Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-23-05069/USCOURTS-caDC-23-05069-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fleta Christina C. Sabra
Appellant
United States Customs and Border Protection
Appellee

Document Text:

1 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 23-5069 September Term, 2024 FILED ON: DECEMBER 20, 2024 

FLETA CHRISTINA C. SABRA, 

APPELLANT

v. 

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:20-cv-00681) 

Before: RAO and CHILDS, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. 

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The Court has afforded 

the issues full consideration and determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See 

D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders are AFFIRMED.

* * * 

I.

A.

Fleta Christina Cousin Sabra alleges that, in September 2015, agents of U.S. Customs and 

Border Patrol (CBP) mistreated her when she entered the United States from Mexico at a port-ofentry in Southern California with a family of Syrian asylum-seekers. Sabra subsequently filed a 

misconduct complaint with CBP. On May 5, 2017, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, Sabra requested that CBP produce agency records relating to her 

USCA Case #23-5069 Document #2090721 Filed: 12/20/2024 Page 1 of 4
2

encounter with CBP officials and CBP’s subsequent investigation of her misconduct complaint 

against those CBP officials. Sabra also sought expedited processing of her request. 

B.

On March 9, 2020, Sabra commenced an action in the district court to compel CBP to 

search for and produce responsive records. Sabra moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing 

that CBP had failed to respond to her request for expedited processing within the 10-day period 

required by FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I). 

The district court denied Sabra’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Among other 

reasons, the district court found that judgment was unwarranted because CBP had begun to 

produce responsive records in the time since Sabra filed her complaint.

After producing all responsive records, CBP moved for summary judgment, filing an 

affidavit that described the agency’s search process. The district court denied without prejudice 

CBP’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the agency’s affidavit had not averred that 

CBP had searched all locations likely to contain responsive materials. CBP again moved for 

summary judgment. CBP filed a supplemental affidavit stating that CBP had searched all locations 

likely to hold responsive records. The district court granted CBP’s renewed motion for summary 

judgment, finding that the agency’s supplemental affidavit described a search reasonably designed 

to produce responsive records. 

Sabra then filed this appeal challenging the district court’s denial of her motion for 

judgment on the pleadings as to the timeliness of CBP’s response to Sabra’s request for expedited 

processing. Sabra also challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the adequacy 

of CBP’s search.

C.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Kowal v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Just., 107 F.4th 1018, 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2024). We also review de novo a denial of a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings. Seed Co. Ltd. v. Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian, LLP, 961 

F.3d 1190, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

II.

We first consider the district court’s denial of Sabra’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings. In cases involving FOIA, once an agency has “turned over all responsive documents,” 

courts “lack authority to turn back the clock and compel the [agency] to hand them over faster.”

Shapiro v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 40 F.4th 609, 615 (D.C. Cir. 2022). At the time the district court 

heard Sabra’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, CBP was in the process of completing Sabra’s 

request. Shortly thereafter, CBP made its first production of responsive records. When the district 

court ruled on Sabra’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, CBP had already produced 

responsive records and therefore Sabra’s motion was moot. Accordingly, the district court’s denial 

USCA Case #23-5069 Document #2090721 Filed: 12/20/2024 Page 2 of 4
3

of judgment on the pleadings was proper.

III.

We next review the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of CBP. “An

agency fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can demonstrate beyond material doubt that its 

search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. 

Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citations omitted). To 

assess the adequacy of a search, a reviewing court will rely on “a reasonably detailed affidavit,” 

describing the methods used by the agency to respond to the request. Cabezas v. FBI, 109 F.4th 

596, 602 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (internal quotations omitted). An agency’s affidavit is typically afforded 

a “presumption of good faith,” unless “the plaintiff provides countervailing evidence as to the 

adequacy of the agency’s search, or the record leaves substantial doubt as to the sufficiency of the 

search.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Sabra contends that CBP failed to conduct an adequate search because: (1) in part of its 

search, it employed search terms that were not reasonably calculated to produce responsive 

records; (2) it ignored positive indicia that the email inbox of then-Deputy CBP Commissioner

Kevin McAleenan could have contained overlooked responsive records; (3) it did not search the 

records of the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA); and (4) it did not refer Sabra’s request to other 

relevant components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). None of these claims raise 

substantial doubts regarding the adequacy of CBP’s search. 

1. Inadequacy of search terms. Sabra objects that the terms employed by CBP’s Office of 

Information Technology (OIT) to search the email accounts of five CBP employees identified as 

potential witnesses to Sabra’s encounter were not reasonably calculated to produce responsive 

records. The six terms employed, Sabra contends, did not all appear in the FOIA request. Further, 

Sabra claims that OIT did not use more pertinent search terms such as the case number assigned 

to the investigation of her complaint. Three terms used by CBP, “Sabra,” “Cousinsabra,” and 

“Cousin-Sabra,” are iterations of Sabra’s full name, Fleta Christina Cousin Sabra. The three other 

terms, variations on “Syria,” captured documents that referred to the family that traveled with 

Sabra during the encounter at the port-of-entry. Sabra did not adequately explain why the terms 

employed by CBP were unreasonable and would not produce responsive records. Nor did Sabra 

clarify why using the investigation case number as a search term would have returned additional 

responsive documents. 

2. Positive indicia of overlooked responsive records. Sabra argues that OIT should have 

run a thorough search of the former Deputy CBP Commissioner’s inbox for potentially overlooked 

responsive records. Sabra relies on a September 2015 email (the McAleenan-Mack Email), which 

Megan Mack, the DHS Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the time, sent to 

Commissioner McAleenan. The email, describing Sabra’s complaint and allegations, was 

produced by CBP Office of Professional Responsibility’s search of a database that held records 

pertaining to claims of employee misconduct and related investigations. Sabra’s claim is 

speculative, as the McAleenan-Mack Email provided no clear indication that McAleenan’s inbox 

USCA Case #23-5069 Document #2090721 Filed: 12/20/2024 Page 3 of 4
4 

contained additional responsive records. 

3. Failure to search OIA records. Sabra alleges that CBP failed to search all potentially

responsive records, because it did not search OIA’s records. Sabra ignores that CBP did search 

the records of OIA’s successor agency, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Citing 

CBP’s website, the district court’s order properly took judicial notice of the fact that OIA’s name 

had changed to OPR. 

4. Failure to refer request to other DHS components. According to Sabra, DHS should 

have forwarded her FOIA request to the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office 

of the Inspector General, because DHS regulations require components to reroute misdirected 

FOIA requests to the proper components. See 6 C.F.R. § 5.4(c) (2015). Sabra’s request was not 

misdirected as CBP produced at least some records responsive to Sabra’s request. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that CBP conducted an adequate 

search in response to Sabra’s FOIA request.

* * * 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings and grant 

of summary judgment are affirmed. 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed 

to withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for 

rehearing or rehearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41(a)(1).

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

 Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk 

USCA Case #23-5069 Document #2090721 Filed: 12/20/2024 Page 4 of 4