Case Detail
| Case Title | ABRAMYAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2012cv01064 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2012-06-26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2013-12-09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | NINA ABRAMYAN | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. in his capacity as Attorney General of the United States | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | NATIONAL RECORDS CENTER United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Opinion/Order [17] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Barbara Rothstein has ruled that, although its initial search failed to locate responsive documents, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducted an adequate search for records concerning the asylum petition of Nina Abramyan and properly withheld the asylum interview under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). Abramyan requested her alien file from USCIS, which responded that it had no records. She appealed, arguing that since the U.S. Embassy in Moscow had told Abramyan that it would deny her visa application because she had filed a fraudulent asylum application in 1999, she must have an alien file with USCIS. She told the agency that she was the beneficiary of a pending visa application filed by her mother and provided the petition number for that application. USCIS searched again and found 184 records, disclosing 167 pages and withholding six pages containing the notes and assessment report of her asylum interview under Exemption 5. Abramyan first argued the agency's search was inadequate. But Rothstein noted that "USCIS does not explain why it was unable to retrieve Abramyan's A-file using the information he submitted in her initial FOIA request. Nevertheless, that issue is moot. Abramyan does not dispute that she ultimately received the documents responsive to her request, save the six pages USCIS withheld. Subsequent production can cure deficiencies in the initial search." She added that "that USCIS ultimately retrieved the documents after initially coming up empty does not evidence bad faith." Rothstein then found the six pages were properly protected under Exemption 5. She noted the agency characterized the Assessment to Refer as containing "'a brief factual distillation' of the asylum interview, along with the asylum officer's recommendation." She observed that "assessments of credibility and recommendations are 'quintessential deliberative information.'" Rothstein found the assessment was not a final decision. She rejected Abramyan's argument that factual material should be disclosed, pointing out that "even the factual material was deliberative." Abramyan argued the agency had not adequately described the content of handwritten notes being withheld. Rothstein observed that "the Court cannot require USCIS to describe exactly which portions of the interview the asylum officer selected to record, without defeating the purpose of the exemption. [The agency's] declaration suffices to show that the selective summary of factual material is itself deliberative, and thus protected from disclosure."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
