Opinion ID: 8312513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FOIA Exemption 5 Applies Only to the USCIS's Refugee Application Assessment

Text: FOIA Exemption 5 shields from disclosure inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested.  5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5). The Department argues that Exemption 5 applies to three documents that enjoy the deliberative process privilege: (1) the USCIS's Refugee Application Assessment; (2) the USCIS's official assessment of Mr. Ibrahim's Request for Reconsideration; and (3) the USCIS's chronology of events in the processing of Mr. Ibrahim's case. Def.'s Memo. ISO Mot. Summary J. 9-12. To fall within the scope of the deliberative process privilege, a document must be both predecisional and deliberative. Judicial Watch v. FDA , 449 F.3d 141 , 151 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A court considers a document predecisional if it was generated before the adoption of an agency policy and deliberative if it reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process. Id. But agencies must disclose those portions of predecisional and deliberative documents that contain factual information that does not inevitably reveal the government's deliberations. Public Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Management & Budget , 598 F.3d 865 , 876 (D.C. Cir. 2010). And an agency may forfeit Exemption 5's protection if it chooses expressly to adopt or incorporate by reference in a final opinion material that would have otherwise enjoyed the deliberative process privilege. Abtew v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 808 F.3d 895 , 899 (D.C. Cir. 2015). All but one page of the USCIS's Refugee Application Assessment enjoys the protection of the deliberative process privilege and Exemption 5. My in camera review of the document confirms the Department's representation that it is a predecisional and deliberative document containing a USCIS official's notes and credibility assessments, explaining why the official believed Mr. Ibrahim was not eligible for refugee resettlement. See Def.'s Reply ISO Mot. Summary J. 13. Mr. Ibrahim suggests that the interview notes should be disclosed to the extent they are objective and factual rather than deliberative and that the official's analysis should be disclosed to the extent it was incorporated by reference or adopted in the agency's final decision. Pl.'s Memo. ISO Cross-Mot. Summary J. 17-19; Pl.'s Reply ISO Cross-Mot. Summary J. 8-10. Mr. Ibrahim also argues, and the Department does not dispute, that any portion of the document containing the agency's final decision should be disclosed. Pl.'s Memo. ISO Cross-Mot. Summary J. 19; Pl.'s Reply ISO Cross-Mot. Summary J. 10. As for Mr. Ibrahim's first argument, the factual contents of the interview notes are intertwined with the official's credibility determination so that their disclosure would inevitably reveal the government's deliberations. Public Citizen, Inc. , 598 F.3d at 876 . As for his second, none of the official's analysis should be disclosed because, although the agency's final decision concurs with the official about the ultimate disposition of Mr. Ibrahim's Request for Resettlement, it does not  expressly ... adopt or incorporate by reference any part of the official's analysis. See Abtew v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 808 F.3d at 899 (distinguishing approval of [a] memo's bottom-line recommendation from adoption or approval of all of the memo's reasoning). But Mr. Ibrahim's third argument provides persuasive grounds for ordering release of one page of the document containing the final decision. Thus, Exemption 5 applies to all but one page of the Refugee Application Assessment. 4  But the deliberative process privilege does not apply to the USCIS's official assessment of Mr. Ibrahim's Request for Reconsideration or to its chronology. As Mr. Ibrahim argues, the assessment of Mr. Ibrahim's Request for Reconsideration is a final agency decision, not a predecisional document. See Pl.'s Reply ISO Cross-Mot. Summary J. 6-8 (citing Judicial Watch , 449 F.3d at 151 ). The document states that it does not need supervisory review and purports to affirm-not to recommend affirmation of-the decision that Mr. Ibrahim challenged. As for the chronology, my in camera review shows that it does not fall within the scope of Exemption 5 because it is factual rather than deliberative. See Public Citizen, Inc. , 598 F.3d at 876 . Thus, the Department may not withhold either of these documents under FOIA Exemption 5. C. FOIA Exemption 7(E) Applies Only to the Refugee Application Assessment and Limited Redactions of the Chronology FOIA Exemption 7(E) protects records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes if release of this information 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). The Department invokes Exemption 7(E) in support of all its withholdings and redactions, although it originally did not invoke the Exemption as a basis for withholding the UNHCR Resettlement Registration Form. Exemption 7(E) does not justify withholding the UNHCR document. The Department argues that disclosure of the document would risk circumvention of the law but ignores Mr. Ibrahim's observation that a document prepared by a non-governmental, non-law-enforcement organization to analyze whether a person meets that organization's definition of a refugee is not a document prepared for law enforcement purposes. See Pl.'s Memo. ISO Cross-Mot. Summary J. 25; Def.'s Reply ISO Mot. Summary J. 11; Pl.'s Reply ISO Cross-Mot. Summary J. 13. Exemption 7(E) applies only to records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes and thus does not apply to the UNHCR document. That said, Exemption 7(E) does apply to the USCIS's Refugee Application Assessment. Unlike the UNHCR, the USCIS is a law enforcement agency. The lines of questioning recorded in the Assessment highlight circumstances that would have raised national security and public safety concerns, reflect why doubts arose over Mr. Ibrahim's credibility, and illustrate lines of questioning that law enforcement officials use to probe possible concerns for credibility, national security, and public safety. See Def.'s Reply ISO Mot. Summary J. Ex. 1 ¶ 12. Disclosure of these techniques could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law by enabling applicants for refugee status to plan strategic but inaccurate answers to questions that are material to the USCIS's decisions. See id. Ex. 1 ¶ 13. Based on my in camera review of this document, I conclude that this information is interwoven throughout the document, except for the one page in the document that provides the final decision without analysis. Thus, Exemption 7(E) applies to all but one page of the Assessment. 5 Exemption 7(E) also applies to limited redaction of the USCIS's chronology. My in camera review of this document  shows that most of the entries in the timeline are administrative, and disclosure of this information would not provide insight into law enforcement techniques or create an unacceptable risk of circumvention of the law. But some information relates to steps that USCIS took or considered taking to evaluate Mr. Ibrahim's application. Release of this material would reveal law enforcement techniques in a way that could risk circumvention of the law. See id. at 14 . In its in camera filing of the chronology, the Department has indicated specific redactions that it believes Exemption 7(E) would support, and I conclude that these limited redactions are appropriate. Finally, Exemption 7(E) does not apply to the USCIS's assessment of Mr. Ibrahim's Request for Reconsideration. The Department argues that the document contains information about the analysis and reasoning that led the reviewing officer to affirm the denial of Mr. Ibrahim's Resettlement Application and that disclosure of this information would reveal sensitive law enforcement techniques in a way that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. Id. at 12 ; see also id. Ex. 1 ¶ 26. But the limited detail in the assessment does not satisfy the requirements of Exemption 7(E). Rather than disclosing sensitive law enforcement techniques, the assessment provides a high-level overview of the case, stating that Mr. Ibrahim had not adequately explained the inconsistencies in his testimony, even considering his alleged PTSD, and had not adequately proved any error made by USCIS at the time of the original determination. Disclosure of this information would not risk circumvention of the law, and Exemption 7(E) therefore does not apply.