Case Detail
| Case Title | GARCIA v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2015cv00744 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-05-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2016-03-03 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | ARMANDO GARCIA Alien Number 024-782-694 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Armando Moya Garcia submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for his alien file. The agency disclosed 263 pages and referred other pages to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, the agency did not disclose a Form I-485A which Garcia claimed supported his claim for citizenship. Garcia appealed to OGIS, but OGIS found the USCIS did not have the record. Garcia then filed suit. Complaint issues: Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | LEON RODRIGUEZ Director, in his official capacity, as well as his successors and assigns, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | JEH CHARLES JOHNSON Secretary, in his official capacity, as well as his successors and assigns, U.S. Department of Homeland Security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Complaint attachment 8 Complaint attachment 9 Opinion/Order [24] FOIA Project Annotation: A recent decision by Judge James Boasberg provides a good illustration of how important FOIA often becomes in legal controversies that initially do not have any records access component. The case also serves to illuminate the frequent misconceptions plaintiffs have about the role federal record-keeping plays in providing a documentary source to substantiate a plaintiff's claim. In this case, Armando Garcia's FOIA request began as largely tangential to his challenge to the likelihood that he would be deported, but ultimately became the linchpin of his attempt to remain in the United States. Garcia came to the U.S. as a child with his mother from Cuba by boat in 1980. In 1981, his mother applied on his behalf for lawful permanent resident status with the Immigration and Naturalization Services. No decision was made on the application and Garcia filed a new application in 1990, which was originally granted, but was subsequently revoked after Garcia was convicted of cocaine trafficking, which made him immediately deportable. However, since the U.S. did not have relations with Cuba at that time, he was not subject to deportation. But after the U.S. recognized Cuba and his deportation became a potential reality, Garcia requested records concerning the unfinished 1981 lawful permanent resident application from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency decided that his alien file was the only likely location for records pertaining to the 1981 LPR application. But after searching for the records, scanning them, and reviewing them for disclosure, the agency found only a reference to the application and nothing more substantive. After unsuccessfully asking OGIS to help him resolve the dispute, Garcia then filed suit challenging the agency's search, but also arguing that the agency had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to act on his 1981 application and requesting Boasberg to order the agency to process the 1981 application. Although USCIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which processed some documents referred to it by USCIS, claimed exemptions in responding to Garcia's request, he chose only to challenge the adequacy of the agency's search. Garcia focused primarily on the fact that the agency had found hardly any reference to his original 1981 LPR application, suggesting that the agency's search was inadequate. Boasberg explained that Garcia "remains convinced that USCIS has not conducted a thorough search for responsive documents because among the documents the agency released to Garcia was his 1981 Form I-485A Application, dated October 19, 1981, and stamped 'UP-FRONT PROCESSED,' 'indicating that Mr. Garcia was interviewed in connection with the application.' Yet 'the 278 pages released by USCIS contain no indication of adjudication of the application.' Plaintiff thus contends that a 'reasonably conducted search would have revealed the ultimate disposition of Plaintiff Garcia's application.'" Much of Garcia's argument was based on his interpretation of what OGIS had told him in completing its review. OGIS indicated that USCIS had not found a Form I-485A in Garcia's alien file and that after conducting a further search, the agency still found no more responsive records than those contained in the alien file. Because USCIS had provided Garcia with the Form I--485A application from his alien file, he interpreted OGIS's statement as evidence that the search was inadequate. The agency, in turn, explained that OGIS's statement referred to the absence of an adjudicated Form I-485A, not to the original application. Boasberg agreed with the agency. He noted that "whatever records OGIS reviewed are the same records USCIS reviewed--and the same ones USCIS either provided to Plaintiff or withheld under a FOIA exemption. And as shown by USCIS's Vaughn Index. . .none of the 18 pages withheld in part or 2 pages withheld in full is a document related to the ultimate disposition of Plaintiff's 1981 I-485A application. OGIS's statement thus has no bearing on whether USCIS fulfilled its legal obligations under FOIA." Boasberg pointed out that the agency's legal obligation was to show that it had conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents. Because Garcia had requested his entire alien file, Boasberg concluded that the agency's search resulting in locating and processing his alien file was sufficient. He observed that "because all documents related to a alien's immigration transactions 'should, as a matter of course, be consolidated in the A-File,' there is no reason to doubt that any extant files related to Plaintiff's 1981 I-485A application were included in his A-File, and Plaintiff has provided no evidence to suggest otherwise." Garcia argued the agency should have conducted an electronic search as well as a search for paper-based records. Boasberg indicated that "as Defendants explain in their reply, however, not all A-Files are digitized. Indeed, when USCIS searched [its] database for Plaintiff's A-File, it obtained the physical location of the file, and there was no indication it had been digitized; had it been, 'the results of the search inquiry would have reflected in bold, red print that the file had been digitized.' Even if Plaintiff's A-File had been digitized, Defendants aver, the electronic copy would 'either be identical to the paper A-File, or would contain even less material than the paper A-File. . .'" Boasberg pointed out that the agency "subsequently released [the hard cover jacket] and inspection confirms that it yields no substantive information." Boasberg observed that "Plaintiff's FOIA request specifically sought only his A-File, which USCIS provided, and he cannot now--on appeal--seek to expand his search beyond that." Garcia had also requested an in camera review because he contended the agency's inconsistent releases suggested that it was holding something back. Boasberg, however, found that was an inappropriate use of in camera review, noting that "this is plainly not how in camera review should be entertained in the context of FOIA. Rather, such a review is only appropriate where a litigant challenges specific exemptions used to justify withholdings, something Plaintiff has not done here." Turning to Garcia's request to have his 1981 I-485A application adjudicated, Boasberg concluded that because Garcia was no ineligible under the Immigration and Nationality Act to apply for legal permanent resident status because of his drug conviction there was no likelihood that he could obtain a waiver even if the I-485A application was processed by 1981 standards.
Issues: Adequacy - Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
