Case Detail
| Case Title | SOTO, et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2014cv00604 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-04-13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2017-03-27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Randolph D. Moss | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | NATHALIA ROJAS SIERRA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | ISABELLA ROJAS SIERRA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Mauricio Rojas Soto made a FOIA request to the State Department for all records relied upon by the agency in denying his family a visa. The agency released three documents in full and 14 in part. It withheld 110 documents under Exemption 3 (other statutes), citing Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Soto appealed and the agency told him that since it had missed the 20-day time limit for responding, he could file suit. Soto then filed suit. Complaint issues: immediate disclosure of records, attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that the State Department may supplement its affidavits to support its interpretation that 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits disclosure of records concerning revocation of visas as well as denials of visas. The case involved State's decision to deny a non-immigrant visa to Colombian citizen Mauricio Rojas Soto because the agency believed Soto was involved in illicit drug trafficking. As a result of that finding, State denied the visa applications for Soto's wife and daughter and revoked the student visa of another daughter on the ground that no family member was eligible for admission to the U.S. if the head of the household is ineligible. The Sotos brought suit to obtain records about their applications and any other records about themselves. The agency found 132 records. It released three records in full, 14 records with redactions, and withheld 115 records in full. The agency claimed all the records withheld were covered by Exemption 3 (other statutes). The Sotos challenged the agency's search, arguing that it should have found records related to why the agency had concluded Mauricio was involved in drug trafficking. Moss noted, however, that "Plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with the Department's search, moreover, seems to turn on the proposition that the Department must have some records that relate to why it believed that Mauricio Rojas Soto was involved in drug trafficking." He observed that "FOIA merely requires an agency to describe what it did to search for records in response to a FOIA request�"not to describe how it originally located records relied upon in making an administrative decision. . .[T]o the extent the Plaintiffs seek documents maintained in the files of other agencies, an agency does not have a duty to release records or documents that are not under its control or possession." The Sotos argued that § 1202(f), which pertains "to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States" did not apply to the revocation of their daughter's student visa. While several courts have ruled that § 1202(f) does not apply to revocations of existing visas, Moss explained that he "is not yet convinced that visa revocations fall beyond the reach of section 1202(f)." He noted that Section 1202 "established the procedures that effectuate the authorities granted in section 1201. The provisions, accordingly, appear to work together in a manner that might well contemplate the application of the confidentiality provisions of section 1202(f) to the entire grouping of proceedings." But Moss indicated that here the State Department's problem was that it had not provided sufficient information about the revocation of the daughter's student visa and how it related to the denial of a visa to Mauricio Soto. He noted that "the Department needs to be more specific about what it is withholding and on what basis. Its supporting declaration and Vaughn index, for example, should distinguish between the different terms and concepts that form possible bases for withholding. Only after the Department provides that information can the Court address whether the Department's refusal of issuance and revocation decisions were 'inextricably intertwined' in this case." The Sotos also questioned whether the agency had disclosed all non-exempt materials. With the exception of the dispute over their daughter's student visa, Moss found the agency had appropriately considered whether any non-exempt material could be separated and disclosed. He observed that "this is thus not a case where the Agency has withheld large reports or documents containing merely passing references to particular visa applications; rather, Plaintiffs' visa applications were the primary subject of, or reason for the existence of, each document withheld."
Opinion/Order [36]Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Adequacy - Search FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled decisively in favor of the State Department's use of 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to withhold records pertaining to the revocation of visas under Exemption 3 (other statutes), finding that § 1202(f) covers information pertaining to both issuing and revoking visas. The case involved a request by Mauricio Rojas Soto, a Colombian citizen, for records concerning the agency's decision to deny Soto a non-immigrant visa to enter the United State based on allegations that he had been involved in drug trafficking. At the same time, State denied visas to Amalia Sierra Correal and Isabella Rojas Sierra, and revoked a student visa previously issued to Nathalia Rojas Sierra, apparently on the ground that the spouse, son, or daughter of anyone involved in drug trafficking was also inadmissible. The family filed suit and in August 2015 Moss ruled against them on the visa application records, but asked for further briefing on the issue of whether § 1202(f) also protected the revocation of Nathalia's student visa. Several recent district court decisions, particularly Darnbrough v. Dept of State, 924 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D.D.C. 2013), had concluded that because § 1202(f) appeared in a section of the INA dealing with issuing visas, it did not reach revocation of visas. However, the State Department's argument has remained consistent�"that the agency used the same kinds of records to revoke a visa that it used to issue a visa and, thus, there was no legal distinction between them. Agreeing with the agency's position, Moss noted that "the language of the statute, standing alone, is sufficiently capacious to encompass this result. Indeed, although the Court previously withheld judgment on the issue, it now holds that this statutory language is best read to reach visa revocations, which 'pertain' to the 'issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States.' That is, as a textual matter, a decision to revoke a visa relates to, has a bearing on, or concerns the issuance of a visa�"it nullifies that action." Moss observed that "it is difficult to understand why Congress would have intended to treat documents related to the issuance or refusal of a visa as confidential, while declining to protect similar (if not identical) documents that relate to the revocation of a visa." He added that "the revocation of a visa also, as the Department explains, involves either revisiting the information relied upon in the initial issuance of the visa or considering new information that would usually be made available in an application for the issuance of a new visa. In either situation, the Department's decision to revoke a visa is essentially the same as its decision whether to issue a visa in the first instance." Soto had asked Moss to reconsider his original decision accepting the State Department's finding that he had been involved in drug trafficking. As new evidence to support the motion for reconsideration, Soto explained that he had made a FOIA request to the DEA, which responded that it had no records on him. Moss was not convinced by the DEA response, noting that "the [State] Department did not decline to provide records to the plaintiffs because none existed; indeed, it told them that it had identified over 400 pages that might be responsive to their request." Moss pointed out that "the fact that a different agency failed to identify responsive documents does not undermine the Department's assertion that it located responsive documents, nor is it evident how such a suggestion would support the plaintiffs' efforts to obtain documents from the Department." Soto argued State should have processed his request under the Privacy Act as well, since he had cited the Privacy Act in his complaint. But Moss indicated that "the only claim alleged [under the Privacy Act]�"and the only relief sought�"relates to the plaintiffs' demand that the Department 'immediately release the requested records to the plaintiffs.' Likewise, in their prior briefing, Plaintiffs did not raise this issue�"or even hint at it. In light of their failure to raise any claim for correction of agency records or damages under the Privacy Act until now, the Court declines to reconsider its opinion on this basis."
Opinion/Order [40]Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure FOIA Project Annotation: Wrapping up a suit brought by Mauricio Rojas Soto for records concerning the State Department's decision to deny him and his family a visa to come to the United States, as well as revocation of his daughter's student visa, Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that Soto does not have an action under the Privacy Act because he is not a U.S. citizen or resident alien. After Moss ruled against him on his FOIA claim, Soto filed a Privacy Act claim to force the agency to correct its records. Dismissing the claim, Moss noted that "here, however, it is clear that Plaintiffs are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Instead, the premise of this litigation is that the Department denied the applications of three of the plaintiffs for non-immigrant visas to enter the United States and that it revoked the fourth plaintiff's student visa. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to bring suit under the Privacy Act."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
