Case Detail
| Case Title | KHINE, et al. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2017cv01924 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2017-09-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2018-09-24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Rudolph Contreras | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | KAY KHINE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CATHOLIC CHARITIES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Catholic Charities submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of Kay Khine for records pertaining to her asylum application. The agency disclosed 850 pages, but did not disclose its assessment report. Catholic Charities did not file an administrative appeal because it contended the agency's response was only an interim response, not a final response. Catholic Charities then filed suit on behalf of Khine. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 18-5302 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that Kay Khine failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not filing an administrative appeal to the response by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to her FOIA request, but that Catholic Charities, which represented Khine and other individuals seeking their asylum assessment reports from the agency has standing to continue its policy or practice claim against the agency. Khine, a Burmese national seeking asylum, submitted a FOIA request to USCIS for her records. The agency disclosed 860 pages and included a letter of response explaining its exemption claims, indicating that records had been referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further review, and informed Khine of her right to appeal. She opted not to appeal, arguing that to do so would be futile. Instead, Catholic Charities asked Contreras to add Khine as another party to its policy or practice claim against USCIS's failure to process asylum assessment reports and disclose factual portions of those reports. Contreras addressed the matter of standing first. He found that Catholic Charities had standing to continue its policy or practice suit, noting that "plaintiffs allege that DHS has a policy of sending 'computer-generated,' 'template' letters in response to FOIA requests from asylum applicants seeking disclosure of their assessments. They further allege that DHS has sent over 100 such letters during the past six years. Plaintiffs argue that these template letters violate FOIA in a variety of ways. The D.C. Circuit recently [in Judicial Watch v. Dept of Homeland Security, 895 F.3d 770 (D.C. Cir. 2018)] held that similar allegations of a 'pattern' of informal agency conduct violating FOIA with respect to several identical document requests were sufficient to raise a policy-or-practice claim at the pleading stage." Finding that Catholic Charities had standing to continue its suit, Contreras pointed out that Catholic Charities was "likely to be subjected to the [alleged] policy again" because Catholic Charities' "'primary institutional activities' include representing asylum applicants and 'monitor[ing] and examin[ing] the work of asylum officers,' and it 'relies heavily and frequently on FOIA to conduct work that is essential to the performance of' these institutional activities." But Contreras found that by failing to file an administrative appeal Khine had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and could not continue litigating the agency's response to her request. Citing CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 160 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Contreras observed that the agency had provided Khine with a sufficiently detailed initial determination to trigger her obligation to file an administrative appeal. He noted that "plaintiffs have not explained how in this action they have managed to challenge several aspects of DHS's decision making, but somehow could not 'meaningfully' raise these same challenges in an administrative appeal." Catholic Charities argued that if Khine had filed an administrative appeal of her request, and then filed a lawsuit, she would no longer have standing to challenge the initial response. Contreras agreed that "it is true that this Court's de novo review would moot Plaintiffs' challenge to DHS's particular initial response here, regardless of whether that challenge was raised in an administrative appeal." But he pointed out that "to the extent Plaintiffs contend that DHS's alleged policy of sending boilerplate, inadequate initial responses will result in future FOIA violations, the administrative appeal and the filing of a lawsuit would not moot that contention."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust, Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing, Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
