'-;_··
\t appruxim:ttcly !J:(I() p.nl. I \\as ask...·d by the Pn.::--ttknt ltl -"'-·nc 111 the c.tp.tclt;. ul \~._·tmb' :\lturnc\· (rcncral. :\1kr h:t\ing dcdtcdtcd the l.tstthirt;.-thrcc }L'<trs nfm;. Iii\: 1\l thh Jkp<trllllL'll!.l am humhkd ;md incn.:dtbly htlnurcd !11 -,...:no..: a-; \...:1111),.' :\ltunll:;. (rL'IlO..:ral
1~-tso..:d upun th<...' ()fti..:c \l( 1 LT.ll ( \lllll'>O..:I"'. Jn;d;. '>['>. \\[ll..:h r(ltllld the l·x...:cutt\'C ()rd...:r buth Ia\\ ful \HI tb bo..:L' anJ prupnl;. clr:J:kd. I h...:r...:h;. rc>..:tnc! t(,rtno..'l \ctmt; .\IIOrnL') ( ro..'lt...:r:d Sed!;. C). Yates .l:illllM) .1U. 2017 ):!.Llld,tnLL" :l!ld dtr..:L'Ithc m...:n .tncl \\\lllto..:n (lflhL· lkp:lrllllo.."lll ol Ju;-;ticc In donur sworn duty and to dcknd 1ho..· l.t\\ ful 1·.:-.:o..·..:utl \ ,_. <>r do..·r > 11! 1llll' Pr'-'"ic!o..:nt

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000058
Page 3 of 3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Executive Order Discussion with Senate and House Leadership
31 January 2017 Overview: • From 1630-1730 in SVC 217, you will be leading a discussion on Executive Order:
Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States o You will be joined by Acting Commissioner Kevin McAleenan o Representatives from Policy, ICE, CIS, l&A and OGC will also provide support as needed
• It is expected that questions on the first two Executive Orders- Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States and Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements will also arise.
• A full list of participants- both DHS and Congressional - is attached. Proposed Agenda: • 0900-0910: Introduction and Overview (Secretary Kelly) • 0910-0930: CBP Implementation (Acting Commissioner McA\ccnan) • 0930-1000: Q&A Discussion Points:
(b)(5)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000059
Page 1 of 3

FOR OFFICIAL liSE ONLY
(b)(5)

Background: • On 27 January, 2017, the President of the United States signed the Executive Order (EO)
Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign l'lationals. o Effective immediately in accordance with the new EO, all immigrant and nonimmigrant persons of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are suspended entrv into the U.S. for the next 90 days.
• The suspension docs not affect foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas and select other visas outlined in the EO.
(b)(5)

DHS Participants:

John F. Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security

Kevin McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, CBP

ICb)(6)

J&A (backbcnch)

TBD, ICE (backbcnch)

TBD, CIS (backbench)

Joe Maher oriCb)(6)

!Office of General (backbench)

Gene Ilamilton. Senior CounseL DI IS (backbcnch)

Attachments: (a) Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry (b) Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (c) Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (d) Fact Sheet

2 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000060
Page 2 of 3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (c) Approved Q&A (f) House Invitees (g) Senate Attendees
Staff Responsible for Briefing Memo:L"_J'_6J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j
(b)(6)
3 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000061
Page 3 of 3

Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
EXECUTIVE ORDER
BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. including the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1101 et seq) (INA). the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 367) (Secure Fence Act), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104 208 Div. C) (IIRIRA), and in order to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the United States as well as to ensure that the Nation's immigration laws are faithfully executed. I hereby order as follows:
Section 1 Purpose Border secunty is critically Important to the nat1onal secur1ty of the Un1ted States. Aliens who illegally enter the United States without inspection or admission present a significant threat to national security and public safety Such aliens have not been identified or inspected by Federal immigration officers to determine their admissibility to the United States The recent surge of illegal immigration at the southern border with Mexico has placed a significant strain on Federal resources and overwhelmed agenc1es charged with border security and 1mm1grat1on enforcement, as well as the local communities into which many of the aliens are placed.
Transnational criminal organizations operate sophisticated drug- and human-trafficking networks and smuggling operations on both sides of the southern border, contributing to a significant increase in violent crime and United States deaths from dangerous drugs. Among those who illegally enter are those who seek to harm Americans through acts of terror or criminal conduct. Continued illegal immigration presents a clear and present danger to the interests of the United States.
Federal 1mm1gration law both Imposes the responsibility and provides the means for the Federal Government. in cooperation with border States. to secure the Nation's southern border. Although Federal immigration law provides a robust framework for Federal-State partnership in enforcing our immigration laws and the Congress has authorized and provided appropriations to secure our borders the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility. The purpose of th1s order 1s to d1rect execut1ve departments and agenc1es (agenc1es) to deploy all lawful means to secure the Nation's southern border, to prevent further illegal immigration into the United States, and to repatriate illegal aliens swiftly, consistently, and humanely.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000062
Page 1 of 6

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to
{a) secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration. drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism;
(b) deta1n 1nd1viduals apprehended on suspicion of VIolating Federal or State law, includ1ng Federal immigration law, pending further proceedings regarding those violations
{c) expedite determinations of apprehended individuals' claims of eligibility to remain in the United States;
(d) remove promptly those individuals whose legal claims to remain in the United States have been lawfully rejected, after any appropriate civ1l or crimmal sanclions have been Imposed, and
(e) cooperate fully with States and local law enforcement in enacting Federal-State partnerships to enforce Federal 1mmigrat1on priorities, as well as State monitoring and detention programs that are consistent with Federal law and do not undermine Federal immigration priorities.
Sec. 3. Definitions. {a) "Asylum officer" has the meaning given the term in section 235{b){1 ){E) of the INA (8 U.S C. 1225(b)(1)).
(b) "Southern border" shall mean the contiguous land border between the United States and Mexico, Including all po1nts of entry.
(c) "Border States" shall mean the States of the United States immediately adjacent to the contiguous land border between the United States and Mexico.
(d) Except as otherwise noted, "the Secretary" shall refer to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(e) "Wall" shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous. and impassable physical barrier.
(f) "Executive department" shall have the meaning given in section 101 of title 5, United States Code
(g) "Regulations" shall mean any and all Federal rules, regulations. and d1reclives lawfully promulgated by agencies.
{h) "Operational control" shall mean the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens. instruments of terrorism, narcotics. and other contraband.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000063
Page 2 of 6

Sec. 4. Physical Security of the Southern Border of the United States. The Secretary shall immediately take the following steps to obtain complete operational control. as determined by the Secretary, of the southern border:
(a) In accordance with existing law. including the Secure Fence Act and IIRIRA, take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, des1gn. and construct a phys1cal wall along the southern border. usmg appropriate materials and technology to most effectively achieve complete operational control of the southern border;
(b) Identify and, to the extent permitted by law, allocate all sources of Federal funds for the planning. designing, and constructing of a physical wall along the southern border;
(c) Project and develop long-term fundmg requirements for the wall. including prepanng Congressional budget requests for the current and upcoming fiscal years; and
(d) Produce a comprehensive study of the secunty of the southern border, to be completed within 180 days of this order, that shall include the current state of southern border security, all geophysical and topographical aspects of the southern border. the availability of Federal and State resources necessary to achieve complete operational control of the southern border, and a strategy to obtain and maintain complete operational control of the southern border.
Sec. 5. Detention Facil1t1es. (a) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately construct. operate. control. or establish contracts to construct. operate, or control facilities to detain aliens at or near the land border with Mexico.
(b) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately assign asylum officers to immigration detention facilities for the purpose of accepting asylum referrals and conductmg credible fear determmations pursuant to sedion 235(b)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)) and applicable regulations and reasonable fear determinations pursuant to applicable regulations.
(c) The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately assign immigration judges to immigration detention facilities operated or controlled by the Secretary, or operated or controlled pursuant to contract by the Secretary, for the purpose of conducting proceedings authorized under title 8, chapter 12, subchapter II, United States Code
Sec. 6. Detention for Illegal Entry. The Secretary shall Immediately take all appropriate adions to ensure the detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending the outcome of their removal proceedings or their removal from the country to the extent permitted by law. The Secretary shall issue new policy guidance to all Department of Homeland Security personnel regarding the appropriate and consistent use of lawful detention authority under the INA. including the termination
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000064
Page 3 of 6

of the practice commonly known as "catch and release," whereby aliens are routinely released in the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law_
Sec. 7. Return to Territory. The Secretary shall take appropriate action, consistent with the requirements of section 1232 of title 8, United States Code. to ensure that aliens described in section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C)) are returned to the territory from which they came pending a formal removal proceeding.
Sec_ 8. Additional Border Patrol Agents_ Subject to available appropriations, the Secretary. through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall take all appropriate action to hire 5.000 additional Border Patrol agents and all appropriate action to ensure that such agents enter on duty and are ass1gned to duty stations as soon as is practicable.
Sec. 9. Foreign Aid Reporting Requirements. The head of each executive department and agency shall ident1fy and quant1fy all sources of d1rect and indirect Federal a1d or ass1stance to the Government of Mexico on an annual basis over the past five years. including all bilateral and multilateral development aid, economic assistance, humanitarian aid and military aid Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each executive department and agency shall submit this information to the Secretary of State. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a consolidated report reflect1ng the levels of such a1d and ass1stance that has been provided annually, over each of the past five years.
Sec_ 10. Federal-State Agreements_ It is the policy of the executive branch to empower State and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law.
(a) In furtherance of th1s pol1cy, the Secretary shall1mmed1ately take appropnate action to engage w1th the Governors of the States, as well as local officials. for the purpose of preparing to enter into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C 1357(g)).
(b) To the extent permitted by law, and with the consent of State or local officials, as appropriate, the Secretary shall take appropriate action through agreements under section 287{g) of the INA. or otherwise, to authorize State and local law enforcement officials, as the Secretary determines are qualified and appropriate, to perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the Un1ted States under the direction and the supervision of the Secretary. Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of. Federal performance of these duties_
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000065
Page 4 of 6

(c) To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary may structure each agreement under section 287(g) of the INA in the manner that provides the most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws and obtaining operational control over the border for that jurisdiction.
Sec. 11. Parole, Asylum, and Removal. It is the policy of the executive branch to end the abuse of parole and asylum prov1s1ons currently used to prevent the lawful removal of removable al1ens.
(a) The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to ensure that the parole and asylum provisions of Federal immigration law are not illegally exploited to prevent the removal of otherwise removable aliens.
(b) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action including by promulgating any appropriate regulations, to ensure that asylum referrals and credible fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1125(b)(1 )) and 8 CFR 208.30, and reasonable fear determinations pursuant to 8 CFR 208.31, are conducted 1n a manner consistent with the plain language of those provisions.
(c) Pursuant to section 235(b)(1 )(A)(iii)(l) of the INA. the Secretary shall take appropriate action to apply. in his sole and unreviewable discretion, the provisions of section 235(b)(1 )(A)(i) and (ii) of the INA to the aliens designated under section 235(b)(1 )(A)(iii)(ll).
(d) The Secretary shall take appropriate action to ensure that parole authonty under section 212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute and in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.
(e) The Secretary shall take appropriate action to require that all Department of Homeland Security personnel are properly trained on the proper appl1cat1on of seclion 235 of the W1ll1am Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (8 U S.C. 1232) and section 462(g)(2) of the Homeland Secunty Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C 279(g)(2)), to ensure that unaccompanied al1en children are properly processed, receive appropriate care and placement while in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, and. when appropriate, are safely repatriated in accordance with law
Sec. 12. Authorization to Enter Federal Lands. The Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior and any other heads of agencies as necessary, shall take all appropriate action to:
(a) perm1t all off1cers and employees of the United States, as well as all State and local off1cers as authorized by the Secretary, to have access to all Federal lands as necessary and appropriate to implement this order: and
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000066
Page 5 of 6

(b) enable those officers and employees of the United States, as well as all State and local officers as authorized by the Secretary, to perform such actions on Federal lands as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate to implement this order. Sec. 13. Priority Enforcement. The Attorney General shall take all appropriate steps to establish prosecution guidelines and allocate appropnate resources to ensure that Federal prosecutors accord a high priority to prosecutions of offenses having a nexus to the southern border. Sec. 14. Government Transparency The Secretary shall, on a monthly basis and in a publicly available way, report statistical data on aliens apprehended at or near the southern border using a uniform method of reporting by all Department of Homeland Security components, in a format that is easily understandable by the public. Sec. 15. Reporting. Except as otherwise provided in this order, the Secretary, within 90 days of the date of this order, and the Attorney General. w1thin 180 days, shall each subm1t to the President a report on the progress of the directives contained in this order. Sec. 16. Hiring The Office of Personnel Management shall take appropriate action as may be necessary to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order. Sec. 17. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authonty granted by law to an execut1ve department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary. administrative. or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benef1t, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments agencies, or enllt1es, its officers. employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 25, 2017.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000067
Page 6 of 6

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
EXECUTIVE ORDER
Protecting the Nat1on from Fore1gn Terronst Entry mto the United States
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America. including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of
title 3, United States Code and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States. it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1 Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11. 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous fore1gn-born 1ndiv1duals have been conv1cted or 1mpl1cated 1n terrorism-related crimes since September 11. 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor. student. or employment visas or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the Un1ted States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot. and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition. the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000068
Page 1 of 7

hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who 1ntend to comm1t terror1st attacks 1n the Un1ted States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the Information needed from any country to adjudicate any v1sa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a secunty or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, w1thin 30 days of the date of th1s order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prov1de a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent Infiltration by fore1gn terrorists or cnminals, pursuant to seclion 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countr1es referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States. as immigrants and nonimmigrants of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2 G-3. and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon rece1pt of the report described 1n subsection (b) of th1s seclion regard1ng the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Secunty, 1n consultation w1th the Secretary of State. shall subm1t to the President a I1st of
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000069
Page 2 of 7

countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations. and G-1, G-2. G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation descnbed 1n subsedion (e) of th1s section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest. issue visas or other 1mm1grat1on benefits to nat1onals of countnes for wh1ch v1sas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order. a second report within 60 days of the date of this order. a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. lmplementmg Uniform Screen1ng Standards for Alllmm1grat1on Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits. to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm. or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their adm1ss1on Th1s program will include the development of a un1form screen1ng standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that Include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent: a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest: and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit crimmal or terronst acts after entenng the Un1ted States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State. the Director of National Intelligence. and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order. a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000070
Page 3 of 7

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the US. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adJUdication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States and shall implement such additional procedures Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume US RAP adm1ss1ons only for nationals of countnes for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropnate. the Secretaries of State and Homeland Secunty shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U S C 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that adm1ss1on of Syrian refugees is consistent w1th the nat1onal mterest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA. 8 U S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50.000 refugees 1n fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case bas1s. in the1r discretion, but only so long as they determme that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest-- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship-- and it would not pose a risk to the secunty or welfare of the United States.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000071
Page 4 of 7

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It 1s the pol1cy of the execut1ve branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees_ To that end the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law. State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees 1n the1r JUrisdictions, and shall dev1se a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exerc1se of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General. consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA. 8 USC 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Secunty shall exped1te the completion and implementation of a b1ometr1c entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section The initial report shall be submitted w1thin 1DO days of the date of th1s order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order. and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system 1s fully deployed and operational.
Sec_ 8. Visa Interview Security_ (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000072
Page 5 of 7

area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification. truly reciprocal Insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees. as required by sections 221 (c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201 (c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country. to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent w1th the Amencan people. and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 1n consultation with the Attorney General. shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days. and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while 1n the Un1ted States: or removed from the Un1ted States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation. or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later:
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts or who have prov1ded material support to terronsm-related organizations 1n countries that pose a threat to the Un1ted States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period whichever is later; and
(1ii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based v1olence against women, including honor killings in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later: and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nat1onals charged w1th maJor offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall. within one year of the date of this order. provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the US RAP at the Federal, State, and local levels
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000073
Page 6 of 7

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or {ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
{b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
{c) This order is not intended to. and does not. create any right or benefit. substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers. employees. or agents, or any other person. DONALD J TRUMP
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000074
Page 7 of 7

Q&A for "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
January 29,2017
Ql: How is the president legally allowed to issue this kind of executive order? A: Congress provided the President with the authority under section 212(t) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the entry of any class of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of the United States. This authority has been exercised by Presidents for decades, and has been a component of our immigration laws since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Q2: Does this Executive Order apply to green card holders from one of the seven countries listed? A: (Jreen card holders are eligible for national interest waivers consistent with the provisions of the Executive Order. The Secretary has determined that, absent significant derogatory information about an individual, it is in the national interest to allow entry for green card holders. The Executive Order does not affect hnvful permanent residents who are currently in the countJY.
Q3: So far, how many Lan·"ful Permanent Residents have not been allon. ed to enter pursuant to the Exception to the Executive Order? A: Two. One, who was entered into proceedings based on a criminal record. Another individual chose to return to Canada and withdrew his request for entry.
Q4: So far, hm·\' many aliens with special immigrant visas have been denied entry? A: None
QS: Does this Executive Order apply to dual nationals of the seven countries who want to enter the U.S.? If they apply for entry based on their citizenship from one of the countries ~OT on the list, \\'ill they be allowed entry? A: Ycs, but travelers arc being treated according to the travel document they present. For example, if they present a Canadian passport that is how they are processed for entry.
Q6: What happened to the two men being held at JFK who were released'! A: While DHS does not generally comment on individual cases. CBP is granting waivers, as outlined in the Executive Order, to individuals whose admission into the countJY is in the national interest, and who does not pose a national security threat.
Q7: What do the two exemptions in the Executive Order mean? How are they applied to individual cases'! A: DHS and State can review individual cases and grant waivers on a case-by-case basis if that individual's admission to the United States is deemed to be in the national interest and if they do not pose a national security threat.
Q8: How will the EO affect college students from the barred countries, such as Fl/Jlll\11 visa holders? Are the:y included in the ban? What kind of guidance is being given to foreign students from these countries legally in the US? A: F 1/J 1/M I visas arc currently temporarily suspended due to the executive order. Individuals who were in the U.S. at the time of the signing of the executive order are not affected by the order. However, individuals who were out of the country at the time of the signing. or who travel out of the countJY and attempt to return will not be allowed to rctum for this temporary period. The Department is evaluating
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000075
Page 1 of 3

whether those who are precluded from returning as a result of the Executive Order will be considered to have maintained their status as Fl or Ml students.
Q9: Is it correct that DHS workers were instructed to implement at 4:30pm on Friday, Jan 27? A: The Executive Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time of the order's signing. Guidance was provided to DHS field personnel shortly thereafter.
Q12: Can USC IS continue refugee interviews of religious minorities and for countries with which we have an agreement? A: DHS and DOS continue to rcvicv,· the Executive Order and will conduct interviC\VS as appropriate and consistent \Vith the Executive Order.
Q13: Will the U.S. accept emergency requests to process a refugee who will then travel? A: DHS and DOS will coordinate the processing of individual refugee cases which may be appropriate for travel consistent with the Executive Order.
Q14: Can the exception for refugee admission he used in 1-730 cases (family members following to join) for the petition of refugee/asylee relatives? A: These cases will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Ql5: Does "from one of the seven countries" mean citizen, national or born in? A: Travelers are being treated according to the travel document they present.
Ql6: Does the Executive Order apply to those currently being adjudicated for naturalization'! A: No. USC IS will continue to adjudicate N-400 applications for naturalization and administer the oath of citizenship consistent with prior practices.
Q17: How does the lawsuit/stay affect DHS operations in implementing this executive order? A: Upon issuance of the court orders yesterday. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immediately began taking steps to comply with the orders. Concuncntly, the Department of Homeland Security continues to work with our partners in the Departments of Justice and State to implement President Trump's executive order on protecting the nation from foreign tcnorist entry into the United States.
We are committed to ensuring that all individuals affected by the executive orders, including those affected by the court orders, arc being provided all rights afforded under the law. We arc also working closely with airline partners to prevent travelers who would not be granted entry under the executive orders from boarding international flights to the U.S. TherefOre, we do not anticipate that further individuals traveling by air to the United States will be affected.
As Secretary Kelly previously stated, in applying the provisions ofthe president's Executive Order, the entry of lawful permanent residents is in the national interest. Accordingly, absent significant derogatory infonnation indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare. lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive tactor in our case-by-case determinations.
Ql8: Does DHS have a comment on the protests happening at airports around the country? A: The Department of Homeland Security fully respects the rights of all people to voice their opinion within the confines of the law.
Ql9: What about refugees "''ho are considered to be "in transit?"
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000076
Page 2 of 3

A: There are currently R72 refugees who are considered to be in transit who are scheduled to arrive in the United States this week. The Secretaries of State and DHS have coordinated and will process the 872 individuals consistent with the terms of the Executive Order, which we've operationalized by assessing each traveler on a case-by-case basis.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000077
Page 3 of 3

Press Office U.S. IJepartmenl of Homeland Securil~·
January 29,2017 Contact: DHS Press Office, 202-282-8010
FACT SHEET: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry to the United States
WASHINGTON- The executive order signed on January 27. 2017, allows for the proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals. The United States has the world's most generous immigration system, yet it has been repeatedly exploited by terrorists and other malicious actors who seek to do us harm. In order to ensure that the United States govemment can conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the national security risks posed from our immigration system, it imposes a 90-day suspension on entry to the United States of nationals of certain designated countries countries that were designated by Congress and the Obama Administration as posing national security risks in the Visa Waiver Program.
In order to protect Americans, and to advance the national interest, the United States must ensure that those entering this country will not harm the American people subsequent to their entry, and that they do not bear malicious intent toward the United States and its people. The executive order protects the United States from countries compromised by terrorism and ensures a more rigorous vetting process. This Executive Order ensures that we have a functional immigration system that safeguards our national security.
This executive order, as well as the t\vo issued earlier in the week, provide the Department with additional resources, tools and personnel to carry out the critical work of securing our borders, enforcing the immigration lmvs of our nation, and ensuring that individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety cannot enter or remain in our country. Protecting the American people is the highest priority of our government and this Department.
The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration IaviS and the President's executive order, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000078
Page 1 of 3

Authorities The Congress provided the president of the United States, in section 212(t) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), with the authority to suspend the entry of any class of aliens the president deems detrimental to the national interest. This authority has been exercised by nearly every president since President Carter, and has been a component of immigration laws since the enactment of the INA in 1952.
Actions For the next 90 days, nearly all travelers, except U.S. citizens, traveling from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen will be temporarily suspended from entry to the United States. The 90 day period will allow for proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals.
Importantly, hO\vever, lawful permanent residents of the United States traveling on a valid I-551 will be allowed to board U.S. bound aircraft and will be assessed for exceptions at arrival ports of entry, as appropriate. The entry of these individuals, subject to national security checks, is in the national interest. Therefore, we expect swift entry for these individuals.
In the first 30 days, DIIS will pcrfom1 a global country-by-country review of the infom1ation each country provides when their citizens apply for a U.S. visa or immigration benefit. Countries will then have 60 days to comply with any requests from the U.S. government to update or improve the quality of the information they provide.
DHS and the Department of State have the authority, on a case-by-case basis, to issue visas or allow the entry of nationals of these countries into the United States when it serves the national interest. These seven countries were designated by Congress and the Obama Administration as posing a significant enough security risk to warrant additional scrutiny in the visa waiver context.
The Refugee Admissions Program will be temporarily suspended for the next 120 days while Dl IS and interagency partners review screening procedures to ensure refugees admitted in the future do not pose a security risk to citizens of the United States.
The executive order does not prohibit entry of, or visa issuance to, travelers with diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G- I, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas.
The Department of Homeland Security along with the Department of State, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will develop uniform screening standards for all immigration programs government-wide.
Upon resumption of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, refugee admissions to the United States will not exceed 50,000 for fiscal year 2017.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000079
Page 2 of 3

The Secretary of Homeland Security will expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system of all travelers into the United States. Federal Government As part of a broader set of government actions, the Secretary of State will review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal. The Department of State will suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure all individuals seeking nonimmigrant visas undergo an in-person interview. Transparency The Department of Homeland Security, in order to be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest will make information available to the public every 180 days. In coordination with the Department of Justice, OilS will provide infonnation regarding the number of foreign nationals charged with terrorism-related offense or gender-based violence against women while in the United States.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000080
Page 3 of 3

Rep. Paul Ryan, (R, WI-01) Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi. (D, CA-12) House Minority Leader Rep. Michael McCaul, (R, TX-10) Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D, MS-02), Ranking Member, House Committee on Homeland
Security Rep. Bob Goodlattc (R. VA-06), Chainnan, House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D, MI- I3), Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Carter, (R, TX-31) Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security Rep. Lucille Roybal Allard, (D, CA-40), Ranking Member, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security Rep. Ed Royce, (R, CA-39), Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs Rep. Eliot Engel, (D, NY-16), Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs Rep. David Nunes, (R, CA-22) Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Adam Schiff, (D, CA-2R) Ranking Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R, WI-05), Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee
on Immigration and Border Security Rep. Zoe Lofgren. (D, CA-19) Ranking Member, Ilouse Judiciary Committee. Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security Rep. Martha MeSally (R, AZ-02), Chairwoman, House Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security Rep. Filcmon Vela (D, TX-34), Ranking Member, House Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security Rep. Kevin McCarthy, (R, CA-23), House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, (D, MD-05) House Minority Whip Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11), Chainnan, House Committee on Appropriations Rep. Nita Lowey (D, NY -17), Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000081
Page 1 of 2

Senate Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (0-NY), Senate Minority Leader Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-WI), Chairman, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Govemrnental Atl"airs Sen. Claire McCaskill (0-MO), Ranking Member, Senate Committee on llomcland Security and
Governmental Affairs Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Homeland Security Sen. Jon Tester (0-MT), Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee
on Homeland Security Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Sen. Mark Warner (O-VA), Ranking Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Comyn (R-TX), Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Border Security and Immigration Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Border Security and Immigration Sen. Thad Cochran, Chaim1an, Senate Appropriations Committee Sen. Pat Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000082
Page 2 of 2

Date: 2017/01/30 20:00:14 Priority: Normal
Type: Note

Thank you.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Monday, January 30,2017 7:57PM To: Nielsen, Kirstjen 1J "6 Subject: FW: Agreed Guidance with State and CBP

Metzler, Alan <"""J"(6°)-----------,

FYSA.

From:g"~J~(6~J;;~;;;;;:~~
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 7:50:00 PM
To: Miller, Stephen EOP/WHO
I Cc: Hamilton, Gene; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; @"~J(~6JC:::===================J
1(b)(6)
Subject: Fw: Agreed Guidance with State and CBP
Mr. Miller, senior staff from Consular Affairs and CHP met this eYening to discuss how the J-..0 should be interpreted by DOS and IJHS per our call with you today.
With your approval, we would like to is~uc this guidance to State and DHS operational components, foreign governments and the public.
Plca~e advise at your earliest convenience.
Rcgards,IL"~J(~6J'-----'
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 ~martphone.
From[ijb~·~6L====~::::::::::::::::::::::===========J
Sent: Monday, January 30,2017 7:15PM To: 1J "6
(b)(6)
Cc: Subject: Agreed Guidance with State and CBP
Colleagues:

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000083
Page 1 of 3

(b)(5)
(b)(6)
Official UNCLASSlHED
Sender":(Mb~)C(M6A)~LeEE~NuA~Nl, eK~EVcIN~,K~A(b~)(I6)'~"~"~)~(6~)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recipient: (b)(6) 1e sen, 1rs je thlt~l
(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/30 20:00:12 DHS-01-HQLI-14-000084
Page 2 of 3

Delivered Date: 2017/01/30 20:00:14
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000085
Page 3 of 3

From: Hamilton, Gene (b)(6) (b)(6) "MCALEENAN, KEVIN K thlt~l
To·l(b)(6)
· "Metzler, Alan 1Cb1c61
lcbll6l Subject: RE: Hi
Date: 2017/01/30 06:56:11 Priority: Normal
Type: Note

Do you have a few minutes in the hour of 7? Can call before 7:30. Thank you.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:52PM

To: Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)

; Metzler, Alan@"~J,~6JC=========J

Subject: FW: Hi L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j

Hi Gene, I'm unaware of guidance on how to treat Canadian permanent residents. I am in communication with the new Canadian Border Services Agency head, who is suggesting that we arc supposed to treat Canadian Permanent residents differently. Can you advise? Thank you, Kevin

Froml(b)(6)

I

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:38:11 PM
To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); HOFFMAN, TODD A~(b)(6)

Subject: RE: Hi

'------------'

Commissioner

I think any reaponse vmuld be largely dependant on whether (b)(5)

(b)(5)

L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ j

Proposed Response:
(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000086
Page 1 of 5

Happy to discuss end of proposed rcaponsc

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:15:34 PM

To: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); HOFFMAN, TODD A; HUTTON, JAMES R;l(b)(6)

Subject: FW: Hi

L__ _ _ _ _ __ j

Team, Would appreciate a proposed response to the CBSA President. Thank you,
KM

From: Ossowski, John Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:08:39 PM
To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) Subject: Re: Hi
Hi Kevin- So, to be clear what the confusion appears to be is around CDN PRs with citizenship of one of the 7 countries. We understand that earlier today, the rline industry was informed by CBP that they would be denied entry to the USA. However, WH confirmed to our Immigration Depart. that these individuals would be processed normally.
Would appreciate clarification, assuming there is no other derogatory info, that White House direction is being reflected in your guidance to the field.
John Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:40PM To: Ossowski, John Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) Subject: RE: Hi
John. It depends on the passport presented by the traveler.
KM

From: Ossowski, John Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:18:56 PM To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000087
Page 2 of 5

Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)
Subject: Re: Hi One more clarification- how is it playing out for Canadian PR? Are you seeing issues?
John
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:57PM
To: Ossowski, John
Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)
Subject: RE: Hi
Yes. They are the same. The 1-551 form issued to Lawful Permanent Residents is colloquially known as a "green card"
From: Ossowski, Joh (b)(6)
Sent: Sunday, JanuaryL'2"9,~2"o"1"7"7":"ss""P"M"----------'
TCoc:: OMwCeAnL,ETEoNdAdNC, K(AECVINOFOKL.jC~b_~J,.6(_J_b~_J,_~6J_k=_==_==_==_==_==:_:_:;_:J=:::J
Subject: Re: Hi
Thanks Kevin- this is helpful. Assume similar for green card holders?
Cheers, John
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:48PM To: Ossowski, John Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) Subject: RE: Hi
Hi John,
Thanks for your note. We are very clear in our field guidance to the field on LPRs. They are not detained, but are processed and admitted. In fact, this has happened over 500 times with LPRs from the 7 affected countries so far at air and land border ports. We did have one LPR in Buffalo decide that he didn't want to wait for processing and went back to Canada. Perhaps that anecdote is lending to some confusion. Adding our Executive Director Field Operations who can add further context. Thank you,
Kevin
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000088
Page 3 of 5

artrncnt of Homeland
Security Logo

KcYin K. McAlccnan
Acting. ( ·ommi~~ionct· l S. Ctt~tom~ and 11ordcr l'mtcction
/J"c ore 1/w guuuliull\ u(uur :Vmiun·, hunler,. /J"c Ul"i" Amcricu 'fi·unilill<'

i.~ilonc,• • Scrl·i, c • ln!cgrill"

From: Ossowski, John
Sent: Sunday, January

~(2b,)(96),"2"D"1"7"7"•">"o""'P:;-M-;---------_j

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

Subject: Hi

'----------------_j

Hi Kevin- it's been a crazy day here and imagine the same for you. There appears to be an issue with respect to Permanent Residents and Green Card holders

Our folks are concerned that US Customs and Border Patrol, in their written instructions to the field, is not clear cut on these issues. (apparently it says that these individuals could be detained). Our folks believe that during their conversations with the White House these matters were clearer. It may be the case that the instructions from the White house have not yet been reflected in the guidance to the field.

Please advise.

Thanks, John

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.

(b)(6)
~~U!liANJ~Tii~bW'~6c=======================~=====r~
Recipient: r(b)(6)
e er, an Cbll6l
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000089
Page 4 of 5

(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/30 06:56:10 Delivered Date: 2017/01/30 06:56:11
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000090
Page 5 of 5

From: Nie~sen, Kirstjen (b)(6)
"MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6) i1J)(6) "Metzler, Alan (b)(6) To 1J ~6 Metzer A a t1Jll6l t1Jll6l "Maher. Josephi,1Jl(6l
1")(6)
CC: "Ham1·Iton, Gene .~.t~• (b)(6)
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION Date: 2017/01/2817:50:05
Priority: Normal Type: Note

Just spoke with Joe- thinks he is on in. Kevin on call with the Secretary now. Please let Joe know what you need

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 5:46PM

TMoe:tNzlieerl,seAnla, nKiJC~br)(s6)~t~je~n~"~J(~6J~=======;~:a-~h-e-r-,~JMoestezplher~,~"A~l)a(n76~()b;)(:6):.:'-'--"-'------------j

Cc:j(b)(6)

I

Subject: FW: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

Can we escalate at State? Need a decision now.

From =L"~JI6~J'--:_--:-_ _---::-::-:-:--:-:-::'
Sent· Saturday' January 28' 2017 5·43 PM To (b)(6)
(b)(6)

Cc:j(b)(6)

I

(b)(6)

SubJect: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000091
Page1of15

l(b)(6)

lis heading back home to dress for Court and I will also head over to Court.

(b)(5)

From: ~".:JC:6.:l---,---,-----=--,-==c'. Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:29:15 PM To (b)(6) (b)(6)
Cc: (b)(6) (b)(6)
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

I just got off the phone withcl(b.:.J(c6:J_--:c:-~l Chief Civil EDNY. ITer office was served with new

I papers which she has not yet seen. She is going into the office and will fonvard them within

thirty minutes. She believes ~(b)(5)

She is

checking who is assigned as 1-u"u"'!y"'J"u"d"g"e.-----------------'

(b)(5)

From·l(b)(6)

I

Sent:.Saturday, January 28, 2017 3:58:23 PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; (b)(6) (b)(6)

Cc (b)(6) (b)(6)

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

All,

I'm going to be out of pocket from 6-9:30 or so this evening. To ensure that you get everything you need, please ensure you copy those from OCC copied here so we can get you all what you need
(b)(6)

From (b)(6)
Sent:0s"a"'tu'""r-cd:-a-y,-cJ:-a-n-ua_r_y-:2:-;8:-,;2;0il:'-7-'1"-:2::6::cc:P:.:M:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,
To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K j(b)(6)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000092
Page 2 of 15

(b)(6)

Cc:ICb)(6)

I

(b)(6)

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION Sir,
(b)(5)

(b)(6)

FromiCbM)

Sent· ';cs=-at"u::rd"a:::y-:-;Ja=-n:::u-::a:::r:::yc;2-;;8_J2017 11·36 AM

'

'

To: (b)(6)

(b)(6)

MCALEENAN KEVIN K

Cc:l(b)(6)

I

(b)(6)

SubJect: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
Sir, I wanted to give you a status on the litigation referenced below.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000093
Page 3 of 15

(b)(5)
(b)(5)
We will continue to monitor this and work with OFO.LICb:.:l::c6():__ _ __jland I arc all available should you like to discuss.
SFernto:Sm~a:~t"(bu~)(r6d)~a~y~,'Ja~n~u~a~~~c'2~8,:-~2"io~1~7~8~:2~7~:~14~A~Mc__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
To: MCALEENAN KEVIN (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Cc: (b)(6)
SubJect: RE: FINAL Sir, We've seen the New York Times article about a habeas complaint. (b)(5)
(b)(5)
The article is here: https://www.nytimes com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airportsprom pti ng-1 ega 1-cha llenges-to-trumps-immigration-order. htm I?_r=O
(b)(6)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000094
Page 4 of 15

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Saturday, January 28,201712:19 AM
TojCb)(6)
1")(6)

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D (b)(6)
l(b)(6)
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

Thank you! Great work tonightl(b)(6) (b)(5)

I(b)(S)

lOwen, Todd C (AC OFO)

From: (b)(6)
Sent:,~S~at~u~rd~a~y~,Jl<a~n~u~a~~2~~~,~20[1~7~1~2t:l13~:116~A~ML_________________________________--,

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN Kt0 )(6)

l(b)(6)

I

Cc: l(b)(6)

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

(b)(5)

(b)(6)

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Saturday, January 28,201712:10 AM
Tr' (b)(6)

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
(b)(5)

From c"::l'o6:l:__ _ _ _ __j

Sent: Saturday, January 28ii':i2:i0:"1_7_:1_:2_:_:0'-7_A_:M_:__:__ _ _ _ _ _ _-,

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000095
Page 5 of 15

(b)(6)

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH q(b)(6)

I

l(b)(6)

I

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

Sir, (b)(5)

(b)(5);(b)(6) (b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000096
Page 6 of 15

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, January 27 2017 11:57 PM
TojCb)(6)
(b)(6)

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D jCb)(6)

(b)(6)

I

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

l(b)(6)

I

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

I Owen, Todd C lAC OFO)
I

Please confirm receipt and concurrence.
l(b)(6) I

From :@"2jJC'ij6J======::::J

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2fiO:Clic7:'1"1~o4"3'-'-PM"'-----------,

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

I Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)

(b)(6)

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D i(b)(6)

I

1Cb)(6)

I

Subject: RE. FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

Sir,
(b)(5)

(b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000097
Page 7 of 15

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:35 PM
To: Owen Todd C {AC OFO) l1o ~6
(b)(6)

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH Dl(b)(6)

I

l(b)(6)

I

Subject: FW: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

(b)(5)

From: Fulghum, Chip

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:29 PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

aher, Joseph

l(b)(6) l(b)(6)

tielsen, Kirstjen L"_JC_6J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..J Hamilton, Gene

Cc: Metzler, Subject: Re:

AFlIaNnAL(~b)S(6') "IG'"N"E'"D~EO""F"o'R'A"c"T"IO,-;N.,-------------------_j

(b)(5)

Chip

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:25 PM

To: Maher, Joseph; Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene

Cc: Metzler, Alan; l(b)(6)

IFulghum, Chip

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

De ut , (b)(5)
~"~J(~5)~~o------------------------------__jHappy
to discuss.

Joe, (b)(5)

Thank you, KM
From: Maher, Joseph Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 10:54 PM

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000098
Page 8 of 15

TMoC:ANLiEeElsNenA,NK,iKrEsVt~jNe;Kni)(b")(~6J) /U6J~C==========H:a:m:i:lt:oin~,~G~e~n~e~"=J=i6=J=====================~_J
Cc: Metzler, Alan (b)(6) Fulghum, Chipr"c:J,t6J:---------..,---------------------__J Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
(b)(5)
Joe
Joseph B. Maher Acting General Coun:-;cl U.S. Department of Homeland Security
T!us communicUI!0/1, along H'ilh any a!!achmcnts, is cO\'ercd hy j(•deral a!I{/ state laH' got·ermng
d"ctronic contnnntimtions ond nllll' mnrain confidential and /"gcdh pril·i!cg"d in/imnation. I/
the reader of' this mcs5;agc is 11ot the intended recipient, you arc hereby notified that any di,·scmination, distrihution. u.\e or cop1·ing o/this mes.wge i.\ .\lrici~I·J'rohihitcd !/you lw1·e recein!d this in error, please ri!j)~\' iJIIIIU!diatch· to 1hc sender and dclclc this mcs.wge. Tlwnli
I "0/1.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 9:24PM

To: Maher, Joseph (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gen (b)(6)

MCALEENAN,KEV"I~Nij'~bJ~/6~J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _l ___====================~___J CFcu:lgMhuemtz,leCr,hAipla~"1'~1Jr'6,)i66JJ------------------J----------------------------------------J

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

Thanks Joe (b)(5) Thanks

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 9:18PM

To: Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene L"~J(~6J:___________________J

MCALEENAN,KEV~I~N~K~I(b~J(~6J~~~~~~~~~========L_--~================~

2 Cc: Metzler, Alai;n1 ; ; " ; - ' ) ( 6 - ' - J - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ j
Fulghum, Chip l(b)(6)
Subject: RE: FIN'~AOCLCCSi'ii70G'MN°E0D0EnoCOfO'O"R"A"C"T"'IO,;N_,J

(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000099
Page 9 of 15

(b)(5)
From: Nielsen, Kirstjen Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 9:15PM
~TT0:)<J(o6~:)!!H."_af':m~il~to:'n2:,_2G~e:_rn':@"~J(~6J~====::;;:;M;:;a::h:e::r::J;:o:s:e::;~hCAoL~E6EN AN, KEVI N K
Cc: Metzler, Ala (b)(6)
Fulghum, Chip @"~J(~6J~=======::::J[-------------------_j
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
Hi all (b)(5)

Thanks Best, K

From: Hamilton, Gene

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 8:52PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN (b)(6)

aher, Joseph

l(b)(6)
Cc: Metzler, Ala~(b)(6)
Fulghum, Chip ;;;"J;J(76Jc="~~~~~~~~'hii;e;:;l;;cse;::n::-,-;K;;i,;;s-;;tj::e::nr,C'bJ;;;(6C'J~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

Looping in Joe, also.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 8:37PM
To: Hamilton, :;:;:; Ge~n~e~b:l!'l)6 :;:;:;:;:;:;:J________________---,
0 Cc: Metzler, Ala (b)(6)
Fulghum, Chip ":':Ji;i6JC"---------JCNcci:::e;:ls::e::n,-K"'i::cs::tJ;:e. ::r;"c;J,c;;6J;-----------,__j
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

Adding CoS,

Gene,

Understood. We want to faithfully and quickly execute the EO,."J(5)

.

(b)(5)

I

(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000100
Page 10 of 15

(b)(5)

KM

From: Hamilton, Gene

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 8:22:17 PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Cc: Metzler, Alan; ln,1c61

1 Fulghum, Chip

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

(b)(5)

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 8:15PM
To: Hamilton, Gen~e';'"';'J~(6'=J~~~~~~~~~='---------------------,
CFcu:lgMheumtz,leCr,hAipla~"n~J~((6bt)J(;6) :;;:::::::;:~::;;:s------------------_j
Subject: FW: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
Gene,
(b)(5)
~"-i-J(.-'5),---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __J Let me know. Thanks,
KM

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 7:54:39 PM
To: CbJC6J
(b)(6)
Cc: CblC6l
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
(b)(5)

(b)(5)

Can you get on the phone witn OFO ASAP and

talk through?! Please send me an update as soon as you can.

From:
Sent:

~(bF)r(6~) idia~y~,'Ja~n~u~a~ry~2'7-,~20~1~7~7~:~4~8~:1~1~P~M~---------------------,

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; (b)(6l

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000101
Page11of15

(b)(6)
Cc: (b)(6)
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION All, Below are the questions and answers that we just cleared with OGC.I(b)(5) (b)(5)
(b)(5)

My cell phone number dCb)(6)

Please do not hesitate at any point

th1s weekend to call. We are gomg to fl1p th1s to our f1eld counsels as well so they w1ll also have th1s

information.

Questions we had from OFO are in black answers determined together with OGC, ICE and USCIS are in red.
(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000102
Page 12 of 15

(b)(5)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000103
Page 13 of 15

(b)(5)

(b)(6)

From:~"~J,~6Jc_~-----c:-~~~~~c-'

Sent: Fr1day, January 27, 2Dr;1';'7:-6C':"'S"-O-'P-"M"---------------------------------------,

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K ~(b)(6)

I

(b)(6)

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
Thank you, sir. We're on the phone with OGC, ICE, and CIS now and working through answers to some of the questions that have come up within the last hour or so. (b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000104
Page 14 of 15

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 6:41PM

Toj(b)(6)

I

(b)(6)

Subject: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
Sender: Nielsen, Kirsl:]en 1J ~6

Sent Date: 2017/01/2817:50:04 Delivered Date: 2017/01/2817:50:05

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000105
Page 15 of 15

From· Nielsen, Kirsren (b)(6) • (b)(6) "MCALEENAN KEVIN (b)(6) (b)(6)
To: (b)(6) "La an David 1J ~6 (b)(6) (b)(6)
CC: Metzer A an (b)(6)
Subject: RE: Statement on InJunction Date: 2017/02/03 22:57:48
Priority: Normal Type: Note
Gillian Do we have clearance? If not pis call over . Let me know if I can support

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:56:44 PM

To: Christensen, Gillian; Lapan, David

Cc:l(b)(6)

!Metzler, Alan; Nielsen, Kirstjen

Subject: RE: Statement on injunction

Can we launch our statement now that WH has gone out?

From: Christensen, Gillian Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:21 PM ~Tgo~:~L,ear_pae'nrJ,,_!D"a~v<;.id!_lli;bji!6~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:=::J; MCA LEE NAN, KEVI N K
(b)(6)
Cc: (b)(6)
Subject: RE: Statement on injunction

I pingcd Spicer again. He has our statement. Am awaiting clearance from him per COS.

From: Lapan, David

Sent: Friday, February 03, 201710:19:01 PM

To: Christensen, Gillian; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

CC~1J)(6)

I

Su ject: RE: Statement on InJunction

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000106
Page 1 of 3

(b)(5);(b)(6)

Dave

From: Christensen, Gillian

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:09:33 PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Cc: (bJC6J

apan, David

Subject: RE: Statement on injunction

Thanks! Statement is currently up at WH awaiting guidance. As as FYI. here's what they just released:

TilE WIIITE IIOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 3, 2017
Statement by the Press Secretary
At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people.
As the law states, "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants. or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
###
Unsubscribe
The White House· 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ·Washington DC 20500 · 202-4561111

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000107
Page 2 of 3

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:07:51 PM

To: Christensen, Gillian

Cc 1J ~6

Lapan, David

Subject: RE: Statement on injunction

Factual. Used passenger vice targeting ..

From: Christensen, Gillian
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2;,0-'-10,7-"9-"'3o:7_Pc.:M.::__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---, To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN Kl(b)(6)
~CO::c;\-l(bC'J~6(~)~~~~~~~~,------------------_JILapan, David
(b)(6)
Subject: Statement on injunction

How do you all feel about the below?

(b)(5)

Thoughts?
Sender· Nielsen, K1rstjenl(b)(6)
1'i'M~CA~LE~E~N~A~N;KE;Vi!N~K~b~6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~, "l(b)(6) (b)(6) "Christensen, Gillian (b)(6) b 6 "L n D vi Recipient (b)(6)
e z er, an (\-,\(~' (b)(6) Sent Date: 2017/02/03 22:57:48

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000108
Page 3 of 3

Fromj(bC)h(6r)istensen. Gillian Jn,JI6l "MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)
To· (b)(6l • "Lapan, David (b)(6)
(b)(6)
CC· "Metzler Alan • (b)(6) "Nielsen, Kirstjen 1J ~6 (b)(6)
Subject: RE. Statement on 1n]unct1on Date: 2017/02/03 22:57:57
Priority: Normal Type: Note

I I

Not yet. Have been given specific instructions but WH Comms to hold until Spicer/Miller weighs in. Hopefully only 20 more minutes.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:56:44 PM To: Christensen Gillian· La an David
Can we launch our statement now that WH has gone out?
From: Christensen, Gillian Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:21 PM ~T~o~:JL,eap_pae'nrJ:,_[D~a~v<;.id!Jij,;1~r]:61L::=====::;=J MCALEE NAN, KEVIN K
(b)(6)
Cc: (b)(6) Subject: RE: Statement on injunction
I pingcd Spicer again. He has our statement. Am awaiting clearance from him per COS.
From: Lapan, David Sent: Friday, February 03, 201710:19:01 PM To: Christensen, Gillian; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Cc: (b)(6) Subject: RE: Statement on injunction

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000109
Page 1 of 3

(b)(5);(b)(6)

Dave

From: Christensen, Gillian

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:09:33 PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Cc: (b)(6)

Lapan, David

Subject: RE: Statement on injunction

Thanks! Statement is currently up at WH awaiting guidance. As as FYI. here's what they just released:

TilE WIIITE IIOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 3, 2017
Statement by the Press Secretary
At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people.
As the law states, "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants. or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
###
Unsubscribe
The White House· 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ·Washington DC 20500 · 202-4561111

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000110
Page 2 of 3

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:07:51 PM

To: Christensen, Gillian
Cc:l(b)(6)

ILapan, David

Subject: RE: Statement on InJunction

Factual. Used passenger vice targeting ..

From: Christensen, Gillian

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:37PM
To: MCALEENAN KEVIN K """JC76 J , - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

Cc: (b)(6l

Lapan, David

""~),~6)7----------,-------------------"

Subject: Statement on injunction

How do you all feel about the below?

(b)(5)

Thoughts?

Sender

• Christensen, .j(b)(6)

Gillian

ln,JC6l

"MCALEENAN KEVIN K (b)(6) (b)(6) "La an David 1J "6 (b)(6)

Recipient:

zr, (b)(6)
I S (b)(6)

1J"6

IrS

(b)(6)

Sent Date: 2017/02/03 22.57.57

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000111
Page 3 of 3

From· NOC.SWO.Restricted(b)(6)

"l(b)(6)

cc· "NOC.SWO.Restrictedl(b)(6)
"l(b)(6)

I I

S u

b~·

ect· .

(U//FOUO)
17)

NOC

Note

(Initial):

Court Order Halting Immigration Executive Order- (NOC 0061-

Date: 2017/02/03 20:15:32 Priority: Normal
Type: Note

UNCLASSIRED N FOR OFh'C,'AL USE ONLY
This information is being provided for senior DHS and Component leaders. It is meant to increase senior leader situational awareness and is not for public release.
Overview (3 Feb, 2013 EST): The Washington State's Attorney General's Office is reporting a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order halting POTUS' Immigration Executive Order (EO).
Report: A federal judge in Seattle granted Washington state's request for a temporary restraining order that halts President Donald Trump's EO nationwide. The Temporary Restraining Order will remain in place until U.S. District Court Senior Judge James L. Robart considers the Attorney General's lawsuit challenging key provisions of the President's order as illegal and unconstitutional.
5o u rce : http :IIwww .atq. wa. qovI news/news-releases/aq-ferq uson-obtains-court-order-ha ltinq-trumpimmiqration-action
Coordination:
(b)(5)
Distribution: DHS HQ Leadership, DHS Component Leadership, DHS Component Operations Centers, WHSR
(b)(6)

UNCLASSiFiED IYFOR OFFICIAL USE ONL'f
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000112
Page 1 of 2

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO}; it contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S. C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do not have a valid "need-to-know" without prior approval of an authorized DHS officio/.
S d NOC.SWO.Restricted (b)(6) en er: (b)(6)
Recipient· "NOC.SWO.Restricte (b)(6) (b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/02/03 20:15:30 Delivered Date: 2017/02/03 20:15:32
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000113
Page 2 of 2

(b)(6) From:
To:

CC:

Subject: Stoplight Reports 2 2-17 Date: 2017/02/0218:39:41
Importance: High Priority: Urgent Type: Note

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Attached is the current report showing the status of open Congressional correspondence as of 3:00pm today. (PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN RUN TIME & DEADLINES FOR HQ ESEC REPORTS & PRODUCTS) Also, attached are the current summaries of open Congressional Authorization Reports and CFO's listing of open Appropriations Reports.

r2Q;;'u;-'e"'s"'ti:.:co:.:.n,s'-'r'-'e==="-'-A,_,u,_,t,h"o'-irization Reports should be directed to LICb_JC6.,!- ---,--;-;-;-_J i:",-,J,.6',..J-----------"'T-"h"'o"'s"e_,r.:;e,garding Appropriations Reports should be directed to
(b)(6)

In addition, we offer the following:.

Below is a list of all late actions on Testimony and QFRs as well as Components that are late:

Witness( es)

l(b)(6)

I

Hearing Date 2/16/2017

Component(s) who are overdue ICE

[NOTE: Information contained in the chart and Stoplight Reports is accurate as of 2:30pm.]
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000114
Page1of14

**ICE is late on submitting its initial draft of its written statement for the IC~(b)(6) ~earing Thursday, February 16th on Transnational Criminal Organizations which was due today** Please contact me should you have any questions. (b)(6)
imageOOl
X
cid: imageOOl.j pg@01CB45D9 .OF7B7500 This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you ore hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
(b)(6)
Sender Recipient
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000115
Page 2 of 14

(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/02/02 18.39.41
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000116
Page 3 of 14

Open Congressional Correspondence Addressed to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
• Days in progress is within 1-7 business days Days in progress is within 8-9 business days
• Days in progress is more than 10 business days

Stop Light Date

Days in Document Location Component Final Due Member

Status Received Progress Location As of

Date

Total

Issue

Signatories

Front Office

1/24/17

•

2/1/17

•

1125/17

•

1/27117

2/2/17

•

1125/17

•

12/14116

•

1112/17

8 With Component

1124117 CBP

2 With Component
7 With Component

211117 CBP 1/25/17 CRCL

5 With Component
With Component

1127117 I&A 2/2/17 I&A

7 With Component

1/25/17 ICE

37 W1th Component

12/14/16 MGMT

16 With Component

1/12/17 MGMT

•

1/30117

4 W1th Component

1/30/17 OGC

217/17 Rep. Lofgren (CA)
2/15117 Sen. Whitehouse (RI)
2/8/17 Rep. Katko (NY)
211 0/17 Rep. McCaul (TX)
2/t 6/17 Sen. Heinrich (NM)
2/7/17 Rep. Ross (FL)
12129/16 Sen. McCaskill (MO)
1/30117 Rep. Chaffetz (UT) Rep_ Hice (GA)
2110/17 Sen. McCaskill (MO)

Writes regarding recent reports that CBP officers are denying entry to the U.S. based on political and/or religious affiliation.
Writes on behalf of constituent who recently was granted a Special Immigrant Visa
Writes with concern about Community Engagement Tours given at airports across the United States
2 Writes requesting copies ·of statutorily mandated reports.
Writes to express concern about threats to Jewish Community Centers.
Writes requesting clarification on ICE procedures regarding detainees.
Requests 1nformat1on regarding the Department's treatment of whistleblowers.
2 Requests investigation of recent allegations by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp regarding DHS and unauthorized scans of computer network.
7 Wntes requesting information about Executive Order signed by the President.

Interim Tracking
# (10)/ES

No

1137721/

17-0419

No

11380581

17-0514

No

1137734/

17-0395

No

1137897/

17-0449

No

1138111/

17-0522

No

1137705/

17-0412

No

1136254/

16-6522

No

11372551

17-0267

No

1137964 /

17-0457

1 of 3

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000117
Page 4 of 14

2/2/2017 4:21 :44 PM

Open Congressional Correspondence
Days in progress is within 1-7 business days

• Days in progress is within 8-9 business days Days in progress is more than 10 business days

• • 1/30117

4 W1th Component

1/30/17 OGC

•

1130/17

•

1130/17

•

1/30/17

•

1/31/17

•

1/31/17

4 With Component

t/30/17 OGC

4 With Component
4 With Component
3 With Component
3 With Component

t/30/17 OGC
1/30/17 OGC 1/31/17 OGC
1/31/17 OGC

•

1/31/17

•

1/31/17

•

2/1/17

3 With Component
3 With Component

1/31/17 OGC 1131117 OGC

2 With Component

2/1/17 OGC

Addressed to the
2113/17 Rep. Schiff (CA)
2/13/17 Sen_ Warner (VA)
2/13117 Sen Markey (MA)
2/13/17 Sen. Casey (PA)
2/14/17 Sen_ Booker (NJ)
2/14117 Sen. Peters (MI)
2/14117 Rep. Cummings (MD)
2/14/17 Rep. Walz (MN)
2/15/17 Rep_ Keating (MA)

Secretary and Deputy
Wntes regarding the implementation ot the executive order banning visa holders from certain maJority muslim countries and refugees from the United States.
2 Writes with concern about the executive order entitled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States"
Writes regarding recent immigration orders.
Writes regarding recent immigration orders.
Writes with questions regarding recent immigration orders.
Writes with concern on the executive order issued by President Trump targeting individuals from majority Muslim countries serv1ng as a religious test to determine entry into the
u.s.
3 Writes requesting information about actions taken by CBP regarding Immigration ban EQ_
Requests information regarding Trump Administration executive order banning travel to the U.S. from 7 specified nations.
Writes regarding the recent Executive Order on immigration

Secretary

No

1137940 /

17-0473

No

1137944/

17-0452

No

1137951 I

17-0476

No

1137961/

17-0484

No

1137984/

17-0489

No

11379931

17-0459

No

11380001

17-0470

No

1138027 I

17-0512

No

1138061/

17-0464

2 of 3

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000118
Page 5 of 14

2/2/2017 4:21 :44 PM

Open Congressional Correspondence
Days in progress is within 1-7 business days

• Days in progress is within 8-9 business days Days in progress is more than 10 business days

• • 212117

W1th Component

2/2/17 OGC

•

2/2/17

•

2/2/17

1124117

•

1125/17

•

1/26117

•

1131/17

With
Component

212117 OGC

With Component

212117 OGC

8 With Component

1124117 PLCY

7 With Component
6 With Component
3 With Component

1/27/17 PLCY
1/26/17 PLCY 1/31/17 PLCY

Addressed to the
2116/17 Rep. Conyers (MI)
2/16/17 Rep_ Collins (NY)
2/16/17 Rep_ Cicilline (RI)
217117 Sen. Daines (MT)
2/8/17 Sen_ Tester (MT)
2/9/17 Sen. Tester (MT)
2114/17 Rep_ Dent (PA)

Secretary and Deputy
101 Wnte to strongly condemn the President's executive order titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terronst Entry into the United States" Writes to express concern about EO signed by President Trump regarding travel restrictions_
15 Urges CBP and DHS to comply with court orders regarding immigrants being removed and detained at Dulles International Airport.
Writes about CBP staffing. cybersecurity, and hosting the Secretary on a visit to Montana.
Writes regarding the United States- Canadian border in the State of Montana.
2 Wntes regarding REAL ID for Montana
Writes requesting information about immigrants who were denied entry into the country

Secretary

No

1138100/

17-0521

No

1138121 I

17-0524

No

1138126/

17-0547

No

11377031

17-0418

No

1137759/

17-0413

No

1137797/

17-0415

No

1137996/

17-0461

3 of 3

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000119
Page 6 of 14

2/2/2017 4:21 :45 PM

Hon:1.eland Security

Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
'"
NPPD OCFO/OFO OCFO/OFO OCFO/PA&E
"'"'

Date Due to Congress
Date Due to Congress
Date Due to Congress
Date Due to Congress
Date Due to Congress
01/17/2016 02/16/2016 02/09/2016 02/09/2016 02/09/2016
03/17/2016 01/17/2016

0 Reports Overdue to Congress with No Movement

Title

Signatory

0 Reports Due to Congress within Next 60 Days: 04/03/Z017

Title

Signatory

0 Reports Overdue to Congress with Movement

Title

Signatory

0 Reports Due to Congress in More Than 60 Days

Title

Signatory

7 Reports Transmitted to Congress

Title

Signatory

Comprehensive Biometric Entry and Ex1t Data

System Implementation FPS Cert1f1cat1on of Full Funding Purchase and Usage of Ammunition Purchase and Usage of Weapons- CY 2015 Future Years Homeland Security Program Advanced Integrated Passenger Screening

" " " " "

Technologies Visa Overstay Rates

" "

Comment>
Comments
Comment>
Comments
Date Transmitted
04/20/2016 04/11/2016 04/22/2016 06/22/2016 04/09/2016
10/31/2016 04/20/2016

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000120
Page 7 of 14

Component
'"
PLCY PLCY USC IS

Title FY 2016 Semronnual Report on Deportation Df Aliens Claiming u_s_ -Born Children- Second H~lf CY 2016
FY 2016 Border Security Status Report- Quarter 3 FY 2016 Border Security Status Report- Quarter 4

Comments
11/23- Requested stotus, ETA is the week of 1/9 1/17- Requested st~tus; new ETA is 2/10.
8/24, 9/14, 10/18, 11/2, 11/21, 12/5, 12/21 Requested status. 1/17/2017- Requested status. 1/31- Requested status. 2/1- New ETA rs week of 2/6. 8/25, 11/21, 12/5, & 12/21- Requested status. 1/31/2017- Requested status.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000121
Fage 8 of 14

Com anent
PLCY
PLCY Component
'"
NPPD

Date Due to Congress

5 Reports Overdue to Congress with Movement

Title

Si nator

Comments

07/15/2016

FY 2016 Border Security Status Report- Quarter 2

c;M

12/7- Received report; in DHS Budget clearance. 12/13- Comments with Polrcy to ~djudic~te. 12/14- Received ~djudications from Polrcy. 12/20 -In 51 preclearance. 12/30 & 1/S- Requested st~tus 1/9Received 51 preclearance; in OMB cle~r~nce 1/18- OMB cle~red; in Budget final clearance. 1/19- In CFO frnal cle~r~nce 1/24- ACFO cleared; with MGMT for revrew and clearance.

12/12- Received report; in DHS Budget

clearance. 12/14- Comments with Polrcy to ~djudic~te. 12/21, 12/29, 1/5/2017-

Requested status. 1/17- Requested status;

received adjudic~tions 1/19- In 51

04/15/2016

Stolen and LostTravel Documents

PLCY

precleoronce. 1/24- Recerved 51
'i' preclearance. 1/25- In OMB cle~r~nce.
- Requested status.

2 Reports Due to Congress within Next 60 Days: 04/03/2017

Date Due to Congress

Title

Signatory

Comments

02/13/2017 03/31/2017

St~te Police Crime Lab Support
Three-Year Strotegrc Plan for Assessment Programs

c;M NPPD

12/20- ETA IS 1/20. 1/23- New ETA is 2/24As a result of a 6/22 teleconference with SAC, the due date for the report is 3/31/2017. 1/31/2017- No ETA.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000122
Page 9 of 14

Horn<~ land Security

Component US$$

Date Due to Congress

1 Report Due to Congress in More Than 60 Days

Title

Signatory

07/01/2017

JamesJ. Rowley Troining Center Rev1sed Master
Pl~n

US$$

Comments 1/13- Moster Plan owait1ng NCPC approval report m~y be submitted after plan opproval; bnef1ng recommended to meet due date 4/7- Hill staff agree that report can't be provided until FY 2017. 7/1-
Original due date w~s 2/16/2016; revised due dote to reflect approximote NCPC approval

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000123
Page 10 of 14

HJO~~a6Bd

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000124

'"'"'"'

'"I

"

1/or
"

''"'!

""'"~I
"'' .,,,

''""
'"") "' '""""

'il1;' .\lj.IUJ.)<;
purl"~'-'OH

~c~~E~~o ~~e~c ~E~~o ~oq go ~ ~qeo B~~eCQeo
;;~o~o~oso;;:o;;:oo
~~o~a~a~o~o~co

oo
qq
QaoQao

cc
eccQQcce

oo
eqoooqoe

o
eoqo

oooooo
qqqqqq
QaoQaoQaoQoaQoaQoa

a a a a a a a ~,-~ "~,c~ -~.o~, -~"~

~.~, -~,c~ -~.o~, -~"~

~.~, -~,c~ -~.o~, -~"~

~.~, -~,c~ -~,o, -~a"~~" z

zzz ;" "; ";

~
o ;

o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-o;o;

"-;";-";-~-~-~-

g g g ~ic~ ~" ~o ~~ ~c ~" ~ ~£~o ~c~c ~"~" o ~o~o~o~o~o~o ~~ ~~ ~:5 ~o ~c ~" ~o ~z ~:; ~" ~o ~o ~c ~" ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~"" o

cc
~~

"
~

0 ~

0 ~

c
~

"
~

0 ~

0 ~~ 0

cc
~~

""
~~

0 ~

0 ~~ 0 ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0

c
~

"
~

0 ~

0 ~

c
~

"
~

0 ~

0 ~

c
~

"
~

0 ~

0 ~

c
~

"
~

0 ~

0 ~

c
~

"""
~~~

0 ~

<? <?

'"

'"

'"

<?

'"

'"

'"'"

<? <?

'"'"

'"

'"'"'"'"'"'"

<?

'"

'"

'"

<?

'"

'"

'"

<?

'"

'"

'"

<?

'"

~

~

<?

'"'"'"

'"

oo
gg
0 ~~ 0 '"'"

~~~i~~ ccc~c
cccccc
~~~~~~
<? <? <? <? <? <?

T w ; ; ; ; ; i Hi 11 i q! mu:! 1 !! ; ; mn H Hmn ! ~ ~ 1 ; ; ; 1 ~; ~i i ~ ~ i i &8~F8~&8~e~&i??i?tF2~f~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 5 ri~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f~Sii ~~~ ~~5~~iii~~ : I' I' : : :

rrrIil!i)~ ~w '. w i T!:: mnw:: It" i! 1: ; : 1; 1: 1

c' "; '

! II

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000125

"''~''~''

"'~,.lll,l~lif
~

~-

g

t~

~~3

~

~g

t ~ 1g Hi i ;~

" 0
0
" e

e I1 I' 1·~'i1H·i'l· I' lal' 1'1' lala I' l'l'l'l'lala I' Ia Ia Ia I' Ia Ia Ia I' Ia Ia Ia I' Ia Ia Ia I! l!l!l!

•

1e~1z~
- " - "--

I
~ ~
:";;

~
~ ~
:0;;

~
~"'
:0;;

! e
:"c:-;

~
~
:"~;;

5
~ ~
:0;;

~~
~ "'~ "'
:0 ;; 0 :;;

!~
~z
:c ":;-"c::-;

~~
~~
" :~ ;; ~ ":;;

z ~
~
:0;;

§~~~~~
~ "'~ "'~ "'~ "'~ "'~ "'
0 :;; 0 :;; 0 :;; 0 :;; 0 :;; 0 :;;

~
~
:"c:-;

% ~

~ ~

:"~;;

~
:0;;

§
~"'
:0;;

e ~
:"c:-;

§ ~

~ ~

:"~;;

~
:0;;

~
~"'
:0;;

e ~
:"c:-;

~
~
:"~;;

~
~ ~
:0;;

~
~"'
:0;;

~ z
:"c:-;

~
~
:"~;;

§
~ ~
o0 ;

I§
~"'
0
t;;

Ie~
"c -
::;

~~~

~

''" ~5~t~H~I~~~I~1

-~~~~r
? C? C? C? C? C?

I~

1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

I;

I; I; 1, I 1, I; I; I I; I;

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000126

HJOS~a6Bd
"'
suo'''
'"'

w'"l '"'"'" """""'G """"'"'<

"

"""'

1!: Homeland Security

Authorizing Testimony

Stop Light Status

.On Time

Due Today or Tomorrow • 1 Day or More Past Due

..(Complete On Time

..(' Complete Late

Stoplight (Clearance Stage)
Component DHS FO OMB Committee
Response

Component Witness Master Hearing Hearing Title Workflow Date No.

Deadline (Clearance Stage)

Component DHS
Response

Front Office

OMB

.(

.( .(

House Committee Front Office Secretar 1137632

/ on Homeland

y John F.

2/7/17 "Ending the Crisis: America's Borders and

Security

Kelly

Path to Security"

House Committee USCG / on Homeland
SecuritySubcommittee on Border and Maritime Security

Ray,

1137224

Charles

(VADM)

2/16/17 Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO) threats

.(

House Committee CBP / on Homeland

Beeson, 1137377 2/16/17 Transnational Criminal

Paul

Organization (TCO)

Security-

threats

Subcommittee on

Border and Maritime

Security

/

/

/

J '

House Committee on Homeland

ICE

Security-

Subcommittee on

Border and Maritime

Security

Allen, Matt

1137379

2/16/17 Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO) threats

.( .(

J '

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

FEMA

Amparo. 1137852 Alex

2/8/17 Emergency Management in Indian Country: Improving FEMA's Federal-Tribal Relationship with Indian Tribes

1/31/17 2/1117 1/31117 2/2117 2/2/17 2/3117 2/2/17 2/2117 2/2/17
1/30/17 2/1/17 2/1/17 2/3/17

1 of 1

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000127
Page 14 of 14

(b)(6) From:
To:
CC:
Subject: Stoplight Reports 1 31-17 Date: 2017/01/3117:00:30
Importance: High Priority: Urgent Type: Note
Ladies and Gentlemen: Attached is the current report showing the status of open Congressional correspondence as of 3:00pm today. (PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN RUN TIME & DEADLINES FOR HQ ESEC REPORTS) Also, attached are the current summaries of open Congressional Authorization Reports and CFO's listing of open Appropriations Reports.

In addition, we show the following: .
TESTIMONY STATUS REPORT- Authorizing Committees

S l!S2 HEARINGS

I D<?lte

Committee

Feb 7, 2017- j House Committee on Homeland

lues

1security

I

Subject

1Ending the Crisis: America's

1Borders and the Path to

~Security

DHS Witness DHS Secretary John F. Kelly

Content highlighted in yellow is new to the Daily Report since the last Daily Report was sent.

i\ hearing noted in light grey is one at which OilS is not testifying or to which DHS has yet to receive an invitation to testify hut one that may be of interest to DHS.

Proud to serve ... let me know if you have any questions.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000128
Page1of14

(b)(6)
imageOOl
X
cid: imageOOl.j pg@01CB45D9 .OF7B7500 This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
(b)(6)
Sender: Recipient: Sent Date: 2017/01/3117.00.29
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000129
Page 2 of 14

Delivered Date: 2017/01/3117:00:30
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000130
Page 3 of 14

Open Congressional Correspondence Addressed to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
• Days in progress is within 1-7 business days Days in progress is within 8-9 business days
• Days in progress is more than 10 business days

Stop Light Date

Days in Document Location Component Final Due Member

Status Received Progress Location As of

Date

•

1/31/17

With Component

1131117

2/14/17 Rep. Cummings (MD}

•

1124/17

6 With Component

1/24/17 CBP

2/7/17 Rep_ Lofgren (CA)

•

1125/17

5 With Component

1/25/17 CRCL

2/8/17 Rep_ Katko (NY)

•

1/27117

1/25/17

•

1130/17

•

12/14116

•

1112/17

3 With Component
5 With Component

1127117 I&A 1125117 ICE

2 With Component

1/30/17 OGC

35 W1th Component

12/14/16 OGC

14 With Component

1112117 OGC

2/1 0/17 Rep. McCaul (TX)
217/17 Rep. Ross (FL)
Claire McCaskill (Sen. MO)
12129/16 Sen. McCaskill (MI)
1/30117 Rep. Chaffetz (UT) Rep_ Hice (GA)

Total

Issue

Signatories

Front Office

3 Writes requesting information about actions taken by CBP regarding Immigration ban EO.
Writes regarding recent reports that CBP officers are denying entry to the U.S. based on political and/or religious affiliation_
Writes with concern about Community Engagement Tours given at airports across the United States
Writes requesting copies ·• of statutorily mandated reports.
Writes requesting clarif1cat1on on ICE procedures regarding detainees.
7 Writes requesting information about Executive Order signed by the President.
Requests 1nformat1on regarding the Department's treatment of whistleblowers.
2 Requests investigation of recent allegations by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp regarding DHS and unauthorized scans of computer network.

Interim Tracking
# (10)/ES

No

1138000/

17-0470

No

1137721/

17-0419

No

1137734/

17-0395

No

1137897/

17·0449

No

1137705/

17-0412

No

1137964/

17-0457

No

1136254/

16·6522

No

11372551

17-0267

1 of 3

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000131
Page 4 of 14

1/31/2017 2:53:22 PM

Open Congressional Correspondence
Days in progress is within 1-7 business days

• Days in progress is within 8-9 business days Days in progress is more than 10 business days

• • 1/30117

2 W1th Component

1/30/17 OGC

•

1130/17

•

1130/17

•

1/30/17

•

1/31/17

•

1/31/17

2 With Component

t/30/17 OGC

2 With Component
2 With Component With Component
With Component

t/30/17 OGC
1/30/17 OGC 1/31/17 OGC
1/31/17 OGC

• • • •
2 of 3

1/31/17 1/24/17 1/25/17 1/26/17

With Component

1/31/17 OGC

6 With Component

1/24/17 PLCY

5 With Component
4 With Component

1/27/17 PLCY 1126117 PLCY

Addressed to the
2113/17 Rep. Schiff (CA)
2/13/17 Sen_ Warner (VA)
2/13117 Sen Markey (MA)
2/13/17 Sen. Casey (PA)
2/14/17 Sen_ Booker (NJ)
2/14117 Sen. Peters (MI)
2/14117 Rep. Charles Dent (PA)
2/7117 Sen. Daines (MT)
2/8/17 Sen_ Tester (MT)
219/17 Sen. Tester (MT)

Secretary and Deputy
Wntes regarding the implementation ot the executive order banning visa holders from certain maJority muslim countries and refugees from the United States.
2 Writes with concern about the executive order entitled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States"
Writes regarding recent immigration orders.
Writes regarding recent immigration orders.
Writes with questions regarding recent immigration orders.
Writes with concern on the executive order issued by President Trump targeting individuals from majority Muslim countries serv1ng as a religious test to determine entry into the
u.s.
Writes requesting information about immigrants who were denied entry into the country.
Writes about CBP staffing. cybersecurity, and hosting the Secretary on a visit to Montana.
Writes regarding the United States- Canadian border in the State of Montana.
2 Writes regarding REAL ID for Montana

Secretary

No

1137940 /

17-0473

No

1137944/

17-0452

No

1137951 I

17-0476

No

1137961/

17-0484

No

1137984/

17-0489

No

11379931

17-0459

No

11379961

17-0461

No

11377031

17-0418

No

1137759/

17-0413

No

1137797 I

17-0415

1/31/2017 2:53:22 PM

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000132

Page 5 of 14

Open Congressional Correspondence Addressed to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
• Days in progress is within 1-7 business days Days in progress is within 8-9 business days
• Days in progress is more than 10 business days

3 of 3

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000133
Page 6 of 14

1/31/2017 2:53:22 PM

Hon:1.eland Security

Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
'"
NPPD OCFO/OFO OCFO/OFO OCFO/PA&E
"'"'

Date Due to Congress
Date Due to Congress
Date Due to Congress
Date Due to Congress
Date Due to Congress
01/17/2016 02/16/2016 02/09/2016 02/09/2016 02/09/2016
03/17/2016 01/17/2016

0 Reports Overdue to Congress with No Movement

Title

Signatory

0 Reports Due to Congress within Next 60 Days: 04/1/2017

Title

Signatory

0 Reports Overdue to Congress with Movement

Title

Signatory

0 Reports Due to Congress in More Than 60 Days

Title

Signatory

7 Reports Transmitted to Congress

Title Comprehensive Biometric Entry and Ex1t Data

Signatory

System Implementation FPS Cert1f1cat1on of Full Funding Purchase and Usage of Ammunition Purchase and Usage of Weapons- CY 2015 Future Years Homeland Security Program Advanced Integrated Passenger Screening

" " " " "

Technologies Visa Overstay Rates

" "

Comment>
Comments
Comment>
Comments
Date Transmitted
04/20/2016 04/11/2016 04/22/2016 06/22/2016 04/09/2016
10/31/2016 04/20/2016

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000134
Page 7 of 14

Homeland Security

Component
'"
PLCY PLCY USC IS
Component
'""

Date Due to Congress

4 Reports Overdue to Congress with No Movement

Title

Signatory

Comments

FY 2016 Sem1onnual Report on Deportation Df

Aliens Claiming u_s_ -Born Children- Second H~lf

01/16/2017

CY 2016

'"

10/15/2016

FY 2016 Border Security Stotus Report- Quarter 3

C>M

01/16/2017 06/30/2016 Date Due to Congress

FY 2016 Border Security Stotus Report- Quarter 4

C>M

Quinquennial Report on Asylum Decision Trends

ond Foctors

USC IS

5 Reports Overdue to Congress with Movement

Title

Signatory

12/15/2016

Automated Commerciol Environment Sem1onnual

Report- Second Half FY 2016

cee

11/23- Requested stotus, ETA is the week of
'i' 1/17- Requested st~tus; new ETA is
2/10. 8/24, 9/14, 10/18, 11/2, 11/21, 12/5, & 12/21- Requested stotus. 1/17 -Requested status; ETA is the week of 1/23_ 1/31/2017Requested status. 8/25- No ETA. 11/21, 12/5, & 12/21Requested st~tus 1/31/2017- Requested stotus. 6/21 -ETA is 9/30 10/5- New ETA is M~"h 2017.
Comments Will be submitted through ESEC. 12/5Requested status; ETA for submiSSion to ESEC IS by 12/9. 12/12- Submitted to ESEC {IQ Workflow #1136178). 1/6- ESEC sent DHS Clearance comments to CBP for adjudication 1/11- CBP returned response to ESEC.

OCIO

12/15/2016

Cybersecunty Improvements Expenditure Plan Obl1gat1ons- Second Half, FY 2016

c;M

11/16- Received report; in DHS Budget clearance. 11/22- Comments with OCIO for ~djudic~tion 11/29- Adjudications received. 12/1- Follow-up question is With OCIQ_ 12/8 & 12/14- Requested status 12/20- OCIO IS conducting a data coli to ~ddress DHS CFO Budget question. 1/3. 1/10, & 1/17/2017- Requested stotus. 1/18 -Received d~t~ call results; returned to OCIO and requested thot footnotes be ~dded to pl~n to clarify some expenditures. 1/30- Received; 1n Budget f1nal cleoronce.

OCRSO PLCY

03/17/2016 07/15/2016

Headquorters Consolidot1on Expenditure Plan FY 2016 Border Security Stotus Report- Quarter 2

c;M c;M

1/26- Received report, 1n DHS Budget clearance. 2/9- comments/edits w1th Component to adjudicate. 2/11- in OMB clearance. 3/1- OMB cleared; in CFO f1nal clearance. 9/15- Returned to OCRSO to update, as needed. 9/22 & 9/28Requested status. 10/18- Returned to CFO final clearance. 10/24- CFO comments with OCRSO to adjudicate. 11/2- Requested status. 11/4- Rece1ved adjud1cat1ons; CFO f1nal clearance resumed. 11/29- See Lisa Crosby for details_
12/7- Received report, 1n DHS Budget clearance. 12/13- Comments with Pol1cy to adjudicate. 12/14- Received adjudications from Pol1cy. 12/20 -In S1 preclearance. 12/30 & 1/5- Requested status. 1/9Received 51 preclearance; in OMB clearance. 1/18- OMB cleared, 1n Budget final clearance. 1/19- In CFO f1nal clearance. 1/24- ACFO cleared; w1th MGMT for rev1ew and clearance.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000135
Page 8 of 14

Com anent
PLCY Component
'"
NPPD

5 Reports Overdue to Congress with Movement

Date Due to Congress

Title

Si nator

Comments

12/12 - Rece1ved report, in DHS Budget

cle~r~nce 12/14- Comments with Policy to

adjudicate. 12/21- Requested stotus; ETA IS COB 12/23 12/29. 1/5, & 1/17- Requested

stotus; received adJUdiC<ltlons. 1/19- In 51

preclearance. 1/24- Received $1

04/15/2016

Stolen and LostTravel Documents

PLCY

precleoronce. 1/25 -In OMB clearance.

3 Reports Due to Congress within Next 60 Days: 04/1/2017

Date Due to Congress

Title

Signatory

Comments

02/13/2017 03/31/2017

St~te Police Crime Lab Support
Three-Year Stroteg1c Plan for Assessment Programs

C>M NPPD

12/20- ETA IS 1/20. 1/23- New ETA is 2/24. As a result of a 6/22 teleconference with SAC, the due date for the report is 3/31/2017.

OCFO/OFM

01/31/2017

Conference Spending

C>M

Th1s is a memo. 11/2, 11/8, & 11/21Requested status. 11/22- ETA is 12/1. 12/5 & 12/14- Requested status. 12/14Informed by OFM that the due date should be 1/31. 1/25 -In CFO final clearance.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000136
Page 9 of 14

Homeland Security

Component
usss

Date Due to Congress

1 Report Due to Congress in More Than 60 Days

Title

Signatory

07/01/2017

James J. Rowley Training Center Rev1sed Master Plan

usss

Comments
1/13- Master Plan awaiting NCPC approvalreport may be submitted after plan approval, bnef1ng recommended to meet due date. 4/7- Hill staff agree that report can't be provided until FY 2017. 7/1Or1g1nal due date was 2/16/2016; revised due date to reflect approximate NCPC approval.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000137
Page 10 of 14

~ ..

Hnrn<•l.ln<l
S~Turity

I o I •" " '"

'

'"'·
' '

,,

" " ,, ''"'
I'" •
''
,, "

, ',,.,'"'I

'" "'

',,,

"'

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000138
Page11of14

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000139
Page 12 of 14

,,,.

' "

"'

'"

",, ,.

"'

I>

,, 11 'I Ill»

" ,.
"'
'"

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000140
Page 13 of 14

1!: Homeland Security

Authorizing Testimony

Stop Light Status

.On Time

Due Today or Tomorrow • 1 Day or More Past Due

..(Complete On Time

..(' Complete Late

Stoplight (Clearance Stage)

Component DHS FO OMB Committee

Component Witness Master

Response

Workflow

.(
•

,(
~

• House Committee on Homeland Security
House Committee
/ on Homeland
Security-

No.

Front Office Secretar 1137632 y John F.
Kelly

USCG

Ray,

1137224

Charles

(VADM)

Subcommittee on

Border and Maritime

•

Security
House Committee CBP / on Homeland
Security-

Beeson, 1137377 Paul

Subcommittee on

Border and Maritime

•

/

Security

/

J '

House Committee on Homeland

ICE

Security-

Allen, Matt

1137379

Subcommittee on

Border and Maritime

Security

/

,(
~

J '

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

FEMA

Amparo. 1137852 Alex

Hearing Hearing Title Date

Deadline (Clearance Stage)

Component DHS
Response

Front Office

OMB

2/7/17 "Ending the Crisis: America's Borders and Path to Security"
2/16/17 Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO) threats

1/31/17 2/1117 1/31117 2/2117 2/2/17

2/16/17 Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO) threats

2/2/17

2/16/17 Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO) threats

2/2/17

2/8/17 Emergency Management in Indian Country: Improving FEMA's Federal-Tribal Relationship with Indian Tribes

1/30/17 2/1/17 2/1/17

1 of 1

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000141
Page 14 of 14

Cocbic.

~

,:~ ; '

•)(6)

' ;

ll1 ,

~· '

''

F '

' '

~

,, I

cc,
' ;I
'

' '
~

'
'
(6)(6)

I
I
I

bject: 52/CBP Hill Bnef on EOs 1 Date: 2017/01/31 20:57:33 Priority: Normal Type: Note
Sirs, Attached is the preparatory material for tomorrows briefing/discussion with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee members. We will walk through this material in the morning at the scheduled 0830 session, as well as provide a quick summary of the 51 meeting late today that included HSGAC Senators Johnson and McCaskill. Best regards, Susan
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000142
Page 1 of 5

Susan Corbin Acting Assistant Secretary Department of Homeland Security Office of Legislative Affairs

Sende Corb-m, Susan l(b)(6) r:l(b)(6)
"Fulohum Chi (b)(6) (b)(6} "MCALEENAN KEVIN K (b)(6) (b)(6)

"Burriesci, Kell1 (bl(6l

In-N~• "Grannis, DavidiCbJ(6l

(b)(6)

, enau

racy (hl(~l

(b)(6)

"Asher, Nathalie R (b)(6)
,, (b)(6)
Recipien
"Nielsen, K1rstjen (bl(6l b 6 "Metzler, Alan (bl(6l b 6 "Brodsk , Marc b 6 b 6 "Corbin, Susan 1J 6 (b)(6)

Sent Date: 2017/01/31 20:57:32 Delivered Date: 2017/01/31 20:57:33

I
I I

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000143
Page 2 of 5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Executive Order Discussion with HSGAC Members 01 February 2017

Overview:

• From 1030-1230 in SVC 217, you will be leading a discussion on recent Executive Orders:

o Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the US

o Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

o Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

• You will be joined by Acting Commissioned(b)(6)

I

• Representatives from Policy, ICE, USCIS, I&A and OGC will also provide support as

needed

• This will be a full Committee briefing and large attendance is expected.

Proposed Agenda:
(b)(5)

Discussion Points:
(b)(5)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000144
Page 3 of 5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(b)(5)
Recent Approved Policies to Address Emerging Issues:
(b)(5)
2 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000145
Page 4 of 5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(b)(5)

Background: • On January 27. 2017, the President of the United States signed the Executive Order (EO)
Protecting the Nation.fi-om Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals. o Effective January 27, 2017, in accordance with the new EO, all immigrant and nonimmigrant persons of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -,vere suspended entrv into the U.S. for the next 90 days.
• The suspension does not afleet foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas and select other visas outlined in the EO.

DHS Participants:

Chip Fulghum, Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security

Acting Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, CBP

P/DUSIA David Grannis (backbcnch)

ICE (backbench)

USCIS (backbench)

PLCY (backbench)

Office ofGcneral Counsel (backbcnch)

i"JC6J

k;os for S2 DHS (backbench)

Attachments: (a) Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

(b) Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement

Improvements

(c) Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the

United States

(d) Executive Order: Strengthening Federal and Critical Infrastructure Security

(e) Fact Sheet

(t) Approved Q&A

(g) HSGAC Member Fac,~e~a.,e'-.l.l"h"'o"'to"'s'-;of members)

Staff Res onsible for Briefing Memo: (b)(6)

OLA Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary

(Senate), (b)(6) L____ ____j

3 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000146
Page 5 of 5

From· Christensen, Gillian (b)(6) • (b)(6)
T "MCALEENAN KEVIN K (b)(6)
o: (b)(6)
"Metzler Ala (b)(6)
CC: (b)(6)
Subject: FW: FAQs Date: 2017/01/28 19:37:07
Importance: High Priority: Urgent Type: Note
Hi Kevin- Here's the document that your OPA folks said is stuck somewhere in OCC. Once we get this cleared, I will add in the USCIS piece and forward on to the FO. Thanks! Gillian From: l(b)(6) Sent: S[':a-;-tu""c-:dc:a-:y,-Jc:a-::e-:u::-ac::-ycc2;-;!8, 2017 6: 13 PM To: Christensen, Gillian ""~J"C67J- - - - - - - - - - - - - , Subject: FW: FAQs Importance: High
From:l(b)(6)
Sent: s='a""t"u-,d-;-a-y-,-;-Ja_e_u_a-,y---:;'28', 2017 6:08 PM
To: (b)(6) Subject: FAQs Importance: High
l(b)(6)
Here are the FAQs, though ace is on the C1 call and not able to review.
Do you want me to send them on to Gillian?
(b)(6)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000147
Page 1 of 4

~ cid:i mageOOl. jpg@Ol D2418E.1Al F8340 ~ cid :i mage002. jpg@01D2418E.1A1F8340 ~ cid :i mage003. jpg@Ol D2418E.1Al F8340 ~ cid :i mage004. jpg@Ol D2418E.1Al F8340 ~ cid:i mageOOS. jpg@Ol D2418E.1Al F8340 ~ cid :i mage006. jpg@Ol D2418E.1Al F8340
Sender: Christensen, Gillian 1J "6 (b)(6) "MCALEENAN, KEVIN 1J "6 b 6
Recipient: "Metzler, Alan (b)(6) (b)(6)
sent Date: 2017/01/28 19.37.05 Delivered Date: 2017/01/2819:37:07
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000148
Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000149

Page 4 of 4 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000150

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen Cbll6l b 6 "MCALEENAN KEVIN K thlt~l
(b)(6)
To:
ezer an1J~6
(b)(6) CC· "Hamilton, Genel(b)\6)
"l(b)(6)
Subject: RE: Status check on FAQs Date: 2017/01/30 23:51:30
Priority: Normal Type: Note
Sounds good. Thank you Kevin.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Monday, To: ICbJ(6J

JaINnuiealsryen3,0K, i2rs0t1je7n;11IT:5IC1b:0~J3,~P6MJC====:JMetzler,

Alan

Cc: Hamilton, Gene

Subject: RE: Status check on FAQs

We continue to be in a loop on this. I have asked my team for the latest version they sent up for approval. I will then send to this chain and perhaps we can finally move forward.

From~CblC6l

Sent:'iMi:o:"n"da::y-:-,-;J::an=uc:-'ary 30, 2017 11:47:27 PM

To: Nielsen, Kirstjen; ICbJC6J

t Metzler, Alan

Cc: Hamilton, Gene; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Subject: RE: Status check on FAQs

Just for clarification, believe you're referring to the operational fact sheet from CBP, yes?

OPA flagged this withl(b)(6)

Itoday and it sounded like it was still with the

CBP CAT.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000151
Page 1 of 2

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 11:16:31 PM

Tq(b)(6)

I Metzler, Alan

Cc: Hamilton, Gene; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Subject: Status check on FAQs

Hi all, What is the posting status of the FAQs explaining how we are managing different groups? Is it still stuck in approval somewhere? Can we shake it loose? It is vital that we have that posted before the press conference and before the Secretary goes to the hill. How can I help? Thanks!

Sender~0)'(N6~) ''"~,,~~~bW'~6==========================]_------,
L'~'M';CA':,-LE~E~N~A~N-,~KE~V~IN:C::KT"~);;(6:;-)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - _ j
(b)(6)
Recipient:
~(~bH)'(a6m)~i'ton';'en;'~';c;;b~6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:-_j
(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/30 23:51:30

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000152
Page 2 of 2

F

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K ICbJ(6}

rom:l(bJ(6}

"Nielsen, Kirstjen thlt~l
ln,JC6J "Metzler, Alanl(bJ(6)

To: l(b)(6)

"Hamilton, Gene ICbJ(6)

(b)(6)

I

"Fulghum. ChioiCbJC6J j(b)(6)

CC· "ALLES, RANDOLPH Di(b}(Gl • (b)(6)

5

b' ct· u }e '

FW. January Various Ports

29,2017 Update 2 L1m1ted DistributiOn EAC Bullets. Nat1onw1de.
of Entry Resulting From President Trump's Executive Order

Protests at

Date: 2017/01/29 21:25:56

Priority: Normal

Type: Note

Team,
FYSA on protests at airports.
KM

SFernot:mS~:u~(bnJ~(6dl~ay-,~J~an~u~a~ry~29",~2v0~1~7"9~:1~1~:2~4~PM~----------~ To: EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS H • MCALEENAN KEVIN K(bJ(6J
(b)(6)
Cc: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS Subject: January 29, 2017 Update 2 Limited Distribution EAC Bullets: Nationwide: Protests at
Various Ports of Entry Resulting From President Trump's Executive Order
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations
Bullets for the Executive Assistant Commissioner January 29,2017
Limited Distribution
Nationwide: Protests at Various Ports of Entry Resulting From President Trump's Executive Order
January 29, 2017 Update 2: Houston Field Oftice: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000153
Page1of19

• There are approximately 1000 protestors on site.
• The protests remain peaceful with protestors displaying signs and chanting.
• Protestors arc not interfering with passengers departing the FIS.
• Numerous media outlets are still on site.
Los Angeles Field Oftice: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
• Protests continue at LAX with about 1000 protestors on site, dO\vn from 3300 protestors who were on site at 1500 hours (PST).
• There is a significant LAWA PO and LAPD presence on site with ongoing coordination between CBP LAX.
• CBP Tactical Enforcement Officers (TEO) remain in place within the FIS as force protection.
• Protests continue on both levels of the LAX Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT), and protestors have marched in the Central Terminal Area (CTA) automobile lanes.
• LAWA PD and CBP LAX staggered the release of arriving international passengers due to the protests and the resulting congestion in the TBIT arrival areas.
• CBP Global Entry and Public Information Offices located in the TBIT were dosed as a security precaution.
• Multiple media outlets are on site.
• Representatives Maxine Waters and Ted Lieu were on site requesting CBP engagement and were provided with contact information for the Office of Congressional Afti:tirs.
• DFqLCb_JC6_J_ _ _ _~Iis on site with LAX management.

IMG 3503
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000154
Page 2 of 19

IMG 3511

San Francisco Field Office: San Francisco International Airport (SFO)

• Approximately 800 protestors were in site at 1430 hours (PST).

• Protestors have shut down Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screening fOr Tenninals A and G and passengers are not able to reach the international gates.

• The Global Entry enrollment office was closed due to disturbances by protestors.

• DFOjLCb_J,6_J_ _ _ _ __jlis on site with port management.

• Passengers exiting the FIS have been routed through an alternate exit.

Submitted by: l(b)(6)

IField Liaison Division

Date I Time: January 29,2017 I 2110 hours

,January 29, 2017 Update: Baltimore Field Office: Washington-Dulles International Aimort (lAD)

• Protests are larger than yesterday numbering approximately 300 people.
• Protestors displayed signs and chanted. • Protests arc peaceful and protestors have not entered the FIS.
• Loudoun County Sheritl's Otlice (LCSO) and the Airports Authority Police are in the area and control has been maintained throughout the day.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000155
Page 3 of 19

20170129 161612
20170129 161545
Philadelphia International Airport (PilL)
• Protests began at 1433 hours (EST) outside of Terminal "A" East and West but have now begin to disperse.
• Protests were peaceful and protestors did not enter the FIS. • No impact to airport operations.
Houston Field Office: Austin-Bergstrom International Aimort (AUS)
• Approximately 200 protestors gathered at 1445 hours (CST) and dispersed at 1715 hours.
• The protest was peaceful. • No impact to operations.
Houston-Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)
• Protests began at approximately 1340 hours (CST) in Terminal E right outside of the FIS arrival area.
• Approximately 30-60 protestors chanted, clapped, and held signs while travelers exited the FIS.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000156
Page 4 of 19

• The Houston Police Department (HPD) was on site with 15-20 officers. • Protests were peaceful and protestors did not enter the FIS. San Antonio International Airport (SAT) • Protests began at approximately 1215 hours (CST) in the Terminal "A" baggage
claim with three protestors and one counter protestor. • Local media and Univision Spanish Network filmed the event and then departed
the area. • All protestors departed the area at 1530 hours. • No impact to operations.
Miami Field Office: Miami International Airport (MIA)
• Protests began around 1400 hours (EST) on the second level of the airport. • The Miami Dade Police Department estimated the crowd to be 150 protestors. • No impact to operations. Orlando International Airport (MCO) • Protests have begun and include approximately 300 protestors. • The Orlando Police Department (OPD) is containing the protestors inside the food
court of the main terminaL
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000157
Page 5 of 19

• No impact to operations.
Fort Lauderdale International Aimort (FLL)
• Protests have begun on a grassy area next to a parking garage across from Terminal4.
• There arc approximately 20-25 protestors who arc holding signs. • The Broward County Sheriffs Office and Broward County Airport Division
(BCAD) security personnel are on site monitoring the protest. • Local media was on site. • No impact to operations. New Orleans Field Office: Louis Armstrong International Airport (KMSY)
• Protests began at approximately 1600 hours outside of the baggage claim area with 25-30 protestors.
• The protest was peaceful as protestors held up a banner, sang, and chanted but did not enter the FIS.
• The Jefferson Parish Shcrriffs Office is on site monitoring the protest. • Local media is also onsite. • No impact to operations. Tucson Field Office Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport (PHX)
• Protests began at 1440 hours (MST) outside Terminal4 Lcvc\2. • The number of protestors in undetermined as the protest is not near the FIS. • Phoenix Police Department (PPD) is monitoring the protest. • No impact to operations at this time. Submitted by: Ll(b'-')(6-'-J_ _ _--'I/ Field Liaison Division
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000158
Page 6 of 19

Date I Time: January 29, 2017 I 1900 hours
SYNOPSIS: On January 28, 2017, various U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ports of entry (POEs) arc reporting protests resulting from the Executive Order (EO) "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" issued by President Trump on January 27, 2017. This EO suspended all entry into the United Sates for aliens who arc nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen as per Section 212(f) of the INA. This includes all non-immigrant classifications, with the exception of those people traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C2 visas going to the United Nations, G I, G2, G3 and G4 visas. The order also includes all immigrant classes of admission, returning resident aliens, refugees and asylccs.
DETAILS:
New York Field Office: John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)
UPDATE #2:
• As of 2135 hours, JFK Terminal 4 is reporting that the crowds of protesters arc decreasing at this time.
UPDATE #1:
• As of 1900 hours, protestors have occupied the parking garage at Tcrminal4 (all levels) with signs.
• Crowd estimate is approximately 2,500-3.000. Demonstration mainly contained to Tcrminal4 at this time, sporadic protesters at all the other terminals. PAPD, National Guard, state police, and NYPD assets will be deployed to all terminals.
• The protesters are being contained. are peaceful, are keeping their distance and arc being closely monitored.
• Air Train service is restricted, only ticketed passengers and persons with airport ID will be allO\ved to enter the air train to access the central terminal areas.
• No impact to airport operations.
• According to the NY/NJ Port Authority Police Department (PAPD), a group of demonstrators (about 80) arc currently protesting in a parking lot outside Terminal4 under the presence of media outlets.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000159
Page 7 of 19

• With assistance of PAPD and Port Authority (PA) operations we have directed the protesters to remain in a specific lot \vhere they are currently staged and monitored.
• The PAPD Police closed inner arrivals roadways to all traffic with exception police vehicles, and yellow cabs. Some arrivals doorways also have been restricted by PAPD at this time, and all arrivals foot tratlic has been directed to specific exit doors.
• The remaining 4 CBP terminals at JFK have not been impacted. The PAPD are making sure media personnel are not congregating in the tem1inals.
• A conference call with PAPD was held at 1500 hours and the .JFK Port Director briefed the other law enforcement agencies on how CBP is processing the passengers who are subject to this EO.
• Due to the demonstration scheduled to take place in the Terminal 4 parking lot at 1830 hours. additional police personnel will be deployed to the area to ensure that the demonstration remains peaceful.
• Approximately 350-400 demonstrators are currently in the east side of the parking lot.
Newark-Liberty International Airoort (EWR) • A group of protestors have congregated at the Terminal B International Arrivals Area of Newark Liberty International Airport. • The crowd size is approximately 100 and the protest is peaceful. • Several media outlets have set up around the protest. The group is protesting the implementation of President Trump's Executive Order. • PAPD is securing the area for travelers and airport employees.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000160
Page 8 of 19

Baltimore Field Office:

Washington-Dulles International Airport (lAD)

• Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring attend a "Protest Rally To Welcome Refugees" at lAD organized by a social group identifying itself as "Standing Up For Racial Justice of Northern Virginia".

• Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe gave a speech to the media in opposition to President Donald Trump's Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" temporarily banning immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries entry into the United States.

• Social justice group "Standing Up For Racial Justice of Northern Virginia" organized a welcome rally via social media to take place at Washington Dulles Airport. The Governor and state attorney general gave a press conference and left Washington Dulles after briefly speaking with rally attendees.

• Rally organizer, l(b)(6)

fepresenting the group stated to media

sources that the group was planning a show of solidarity to international

arrivals, immigrants, refugees coming into this country, who might be

afraid of the executive order, to let them know the group supports and

welcomes them.

• Estimated by Airport authority that this event has drawn up to 300 participants. Protestors have been witnessed cheering when passengers exit the FIS, and occasionally chanting "love, not hate. That's >vhat makes America great."

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000161
Page 9 of 19

• In light of the rally/demonstration ongoing in the main terminal, CBP personnel have been mustered regarding situational awareness and to take appropriate safety precautions to include limiting traversing public areas of the terminal and usc of cover shirts/jackets.
• Personnel have also been advised that they are not to speak to the media or other individuals who may inquire regarding the executive order, but rather arc to refer them to public affairs link on CBP.gov and/or notify a supervisor.
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL)
• Information obtained from news outlets and Philadelphia Police Airport Group have identified that a protest is scheduled at the Philadelphia International Airport Arrivals Halhvay at 1400 hrs.
• Philadelphia Police Airport Group stated that they will try to contain/reroute the protests to the Departure/Ticketing area (away from the FIS location).
• Philly.com (Will Bunch- columnist) is reporting that a protest is imminent (being organized) at Terminal "A".
o Expected tum-out is projected to be in the hundreds
o This is the main entrance and exit for the CBP staff to access the FIS for start/end of shifts
o Officers will be advised to utilize secondary entrances, \vear cover shirts or report to work in plain clothes
o Officers arc reminded that body armor is recommended and mustered multiple times not to engage the general public, media outlets, etc
o Officers have been mustered multiple times that if engaged, they are to state that they are not authorized to comment
o Additional staffing has been assigned for tomorrow
o Egress and Ingress points will be staffed by officers/supervisors
o Officers have been advise to remain vigilant and to challenge individuals who arc accessing our area
o PHI CBP Supervisors have been monitoring (not responding too) social media.
Baltimore International Airport (BWI):
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000162
Page 10 of 19

UPDATE:
On January 28, 2017, Captain ICb)(6) Iof the MDTA Police confirmed that a
protest is scheduled for tomorrow, Sunday January 29, 2017 ffom 1700-2100. The protest will be held in the International Arrivals I!all at BWI.

CBP Management and MOTA Police Captain l(b)(6) !coordinated a teleconference to discuss the protest particulars.

MOTA Police will have additional otlicers on hand at BWI.

Social Media Link: GctGroundGamc.com/airport protests. Reports protest will begin at 1700-2000 and advising protesters to drive or take train directly to Pier E (International Terminal) ofBWI.

The number of protesters is not currently known. It is anticipated the protest will be peaceful.

It is unknown whether media will be present.

MOTA Police is arranging a teleconference tomorrow. Call information: Time:

I OOOam. (b)(')(E)

CBP Baltimore Management will be

on the call.

CBP Baltimore will not be engaging the protesters and employees. There is no known threat to CBP Baltimore.

CBP employees will be re-mustered on the received EO guidance, officer/employee situational awareness (wearing a cover. escorting agriculture specialists, staying within the FIS, etc), and referring all media inquiries to appropriate contacts.

• The MDTA Police and MAA are not aware of any planned protests for today or tomorrow.
Boston Field Office: Boston-Logan International Airport (80S)
UPDATE:
• The protest at Boston Logan Airport has grown to approximately 100 people. The protest is being led by the Local ACLU and Boston City Councilor Tito Jackson.
• At 2015 Senator Elizabeth Warren arrived and is speaking with protesters, it is anticipated that she will make a statement to the media on site.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000163
Page11of19

• The protesters are chanting "say it loud stay it clear everyone is welcome here"
• The protest is being held outside the CBP FIS main arrivals door. • As of now there is no impact to CBP operations.
• CBP Boston has stationed additional staff on the secure side of the FIS exit door to prevent protesters from entering.
• Multiple media outlets arc covering the protest.
• In addition to the protest there are multiple immigration attorneys handing out literature and posting signs.
• The Massachusetts State Police and Massport arc on site and arc monitoring the situation.
• On January 2R, 20 17, Massachusetts District Attorney Maura Healey hosted a press conference outside the CBP Federal Inspection (FIS) area main arrivals door at BOS in response the Presidential Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States and was covered by two (2) media outlets.
• Additionally approximately five (5) protesters have gathered. CBP along with the Massachusetts State Police and Mas sport are monitoring the developing situation.
Chicago Field Office: Chicago-O'Hare International Airoort (ORD)
• Activists and elected officials called for an "emergency protest" at O'Hare Airport's international terminal. (no further details)
Port of Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP)
• On January 2R, 2017, at 1645 hours (CST), Minneapolis Airport Police Department called and relayed that a group of approximately 30-40 individuals have organized a demonstration/protest via Facebook, at the Minneapolis Airport, terminal one.
• The dispatcher stated that 30-40 protestors have organized via Facebook and are currently gathering at the Minneapolis International Airport, Tem1inal one and planned to walk through the tcnninal and meet at the CBP/FIS exit doors, and
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000164
Page 12 of 19

great people as they arrived. The Minneapolis Airport Police Department is monitoring the group by camera and also have officers present.
• All CBP staffed have been mustered and information disseminated.
• All officers were advised to travel in pairs and to wear a cover shirt when leaving the FIS area. The staff was also advised that any questions from the media should be directed to the Chief in Charge.
• The camera system within CBP docs show that there arc individuals gathering in the baggage claim area, ncar the FIS exit holding signs and cameras.
• Two CBPO's are assigned to EGRESS and any activity will be reported as soon as possible.
San Francisco Field Office San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
UPDATE:
• There are approximately 800 protestors outside the FIS exit arrival area at this time.
• The protestors have been banging on the FIS exit arrival area doors at times.
• The San Francisco Police Department has deployed their riot gear in preparation of the unruly protestors \Vithin the San Francisco International Terminal Area.
• The Global Entry office is currently closed due to the unruly protestors within the area of the Global Entry Office. We arc currently contacting the people that have appointments so that they can reschedule.
• According to SFPD, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom is present among the protesters; he has not reached out to CBP at this time.
• CBP was informed by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) that there arc demonstrations anticipated at the San Francisco International Airport this afternoon. The demonstrations are in reaction to the recent presidential executive orders dealing with immigration.
• The San Francisco Airport reported a demonstration in front of the Departures level by a group called ·'Not In Our Name." SFPD will monitor situation and not interfere unless the group breaks any laws, such as trying to enter the FIS. SFPD stated they will have officers posted around the FIS exit to monitor situation.
• The demonstration has had no significant impact on CBP operations.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000165
Page 13 of 19

• The group outside the "A" exit to the arrivals lobby has been dispersed.

• Per SFPD approximately 300 protesters are massed on the curb outside the FIS arrivals lobby. SFPD states they arc hearing "chatter" from some in the crowd suggesting that "they rush the doors'' to the FIS and "free those being illegally detained by CBP". SFPD states they are reaching out to San Mateo County SheritT's Department tOr assistance in crowd control.

• CBP SFO is shutting down the ''San Francisco Arrivals" set of exit doors, and rerouting passengers to utilize only the "Connecting Flights'' set of exit doors as the sole means of exiting the FIS

• Am1ed CBP officers arc stationed at both sets of exit doors to control entry

• CBP SFO is maintaining constant communication with SFPD to in order to monitor protest activity and assess risk.

• DFOICb)(6)

Was on scene at SFO to oversee overall operations and ensure

smooth and efficient processing of affected arriving aliens.

Houston Field Office: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

• On Saturday, January 28, 2017, at approximately 1630 hours, approx. 50-60 protesters and news media gathered outside the DFW International Airport FIS exit.

• On site were what appeared to be representatives from I0 different news media outlets with filming equipment. The DFW Police Department is onsite as well.

• At this time protesters are still onsite; however. passengers exiting the FIS were not being interfered with.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000166
Page 14 of 19

X
X
llouston-Bush Intercontinental Airport (!AI I) On January 2/i, 2017, at 1940 hours (CST), CBP IAH was advised of possible
protests outside of the FIS arrivals area. Approximately 60-70 protesters organized in the Tenninal E arrival area and
began protesting by chanting and clapping while traveler exited the FIS. Houston Police Department was on site in case any issues arises. Protesters were peaceful in their appearance, no issues reported. Local News
media was present. CBP personnel were advised to not go into the public area where protest was
being held. Additional statlviaS reallocated to Exit control to ensure no un-authorized
access was gained by protesters. San Diego Field Office: San Diego International Airport (SAN)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000167
Page 15 of 19

• On January 28, 2017, at approximately 1630 hours, Assistant Port Director (APD) ICb)(6) informed Supervisor (SCBPO]Cb)(6) lthat he received infOnnation from HPD that a protest was taking place at San Diego International Airport.
• The protesters arc at the curbside arrivals- lower level- at Terminal 2 (west) ncar Delta Airlines. Protesters location is currently away from San Diego CBP FIS.
• 1700 hrs: Protesters number at about 20 people. • 1745 hrs: Protesters numbers have risen to about I00 people. • No media attention at this time. • CBP San Diego requested llarbor Police and the Airport Authority to infom1 CBP
if changes within the protest escalate. • For oflicer safety, all CBP staflhave been briefed and instructed to take
precautionary measures (ie: cover shirts) when leaving the premises of the FIS, and depart in pairs. • Additional precautionary measure were the relocation of CBP marked units parked curbside Tenninal2, to the interior parking lots away from public view. • Protest has no impact/disruption on Port Operations. There arc no arriving passengers in the FIS subject to the EO. • FIS Supervisors have been monitoring the gathering of protesters. and will update as necessary.
Detroit Field Office: Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000168
Page 16 of 19

On January 2R, 20 17, CBP DTW was informed by the WCAA Police of social media reports regarding a planned protest at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, McNamara Tern1inal scheduled to take place on January 29, 2017 from 16001800 hours
Reports claim that I000 people have signed up for the protest and several hundred more people may participate
WCAA Police is coordinating with the airport Public Relations and Maintenance Department to establish an authorized picketing area
In order to accommodate the number of protesters, the WCAA will allow three authorized picketing areas at the McNamara Terminal:
o Curbside at the departures level
o Curbside at the arrivals level
o Curbside at the international arrivals level
WCAA is considering as overflow area inside the airport in the domestic baggage area, if necessary
CBP/DTW Port Director will meet with WCAA prior to the event to view areas designated for the protesters
CBP will establish a plain-clothes CBP officer as an observer in the International Arrivals Lobby outside of the FIS. The CBP otlicer will be equipped with a radio to maintain communications with the CBP Watch Commander/ Command Center
CBP will increase security near the exit of the FIS to maintain safety of staff and passengers
Los Angeles Field Office: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
• On January 2!:1, 2017. attorneys. private citizens and members of the media began to arrive at the Public Information Office (PIO) at the Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT). The CBP Officer assigned to PIO advised the inquiring parties to contact the Oflice Public Affairs. Due to the size of the crowd, a Supervisory CBPO and additional CBPOs were deployed to PIO to assist. The SCBPO and additional CBPOs handed OPA contact information to the inquiring parties. The PIO, which normally is staffed from 0700-2300 hours, was closed at 1700 due to security concerns related to the protest.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000169
Page 17 of 19

• Between 1600 and 1700 hours, approximately 150 protestors arrived and began holding an organized vigil outside the TBIT departure level. There are six media vans and reporters are interviewing both passengers and protestors. There is no CBP presence in the area.
• The Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Police Department has deployed an enhanced visible presence in the area.
• CBP has deployed a limited Tactical Enforcement Operation (TEO) contingent in the internal FIS egress area, out of the public view. A similar contingent will be deployed tomorrow.
• Attorneys advertising their services and holding signs are lingering in the PIO area.
• The LAX Port Director, LAWA PD Chief and the LAWA Executive Director are in close communication.
• Currently, two (2) additional protests are scheduled for January 29,2017. Attendance estimates per social media indicate that at 1100 hours, 185 protesters will be at TBIT (no specific location) and at 1300 hours, I,500 protestors will be at TBIT in the arrivals level.
X
Las Vegas International Airport (LAS) • CBP management at the LAS contacted the LAX Port Director and relayed information suggesting that there will be potential protests in Las Vegas in the days ahead. No further details at this time.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000170
Page 18 of 19

Submitted by: ICbl(6)

II Field Liaison Division

Date I Time: January 28, 2017 I 2315 hours

Sender• MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
(b)(6)
"Nielsen, Kirstjen (bl(6l (b)(6) "Metzler Alan (b)(6) (b)(6)

Recipient

• •

"Hamilton, (b)(6)

Gene

1J

~6

u g urn, IP thlt~l

"ALLES, RANDOLPH D (b)(6) (b)(6)

Sent Date. 2017/01/29 21.25.55 Delivered Date: 2017/01/29 21:25:56

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000171
Page 19 of 19

From• Hamilton, Gene (b)(6) (b)(6)

"MCALEENAN, KEVIN K b 6

(b)(6)

'" 1e sen, en Cbll6l

To

• •

(b)(6) "Metzler,

Alan

1J

~6

(b)(6)

"Fulghum, Chip (b)(6)

(b)(6)

cc

•

"ALLES (b)(6)

RANDOLPH D b

6

Subject: "'"; rocess1ng camp eceu
Date: 2017/01/2919:01:09 Priority: Normal
Type: Note

Amazing job, sir. Y'all did an outstanding job implementing the Executive Order.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 6:28PM
THoa:mNiliteoIsne,nG, eKnirestt~j0l~)e(~6n~)"~J~(6~J;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~M~e~tz~le~r~,~A~Ia:f"~J~(6~J:::::::::~
Cc: Fulghum, Chip (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Subject: Processing completed

All,

We have completed all processing of those travelers who were in transit at the time of the President's Executive order, had been denied entry and allowed to withdraw, and were subsequently affected by the EDNY court order enjoining actions to remove these individuals. As of 1743, all affected travelers have been processed for waivers under the EO consistent with guidance from DHS FO and WH policy team, and counsel. We have fully complied with the court order. The team worked hard across the country, with great support from counsel, and I personally reviewed and approved the waivers, in order to accomplish this. Thank you,

KM

UC'p <Jrtm011t of llomf'l,llld
SC'cu rity

Kevin K. McAleenan
Acting Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection
l(b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000172
Page 1 of 2

1 ago

11le are the guardian.\' of'our .Vation 's borders_ 11le are America 'sfromline.
igrinlli'<' • Sc,-1 i1·, • / II I , ' "' r i I .l

Sender• Hamilton, Gene l(b)(6) "lcblC6l "MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6) (b)(6) "Nielsen, Kirstjen
()-,)(~)
"Metzler Alan 1J 6 (b)(6)
' Recipient "Fulghum, Chip 1J '6 (b)(6) "ALLES, RANDOLPH D (b)(6) (b)(6)
Sent Date. 2017/01/29 19.01.09

I
I I

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000173
Page 2 of 2

(b)(6)
' From

"Maher, Joseph 1J ~6 lt1Jll6l "Metzler, Alani11Jll6l (b)(6)
To ' "Nielsen, K1rstjen 1J ~6 (b)(6)
"Christensen; Gillian~11Jl(6j
l(b)(6) "MCALEENA , REV! K),1JJI6l (b)(6)
Subject. RE. FOR CLEARANCE. draft statement Date: 2017/01/29 00:38:34
Priority: Normal Type: Note

I I
"·'
I
fJ

+ Kevin and ICbl(6)

From IGCb~J,~6JL===::::J Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 12:34 AM

To (b)(6)

(b)(6)

aher, Joseph (b)(6)

______________ Metzler, Alan (b)(6)
~"~J~(6~J=:::;;-::::::=.-~==;:::J

Nielsen, Kirstjen _J; Christensen, Gillian

~(b)(6)

Subject: FOR CLEARANCE: draft statement

Thanks, all, for the late night! Please send your comments this way.

DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---
(b)(5)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000174
Page 1 of 2

(b)(5)
DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT--Sender:
Sent Date: 2017/01/29 00:38:34
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000175
Page 2 of 2

From

• •

Metzler, (b)(6)

Alan

(b)(6)

"Gowadia, Huban thlt~•

(b)(6)

To

,
•

"Rasicot
(b)(6)

Gar

"MCALEENAN KEVIN K Cbll6l
(b)(6) "ALLES RANDOLPH D (b)(6) (b)(6)
cc ' "Nielsen, Kirstjen b 6 (b)(6)
Subject: FW. Follow on quest1on related to domestic travel of passengers from 7 banned countnes Date: 2017/01/28 15:06:20
Importance: High
Priority: Urgent Type: Note

Huban, Gary, for your awareness. I will defer to you or CBP to answer questions from AAAE. Alan

From:""~J"c6'J---------------------------------------,

Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 2:55PM To: Cbl(6l

(b)(6)
Cc: thlt~•

MetzIer, AIan Ub!illi6G:;:=:::;:;::=====::::J

Subject: Follow on question related to domestic travel of passengers from 7 banned countries

Importance: High

ICbl(6)

Ithank you for arranging the CBP call today for the aviation stakeholder community to

explain the Executive Order that immediately bars from entry passengers from 7 countries. The briefing,

and especially the answers to questions, were helpful. I have follow-on questions not raised this

afternoon, but it may be something TSA needs to answer, not CBP. I have included both TSA and DHS

HQ on this email for awareness and guidance, if appropriate.

The questions are: • What happens if someone is already in the country from these 7 countries and flying domestically but presents a passport from one of these 7 countries as ID. Is the airline required to deny boarding or call CBP or TSA? • Will Secure Flight issue a do not board for this domestic passenger?

I think this would helpful to include in whatever web-link DHS issues on this Executive Order; however, I would hope you could answer my questions now. Thanks!
(b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000176
Page 1 of 2

(b)(6)

Sender:

I
,)(6)

I

"

:1

"

'

'

;

"

116)(6)

" I

;

(6)(6)

Sent Date: 2017/01/28 15.06.19 Delivered Date: 2017/01/28 15:06:20

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000177
Page 2 of 2

From· Christensen, Gillian l(b)(6) · ICbJC6J
T "MCALEENAN KEVIN K (b)(6) o: (b)(6)
CC:
"Metzler, Alan (b)(6) (b)(6) Subject: FW: Statement POTUS Execut1ve Order Jan 27 CBPOCC.2.CLEAN.docx Date: 2017/01/28 19:16:32 Priority: Normal Type: Note

Sir-

One of the things that is holding up the messaging is an RTQ sheet I sent over to CBP several hours ago is stuck with DCC and CBP OPA can't shake it loose. We are waiting in the RTQs before sending that and the draft statement forward.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:14PM

To: Christensen, Gillian 1J "6

Jiamilton, Gene

b 6

CALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

Alan (b)(6)

(b)(6) (b)(6)

Cc: Fulghum, Chip (b)(6) (b)(6)

ALLES, RANDOLPH 0

I Metzler, Maher, Joseph
I
I

cv' uo

.. £.

.uuco

lncludin~(b)(6) Vvho is running the war room ICbJ(6) ~I an- please take for action b/w what Kevin sent, what war room was working andl(bJ(6)
referenced below

!draft

From: Christensen, Gillian

Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 7:13PM

To: Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

b 6

Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6)

l(b)(6)

1")(6)

Metzler, Alan
IMaher, Joseph

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000178
Page 1 of 2

(b)(6)

ALLES, RANDOLPH 0

Subject: RE: Statement POTUS Executive Order Jan 27 CBPOCC.2.CLEAN.docx
Addingl(bJ(6) IHO Addressl(bJ(6) Is working on a draft that combines this statement along with a number of things Alan wanted included.

From: Hamilton, Gene
Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 7:08PM To: M CALE EN AN, KEVI N K;,;",;Jcis)C"--'-'-:..::_:_c_:__ _ _ _ _ _ _---,N ie Isen, Kirstj en

(b)(6)

Metzler, Alan (b)(6)

(b)(6)

Maher, Joseph (b)(6)

(b)(6)

Christensen, Gillian

Cc: Fulghum, Chip (b)(6) (b)(6)

ALLES, RANDOLPH D

Subject: RE: Statement POTUS Executive Order Jan 27 CBPOCC.2.CLEAN.docx Suggested edits attached. Great work. Thanks.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 4:14PM
r:;(~;bHT;~)~o(a:6~;;)~-m'~~'"N~~c"Il~et~~ol~~~ns~-e,~}Gn~~~e,~~~~nK~~e:IJL~"c~Js~(~~t6"~'jJ~e=-~=n_=J_='_-=_"=_~=)_=(_6=_~=_)=~_=~_=~_~=_~=_~=~_=~_=~_,=_-=;_~-J:;MC;~h:~ar!~h,lsMe:.e:rtt,;zeJnlseoenrs,,eGpAhilll~ailna(n"bl"(b~~J)J~((6,6)~~J6-J~-;:-;:-;:-;:-;:-;:-;:-;:-;:-;;-;:-;;-;J-_,'
(b)(6)

Cc: Fulghum, Chip (b)(6) (b)(6)

ALLES, RANDOLPH D

Subject: Statement POTUS Executive Order Jan 27 CBPOCC.2.CLEAN.docx
DRAFT statement for leadership, policy, OGC, and OPA review. Chrjstensen Gillian ICbJ(6}
Send er: l(b)(6)
~"M~C~A~LJEIEN~A~N~KIEV~I~NUK~b~·~s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---'
(b)(6)

Recipient:

"Metzler, Alan 1J "6
(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/28 19:16:32

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000179
Page 2 of 2

(b)(6)

' From

I

"Metzler Alan (b)(6}

(b)(6)

To

"ALLES, RANDOLPH D (b)(6)
(hl(~l
cc: "MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6) (b)(6)
Subject: RE: URGENT: Meet1ng of EO Date: 2017/01/2817:01:43
Priority: Normal Type: Note
DCoS
_JI CBP has cl(b_:_J("6J_ headed to the NAC to support the NJIC right now.
Our alternate isLI(b_J_C6_J_ _ __J
Pt Can you please identify a POC on your staff that can meetl(b)(6) the Visitor's Center. She currently
doesn't have NAC access.
V/R
(b)(6)
rm :>,otJCL' l-OR OFI-Il 1.\1 l ::-,[· 0\JL\'- thi' ll"all'llll'"''" umtLilh malcrd L'O\ cTc'd b: lhc· :ll] \cl ,,1-197-t and ,fHHLid be·\ lc'\\Ld on::, h:
pc'I"'Ollllc'l ha \ 111'' .Ln '>I ticia: "nc•cd IO '11 ll\\ " II'' Oll :ll"c' not Ihe• Inl ended rc"L Irlc'lll. be• a\\ '" c' I h, ll al1\ d hl Ilhl ll c'. c'O(l] lll ~'. di,tn hllllPn ',. Lhc' o t' I he'
,·,mknl c>f lhh rnfc>rm.nrnn " 11tnhil1tt~d lt'n'll hd\ ,, ,-~"''" ~d lhh c·nmmum,,,,,m 111 ~'""". 1'1'':"~ llc>lrl~ nw 111lllH'cil:n~:) hy ''nlolll .<nd ckkt,' Ihe' ull!-'ltl,,l mc''d!-'C.
From: Metzler, Alan Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 4:17PM To:l(b)(6)
0"(b~)()6)~(6-;-J-----------jPaRlemneaurd,DTarviadc(yb).(6)~il~"§J~(6~J================,--~ IL"_J_c6_J________________________________JI Burriesci, Kelli
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000180
Page 1 of 3

(b)(6) (b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6)
Cc: Nielsen, Kirstjen b 6
(b)(6)

IHamilton, Gene l(b)(6)
!Corbin, Susa~(b)(6)
Fulghum, Chip j(b)(6)

I
!Clark, Alaina
I

(b)(6) MCALEENAN, KEVIN Kj(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)

Ragsdale, Daniel H (b)(6)

Gowadia, Huban

Rasicot, Gary (b)(6)

Maher, Joseph

Subject: FW: URGENT: Meetmg of EO

For those on To line: this is to amplify the message below to provide a communications professional from your staffs to support activation of the NJIC in OPA at Spm. Purpose is to develop integrated and comprehensive messaging in support of Executive Order implementation regarding Visa and Refugee suspensions. Pis flag if anyone was excluded that should attend. Thank you.

Alan

l From (b)(6)
Sent: :'5.,-at::-u--,rd"a:-y-,-:Ja-:-n:-u-ca--:r--:y-:;'28, 2017 3: 58 PM

To: Christensen, Gillian (b)(6)
Corbin, Susan (b)(6) (b)(6)

Clark, Alain (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene

7 L"~J~6iJ ,=~~~~~~~~~~~B:;,urriesci, Kelli L"~J~(6~J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j (b)(6)

Cc: Metzler, Alan (b)(6)
Subject: uRGE NTLc-;-Mcce:-e"t"in"g,-o"f"E"o;---------------------'

Good afternoon

The
l(b)(6)

COS have requested that the following principles report to the OPA NJIC
Iat 5:00 today begin the development of statements, messaging, etc

lC(b)"(6)'-------~

OPA OPE OLA
OGC
Gene Hamilton
TSA
CBP ICE Policy
USCG

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000181
Page 2 of 3

The phone number to the NJIC i~L(b_Jc6_J_ _ _ _ _ __J

1")(6)

I

NOC please notify everyone on the to line.

My contact information is below

(b)(6)

(b)(6)

Sender:

I

"Metzler, Alan (b)(6)

(b)(6)

Recipient:

'
(b)(6)

b 6

Sent Date: 2017/01/2817.01.37 Delivered Date: 2017/01/2817:01:43

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000182
Page 3 of 3

(b)(6)
' From
"Gowadia, Huban 1J ~6
(b)(6)
M ALEENAN KEVIN K 1J 6 b 6 "Rasicot Go b 6
(b)(6)
"Ra sdale, Daniel H b 6 (b)(6)
"Ed e, Peter T (b)(6)
(b)(6)
"Burriesci, Kelli (b)(6) (b)(6)
To '

"Maher, Joseph b 6

(b)(6)
" "m
(b)(6)

'

(\-,\(~\

"Metzler, Alan b 6

(b)(6)

(b)(6)
cc '
Subject: callm Info--- RE: UNCLAS CTAB Call Heads Up Date: 2017/01/27 17:51:01
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000183
Page 1 of 4

Priority: Normal Type: Note

Ensuring you all received the NOC information:

CTAB Members, I. SITUATION: Today, Jan 27,2017 at 1800 EST, the DHS Counter Terrorism Coordinator will conduct a CTAB via an Unclassified teleconference,

2. ACTIO:-.!:
I All participants arc requested to dial into the conference by 1755 EST for roll call. • DiatiCb)C)(E)

• Enter the conference PIN and pound signciCb:::lCc:')c:(E:._J--.,.-"

• Please stand by for roll call and the conference to begin. 3. COORDINATII\G INSTRUCTIOI\S:

• To discuss the new Executive Order

• Chair: Deputy Secretary (Acting)"l(b:;;JC"6J---,I

If you need more assistance, please contact the NOC Communication Watch Officer atl(b)(6)

(b)(6)

L__ _ _ _,J

Tlumk yu11,
Please Note: I am Out o ·/he 0 ice lodar.
If you need to call me use my Blackberry (b)(6) (b)(6)

r call me atl(b)(6)

DIIS Mi,\swn "IYah honor and illlt!griry. we u·i//saji•guurd rhe Amerimn pcoplt!, our home/am/, am/ our J}u/ucs. "
lUi \\-"rnmg ThL> document conwin; 1nforma1Lon that ma~ be exempt from public rcka>c under tho Freedom oflntormmion A~t (5 U S_C 552) It "to be conuollc<l, <to red. llan<lkd, uan,mntc•d. dJ>tnbutcd. <md dhJ10>cd ofm accord<lncc· w1tll DHS poill'IC> and" not to be reka,e<lto tile publw. the mcdw, 01 other ]Wr>onncl ~>ho do not lmc" ,,,],J nced-to-kno" w1thout prwr "PP"""l ol'"n .tulh<>n>cd IJHS ul'lic1dL

From: I@"~JC~6Jc:;:::==]

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 5:22PM

To: Gowadia, Huban; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Rasicot, Gary; ':'l(b:;:JC6;:J' ,.,.,,-~~.!I!;Ra~s!'!d."'al'"eL,De'a~n."Cie"I.!H"-;---,

1o ~6

Edge, Peter T; (b)(6)

Burriesci, Kelli; (b)(6)

Maher, Joseph; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan; c"~J,~6J:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000184
Page 2 of 4

(b)(6)
c (b)(6) Subject: UNCLAS CTAB Call Heads Up Importance: High
Leaders, Please look for notification from the NOC for an UNCLAS CTAB call from AS2 Fulghum at 6:00PM The topic will be the Executive Order on Vetting. Regards,
(b)(6)
With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.
Recipient:
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000185
Page 3 of 4

1")(6)
"Maher, Josephl(bJ(6} ln,ll6l "Fulghum, Chip j(b)(6) b 6 "Metzler Alan (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/2717:51:01
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000186
Page 4 of 4

Hamilton Gene!CbJ(6) From:l(b)(6) ,
"MCALEENAN KEVIN K 1J ~6 (b)(6)

To

Metzer, t1Jll6l

A an

(b)(6)

"Fulghum, Chip b 6

(b)(6)

Subject. RE .. Sect1on 5 Wa1ver fo!L"~),~6):__J Date: 2017/01/28 18:27:52
Priority: Normal Type: Note

Thank you!
From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 6:27PM
r;TH~aom~"il~toJ,n~, 6GJe~n~~~(b~)(~6~} ~~~~~~~':'J~igi;;;;;~:·etFzulleg~hru,m~A, ~CIh~ai~pn~~""=~JJ=(,6~=6J=J'=-=--=-=--=-=-=--=-=--"-------',
(b)(6)
(b)(5)

From:
Sent:

S~Ca:b'l;(t6:"lu"rd"a"y::-,"'Ja:cn:cuc:a::rycc;2-;;8,-2"D;;-!17

6:23:18

PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; 1J ~6

Cc: (bJ(6J

Subject: FW: : Section 5 Waiver fo~LCb_J,_6J_ _~

(b)(5)

I

(b)(6)

From: 1J ~6
Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 6:22PM
To: (b)(6) (b)(6)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000187
Page 1 of 7

Cc: Ma her, Joseph @"~JC'6;6J~==:;:::;:;:;:;;:===;=:J Subject: FW: :Section 5 Waiver fo (b)(6)
'-----------'
Ll(b_J6'_J_ _ _ _ _ _JPlcasc sec below.
(b)(6)

This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution. usc or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message.

From: Sent:

Sl)(cba)"(t"6u)r::d;::a"y,~J;::a""nu:::a=ry=2"B,--o!20

17

11: 19:25

PM

To·ICb)(6)

I

Subject: RE: : Section 5 Waiver fo1(b)(6)

I

(b)(5);(b)(6)

(b)(6)

Official - SBU
UNCLASSIFIED
From:~"~J(~6J~;==;;=;==;=;;;;;=.;=;;=============~
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:05PM To (b)(6) Subject: RE: : Section 5 Waiver fojLCb_J,_6J_ _ _J
Email and/or signature on doc if there is one.

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000188
Page 2 of 7

(b)(6)

This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution. usc or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message.

From :'~"~J~6C~J-:;-:--.,-,------:;:;-:;-;,::-',

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 9:38:39 PM

To~(b)(6)

I

Subject: RE: : Section 5 Waiver forLI(b_J_,6_J_ __j

What/how do you need to hear from us that it's been approved?

Official UNCLASSIFIED

Fromj(b)(6)

Sent:'<s"a"'tu"r"d"ay"",-l"a"'n"ua"'ry;;,-.2"8',-,2mo"1.,7-,4r.:3'"5"""P"M,-------_J

To~(b)(6)

1

SubJect: RE: : Secbon 5 Wa1ver fd£"~J,i6:6JC=J

Do you have an eta? This is an urgent matter.

(b)(6)

This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution. usc or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000189
Page 3 of 7

From: Sent:

5\CCbal:C:it6cclur;::d;::a::-y,~J;::a:::nu::Ca:C:ry::02°8,~2,!017

9:16:36

PM

To:ICbJ(6J

I

Subject: : Section 5 Waiver fo~(b)(6)

(b)(5);(b)(6)

Thanks very much,

Official - SBU UNCLASSIFIED

Froml(bJ(6)

I

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:07PM

To: (bJ(6J

Subject: RE: Section 5 Waiver - URGENT

I'd appreciate a copy of the draft, if you have a chance.

Official - Transitory UNCLASSIFIED

From: Sent:

~Csab"lC't6"lu=rd;:a"y-,J;:a"n"ua::ry"""'2"'B-,~2017

4:03PM

To:ICblC6l

I

Subject: RE: Section 5 Waiver - URGENT

And I think we have all we need. Thanks for all your help.

Official - SBU UNCLASSIFIED

From~Cbl(6l

I

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:01 PM

To: (bJ(6J

Subject: RE: Section 5 Waiver - URGENT

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000190
Page 4 of 7

(b)(5);(b)(6)
Official - SBU
UNCLASSIFIED

EICb~l~r6iJ~ c"~J~(S~J----------c-c---c-----------------------------------------_JCanyouloop
me into a conversation with them? Thanks so much
I l(b)(6)

Official - SBU
UNCLASSIFIED

From: ~"~J,~6Jt::=::;:==::::;::J

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 3:52PM

To: l(b)(6)

I

Subject: FW: Section 5 Waiver - URGENT

l(b)(6)

~ (b)(5)
L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ j

Official - SBU
UNCLASSIFIED

Froml(b)(6) Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2011 3:47 PIVJ
To:l(b)(6)
CSucb:_kj~e~ct'-:~5'-e~c~ti~o~n'S~VV~a~iv~e~rCTu~R~G~E'N~T--------------------------------------_j

(b)(5);(b)(6) (b)(5);(b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000191
Page 5 of 7

(b)(5);(b)(6)

(b)(6)

Sender: Hamilton, Gene 1J ~6 (b)(6)
"MCALEENAN KEVIN K (b)(6)
(b)(6)

Recipient: "Metzler, Alan 11Jll6l

ICbl(6)

I

"Fulghum, Chi~(b)(6)

I

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000192
Page 6 of 7

(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/28 18:27:51 Delivered Date: 2017/01/28 18:27:52
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000193
Page 7 of 7

(b)(6)

' From

I

"R ;
(b)(6)

'

"Edge, Peter T thlt~•
(b)(6)
To '
"Metzler Alan 1J ~6 (b)(6)
cc '
Subject: FW: CfAB Convenmg on Today, Jan 27,2017 at 1800 EST Date: 2017/01/2717:37:58
Importance: High
Priority: Urgent Type: Note
Resending, in case you did not receive.
(b)(6)

From lL~_J'6_J___----'
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 5·31 PM To (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Cc: 1o '6
(b)(6)
Subject: RE. CTAB Convenmg on Today, Jan 27, 2017 at 1800 EST Importance: High
All- please note participation is at the Principal level-normal weekly CTAB participants only.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000194
Page 1 of 3

Thank you. (b)(6)

From j(b)(6)

Sent: "F"ri"da"'y7,'J"'an"'u"a"r"y'2"7-,,;20"1"7'S''"2"6'P"M.,----------'

Toj(b)(6)

Cc~

I

(b)(6)

:,uoJect: L 1At:l Lonvenmg on 1oaay, Jan L 1, LUll at Hsuu t:, 1
CTAB Members, L SITUATION: Today, Jan 27,2017 at 1800 EST, the DHS Counter Terrorism Coordinator will conduct a CTAB via an Unclassified teleconference. 2, ACTIO:";: All participants are re nested to dial into the conference by 1755 EST for roll call.
• Dial (b)C)(E)
• EntcrLt"h_c_c_o_n-;fio-c-rc_n_c_c-;P~'IN and pound signl(b)(')(E)
• Please stand by for roll call and the conference to begin. 3, COORDINATll\'G INSTRUCTIOI\'S:
• To discuss the new Executive Order • Chair: Deputy Secretary (Acting) Fulghum If you need more assistance, please contact the NOC Communication Watch Officer al@Cb~Ji~6J~=::::J
(b)(6)
Very respectfully, Communications Watch Officer US Department of Homeland Security National Operations Center Office (b)(6) Email·
'---------------'
Sender:l~"(~bR)a(~6'~)iogot=G~a~r;[l\~b)~(6~J==============I==:::;-_j (b)(6)
Recipient:

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000195
Page 2 of 3

b 6 "Edge, Peter T 1J 6 (b)(6) "Metzler, Alan (b)(6) (b)(6) Sent Date: 2017/01/2717.37.57 Delivered Date: 2017/01/2717:37:58
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000196
Page 3 of 3

From: (b)(6)

"Gowadia, Huban (b)(6)

(b)(6)
'
(b)(6)
"Rasicot, Gary (b)(6)

(h)(~)

(b)(6)

"Ra sdale, Daniel H (b)(6) (b)(6)

"Ed e, Peter T thlt~l
(b)(6)
"Burriesci, Kell1 (b)(6) (b)(6)
To '

"Maher, Joseph Cbll6l
l(b)(6}
"Fulghum, Chip I Cbl\61
(b)(6) "Metzler Alan 1J 6 (b)(6)

I I

(b)(6)
cc '
Subject. UNCLAS CTAB Call Heads Up Date: 2017/01/2717:22:27
Importance: High
Priority: Urgent
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000197
Page 1 of 3

Type: Note
Leaders, Please look for notification from the NOC for an UNCLAS CTAB call from AS2 Fulghum at 6:00PM The topic will be the Executive Order on Vetting. Regards,
(b)(6)

With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.

(b)(6)
' Sender
"Gowadia, Huban (b)(6) (b)(6)
(b)(6) "Rasicot, Gary 1J 6 (b)(6)

I
I

"Ragsdale, Daniel H b 6 (b)(6)

, "Edge, Peter T Recipient• (b)(6)

b

6

"Burriesci, Kelli (b)(6) (b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000198
Page 2 of 3

"Maher Joseph (bl(6l b 6 "Ful hum Chi 1J ~6 (b)(6) "Metzler, Alan 1J)(6l (b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/27 17:22:26 Delivered Date: 2017/01/27 17:22:27
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000199
Page 3 of 3

(b)(6)
' From
To '
"Edge, Peter T Cbll6l
l(b)(6) "Metzler, Alanlcbll6l (b)(6) "Ful hem Chi b 6
(b)(6)
"Maher, Jose h (b)(6) (b)(6)
cc '

I I
I

Subject: FW: Consolidated Ed1ts Date: 2017/01/27 15:52:08
Priority: Normal Type: Note
ALCON. Please sec latest comments from ICC in rc::.ponsc to CBP comments. Please note that we did not reinsert our comment:- :-ubmitted earlier today to eliminate conrusion. Thanks,
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000200
Page 1 of 23

(b)(6)

From: Ragsdale, Daniel H

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:38 AM

To: Edge, Peter T;l(b)(6)

!Davis, Mike P; ciCb~J~(6~J- - - - - - '

Subject: FW: Consolidated Edits

Sent with Good (\\'\\'\\'. l!.Ood.com)

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:29:17 AM
To:!(b)(6) l(b)(6)
Cc: Metzler, Alan; (b)(6)
(b)(6)

!ALLES, RANDOLPH D; Ragsdale, Daniel H; Fulghum, Chip; Maher, Joseph; 1J "6

All, See CBP's comments attached. Thank you,
l(b)(6)

From (b)(6)
Sent: 'o,-cc,"da"v",-,J"an"u"a"c:-y-,;2,;7-,"'20;;-1"7~11 :02 AM

To: (b)(6)

(b)(6)

MCALEENAN, KEVIN Kl(b)(6)

cdCb)(6)

(b)(6)

Subject: Consolidated Edits

As discussed attached please find our consolidated edits.

(b)(6)

Tl1is document, and any attachment(s), may contain Information wh1ch is law enforcement sensitive, attorney-client pnv1leged, attorney work product, or U.S. Government information. It IS not for release, review, retransmission. dissemination, or use by anyone other than the Intended rec1p1ent. Please consult With the CBP Office of Ch1ef Counsel before d1sclos1ng any inform<Jtlon contamcd 1n thi<; mr<;<;<Jgf' or any <Jtt<JchmPnt(s).
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000201
Page 2 of 23

• (b)(6) Sender

a s a e an1e (b)(6)

(hl(~l

' eter b 6
(b)(6) "Metzler, Alan (b)(6) (b)(6)

Recipient: "Fulghum, Chip (b)(6) b 6 "Maher, Jose h (b)(6)
(b)(6)

Sent Date. 2017/01/27 15.51.32 Delivered Date: 2017/01/27 15:52:08

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000202
Page 3 of 23

Page 04 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000203

Page 05 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000204

Page 06 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000205

Page 07 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000206

Page OS of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000207

Page 09 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000208

Page 1o of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000209

Page 11 of23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000210

Page 12 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000211

Page 13 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000212

Page 14 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000213

Page 15 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000214

Page 16 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000215

Page 17 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000216

Page 18 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000217

Page 19 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000218

Page 20 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000219

Page 21 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000220

Page 22 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000221

Page 23 of 23 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000222

From· MCALEENAN, KEVIN K 1J ~6 • (b)(6)
"Nielsen Kirst'e 1J ~6 (b)(6)
ug um, 1p 1J ~6 t1Jll6l "Metzler, Alan
To: l(b)(6)

"Hamilton, Genelt1Jll6l

i1J)(6) "M h r j(b)(6)

h thlt~l

"ALLES RANDOLPH D (b)(6)
cc (b)(6)

Subject: JFK cases 1n WaPo and qu1ck update Date: 2017/01/28 12:18:55
Priority: Normal Type: Note

Team,

There have been a number of media inquiries and stories about two Iraqi "refugees" at JFK.

(b)(6);(b)(')(C)

The

email below shows the rigor of that process.

We are approaching a dozen Congressional inquiries on these specific cases, and have received incredulous calls from staffers that the EO applies to LPRs. Media is reporting that NY Congressional Reps are headed to JFK to demand to see these travelers.
I believe it would be beneficial to have a call this afternoon to level set and seek guidance as we see how the EO implementation impact unfolds.

Thank you,

KM

-----Original Message-----
From:L"~J(~6J-c--~-----oo-07~
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 11 :54 AM To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN KIT"~J,i6:6Jt:::=============::J Subject: FW: waiver
Here it is.
l(b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000223
Page 1 of 4

(b)(6)

From: (b)(6)

Sent: ~S"a"tu"rd"a;;;y-:-,-J"a"n"ua;;;ry;;;-2"8'.02"0117 4:53:27 PM

~~r)(6)

1

Subject:

OFO recommend (b)(5)
(b)(5);(b)(6);(b)(')(C)

Bullets for the DFO:
(b)(6);(b)(')(C);(b)(')(E)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000224
Page 2 of 4

(b)(6)

(b)(6)

Sender: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K 1J 6

b 6

"Nielsen, Kirs!jed(bJ(6}

I

ICbJ(6)

I

"Fulghum, Chip b 6

(b)(6)

"Metzler, Alan

(b)(6)

Recipient: "Hamilton, Gene ,1Jl(6l

(b)(6} Ma er, Josep (hl(~l t1Jll6l "ALLES, RANDOLPH (b)(6)

t1J)(6}

Sent Date: 2017/01/28 12:18:53

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000225
Page 3 of 4

Delivered Date: 2017/01/28 12:18:55
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000226
Page 4 of 4

From • MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

"Fulohum, Chi (b)(6)

To

• ·

1J ~6 "Metzler

Alan

1J ~6

(b)(6)

"ALLES RANDOLPH D lbll6l

(b)(6)
"Gowad1a Huban 1J ~6

(b)(6)

' aSICO,

(b)(6)

(b)(6)

cc '
"Hamilton, Gene b 6
(b)(6)
"Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6)
(b)(6)

Subject: RE. Execut1ve Order on vettmg Date: 2017/01/28 10:39:53
Priority: Normal Type: Note

I0-4 and will do

From: Fulghum, Chip

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:38:21 AM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Metzler, Alan

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D; Gowadia, Huban; Rasicot, Gary; ~~(b~J,~6JL====]IHamilton, Gene;

Nielsen, Kirstjen; ICbl(6)

I

Subject: Re: Executive Order on vetting

Kevin

Thank you. As we discussed appreciate your OPA building proposed TPs in concert with our folks which we will share for coordination with group. Thanks to your team for all they are doing.

Chip

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:31 AM

To: Metzler, Alan
Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D; Gowadia, Huban; Rasicot, Gary; ITlCb~J~C6[J====]l Hamilton, Gene;

Nielsen, Kirstjen;j(b)(6)

l Fulghum, Chip

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000227
Page 1 of 3

Subject: RE: Executive Order on vetting
CBP Field Operations had a call with air carriers and A4A last night and is scheduling a follow up. We are not releasing written operational guidance and are av.-'aiting OPA approved talking points. I have a call at 1200 with my OPA team on inquiries and to go over proposed points for coordination with DIIS OPA. If you have further guidance, we will follow.

From: Metzler, Alan

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:18:03 AM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D; Gowadia, Huban; Rasicot, Gary;ciCb~J~(6~J_ _ _ __,Hamilton, Gene;

Nielsen, Kirstjen;ICb)(6)

I Fulghum, Chip

Subject: FW: Executive Order on vetting

Kevin, pis sec AAAE inquiry below. Can you respond direct and then share it with this group? Also, it would be good to know our engagement with airline and airport stakeholders.

Thanks much, Alan

From:ICb)(6)
Sent: !=sa"t""u"rd"a"y,-,""J"an"u"a"rc-'y28, 2017 2:44:00 PM To: Metzler, Alan Subject: Executive Order on vetting
Hi Alan. Hope all is well in your new job. I imagine it is crazy busy. Like you, I have changed jobs. I "retired" from Senate Appropriations at the end of the 114th Congress-for one week. Then began a new job at the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) as their Senior Vice President for Security and Facilitation. My new contact information is below.
I am writing you today with questions related to my new role. Late last night (midnight}, AAAE heard from one west coast airport that Friday's executive order banning entry to the U.S. from the 7 Muslim nations is effective immediately, which means that over 900 arriving passengers at SEA today will be denied entry and must leave/return home. We were also told that CBP was looking for local jail space because it doesn't have enough space for these people at the airport.
My questions to you are the following: • If there a formal policy or playbook in place explaining how these arriving passengers will be handled? If so, can you please share it with me.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000228
Page 2 of 3

• Has it been briefed to the airlines (who if I recall correctly will bear the cost of returning these people) and the airports? If not, when will that occur?
We would like to make sure our member airports are well versed in this change so I appreciate any assistance you can offer. For your information, I have similar questions in to CBP.
Thanks!
(b)(6)

Banner2

I
89th Annual Email Sign

Sender

•

MCALEENAN, (b)(6}

KEVIN

K

(b)(6)

I

"Fulghum, Chip (b)(6)
(b)(6) "Metzler, Alan b 6 (b)(6)

b 6 "Gowad1a, Huban (b)(6)

(b)(6)

' Recipient aSICO (b)(6)

'

(hl(~l

"Hamilton Gene 1J ~6 (b)(6) "Nielsen, Kirstje b 6 (b)(6)

Sent Date: 2017/01/28 10:39:53

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000229
Page 3 of 3

F . Metzler, Alan l(b)(6)
rom. 1(b)(6)
"Nielsen, Kirst'en 1J ~6

t1Jll6l

"MCALEENAN KEVIN K 1J ~6

](b)(6)

;;:;r;;:c

T . "Fulghum, Ch!.t::!::: ~ o. h1Jl(6)

"Hamilton, Gene]thlt~•

(b)(6)

b" ct· RE: Execut1ve Order Report: Protectmg the Nat1on from Fore1gn Terror1st Entry Into the United 5 u }e • States 1/28/2017
Date: 2017/01/28 09:57:22 Priority: Normal
Type: Note

I've asked OPA to check and reply all. Will push shortly.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 2:26:40 PM To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan; Hamilton, Gene;@ICb~J,@6Jc====J Subject: RE: Executive Order Report: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States 1/28/2017
Thx very much Alan pis let us know what OPA OLA OPE need. If we have updated TPs pis send to this group. Kevin- pis let us know when we have confirmed answer on refugees Thank you.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
=====] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 9:17:26 AM
To: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan; Hamilton, Gene;EICb~J~C6[l Subject: FW: Executive Order Report: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States 1/28/2017 Initial numbers from the NTC and the field offices. Note that we arc looking at potentially 500+ being impacted today. Email chain explains the 3 attachments. Abu Dhabi Preclearance denied 22 travelers ovemight as welL
There is some inaccurate media reporting as well. One NYT piece suggests we denied
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000230
Page 1 of 3

refugees. We do not believe that is accurate.

From: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:24:11 AM

To:
Cc:

AMLCLAELSE, ERNAANND,OKLEPVHIND;K·I0" " ' J C ' " 6 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , I

Subject: FW: Executive Order Report: Protect1ng the Nabon from Fore1gn Ierronst Entry Into

the United States 1/28/2017

C l/C2.

Pis see attached daily reporting. One report shows consolidated stats for all Field Offices; one report showing NTC activity; one report with the projections for today.

Todd C. Owen Executive A~si~tant Commissioner Office of ricld Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

From (b)(6)

Sent: Saturday. January To: Owen, Todd C (AC

2O8F.02)0;10"7"J~1(6:~0J.8::::2::7:..:PcM:::c__

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_ ,

b 6
Cc (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Subject: Executive Order Report: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States 1/28/2017

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Office of Field Operations

Hullets for the Executive Assistant Commissioner

January 28.2017

Washington, DC: Executive Order Report- Protecting the Nation from rorcign Terrorist Entry Into the U.S.

[cid: imagc003.png(t1jO I02793D. B3358200]

NTC-Passenger:

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000231
Page 2 of 3

[cid:image005.png@O 1D2793 D. H3358200]

NTC Executive Order Projected Counts:

[cid: imagc007.png(t1jO I 02793D. 83358200]

The stats provided by NTC for this reporting period represent the number of confirmed denied bonrding versus encounter.

----'t Submitted by: cl(b~J~(6~J

Field Liaison Division

Date .i Time: January 2g. 2017 I ()g()() hours

Metzler, Alan l(b)(6)
Send er: l(b)(6)
"Nielsen Kirstien 1J "6 (b)(6) "MCALEENAN, KEVIN K 1J "6 b 6 Recipient: "Fulghum, Chip (b)(6) b 6
am1 ton, ene
(b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/28 09:57:21 Delivered Date: 2017/01/28 09:57:22

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000232
Page 3 of 3

(b)(6)
' From
"Metzler Alan (b)(6)
(b)(6)

"Palmer, David b 6 (b)(6)

To '

Urri€SCI, €11J~6

(b)(6)

"Hamilton Gene
(b)(6} "Clark, Alaina (\-,\(~'
ICbJ(6)
"Corbin, Susanl(b}(6l b 6 (b)(6)
"Selim, George (b)(6)
(h)(~)
"N1elsen, K1rstjeniCbMl
In,JI6l
"Ful hum Chi thlt~l
(b)(6)
CC:

Subject: RE: URGENT: Meetmg of EO Date: 2017/01/28 17:14:00
Priority: Normal Type: Note

I
I
I
I

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000233
Page 1 of 4

(b)(6)

From: Metzler, Alan

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:43:40 PM

To: (bJ(6J

Palmer, David;

(bJ(6J Gene;

Clark,

Ala ina;

Corbin,

Susan; ICbJ(6J

Burriesci,

KeISllei;l'"i(mbJ=(6,~J G~e~o~rg~e:--------'

Hamilton,

Cc: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Fulghum, Chip; ICbJ(6J

IALLES,

SRAuNbDjeOcLtP: HRED:;I·C~Ub;iJ;(R6;;JG"E"'NTT::-;M;;;e;;;e;,tc;in:;;g-;o,-f0Eno:---------'

+Adding George Selim andcl(b~J~(6~J_ _ __JIP1s call at Spm.

From: Metzler, Alan

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:17PM

To: (bJ(6J (b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6)

Palmer David .Cbl(6)

I
I I

Burriesci, Kelli (b)(6)

(b)(6)
Clark, Ala ina l(bJ(6) l(b)(6)

ICHoarbminil,toSnu,saGnecn"~e)~(6(~b))_(:6_:)__

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

__j

1
L_--

,

I

Cc: Nielsen, Kirstjen thlt~•

Fulghum, Chip

(b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6)
Ragsdale, Daniel H 1J "6
b 6
Rasicot, Gary (b)(6) (b)(6)

I
I
MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Gowadia, Huban@"~J(~6J[:;:==========J.,
Maher, Joseph (b)(6)

Subject: FW. URGENT. Meetmg of EO
For those on To line: this is to amplify the message below to provide a communications professional from your staffs to support activation of the NJIC in OPA at Spm. Purpose is to develop integrated and comprehensive messaging in support of Executive Order implementation regarding Visa and Refugee suspensions. Pis flag if anyone was excluded that should attend. Thank you.
Alan

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000234
Page 2 of 4

From:~""Jc"6J,-----------,

Sent: Saturday, January.~2:;:8;c',:2c:0_:1.:_7_:3_c5:.:8:..:__PM'-'-------------,
To: Christensen, Gillianl(b)(6)

b 6 (b)(6)

Corbin, Susan (b)(6) amilton, Gene (b)(6)

Clark, Ala ina

(b)(6)

Burriesci,

Kellij(b)(6)

I

CScu:bMjeetczlte:r,UARlaGnEl(bN)(T6~) :~M~e~e~t~in~g~o~f~E~Oo--------------------"

Good afternoon

The COS have requested that the following principles report to the OPA NJidCb)C>(EJ,

ICb)C)(E)

Iat 5:00 today begin the development of statements, messaging, etc

OPA OPE OLA OGC Gene Hamilton TSA CBP ICE Policy USCG

I The phone number to the NJIC ij(b)(')(E)

l(b)(')(E)

L __ _ __ J

NOC please notify everyone on the to line. My contact information is below

(b)(6)

Sender: (b)(6) "Metzler, Alanl!bl\61
Recipient: L~(b-)(-6)--------------------_J
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000235
Page 3 of 4

(b)(6)
"Palmer, David (hl(~l (b)(6)
Burriesci Ke i b 6 (b)(6)
am1 ton, ene (bl(6l (b)(6) "Clark, Alaina (b)(6) b 6 "Corbin, Susan 1J 6 (b)(6) "Selim, Geor e (b)(6) "Nielsen Kirsfen (hl(~l (b)(6) "Ful hum Chi b 6 (b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/28 17:13:58 Delivered Date: 2017/01/28 17:14:00
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000236
Page 4 of 4

Metzler Alan (b)(6) From • (b)(6)
"Nielsen Kirstien (b)(6) b 6
"Fulghum, Chip (b)(6}

"

b 6

(b)(6)
To '

"Hamilton, Gene (b)(6) (b)(6)

Subject: RE: IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE- EO on Vettmg Date: 2017/01/28 00:28:43
Priority: Normal Type: Note

We may want to host another call at some point tomorrow morning to understand the impact, and to explain how we've addressed certain scenarios such as LPRs and TSDBs, among others.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:21:11 AM
To: Fulghum, Chip; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Metzler, Alan; ciCbcclicc6J_ _ _ __,I Hamilton, Gene;
Maher, Joseph Subject: RE: IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE- EO on Vetting
Alan Could be sure we have OLA, OPE and OPA briefed up in the AM. There is likely to be lots of confusion and press stories. Thx

From: Fulghum, Chip Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:55:01 PM To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Nielsen, Kirstjen; Metzler, Alan; ICb)(6) Maher, Joseph Subject: Re: IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE- EO on Vetting
Thank you Kevin. Very clear. Joe will continue working with State.

t-iamilton, Gene;

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000237
Page 1 of 4

Chip
From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:21 PM To: Nielsen, Kirstjen; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan;ITICb~l~(6~l====::]IHamilton, Gene; Maher, Joseph Subject: IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE - EO on Vetting
Team,
I wanted to outline CBP's initial operational plan, options, and issues. Apologies for the long email, but want to make sure that all have clarity on how we plan to implement the EO tonight and tomorrow, and some of the potential concerns we see:
Immediate Actions:
(b)(')(E)
c"_J_C~J~_J~--~-c~---c--~--~~----c-c---------------------------~Proper
exceptions for diplomats, etc., will be applied.
--Operational guidance is being sent out to all Directors of Field Operations and Ports of Entry, and to notify Port Directors of procedures for land border encounters.
--DHS and CBP have successfully coordinated with State and received a letter of provisional cancellation of visas issued to travelers from the seven affected countries.
Current Status:
--Approximately 115 Nonimmigrant and immigrant visa holders are in the air traveling on passports from the seven affected countries are currently en route. Another 61 are lawful permanent residents (LPRs) returning home. The most significantly affected nationality is Iran (63 NIV/IV; 41 LPR).
--No additional refugee arrivals from the seven affected countries are expected before Monday.
--Operational reporting will commence NLT 0900 tomorrow to the NOC and DHS front office, to include numbers of travelers encountered, disposition, and any other issues.
Issues/Concerns
--We have been advised by OGC (b)(5)
(b)(5)
--We continue to seek legal guidance (b)(5)
(b)(5)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000238
Page 2 of 4

(b)(5) (b)(5)

Other issues:
--Appropriate Expedited Removal/Credible fear processes will be applied.
--Other cases of national interest, will be assessed for case by case waiver adjudication under per the Executive Order.

S

d en

er· •

&(b~),(6u) ~le=c=A=I'="~"~l~(6~J~============================~~==:J

"Nielsen Kirs ·e (b)(6)

(b)(6)

"Fulghum, Chip (b)(6)

b 6

Recipient: "MCALEENAN, KEVIN K 1J ~6

l(b)(6)

"Hamilton, Genel(b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000239
Page 3 of 4

(b)(6) (b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/28 00:28:43
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000240
Page 4 of 4

.

'
1")(6) ~

To

~s,

I Dl

' '

1")(6) I '

I

' II i '
'
.~ '
Subject: RE: Immediate Act1ons Memo Date: 2017/01/27 11:36:58 Type: Note

All,

Here is the latest version with everyone's edits (except Gene's) consolidated. Please take a very quick look and let me know if you are good with this. Note that there are three comments- one where I need ICE input, one where I need CBP input and one where I need Gene to weigh in These should be relatively quick to address.

Thanks so much to everyone for scrambling on this and the other two memos. Once I have your final green light, AS2, 51, COS, DCOS and Gene will do a quick review so we can get this out today.

Best,ltc":clic:6Jc__ __j

Froml(b)(6)

Sent: ';cF"d"da"v'".-,J"an"u"a"r"v""2,-'7, 2017 9:48 AM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene

(b)(6)

- - - - - - - - - - - - f 6
L"";J("'6J::::::;-;-;-r;,,--------'A::_L"L::E:::_S'-'R"'A"-N"-"D:::Dc:L'-PH"-'"-"-J-i_J

Ragsdale,

1DCa~ncie~l :H~(Mb)~(6e) ~tz~le~r~,~A~Ia~n~b~6~~~fe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~Carroll,

@>)(6)

Fulghum, Chi"""~J(~6J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~Maher, Joseph

Kevin

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000241
Page 1 of 8

b 6
Subject: RE: Immediate Actions Memo

Here is the latest version. This incorporates CBP, Kevin Carroll, andl(b)(6)

Ireviews in red line.

Once I have OGC, ICE, and USCIS I will send the fully consolidated revised version.

From: l(b)(6)

Sent: T\:-h--ur"s"da:::yc-,""Ja"n""u"a"ry,.-!26;,;,,;2;,0=-17'--8=-:c::1_:_6-'-P"M'----------,

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

Hamilton, Gene

(b)(6)

L";;J:.,6-l-=--::--;-;-;C"'""'=======C.:L::LE::So_,_::R::A:::N::D~O~L::_P_:_H:_:D::J_"_J:-6-J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,JRagsdale, CDca: nMieeltHzi(b')(L6)e-=-r,-A~I;:a""'"~J(~6J,--------------------------...,.;Carroll, Kevin

(b)(6)
b 6

Fulghum, Chi (b)(6)

Maher, Joseph

Subject: Immediate Actions Memo

Good evening. Attached is the latest version of the "immediate actions" memo. Thanks to everyone for your input My hope is that this captures what you've provided and what we discussed, though I did
make some choices along the way on what to/not to include. Joe, I suspect OGC will need to make some modifications. I have absolutely no pride of ownership on this-- I'm just hopeful it's in relatively good shape so your review can go quickly.

If you could provide your input as early as possible tomorrow morning but no later than 10, I would appreciate it. I want to be sure we get this out tomorrow.

I Thanks so much,
l(b)(6)

(b)(6)
' Sender

"MCALEENAN KEVIN K (b)(6)

I

(b)(6)

"Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)

(b)(6)

Recipient: "Ra sdale Daniel H (b)(6) (b)(6)
(b)(6)
"carroll, Kevin thlt~l b 6 "Fulghum, Chip (b)(6)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000242
Page 2 of 8

ln,JI6l "Maher, Josephl(bJ(6} b 6 Sent Date: 2017/01/2711:36:55 Delivered Date: 2017/01/2711:36:58
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000243
Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000244

Page 5 of 8 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000245

Page 6 of 8 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000246

Page 7 of 8 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000247

Page 8 of 8 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000248

From :

Hamilton
ICbl(6)

Gene ln,)l6)

"MCALEENAN KEVIN Ki(b)(6)
(b)(6)

To '
••• I D ni I H lbll6l
(b)(6)
"Metzler, Alan (b)(6) (b)(6)
"Carroll, Kevin (b)(6)
(b)(6)
"Fulghum, Chip
(\-,\(~\
"Maher Joseph (hl(~l
(b)(6)
cc '

I I
. I

Subject. RE. Implementation follow-up Date: 2017/01/27 01:16:54 Type: Note
Hello everyone, Please see the attached documents. I went through and consolidated comments from all three versions. Many changes were accepted, but some were not. Please provide any additional edits/comments by 11
AM today (Friday). Thank you again for your time and assistance, Gene
From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:15 PM To: Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)
L-----------------------------------~
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000249
Page 1 of 25

1"),6)
(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Cc: Metzler, Alan (b)(6)
b 6 (b)(6) (b)(6)

Fulghum, Chip 1Cb)(6)

IRagsdale, Daniel H
Carroll, Kevin Maher, Joseph

Subject: RE: Implementation follow-up

All,

Please see consolidated CBP comments on the implementation memoranda. Thank you for the
opportunity to review.

KM

rJC[l
.:1r1mcnl ol Homcl,1ncl
':>cc u rity logo

Kevin K. McAlccnan
;\cting Crmmn~~wncr l · S. Cu-.tom~ and Bord<.:r Prut<.:c!wn
Ire ore 1/w guuuliull\ u(our :Vmion·, honler,_ Ire !liT Amcricu 'fi·on!lin,•

i.~ilonc,• • Scrl'i< c • f II I i' '" I' i I l'

From: Hamilton, Gene

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 201710·02 PM

To~Cb)(6)

I

(b)(6)
(b)(6)

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
I PH (b)(6)

(b)(6)
Subject: RE: Implementation follow-up And the interior enforcement memo. Thank you!

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000250
Page 2 of 25

From =.~"~),~6)~==::::::::==]

Sent: Wednesday, January 25,2017 9:47PM

To:l(b)(6)

I

I l~(b")(~6)J,~6J~--------------------~-L-LE~S~,~RcA"NMDCOALLPEHEND~j(Ab7)N(6~),~K~EV~I~N~K~---------------,

Ragsdale, Daniel HCb)(6) Cc (b)(6) (b)(6)
(b)(6)

IFulghum, Chip (b)(6)

L
Maher, Joseph

Subject: RE: Implementation follow-up

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay. Here is a discussion draft of the implementing memo for the border security EO. I've CC'd our beachhead component team members on this for situational awareness, but would prefer that each component provide a coordinated response- rather than receive multiple copies from each.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best,

Gene

From:l(b)(6)

Sent: W';;-;;e::idcon::e;csd:;:a::-y:-,"Ja"n""::!a.ry 25, 2017 6:45 PM
To (b)(6)

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (b)(6)

ALLES, RANDOLPH D

l(b)(6) l(b)(6)
Cc: Hamilton, Gene (b)(6)

!Ragsdale, Daniel H (b)(6)

I

~~========~ Metzler, Alan (b)(6)

1J "6

Carroll, Ke 1J "6

(b)(6)

Maher, Joseph '1J)"' 6)

Fulghum, Chip

Subject: Implementation follow-up

'----------------'

Good evening. Thanks for joining us today for the meeting. Gene should be sending all of you the two implementing memos electronically shortly. Here are the action items we discussed as a recap:

Tonight: ICE will draft a quick message that USCIS and CBP can also use, notifying the workforce that the EOs have been signed (with hyperlink to the actual orders) and noting that implementing information will be forthcoming shortly. Here is what ICE drafted for consideration. If everyone is comfortable with this, I suggest we send it out ASAP.

President Trump signs Executive Orders

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000251
Page 3 of 25

(b)(5)
Thanks everyone! Let me know if you have any questions.
(b)(6) Sende Hamilton Gene 1J '6
~("bM)(~6C) ~A~L~E~E~N~A~N~,~KE~V~I~NQK~"~)~(6~)================================~==:j
Recipient:f(b)(6) DHS-01-HQLI-14-000252
Page 4 of 25

(b)(6) "ALLES RANDOLPH D (b)(6) (b)(6) "Ragsdale, Daniel H (hl(~l (b)(6) "Metzler, Alan 1J 6 (b)(6) Carro , Kevin 1J ~6 (b)(6)
ug um, 1p (b)(6)
(hl(~l
"Maher, Joseph b 6 (b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/01/27 01:16:50 Delivered Date: 2017/01/27 01:16:54
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000253
Page 5 of 25

Page 06 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000254

Page 07 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000255

Page OS of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000256

Page 09 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000257

Page 1o of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000258

Page 11 of25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000259

Page 12 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000260

Page 13 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000261

Page 14 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000262

Page 15 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000263

Page 16 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000264

Page 17 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000265

Page 18 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000266

Page 19 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000267

Page 20 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000268

Page 21 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000269

Page 22 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000270

Page 23 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000271

Page 24 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000272

Page 25 of 25 Withheld pursuant to exemption
(b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000273

From

• •

Maher, (b)(6)

Joseph

(b)(6)

I

"Davis Mike P (b)(6) (b)(6)
"Nielsen, Kirstjen (b)(6) b 6 "Metzler, Alan b 6 b 6 "Fulghum, Chip (bll6l
(b)(6)
"Homan, Thomas (bll6l (b)(6)

"MCALEENAN, KEVIN K (\-,\(~\
(hl(~l
"Corbin Susa b 6
'To (b)(6)
"Clark Alaina (b)(6)
(b)(6)
"La an David
(b)(6)

"Gowadia, Huban (b)(6)
(b)(6)
cc '
"Palmer, David (b)(6)
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000274
Page 1 of 9

l(b)(6)

I

'" (b)(6)

evm 1J ~6

"carroll, Kevin (b)(6) (b)(6)

am1 ton, ece t1Jll6l
(b)(6)

Subject: RE: Status after court order Date: 2017/02/06 18:19:50
Priority: Normal Type: Note

Ctmtains Attorney-Client Communication Attorney Work Product
Today·~ update: Our reply brief filed this afternoon i~ attached. We al~o ju~t learned that the ytli Circuit
ha~ now ~chcdulcd oral argument on our motion. which will be held tomorrow at 3pm PS r.

From: Maher, Joseph
SenI : Sun dav, Fe bruarv 5, 2017 8 39 AM
To:ICb)(6)

(b)(6) (b)(6)

(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)

Fulghum, Chip 1J ~6 Homan, Thomas l(b)(6)

(b)(6)

Davis, Mike P
I INielsen, Kirstjen
Metzler, Alan
I MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

I
I
I

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000275
Page 2 of 9

(b)(6) (b)(6) ln,)C6) l(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)
Cc: l(b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6)
(b)(6)
Kevin (b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)

ILapan, Davidl,l->•t~•

Subject: RE: Status after court order
Contains Attorney-Client Communication Attorney Work Product
(b)(5)

!corbin, Susan Clark, Ala ina
I
I
Palmer, David
I
Carroll,
I
[Hamilton, Gene

Joseph 8. Maher Acting General Counsel U.S. Department or llomeland Security
This commlmicatioll. alo11g 11·irh ill/)' attachments. is co1·crcd byfcdcm! lf/1(1 stmc /em gon'rlling c/cc/ronic communimtions and nun· contain confidential 01/(l /cgolfl· pril·i/cgcd in/(mnation. If
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000276
Page 3 of 9

the reader o(this mes.wgc is not the intended recip!CII!, _rou are herehy notified !hut any dissclllination, di.'itrihution, usc or copying oj'rhis 111essagc is strictly prohibited !(mu Jun·c recchnl this in error. please reply i111111ediate(r to the sender 0/1(1 delete this 111essage. Thank
\'()//_

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:14AM To:l(b)(6)

lcbll6l (b)(6)

(b)(6)

(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)

Fulghum, Chip { (b)(6)
IHoman, Thomas l(b)(6)

l(b)(6) l(b)(6)
b 6
l(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Ccl(b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)
Kevin (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)
(b)(6)

ILapan, David i(b)(6)
ICarroll, Kevinl(b)(6)

Subject. RE. Status after court order
Contains Attorney-Client Communication Attorney Work Product
Pka~c find attached the motion a~ filed by DOJ.

IDavis, Mike P
I INielsen, Kirstjen
Metzler, Alan
I IMCALEENAN, KEVIN K
I Corbin, Susan
lark, Ala ina
I
Palmer, David
Carroll,
!Hamilton, Gene

4 201711:32 PM L"_JC_6J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,Davis, Mike P

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000277
Page 4 of 9

l(b)(6) (b)(6) ln,JC6l ~(b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6) Cc (b)(6) b 6 (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Kevin (b)(6) l(b)(6) l(b)(6)

IFulghum, Chipl(b)(6)
!Homan, Thoma~(b)(6)
Carroll, Kevin (b)(6)

Subject: RE: Status after court order
Contains Attorney-Client Communication Attorney Work Product
(b)(5)

I IMet

Nielsen '
zler, Alan

Kirstjen

I

I

I
I MCALEENAN KEVIN K

I
Palmer, David

I
rcarroll,

IHamilton, Gene

I

From: Maher, Joseph

Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2017 2:48 PM

To:ICbl(6) (b)(6) (b)(6)

I
Davis, Mike P

(b)(6)

INielsen, Kirstjen

(b)(6)

Metzler, Alan

77 0 ~,1'"JC6l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-1Fulghum, Chip~IC":'J(6J~c========,!__I__ _ _ _ _ _-,

l(b)(6)

·Homan, Thomas l(b)(6)

Cc: (b)(6)

(b)(6)

(b)(6)
L __ _ _ _ __ _ j

arroll, Kevin

(b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000278
Page 5 of 9

Pa mer, David

l(b)(6)
Kevin l(bJ(6)
I (b)(6} l(b)(6)
(b)(6)
Subject: RE: Status after court order
Ctmtains Attorney-Client Communication Attorney Work Product
(b)(5)

!Carroll,
IHamilton, Gene

I hanb for all oft he ~upport we received last night and throughout the day today!
Joe
Joseph B. Maher Acting Cicncral Counsel U.S. Department of I Jomcland Security
l(b)(6)
This communicalioll. along ll"ilh (/Ill" a//achmellf>·. is con'rcd b_t·.kdera/ (11/(/ stole /m1· goveming elec!ronic communiculions und muy contain conjidenliul und legul~l·J,ril·ilegcd injiJmwlion. 1/ the reader o/this mes.wgc is not the intended recifJICII!, you are herehy notified !hut any disscmi11ation. distrihution, usc or copying (?(this message is strictf\· prohibited. {(mu ha1·c received this in error. please nph· immediotch· to the sender om! dele!c this mes.wge. Thank
\"()//.

From: Maher, Joseph Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:31PM
TojCbJ(6) l(b)(6) (b)(6)

IDavis, Mike P

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000279
Page 6 of 9

(b)(6)

b 6
(b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6)
Cc: ICb)(6)

Fulghum, Chipl(b)(6) Homan, Thomas (b)(6)
I

b 6
(b)(6)
(b)(6) (b)(6) Kevinl(b)(6)

Icarroll, Kevirl(b)(6)

(b)(6) SubjeCt. Status after court order

Nielsen, Kirstjen Metzler Alan
I
I
Palmer David
I
I
Carroll
I

Ctmtains Attorney-Client Communication Attorney Work Product

Just to give you the current status, based on tonight's events. 1 thought 1 would send you this note. (b)(5)

Joseph B. Maher Acting General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security
l(b)(6)
This communication, along lrith any attachments, is covered by federal and state lmv governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. ({ the reader ofthis message is not the intended recl]Jient, you are herehy notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohihited. {{you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you.
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000280
Page 7 of 9

Sender• Maher, Joseph (b)(6) • (b)(6) (b)(6)
"Davis, Mike (b)(6) (b)(6)
"Nielsen Kirs ·en b 6 (b)(6) "Metzler, Alan b 6 (b)(6) "Ful hem Chi b 6 (b)(6) "Homan Thomas b 6 (b)(6)

"MCALEENAN KEVIN K Cbl(6l (b)(6) "Corbin Susan b 6
(b)(6)

Recipien t:

"Clark (b)(6)

Alaina

(b)(6)

"La an David b 6 (b)(6)

"Gowadia, Huban b 6 b 6 "Rasicot, Gary b 6 (b)(6)

DHS-01-HQLI-14-000281
Page 8 of 9

"Palmer David (b)(6) (b)(6)
rro , evm b 6 (b)(6) "carroll, Kevin (b)(6) (b)(6)
am1 ton, ene (b)(6) (b)(6)
Sent Date: 2017/02/06 18:19:49 Delivered Date: 2017/02/06 18:19:50
DHS-01-HQLI-14-000282
Page 9 of 9

 
 From: To :
Cc: Subject:
Date:

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) HUTTON, JAMES R
HOFFMAN, TODD A;· ·· RE: Waiver Request for Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:13:07 PM

Waiver granted by C1, 1312 hours.
Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Cormnissioner Office ofField Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection
From: HUTTON, JAMES R Sent: Saturday, Januruy 28, 2017 5:56:22 PM
-To: Owen, Todd C (AC
Cc: HOFFMAN, TODD
Subject: Waiver Request for 212(1)

at JFK aboard Nmwegian

..n ,rnn'"' One at .

hours.

po!;se!;SlCin oflraqi passpo~ and valid ZZ refugee Classification Foil #

Subject was refen·ed to Passpmt Control Secondruy for a 1 day Augmented-

interview

The subject was bom and raised in-

Iraq and has been living there-

The subject left Iraq about -

ago due to death threats and an attempted kidnapping

The subject left Iraq and traveled .

and then onward to -

The subject has been

and remained unemployed

While in Iraq he worked
•

..

EO FOIA CBP 0000000233

The subject is intending to travel This is the subject's first trip to the United States Previous travel outside oflraq is Subject states
checked.

-

J. Ryan Hutton
-Deputy Executive Director
Admissibility and Passenger Programs
Washington, DC

[cid:imageOOl .png@OlDOOE30.B35BEEBO]
Wflfttiftg: This aeetlffteftt is ~TCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE <»HX (UIIFOUO). It eefttftifts iftfetmtttieR tftat 1ftftY be elfetftfJt ifem fJHblie Felease M:Raet' the Ft'eeaem eflftfenBotieR Aet (5 U.S.C. 552). It is t.e be eefttfellea, steFea, aOREilea, tnmSlftittea, aistrielttea, flfta Eli:sfJesea ef in aeeeFaORee \vita DHS fJeliey Feltttittg te FOUO iflfetmotieRflfta is Ret t.e be Feleasea te the f'ltblie eFetlieF fJeFSeRRel vlfte ae Ret liftve a valia "Reea te latew" witlieHt fJt'ieFflfJfJf6'<'fll ef8ft atttaem ea DHS efiieifll. ~le fJeftieR ef this FefJeft slieHIEi be flimisaea te tfte lfteelia, eitfteFifl Wl'itteR 61' YeFba}fetm. This aeeltlfteftt, ORa OilY ftttftehlfleRt(s) fteFet.e, may eeRtftifl eettfiaefttia}flR4ieF seRSitive U.S. Ge•.•efftlfteftt infennotieR, flfta is Ret feF t'elease, Feviev,r, Fett·ORSmissieR, aisselfliBa.tieR et' liSe by fltlYeRe etlieF tft8ft the iftteRaea t'eeifJieftt(s). Please Ratify tfte seREieFif this elftflil lias beea mi:sait·eetea flfta itftlfteaia.tely aestfey all eFigittals ORa eefJies ef tae et'igiftfll. ,'\ny ai:selesltt'e efthis aeeltltleftt lftltSt ee flfJfJFevea ey U.S. CltStems tuta Bet'aet' PFeteetieR.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000234

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 44 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 4

CHAD A. READLER 1 Acting Assistant Attorney General

2 ALEX G. TSE Acting United States Attorney
3
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO 4 Deputy Branch Director

5 KARI E. D’OTTAVIO (NY Bar No. 5338785) Trial Attorney
6 United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
7 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530
8 Tel: (202) 305-0568 Fax: (202) 616-8470
9 kari.e.d’ottavio@usdoj.gov

10 Counsel for Defendants

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13 CORA CURRIER,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

14

Plaintiff,

JOINT STATUS REPORT

15

v.

16

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

17

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

18

Defendants.

19

Plaintiff Cora Currier and Defendants—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of

20 Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)— 21 respectfully submit this Joint Status Report.1

22

1. This case arises from multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by

23 Plaintiff, dated February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017. The requests seek records from the four defendant

24 agencies, including from multiple offices and/or sub-agencies within them.

25

2. The parties have been filing periodic joint status reports and have participated in multiple

26 1 The components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the Office
27 of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”);
28 and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 44 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 4

1 status conferences since the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 24,

2 2017. The parties also have been conferring about the scope and prioritization of Plaintiff’s FOIA

3 requests.

4

3. On December 7, 2017, the parties jointly proposed that the Court enter an order requiring

5 the parties to file joint status reports on the second Thursday of every month, beginning on January 11,

6 2018, until further order of the Court. The parties further indicated that, if any party identifies any issue

7 that the party believes warrants the Court’s intervention, the parties will meet and confer about the issue,

8 and if the parties are unable to resolve the issue, will identify the issue in their next monthly status report

9 and request that the Court schedule a status hearing. In the interim, the parties explained, they do not

10 believe that regular status hearings are necessary.

11

4. Pursuant to the parties’ proposal, the parties filed joint status reports on January 11, 2018

12 and February 8, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Court endorsed the parties’ proposed scheduling order.

13

Production Updates and Status

14

5. Seven agencies or components—DOJ-OLC, DOJ-OIP, DOD, DOS, DHS-OIG, DHS-

15 PRIV, and DHS-CBP—continue to make rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis. The

16 attachment to this joint status report indicates the dates and volumes of all of Defendants’ releases to

17 date. The attachment does not reflect the volume of records that were processed but determined non-

18 responsive.

19

6. DOJ-EOUSA, DOJ-USMS, and DOJ-FBI have completed their processing of Plaintiff’s

20 requests to those components.

21

7. Agencies or components that have completed processing may need to process additional

22 records if they receive referrals from other agencies or components for direct release to Plaintiff or are

23 asked to consult or coordinate with other agencies that are processing Plaintiff’s requests.

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 44 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 4

Date: March 8, 2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ALEX G. TSE Acting United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Kari E. D’Ottavio KARI E. D’OTTAVIO Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0568 Fax: (202) 616-8470 kari.e.d’ottavio@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

13

/s/ Marcia Hofmann

Marcia Hofmann

14

ZEITGEIST LAW PC

25 Taylor Street

15

San Francisco, CA 94102

Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law

16

Telephone: (415) 830-6664

17

Counsel for Plaintiff Cora Currier

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 44 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 4

LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 1

2

I certify that I have obtained Marcia Hofmann’s concurrence in the filing of this document.

3

/s/ Kari E. D’Ottavio

Kari E. D’Ottavio

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 4

 
 From: To :
Cc: Subject:
Date:

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) HUTTON, JAMES R
HOFFMAN, TODD A;· ·· RE: Waiver Request for Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:13:07 PM

Waiver granted by C1, 1312 hours.
Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Cormnissioner Office ofField Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection
From: HUTTON, JAMES R Sent: Saturday, Januruy 28, 2017 5:56:22 PM
-To: Owen, Todd C (AC
Cc: HOFFMAN, TODD
Subject: Waiver Request for 212(1)

at JFK aboard Nmwegian

..n ,rnn'"' One at .

hours.

po!;se!;SlCin oflraqi passpo~ and valid ZZ refugee Classification Foil #

Subject was refen·ed to Passpmt Control Secondruy for a 1 day Augmented-

interview

The subject was bom and raised in-

Iraq and has been living there-

The subject left Iraq about -

ago due to death threats and an attempted kidnapping

The subject left Iraq and traveled .

and then onward to -

The subject has been

and remained unemployed

While in Iraq he worked
•

..

EO FOIA CBP 0000000233

The subject is intending to travel This is the subject's first trip to the United States Previous travel outside oflraq is Subject states
checked.

-

J. Ryan Hutton
-Deputy Executive Director
Admissibility and Passenger Programs
Washington, DC

[cid:imageOOl .png@OlDOOE30.B35BEEBO]
Wflfttiftg: This aeetlffteftt is ~TCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE <»HX (UIIFOUO). It eefttftifts iftfetmtttieR tftat 1ftftY be elfetftfJt ifem fJHblie Felease M:Raet' the Ft'eeaem eflftfenBotieR Aet (5 U.S.C. 552). It is t.e be eefttfellea, steFea, aOREilea, tnmSlftittea, aistrielttea, flfta Eli:sfJesea ef in aeeeFaORee \vita DHS fJeliey Feltttittg te FOUO iflfetmotieRflfta is Ret t.e be Feleasea te the f'ltblie eFetlieF fJeFSeRRel vlfte ae Ret liftve a valia "Reea te latew" witlieHt fJt'ieFflfJfJf6'<'fll ef8ft atttaem ea DHS efiieifll. ~le fJeftieR ef this FefJeft slieHIEi be flimisaea te tfte lfteelia, eitfteFifl Wl'itteR 61' YeFba}fetm. This aeeltlfteftt, ORa OilY ftttftehlfleRt(s) fteFet.e, may eeRtftifl eettfiaefttia}flR4ieF seRSitive U.S. Ge•.•efftlfteftt infennotieR, flfta is Ret feF t'elease, Feviev,r, Fett·ORSmissieR, aisselfliBa.tieR et' liSe by fltlYeRe etlieF tft8ft the iftteRaea t'eeifJieftt(s). Please Ratify tfte seREieFif this elftflil lias beea mi:sait·eetea flfta itftlfteaia.tely aestfey all eFigittals ORa eefJies ef tae et'igiftfll. ,'\ny ai:selesltt'e efthis aeeltltleftt lftltSt ee flfJfJFevea ey U.S. CltStems tuta Bet'aet' PFeteetieR.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000234

 
 EO FOIA CBP 0000000224

EO FOIA CBP 0000000225

EO FOIA CBP 0000000226

EO FOIA CBP 0000000227

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(OCC)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: UPDATED Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry

into the United States

Importance: High

DFO’s As a follow up from guidance sent last night. In addition to waivers for LPRs, the Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated waiver authority to the Commissioner of CBP for only the following categories of individuals subject to the EO:
• Returning Refugees (to include any 1st time refugees encountered); • Returning Asylees; • Individuals in possession of a valid I-512 issued by CIS; • UAC

The request for said waiver will need to follow the below format sent initially to the below

distro • (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
• (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov @cbp.dhs.gov

• (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) • EAC Owen

@cbp.dhs.gov

• DEAC Wagner • (b) (6), (b) (7) • (XCD) Hoffman • (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

• DXD Hutton • OFO Field Liaison

I have also attached some samples that were submitted for approval today.

Sample

Subject Line: EO 212(f) Exemption for LAST NAME, (f/n) First name

Waiver Narrative
(b) (5)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000228

(b) (5)
Specific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:
(b) (5)

(b) (5)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000229

EO FOIA CBP 0000000230

 
 EO FOIA CBP 0000000224

EO FOIA CBP 0000000225

EO FOIA CBP 0000000226

EO FOIA CBP 0000000227

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(OCC)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: UPDATED Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry

into the United States

Importance: High

DFO’s As a follow up from guidance sent last night. In addition to waivers for LPRs, the Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated waiver authority to the Commissioner of CBP for only the following categories of individuals subject to the EO:
• Returning Refugees (to include any 1st time refugees encountered); • Returning Asylees; • Individuals in possession of a valid I-512 issued by CIS; • UAC

The request for said waiver will need to follow the below format sent initially to the below

distro • (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
• (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov @cbp.dhs.gov

• (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) • EAC Owen

@cbp.dhs.gov

• DEAC Wagner • (b) (6), (b) (7) • (XCD) Hoffman • (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

• DXD Hutton • OFO Field Liaison

I have also attached some samples that were submitted for approval today.

Sample

Subject Line: EO 212(f) Exemption for LAST NAME, (f/n) First name

Waiver Narrative
(b) (5)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000228

(b) (5)
Specific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:
(b) (5)

(b) (5)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000229

EO FOIA CBP 0000000230

 
 (b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C), (b) (7)(F)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (5)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (5)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (5), (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b()b)(6(6))

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

 
 Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 45 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 4

CHAD A. READLER 1 Acting Assistant Attorney General

2 ALEX G. TSE Acting United States Attorney
3
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO 4 Deputy Branch Director

5 KARI E. D’OTTAVIO (NY Bar No. 5338785) Trial Attorney
6 United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
7 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530
8 (202) 305-0568 (202) 616-8470 (fax)
9 kari.e.d’ottavio@usdoj.gov

10 Counsel for Defendants

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13 CORA CURRIER,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01799-JSC

14

Plaintiff,

JOINT STATUS REPORT

15

v.

16

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

17

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

18

Defendants.

19

Plaintiff Cora Currier and Defendants—the Department of State (DOS), the Department of

20 Justice (DOJ), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)— 21 respectfully submit this Joint Status Report.1

22

1. This case arises from multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by

23 Plaintiff, dated February 1, 2017, and April 3, 2017. The requests seek records from the four defendant

24 agencies, including from multiple offices and/or sub-agencies within them.

25

2. The parties have been filing periodic joint status reports and have participated in multiple

26 1 The components of DOJ and DHS that are processing Plaintiff’s requests are: (1) the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”); (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (3) the Office
27 of Legal Counsel (“OLC”); (4) the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”); (5) the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”); (6) the DHS Privacy Office (“DHS-PRIV”); (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”);
28 and (8) DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (“DHS-OIG”).
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 1

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 45 Filed 04/12/18 Page 2 of 4

1 status conferences since the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 24,

2 2017. The parties also have been conferring about the scope and prioritization of Plaintiff’s FOIA

3 requests.

4

3. On December 7, 2017, the parties jointly proposed that the Court enter an order requiring

5 the parties to file joint status reports on the second Thursday of every month, beginning on January 11,

6 2018, until further order of the Court. The parties further indicated that, if any party identifies any issue

7 that the party believes warrants the Court’s intervention, the parties will meet and confer about the issue,

8 and if the parties are unable to resolve the issue, will identify the issue in their next monthly status report

9 and request that the Court schedule a status hearing. In the interim, the parties explained, they do not

10 believe that regular status hearings are necessary.

11

4. On February 9, 2018, the Court endorsed the parties’ proposed scheduling order.

12

Production Updates and Status

13

5. Five agencies or components—DOJ-OLC, DOS, DHS-OIG, DHS-PRIV, and DHS-

14 CBP—continue to make rolling productions on approximately a monthly basis. The attachment to this

15 joint status report indicates the dates and volumes of all of Defendants’ releases to date. The attachment

16 does not reflect the volume of records that were processed but determined non-responsive.

17

6. DOJ-EOUSA, DOJ-USMS, DOJ-FBI, DOJ-OIP, and DOD have completed their

18 processing of Plaintiff’s requests to those components.

19

7. Agencies or components that have completed processing may need to process additional

20 records if they receive referrals from other agencies or components for direct release to Plaintiff or are

21 asked to consult or coordinate with other agencies that are processing Plaintiff’s requests.

22 Date: April 12, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

23

CHAD A. READLER

24

Acting Assistant Attorney General

25

ALEX G. TSE Acting United States Attorney

26

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO

27

Deputy Branch Director

28

/s/ Kari E. D’Ottavio

JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 2

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 45 Filed 04/12/18 Page 3 of 4

KARI E. D’OTTAVIO

1

Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice

2

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

20 Massachusetts Avenue NW

3

Washington, DC 20530

(202) 305-0568

4

(202) 616-8470 (fax)

kari.e.d’ottavio@usdoj.gov 5

Counsel for Defendants 6

7

/s/ Marcia Hofmann

Marcia Hofmann

8

ZEITGEIST LAW PC

25 Taylor Street

9

San Francisco, CA 94102

Email: marcia@zeitgeist.law

10

Telephone: (415) 830-6664

11

Counsel for Plaintiff Cora Currier

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 3

Case 3:17-cv-01799-JSC Document 45 Filed 04/12/18 Page 4 of 4

LOCAL RULE 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 1

2

I certify that I have obtained Marcia Hofmann’s concurrence in the filing of this document.

3

/s/ Kari E. D’Ottavio

Kari E. D’Ottavio

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT STATUS REPORT, Case No. 3:17-CV-01799-JSC - Page 4

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-1799 As of: 11/10/2018 09:24 AM PST 1 of 6
ADRMOP,CONSENT
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17−cv−01799−JSC

Currier v. Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/31/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Cora Currier

represented by Kendra K. Albert Zeitgeist Law 25 Taylor St San Francisco, CA 94102 (203) 424−0382 Email: kendra@zeitgeist.law ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Clare Hofmann Zeitgeist Law PC 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 415−830−6664 Email: marcia@marciahofmann.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security
Defendant Department of State

represented by Matthew J. Berns U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−616−8016 Email: Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kari E D'Ottavio United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 12310 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 305−0568 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: kari.e.d'ottavio@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew J. Berns (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kari E D'Ottavio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:17-cv-1799 As of: 11/10/2018 09:24 AM PST 2 of 6

Defendant Department of Justice

represented by Matthew J. Berns (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kari E D'Ottavio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Department of Defense

represented by Matthew J. Berns (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kari E D'Ottavio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/31/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017
03/31/2017 04/03/2017 04/06/2017 04/12/2017 05/05/2017 05/05/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Injunctive Relief against Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−11279648.). Filed byCora Currier. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 3/31/2017) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
2 Certificate of Interested Entities by Cora Currier (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 3/31/2017) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
3 Proposed Summons. (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 3/31/2017) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 4/14/2017. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2017) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 6/22/2017. Case Management Conference set for 6/29/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2017) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
6 Summons Issued as to US Attorney.(ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2017) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
7 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Cora Currier.. (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 4/6/2017) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cora Currier (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 4/12/2017) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew J. Berns (Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 5/5/2017) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
10 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State.. (Berns, Matthew)

Case: 3:17-cv-1799 As of: 11/10/2018 09:24 AM PST 3 of 6

05/05/2017 05/05/2017 05/08/2017 05/08/2017 05/19/2017
05/23/2017 06/01/2017 06/26/2017 06/26/2017 07/20/2017 07/20/2017
07/21/2017
07/24/2017

(Filed on 5/5/2017) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cora Currier (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 5/5/2017) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
12 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Pleading, ADR, and Initial Case Management Conference Deadlines filed by Cora Currier. (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 5/5/2017) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
13 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 12 Stipulation to Extend Pleading, ADR, and Initial Case Management Conference Deadlines. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2017) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Case Management Statement due by 8/10/2017. Initial Case Management Conference reset for 8/17/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2017) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for Injunctive Relief against Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State. Filed by Cora Currier. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Department of Defense)(Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 5/19/2017) Modified on 5/23/2017 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/19/2017)
15 Summons Issued as to Department of Defense. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2017) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Supplemental) by Cora Currier (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 6/1/2017) Modified on 6/2/2017 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/01/2017)
17 ANSWER to 14 First Amended Complaint; by Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State. (Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 6/26/2017) Modified on 6/27/2017 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2017)
18 JOINDER & CONSENT re 10 Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Department of Defense. (Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 6/26/2017) Modified on 6/27/2017 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/26/2017)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Kendra K. Albert (Albert, Kendra) (Filed on 7/20/2017) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Cora Currier. Motion Hearing set for 8/24/2017 09:00 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Responses due by 8/3/2017. Replies due by 8/10/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marcia Hofmann, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Proposed Order)(Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 7/20/2017) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
21 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Modifying Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Continuing ADR Deadlines and Case Management Conference filed by Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State. (Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 7/21/2017) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
22 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 21 Stipulation Modifying Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Continuing ADR Deadlines and Case Management Conference.
(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)
(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-1799 As of: 11/10/2018 09:24 AM PST 4 of 6

07/24/2017 07/24/2017 07/31/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/10/2017
08/11/2017 08/17/2017 08/18/2017 08/24/2017

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Responses due by 8/10/2017. Replies due by 8/17/2017. Motion Hearing reset for 9/7/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Case Management Statement due by 9/28/2017. Initial Case Management Conference reset for 10/5/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
23 MOTION to Shorten Time for Hearing Motion for Preliminary Injunction to August 24, 2017 filed by Cora Currier. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marcia Hofmann, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 7/31/2017) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
24 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 23 Motion to Shorten Time. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2017) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Motion Hearing reset for 8/24/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2017) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
25 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byDepartment of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A − Chart of Pending FOIA Litigation, # 3 Exhibit B − DHS−OIG Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C − DOJ−FBI Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D − DOJ−EOUSA Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E − DOJ−OIP Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F − DOJ−OLC Declaration, # 8 Exhibit G − DOS Declaration, # 9 Exhibit H − DOD Declaration, # 10 Exhibit I − DHS−PRIV Declaration, # 11 Exhibit J − DHS−CBP Declaration)(Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 8/10/2017) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
26 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Kendra K. Albert (Albert, Kendra) (Filed on 8/11/2017) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
27 REPLY (re 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byCora Currier. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental of Marcia Hofmann, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 8/17/2017) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Kari E D'Ottavio (D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 8/18/2017) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley: Motion Hearing held on 8/24/2017 re 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Cora Currier. The parties shall meet and confer re: defendant's rolling production of documents. A status conference is set for 9/7/2017 at 2:00 p.m. and the parties shall file a joint status report by 9/6/2017. (FTR Time 8:59−9:11.)

Attorney for Plaintiff: Marcia Hofmann. Attorneys for Defendants: Kari D'Ottario; Matthew Berns.

08/24/2017 09/06/2017 09/07/2017

This is a text−only Minute Entry (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/24/2017) Modified on 9/29/2017: Matter transcribed by Tara Bauer (ECHO Reporting). (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/24/2017)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 9/6/2017. Status Conference set for 9/7/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2017) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
30 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 9/6/2017) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
31 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley: Status Conference held on 9/7/2017. Production of documents are

Case: 3:17-cv-1799 As of: 11/10/2018 09:24 AM PST 5 of 6

09/27/2017 09/28/2017
09/29/2017 10/06/2017
10/06/2017
10/25/2017 10/26/2017

ongoing. The case management conference set for 10/5/2017 is vacated. Joint Status Report due by 9/27/2017. Status Conference set for 9/28/2017 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Counsel may appear by telephone and shall contact Court Call at 1−888−882−6878 to make the arrangements to appear by telephone. (FTR Time 2:26−2:36.)
Attorney for Plaintiff: Marcia Hofmann. Attorney for Defendants: Matthew Berns.
This is a text−only Minute Entry (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/7/2017) Modified on 9/29/2017: Matter transcribed by Tara Bauer (ECHO Reporting). (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/07/2017)
32 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Cora Currier. (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 9/27/2017) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
33 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley: Status Conference held on 9/28/2017. Status Report due by 10/25/2017. Further Status Conference set for 10/26/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (Not Reported)(Time: 2 minutes)
Attorney for Plaintiff: Marcia Hofmann. Attorney for Defendant: Matthew Berns via Court Call.
(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)
(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/28/2017) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
34 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 8/24/2017 & 09/07/2017 before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security, for Court Reporter FTR − San Francisco. (Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 9/29/2017) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
35 Transcript of Proceedings of the official sound recording held on 08/24/17, before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. FTR/Transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc., telephone number 8584537590. Tape Number: FTR 8:59 − 9:11. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 10/27/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/6/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/4/2018. (tgb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2017) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
36 Transcript of Proceedings of the official sound recording held on 09/07/17, before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. FTR/Transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc., telephone number 8584537590. Tape Number: FTR 2:26 − 2:36. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 34 Transcript Order, ) Redaction Request due 10/27/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/6/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/4/2018. (Related documents(s) 34 ) (tgb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2017) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
37 STATUS REPORT Joint by Cora Currier. (Hofmann, Marcia) (Filed on 10/25/2017) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
38 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/26/2017. The parties shall submit a joint status report by December 7, 2017. The report shall include a joint

Case: 3:17-cv-1799 As of: 11/10/2018 09:24 AM PST 6 of 6

12/07/2017
01/11/2018
02/08/2018
02/08/2018 02/09/2018 03/08/2018 04/12/2018 05/10/2018 06/14/2018 07/12/2018 08/09/2018 09/13/2018 10/09/2018 10/11/2018 11/08/2018

recommendation as to what the Court should do next. (FTR Time: 1:30−1:33.)
Attorney for Plaintiff: Marcia Hofmann. Attorney for Defendant: Matthew Berns.
(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)
(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/26/2017) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
39 STATUS REPORT by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Spreadsheet), # 2 Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 12/7/2017) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
40 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit: Spreadsheet)(Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 1/11/2018) Modified on 1/12/2018 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/11/2018)
41 Joint STATUS REPORT by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 2/8/2018) Modified on 2/9/2018 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/2018)
42 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Matthew J. Berns (Berns, Matthew) (Filed on 2/8/2018) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
43 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 2/9/2018. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2018) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
44 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 3/8/2018) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
45 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 4/12/2018) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
46 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 5/10/2018) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
47 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 6/14/2018) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
48 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 7/12/2018) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
49 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 8/9/2018) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
50 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 9/13/2018) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
51 NOTICE of Change of Address by Kari E D'Ottavio (D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 10/9/2018) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
52 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 10/11/2018) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
53 STATUS REPORT Joint by Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Spreadsheet)(D'Ottavio, Kari) (Filed on 11/8/2018) (Entered: 11/08/2018)