Opinion ID: 2832467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rubman’s FOIA Request

Text: David Rubman is a retired immigration attorney and former adjunct law professor at Northwestern University. On May 10, 2012, he submitted a FOIA request to CIS for the following: [C]opies of all documents reflecting statistics (specified below) about H-1B visa applications that were assigned a receipt number for [fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012]. The requested statistics for each of the re- quested years are: (a) Number of H-1B visa applications for cap-subject initial employment; (b) Number of approved H-1B visa applica- tions … ; (c) Number of denied H-1B visa applica- tions … ; (d) Number of withdrawn H-1B visa appli- cations … . …. I am seeking documents which will show whether [CIS] is complying with the statutory mandate … to issue no more than 65,000 cap- No. 14-3733 5 subject H-1B visas in each of the listed fiscal years. Rubman closed his FOIA request by saying, “If you have any question about what documents I am seeking, please contact me so that we can both be on the same page about what I am asking for.” CIS replied by letter on September 17. The agency stated, “We have completed our search for records that are responsive to your request. The record consists of 4 pages of material and we have determined to release it in full.” In substance, the agency’s response consisted of a single statistical table purporting to show the data Rubman had requested. Beneath the table was a list of indecipherable database query “parameters” used to create the table. Also listed was the date the statistical table was generated: August 14, 2012, about three months after Rubman’s FOIA request. On October 1 Rubman wrote CIS, pointing out that the agency’s table did not classify receipts by fiscal year as he’d requested; if it had, the total number of receipted petitions per year would equal the sum of the approvals, denials, and withdrawals for that year (i.e., every receipted petition would be accounted for). CIS responded by e-mail on October 12. The agency “sincerely apologize[d] for any inconvenience our original response may have caused” and attached a revised table. Rubman wrote to CIS once more on October 22. He con- tended that the new table was “clearly inaccurate” and “cannot be reconciled” with either the first table CIS had provided or other publicly available data. For example, Rubman pointed out that the first table showed three-and-a-half times 6 No. 14-3733 as many denials as the second table. After explaining the apparent incongruities, Rubman concluded (and we quote him without alteration): In light of this serious discrepancy, I must insist that you provide me the documents I originally asked for: “ALL documents reflect- ing statistics … about H-1B visas that were as- signed a receipt number for (2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012].” (emphasis added). I am sure there are, inter alia, weekly and monthly statistical reports as well as emails discussing the calcula- tion of when the cap is reached. Jill Eggleston, CIS’s Director of FOIA Operations, responded on November 14 stating that the second table was “complete and accurate.” She explained that CIS created the table because it had interpreted Rubman’s initial request as one for statistics. Regarding his request for additional documents, Eggleston noted that “counting the cap is a very complex process.” She continued: Internal emails discussing the calculation of when the cap will be reached would not pro- vide you with an accurate calculation of H-1B cap filings for fiscal years 2009 to 2012, as they represent ongoing calculations and monitoring of cap filings until the cap closed each fiscal year. Additionally, they would not alter the outcome of the results that were provided to you on October 12, 2012, but rather only create additional confusion. No. 14-3733 7 Eggleston closed by reviewing in detail the alleged statistical discrepancies. In short, CIS’s position was that the “reports contain information based on different data points about different subsets of H-1B petitions,” and “[a]s a result, the data cannot be compared.” Rubman filed an administrative appeal with CIS, which was denied because the agency considers a request that has been “granted in full” unappealable. As permitted by FOIA, Rubman then filed this suit in federal court. 1 Settlement negotiations were tried and failed, and the case was submitted to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The judge observed that “the facts of the case at bar are unique in that the produced records mainly consisted of a Table that allegedly conveyed the information requested, as opposed to a disclosure of purely internal documents, which is more common in FOIA cases.” The judge went on to hold, however, that Rubman’s initial FOIA request was “non-specific and unwieldy” and therefore CIS’s interpretation of the request as one for statistics was reasonable. The judge also concluded that Rubman’s October 22 letter, which specifically requested internal reports and e-mails, was an impermissible “modification” of his original FOIA request to which CIS was not obliged to respond. The judge accordingly entered judgment for CIS, and Rubman appealed. 1 A district court’s jurisdiction over a FOIA suit arises under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), which requires the court to “determine the matter de novo” (i.e., without deference to the agency’s disclosure decision) and puts “the burden … on the agency to sustain its action.” If the court finds that the agency has unlawfully withheld records, it can enjoin the agency from withholding them and order their production. See id. 8 No. 14-3733