Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31148/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31148

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL WAYNE GAHAGAN, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 

 Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:14-CV-1268

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:∗

Michael Wayne Gahagan, an immigration attorney, filed a Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) request with United States Citizenship & Immigration 

Services (USCIS) on behalf of a client in removal proceedings. After not 

receiving a timely response, he filed suit in federal district court. During the 

proceedings before the district court, USCIS released 436 pages of responsive 

∗ Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-31148 Document: 00513036938 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2015
No. 14-31148

documents to Gahagan; thirty-three pages were redacted in full and stated 

only “Referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement” (ICE). The district 

court subsequently entered judgment for USCIS, and Gahagan now appeals. 

Gahagan argues that judgment in favor of USCIS was improper because the 

thirty-three pages referred to ICE were improperly withheld under FOIA. 

However, after Gahagan filed his brief, USCIS filed a motion to supplement 

the record on appeal with new evidence, including additional FOIA disclosures 

made during the appeal, and alleged that ICE had released the thirty-three 

pages to Gahagan. In response, Gahagan filed a motion to vacate the order 

granting USCIS’s motion to supplement.

USCIS urges that the appeal is now moot. Gahagan argues that the 

appeal is not moot because ICE partially redacted the thirty-three pages and

the district court has not upheld the withholdings as lawful. He further

challenges the fact that neither agency has produced an affidavit or Vaughn1

index regarding the claimed exemptions to disclosure. He also raises concerns 

about the “ex post facto unverified declaration[]” of Fernando Pineiro, the 

Deputy FOIA Officer for ICE, which describes ICE’s FOIA referral backlog and 

how ICE processes such referrals. The district court has not had the 

opportunity to view these materials or to consider the parties’ ensuing 

arguments.2 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and

the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.

Gahagan’s motion to vacate this court’s order permitting supplementation of 

the record is DENIED.

1 Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

2 See De la O v. Hous. Auth. of El Paso, Tex., 417 F.3d 495, 500 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing 

Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir. 1988)).

2

 

Case: 14-31148 Document: 00513036938 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2015