Opinion ID: 6330598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Three Sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual

Text: Knight requested “[a]ll Foreign Affairs Manual sections (current and former) relating to the endorse or espouse provisions or the foreign policy provision, as well as records discussing, interpreting, or providing guidance regarding such sections.” Joint App’x at 39. DOS describes the Foreign Affairs Manual and the associated Handbooks as a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department’s organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the State Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM (generally policy) and the [Foreign Affairs Handbooks] (generally procedures) together convey codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive and Department mandates. 10 DOS, Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook, https://fam.state.gov [https://perma.cc/5JJC-TKC6] (last visited Mar. 22, 2022). DOS provided relevant portions of the manual to Knight but redacted certain sections of 9 FAM. In general, 9 FAM includes “directives and guidance” for DOS personnel adjudicating U.S. visas. 9 FAM 101.1. DOS asserted that the redacted portions of the manual were exempt from disclosure under Exemption 7(E). 2 Versions of three partially redacted sections remain at issue: 9 FAM 302.6, 9 FAM 40.32, and 9 FAM 302.14. • Eight versions of 9 FAM 302.6. DOS redacted eight versions of 9 FAM 302.6, titled “Ineligibilities Based on Terrorism Related Grounds.” Joint App’x at 66. It asserted that the redacted 2 Exemption 7(E) excludes from the disclosure requirement “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes [the release of which] . . . would disclose techniques and 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.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). 11 portions “disclose law enforcement investigation techniques, procedures, and guidelines.” Id. Its Vaughn index 3 lists each redaction and explains how the redaction falls within the exemption. For example, “9 FAM 302.6-2(B)(1)(b). reveals interagency cooperation procedures during the process of checking for terrorism-related ineligibilities,” id.; and “9 FAM 302.6-2(B)(4)e. (2) and (5) gives guidelines for when spouses and children trigger the requirement for further security investigation and how to conduct that process,” id. at 67. DOS concluded that “[d]isclosure of any of the above information could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law 3As we have explained: The Vaughn index procedure was developed to avoid the cumbersome alternative of routinely having a district court examine numerous multipage documents in camera to make exemption rulings. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 825 (D.C. Cir. 1973). . . . A Vaughn index typically lists the titles and descriptions of the responsive documents that the Government contends are exempt from disclosure. In some cases detailed affidavits from agency officials may suffice to indicate that requested documents are exempt from disclosure. N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 758 F.3d 436, 438–39 (2d Cir.), supplemented by 762 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2014) (footnotes omitted). 12 because terrorists and other bad actors could use it to conceal derogatory information, provide fraudulent information, or otherwise circumvent the security checks put in place to ensure that terrorists and other bad actors cannot gain visas into the United States.” Id. at 68. • Three versions of 9 FAM 40.32. DOS redacted three versions of 9 FAM 40.32, which it reports are “earlier iterations of sections that are now incorporated into 9 FAM 302.6.” Id. As with 9 FAM 302.6, DOS provided an explanation for each redaction. It provided the same conclusion for withholding as with 9 FAM 302.6 (that is, disclosure could allow terrorists or other bad actors to circumvent the law). • One version of 9 FAM 302.14. DOS made several redactions to one version of 9 FAM 302.14, titled “Ineligibility Based on Sanctioned Activities.” Id. at 69. It asserted that the redacted portions “disclose law enforcement investigation techniques, 13 procedures, and guidelines” about several topics. Id. For example, it stated that the redacted portions included “guidelines for conducting the security investigation process, including whether certain procedures are mandatory, and what information to include in a request for those procedures.” Id. The district court held that 9 FAM was not “‘compiled for law enforcement purposes’ even if some sections of the FAM may serve those purposes.” Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 311, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Knight I”). Because DOS is a “mixed-function agency” performing both administrative and law enforcement functions, the court explained it would “‘scrutinize with some skepticism the particular purpose claimed for disputed documents redacted under FOIA 14 Exemption 7.’” Id. (quoting Tax Analysts v. IRS, 294 F.3d 71, 77 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). 4 First, the district court noted that some of the redacted portions fell within the “Definitions” section of 9 FAM and that that section appeared to derive from definitions included in the INA. Id. at 332– 33. The district court thus held that “[t]he similarity between the withheld information and the INA’s text . . . suggests Exemption 7(E) does not apply.” Id. at 333. Second, DOS admitted that the FAM “generally consists of policy.” The district court agreed, observing that “mere descriptions of codified law and policy, even those including interpretation and application of immigration laws and regulations, are not protected under Exemption 7(E).” Id. at 333 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Rather, “[t]o be ‘compiled for law enforcement 4 We have frequently noted the District of Columbia Circuit’s “particular FOIA expertise” and looked to its decisions for guidance in interpreting the FOIA. See, e.g., Whitaker v. Dep’t of Commerce, 970 F.3d 200, 206 & n.25 (2d Cir. 2020). 15 purposes,’ the information must go a step further and describe ‘proactive steps’ for preventing criminal activity and maintaining security.” Id. (quoting Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562, 582 (2011) (Alito, J., concurring)). Finally, the court noted that some records appeared to contain “interpretive information” which DOS characterized as “guidelines,” and held that this type of interpretive document falls outside of Exemption 7(E). Id. For example, DOS’s description of 9 FAM 302.6- 3(B) explained that it included “guidelines for situations in which an individual may cease to be inadmissible.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The court held that it was not clear “how explaining to the public what may constitute grounds for inadmissibility— essentially a legal interpretation—may potentially help an individual circumvent the law.” Id. 16 Based on the above conclusions, the district court ordered disclosure of the unredacted versions of the three 9 FAM sections at issue. Id. B. Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Ground Questions Next, Knight requested “[a]ll records containing policies, procedures, or guidance regarding the application or waiver of the endorse or espouse provisions or the foreign policy provision.” Joint App’x at 39. In response, USCIS disclosed several presentation slides, training manuals, and other guides. In some documents, USCIS redacted “model or sample questions for immigration officers to use when screening applicants.” Id. at 552. The questions are intended to help determine, for example, “whether an applicant provides material support for terrorism, and to determine whether an applicant provides support to a terrorist organization under duress.” Id. The agency explained that the process for asking the questions is dynamic. The withheld material includes not only “TRIG specific 17 model questions that USCIS immigrations officers should ask when interviewing applicants,” but also “follow-up questions that immigration officers should ask when they spot issues in testimony that could trigger a TRIG bar.” Joint App’x at 181–82. USCIS asserted that the TRIG questions “reflect specialized methods that USCIS has refined through its decades of enforcing United States immigration laws.” Id. The agency asserted that the TRIG questions were therefore exempt from disclosure under Exemption 7(E). The district court concluded that the TRIG questions were not “special or technical.” Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 407 F. Supp. 3d 334, 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Knight II”). It also explained that those questioned using the TRIG questions would necessarily learn the questions, and “USCIS submit[ted] no evidence suggesting its methods are so special that interviewees cannot parrot them to whomever they choose.” Id. at 18 354. The court therefore concluded that Exemption 7(E) did not apply. Id. C. Memorandum Titled “ICE Ability to Use 212(a)(3)(C) Foreign Policy Charge” Knight made several requests for legal or policy memoranda related to the foreign policy provision. ICE identified as responsive a memorandum titled “ICE Ability to Use 212(a)(3)(C) Foreign Policy Charge.” It redacted the memorandum in full except for the title. ICE stated that the memorandum “contains information protected by the attorney-client privilege. The materials reflect opinions, analysis, guidance and legal advice provided by attorneys in the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), regarding a particular section of the INA.” 5 Joint App’x at 249. In a separate declaration submitted in support of summary judgment, ICE supplemented its description, further stating that the memo “includes 5ICE initially claimed attorney-client privilege over the memo but withdrew that assertion during summary judgment proceedings. Appellants’ Br. at 13 n.4. 19 a brief summary with notes and quotes for determining whether Section 212(a)(3)(C) can be used by the Secretary of State as grounds for inadmissibility.” Joint App’x at 563. It asserted that “th[e] document did not bind the agency[,]” was “not organized like typical ICE memoranda[,] and [was] not signed by or formally addressed to ICE leadership. The memorandum simply supplie[d] factors for consideration while providing analysis on whether the Secretary of State should use Section 212(a)(3)(C) Foreign Policy Charge to render an alien inadmissible under the INA.” Id. Thus, ICE withheld the memo under Exemption 5 and the deliberative process privilege. 6 The district court found that ICE had failed to establish that the ICE memo was subject to the deliberative process privilege through Exemption 5. Specifically, the court found the document was not “pre-decisional” because ICE did not show that the memo “‘formed 6Exemption 5 provides that disclosure is not required for “inter-agency or intraagency memorandums or letters that 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). 20 an essential link in a specific consultative process, reflects the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency, [or] if released would inaccurately reflect or prematurely disclose the views of the agency.’” Knight II, 407 F. Supp. 3d at 345 (quoting Brennan Ctr. for Just. at N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 697 F.3d 184, 202 (2d Cir. 2012) (emphasis added by district court)). The memo appeared “more akin to opinions regarding how to interpret policy rather than recommendations as to how to make policy.” Id. It was therefore “post-decisional explanation” rather than “predecisional advice” and fell outside of Exemption 5. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court therefore directed ICE to “disclose reasonably segregable portions of [the ICE memo] that reflect current immigration policy.” Id. at 345–46. D. Motion for Reconsideration After the district court decided Knight I and Knight II, DOS and USCIS moved for reconsideration and clarification of the court’s 21 decisions with respect to 9 FAM and the TRIG questions, respectively. Knight First Amendement Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:17-CV-7572, 2020 WL 5512540, at  (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2020) (“Knight III”). The agencies requested clarification as to whether the district court intended to order immediate disclosure of the records, or to provide the agencies an opportunity to further justify the application of Exemption 7(E). Id. at . In the event that the court intended to require immediate disclosure, the agencies asked the court to reconsider and instead review the documents in camera. Id. The court clarified that it intended to order immediate disclosure of the Exemption 7(E) documents and declined the invitation to conduct in camera review. Id. at –. It explained that “DOS and USCIS submitted sufficiently detailed justifications for withholding the FAM sections and TRIG questions respectively,” but 22 that it “understood the agencies’ arguments and was not persuaded.” Id. at .