Rojas-Vega v. United States Immigration And Custom Enforcement et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

D.D.C.May 17, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________________ ) DANY A. ROJAS-VEGA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-02291 (ABJ) ) UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND ) CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Dany A. Rojas-Vega, brought this action against Defendant1, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, challenging the Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s FOIA request. As of this date, Defendant has satisfied all its obligations with respect to such requests. It conducted an adequate search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s request, and it has produced to him all of the records to which he is entitled. As there are no material facts in dispute, Defendant respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary 1 “Defendants” only include the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which are two of the components within the United States Department of Homeland Security (which Plaintiff also lists as a defendant). While USCIS was named as a Defendant in this litigation, USCIS did not receive the FOIA request from Plaintiff that is at issue in this litigation. Plaintiff’s case caption also lists the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a component of the United States Department of Justice, as a defendant. However, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that service of process has been perfected on the BIA in this case. Therefore, the BIA is not a proper defendant here. In any event, all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s FOIA lawsuit appear to relate only to ICE. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 8 2 judgment as to all claims asserted. The attached memorandum of points and authorities, supporting declarations and exhibits establish that Defendant is entitled to the relief it seeks. Pro se plaintiff should please take notice that the assertions contained in the accompanying declarations and other attachments in support of the ICE’s motion may be accepted by the Court as true unless plaintiff submits his own affidavit or other documentary evidence contradicting the assertions in the declarations and attachments. See Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992), Local Rule 7(h), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), which provides as follows: If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials-- including the facts considered undisputed--show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order. Dated: May 17, 2017 Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, D.C. Bar No. 415793 United States Attorney DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar No. 924092 Chief, Civil Division By: /s/ Scott Leeson Sroka SCOTT LEESON SROKA, Member of New York Bar Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-7113 Scott.Sroka@usdoj.gov Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/17/17 Page 2 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________________ ) DANY A. ROJAS-VEGA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-02291 (ABJ) ) UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND ) CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN GENUINE DISPUTE Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), defendant respectfully submits this Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ICE’s Search and Response to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request 1. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns requests submitted by Plaintiff to ICE by e-mail on October 2, 2014 and again on May 30, 2016, requesting all ICE records pertaining to his state criminal court transcripts for case number M707038. The request did not contain any personally identifiable information for Plaintiff, such as his name, date of birth, alien number, etc., that would permit ICE to conduct a search for records. See Riley Decl. ¶ 9. 2. In response to the FOIA request, the ICE FOIA Office tasked ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) to conduct a search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s request, by forwarding the request to the ERO Information Disclosure Unit (IDU). ERO IDU is ERO’s point of contact for the ICE FOIA Office. Because Plaintiff’s request Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/17/17 Page 3 of 8 2 appeared to be for records related to ERO’s immigration enforcement mission, ERO is the program office that may possess responsive records, should any exist. See Riley Decl. ¶ 10. 3. On June 14, 2016, ERO IDU responded to the ICE FOIA Office, indicating ERO search conducted a search for records, and no records were located pertaining to Plaintiff’s state court transcripts. See Riley Decl. ¶ 11. 4. By e-mail, with correspondence dated June 27, 2016, Plaintiff appealed the search, stating it was “limited in scope and time and therefore inadequate.” The ICE FOIA Office considered this e-mail an appeal of the June 14, 2016 response, and accordingly forwarded the correspondence to the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor for adjudication. See Riley Decl. ¶ 12. 5. On administrative appeal, the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Government Information Law Division (GILD) completed a review of the ICE FOIA Office’s response to Plaintiff’s request including the complete administrative record and affirmed the adequacy of the search conducted by ERO in correspondence sent to Plaintiff dated July 27, 2016.2 See Riley Decl. ¶ 13. 6. Upon Plaintiff’s filing of the Complaint in this case, ICE conducted a litigation review of the FOIA request and administrative records, and the associated documents proffered by Plaintiff. On January 30, 2017, ERO IDU conducted a search using the ENFORCE Alien Removal Module (EARM) application. EARM is a web-based application that supports ICE’s processing and removal of aliens from the United States. EARM includes personal identifiers, photographs, and details of removal case proceedings to aid ERO in carrying out the removal of 2 It should be noted that transcripts of state court proceedings do not reside under the purview of ICE, a federal agency and component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. See Riley Decl, ¶ 14. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/17/17 Page 4 of 8 3 aliens from the United States, in accordance with the law. Through EARM, ERO accesses records related to the investigation, arrest, booking, detention, and removal of persons encountered during immigration and criminal law enforcement investigations and operations conducted by ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the three agencies within DHS with immigration enforcement responsibilities. An ERO IDU Management and Program Analyst conducted a search using Plaintiff’s first name, last name, country of birth, date of birth, and alien file number. See Riley Decl. ¶ 15. 7. ERO IDU located 13 pages of EARM case summaries, listing information pertaining to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and did not pertain to any state court transcripts, record of proceedings, or state plea bargain. However, out of abundance of caution and in the Agency’s discretion, ICE released the records to Plaintiff on April 4, 2017.3 See Riley Decl. ¶ 16. 8. The records were sent via Federal Express, Tracking Number 778820569761. On April 20, 2017, the records were returned in hard copy to the ICE FOIA Office as undeliverable to the address in Costa Rica provided by Plaintiff. See Riley Decl. ¶ 17. 9. Upon learning of the mailing issue, ICE disseminated the responsive records to Plaintiff via e-mail on May 11, 2017. See Riley Decl. ¶ 18. 3 Due to an administrative error, ICE believed it e-mailed these records to Plaintiff on February 27, 2017 and communicated such to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Upon discovering the error, on April 4, 2017, ICE immediately sent Plaintiff the records on that same date. See Riley Decl. ¶ 16 n. 1. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/17/17 Page 5 of 8 4 Organization of the Vaughn Index 10. The accompanying Vaughn Index, attached as Exhibit A to the Riley Declaration. encompasses the April 4, 2017 release, provides a description of each redaction, and correlates each redaction to the corresponding FOIA Exemption applied. See Riley Decl. ¶ 19 & Exhibit A thereto. 11. Each record has been assigned a Document Identification number (or Bates stamp number, located at the bottom of every page) associated with that record. This number is located in the first column of the Vaughn Index. The second column contains the date of each record, which is located in various areas of each record. Column three of the Vaughn Index describes the title of each record. The fourth column identifies whether the records were redacted in full or in part. Column five is entitled “Document Description and Applicable Exemptions,” containing a description of the record, a description of the type of information that was redacted, and the reason for the redaction. Specifically, this column highlights the personal privacy and/or law enforcement interests found within the record and the harm that could occur, should the record be released. Finally, the sixth column of the Vaughn Index contains the FOIA Exemptions applied to the redaction(s) within the record(s). See Riley Decl. ¶ 20. 12. A Vaughn Index is provided for FOIA Exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(E). See Riley Decl. ¶ 21 & Exhibit A thereto. Segregability 13. ICE has reviewed each record line-by-line to identify information exempt from disclosure or for which a discretionary waiver of exemption could be applied. See Riley Decl. ¶ 33. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/17/17 Page 6 of 8 5 14. With respect to the records that were released in part, all information not exempted from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemptions was correctly segregated and non- exempt portions were relased. See Riley Decl. ¶ 34. Dated: May 17, 2017 Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, D.C. Bar No. 415793 United States Attorney DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar No. 924092 Chief, Civil Division By: /s/ Scott Leeson Sroka SCOTT LEESON SROKA, Member of New York Bar Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-7113 Scott.Sroka@usdoj.gov Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/17/17 Page 7 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________________ ) DANY A. ROJAS-VEGA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-02291 (ABJ) ) UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND ) CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) [PROPOSED] ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the supporting memorandum, the exhibits and declarations thereto, as well as any opposition and reply, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is awarded to Defendant as to all claims asserted in the above-captioned action. SO ORDERED. ________________ ____________________________ Date United States District Judge Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26 Filed 05/17/17 Page 8 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________________ ) DANY A. ROJAS-VEGA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-02291 (ABJ) ) UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND ) CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In October 2014 and May 2016, pro se Plaintiff, Dany A. Rojas-Vega, sent to ICE a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), see 5 U.S.C. § 552 as amended, request for records. Specifically, Plaintiff requested all records pertaining to his state criminal court transcripts for case number M707038. That request is the basis for this lawsuit. See generally Compl. After completing its search and processing of documents, Defendant has completed its releases. At this point, all reasonably segregable, non-exempt information pertaining to Plaintiff has been produced to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor. BACKGROUND Defendant incorporates the facts set forth in the Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute.1 1 For additional background information on Plaintiff’s FOIA litigation, Defendant refers the Court to its prior decisions in Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv., 132 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2015); Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv., 2014 WL 12614417 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2014); Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv., 2014 WL 12614416 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2014). Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 11 2 LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and evidence “show[] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Tao v. Freeh, 27 F.3d 635, 638 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 248. A genuine issue of material fact is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The “vast majority” of FOIA cases are decided on motions for summary judgment. See Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Media Research Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 818 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2011) (“FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided on motions for summary judgment.”); Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 478 F. Supp. 2d 77, 80 (D.D.C. 2007) (“CREW”). An agency may be entitled to summary judgment in a FOIA case if it demonstrates that no material facts are in dispute, it has conducted an adequate search for responsive records, and each responsive record that it has located either has been produced to the plaintiff or is exempt from disclosure. See Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 368 (D.C. Cir. 1980). To meet its burden, a defendant may rely on reasonably detailed and non-conclusory declarations. See McGehee v. C.I.A., 697 F.2d 1095, 1102 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974); Media Research Ctr., 818 F. Supp. 2d at 137. “[T]he Court may award summary judgment solely on the basis of information provided by the Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 2 of 11 3 department or agency in declarations when the declarations describe ‘the documents and the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith.’” CREW, 478 F. Supp. 2d at 80 (quoting Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). “[A]n agency’s justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.’” Media Research Ctr., 818 F. Supp. 2d at 137 (quoting Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 862 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). ARGUMENT Defendant has appropriately searched for and provided records responsive to the request at issue, subject to the withholding of certain information pursuant to applicable FOIA exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E). It has disclosed all reasonably segregable information. I. DEFENDANT COMPLIED WITH ITS OBLIGATION TO SEARCH FOR RESPONSIVE INFORMATION AND PROPERLY APPLIED FOIA EXEMPTIONS IN RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUEST. The FOIA requires that an agency release all records responsive to a properly submitted request unless such records are protected from disclosure by one or more of the Act’s nine exemptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 150-51 (1989). Once the court determines that an agency has released all non-exempt material, it has no further judicial function to perform under the FOIA and the FOIA claim is moot. Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Muhammad v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 559 F. Supp. 2d 5, 7-8 (D.D.C. 2008). Here, defendant conducted an appropriate search and released responsive records, subject to appropriate withholdings permitted under the FOIA. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 3 of 11 4 A. Defendant Conducted Searches Reasonably Calculated to Uncover Responsive Records in Response to the Request At Issue Under the FOIA, an agency must undertake a search that is “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983). A search is not inadequate merely because it failed to “uncover[] every document extant.” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1991); see Judicial Watch v. Rossotti, 285 F. Supp. 2d 17, 26 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that “[p]erfection is not the standard by which the reasonableness of a FOIA search is measured”). It is appropriate for an agency to search for responsive records in accordance with the manner in which its records systems are indexed. Greenberg v. Department of Treasury, 10 F. Supp. 2d 3, 13 (D.D.C. 1998). After receiving Plaintiff’s FOIA request, ICE undertook a search for responsive documents. ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) conducted a search for records, and no records were located pertaining to Plaintiff’s state court transcripts. See Riley Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. After Plaintiff appealed the results of the search, the ICE FOIA Office affirmed the adequacy of the search. See Riley Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. After Plaintiff filed his complaint in this case, ICE conducted a search using the ENFORCE Alien Removal Module (EARM) application, a web-based application that supports ICE’s processing and removal of aliens from the United States. EARM includes personal identifiers, photographs, and details of removal case proceedings to aid ERO in carrying out the removal of aliens from the United States, in accordance with the law. Through EARM, ERO accesses records related to the investigation, arrest, booking, detention, and removal of persons encountered during immigration and criminal law enforcement investigations and operations conducted by ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the three agencies within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with immigration enforcement responsibilities. An ERO Information Disclosure Unit (IDU) Management and Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 4 of 11 5 Program Analyst conducted a search using Plaintiff’s first name, last name, country of birth, date of birth, and alien file number. See Riley Decl. ¶ 15. ERO IDU located 13 pages of EARM case summaries, listing information pertaining to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and did not pertain to any state court transcripts, record of proceedings, or state plea bargain. However, out of an abundance of caution and the Agency’s discretion, ICE released the records to Plaintiff. See Riley Decl. ¶ 16. B. Defendant Properly Withheld Information Pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1. Exemption 6 Exemption 6 of FOIA protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Records that apply to or describe a particular individual, including investigative records, qualify as “personnel,” “medical,” or “similar files” under Exemption 6. Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982); see, e.g., Carter, Fullerton & Hayes LLC v. FTC, 520 F. Supp 2d 134, 144-45 (D.D.C. 2007) (concluding that the FTC met the threshold requirement for Exemption 6 protection regarding the names, addresses, and phone numbers of consumers who filed complaints “[s]ince each piece of information withheld by defendants applies to specific individuals”). When applying this exemption to responsive documentation, the agency must balance the individual’s personal privacy interest against the public need for the information. See Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v. Nat’l Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856, 862 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see also Seized Prop. Recovery, Corp. v. U.S. Customs and Border Prot., 502 F. Supp. 2d 50, 56 (D.D.C. 2007) (“In determining whether the release of requested information constitutes a ‘clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,’ the court must balance the individual’s right to privacy against the public’s interest in disclosure.”) (Exemptions 6 and 7(C)), appeal dismissed, No. 07-5287, 2007 WL 2910069 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 5, 2007). Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 5 of 11 6 ICE correctly invoked Exemption 6 to protect from disclosure the personally identifiable login information of ICE employees who accessed EARM. See Riley Decl. ¶ 23. The disclosure of such sensitive PII to the public could lead to the identification of law enforcement officers who work for ICE and could subject law enforcement officers and other government personnel to harassing telephone calls and unwarranted hostility, which could disrupt and impede official law enforcement activity. Law enforcement officers handle a myriad of tasks relating to the enforcement of federal immigration law, including the investigation of non-citizens who may be illegally present in the United States. Law enforcement officers have a privacy interest in not being targeted by individuals who may begrudge them for ICE affiliation. The privacy interests of law enforcement officers in the information contained in the records outweighs any minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying out its statutory responsibilities. Further, Plaintiff has not articulated a public interest or public need to justify release of this information. See Riley Decl. ¶ 24. 2. Exemption 7(C) As a threshold matter, FOIA Exemption 7 protects from disclosure “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records or information” would result in one of six specified harms. 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(7). Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the Secretary of Homeland Security is charged with the administration and enforcement of laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, subject to certain exceptions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103. ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS, and it is responsible for identifying and eliminating vulnerabilities within the nation’s borders. ICE is tasked with preventing any activities that threaten national security and public safety by investigating the people, money, and materials that Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 6 of 11 7 support illegal enterprises. The records at issue in this matter pertain to ICE’s immigration enforcement actions. See Riley Decl. ¶ 26. ICE invoked exemption 7(C) in order to withhold information compiled for law enforcement purposes that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). In assessing whether records are compiled for a law enforcement purpose for purposes of this exemption, the “focus is on how and under what circumstances the requested files were compiled, and whether the files sought relate to anything that can fairly be characterized as an enforcement proceeding.” Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 284 F.3d 172, 176-77 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). An agency need not link its collection of material to a specific or ongoing investigation. See, e.g., Tax Analysts v. IRS, 294 F.3d 71, 78 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Here, ICE applied exemption 7(C) to protect from disclosure records or information compiled for a law enforcement purpose, to the extent that release of the information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Prior to asserting this Exemption, consideration was given to the strength of any third-party privacy interests. Having determined that the records at issue were compiled for law enforcement purposes, and that third-party privacy interests existed in the documentation, the ICE FOIA Office then considered whether release of the information served to inform the public about ICE’s performance of its statutory mission. See Riley Decl. ¶ 27. These withholdings protected personally identifiable information of ICE employees who access EARM. The disclosure of such sensitive PII could lead to the identification of ICE employees and subject ICE employees to harassing telephone calls and unwarranted hostility, which could disrupt and impede official law enforcement activity. Law enforcement officers handle a myriad of tasks relating to the enforcement of federal immigration law, including the investigation of non-citizens that may be illegally present in the United States. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 7 of 11 8 Law enforcement officers have a privacy interest in not being targeted by individuals who may begrudge them for ICE affiliation. Plaintiff failed to articulate a public interest or public need for the release of internal login information. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in understanding how ICE is carrying out its statutory responsibilities. See Riley Decl. ¶ 28. 3. Exemption 7(E) Exemption 7(E) permits the withholding of “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or 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); Blackwell v. F.B.I., 646 F.3d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (noting the “relatively low bar for the agency to justify withholding” information under Exemption 7(E)). The exemption allows for withholding information “not just for circumvention of the law, but for a risk of circumvention; not just for an actual or certain risk of circumvention, but for an expected risk; not just for an undeniably or universally expected risk, but for a reasonably expected risk; and not just for certitude of a reasonably expected risk, but for the chance of a reasonably expected risk.” Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “[A]n agency may seek to block the disclosure of internal agency materials relating to guidelines, techniques, sources, and procedures for law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, even when the materials have not been compiled in the course of a specific investigation.” Tax Analysts v. IRS, 294 F.3d 71, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2002). ICE invoked exemption 7(E) to protect from disclosure investigative techniques and law enforcement procedures including the following: internal URLs, case numbers, case categories, Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 8 of 11 9 subject identification numbers, case identification numbers, and internal identifying codes and departure statuses. See Riley Decl. ¶ 30. Disclosure of internal URLs, case numbers, case categories, subject identification numbers, case identification numbers, and internal identifying codes and statuses could assist unauthorized parties in deciphering the meaning of the codes and numbers, gaining improper access to law enforcement databases, and assist in the unauthorized party’s navigation of the law enforcement database. Disclosure of these techniques and practices for navigating law enforcement databases could permit people seeing to violate or circumvent the law to take proactive steps to counter operational and investigative actions taken by ICE during enforcement operations. How law enforcement officers internally label a case, access databases, and maintain information regarding a case is both a law enforcement technique and a procedure that is not commonly known to the public. See Riley Dec. ¶ 31. II. DEFENDANT COMPLIED WITH FOIA’S SEGREGABILITY REQUIREMENT Under the FOIA, if a record contains information exempt from disclosure, any “reasonably segregable,” non-exempt information must be disclosed after redaction of the exempt information. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Non-exempt portions of records need not be disclosed if they are “inextricably intertwined with exempt portions.” Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977). To establish that all reasonably segregable, non-exempt information has been disclosed, an agency need only show “with ‘reasonable specificity’” that the information it has withheld cannot be further segregated. Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575, 578-79 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Canning v. Dep’t of Justice, 567 F. Supp. 2d 104, 110 (D.D.C. 2008). “Agencies are entitled to a presumption that they complied with the obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material,” which must be overcome by some “quantum of evidence” by the requester. Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1117 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 9 of 11 10 Here, all of the responsive information was examined to determine whether any reasonably segregable information could be released. ICE reviewed each record line-by-line to identify information exempt from disclosure or for which a discretionary waiver of exemption could be applied. See Riley Decl. ¶ 33. With respect to the records that were released in part, all information not exempted from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA Exemptions specified above was correctly segregated, and non-exempt portions were released. See Riley Decl. ¶ 34. Defendant has thus established, with reasonable specificity, that responsive documents were released in full or in part after a careful determination that there were no further reasonably segregable portions appropriate for release. Id. Therefore, the Court should find that defendant has properly complied with its duty to segregate exempt from non-exempt information. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant summary judgment in its favor. Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, D.C. Bar No. 415793 United States Attorney DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar No. 924092 Chief, Civil Division By: /s/ Scott Leeson Sroka SCOTT LEESON SROKA, Member of New York Bar Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-7113 Scott.Sroka@usdoj.gov Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 10 of 11 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17th day of May 2017, that service of the foregoing Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment has been made on counsel of record through the Court’s ECF system. By: /s/ Scott Leeson Sroka SCOTT LEESON SROKA, Member of New York Bar Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-7113 Scott.Sroka@usdoj.gov Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-1 Filed 05/17/17 Page 11 of 11 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dany Rojas-Vega Plaintiff, -v- UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; et al., Defendants. 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ DECLARATION OF MATTHEW RILEY IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION I, Matthew Riley, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am the Acting Deputy FOIA Officer (“FOIA”) of the Freedom of Information Act Office (“ICE FOIA Office”) at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). I have held this position since May 2, 2017. Prior to this position, I was the Senior Advisor to the ICE FOIA Office from January 2015, to May 2, 2017. My previous positions include Chief of Staff and Counsel to the ICE Office of Detention, Policy and Planning from May 2010 to January 2015; Chief of Staff and Counsel to the ICE Privacy Officer from April 2008 to May 2010; Assistant Director ICE Office of Training and Development from October 2006 to April 2008; Counsel to the ICE Deputy Assistant Director and Acting Director from September 2005 to October 2006. I have also previously held numerous other positions with the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 12 2 Advisor, Office of the White House, the U.S. Department of Justice, the former U.S. Customs Service and Federal Courts. 2. The ICE FOIA Office is responsible for processing and responding to all Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, requests received at ICE. 3. As the Acting Deputy FOIA Officer of the ICE FOIA Office, my official duties and responsibilities include the general management, oversight, and supervision of the ICE FOIA Office. I manage and supervise a staff of ICE FOIA Paralegal Specialists, who report to me regarding the processing of FOIA and Privacy Act requests received by ICE. In connection with my official duties, I am familiar with ICE’s procedures for responding to requests for information pursuant to provisions of FOIA and the Privacy Act. In that respect, I am familiar with the original FOIA request made by Plaintiff on May 20, 2016 (2016-ICFO-38593). 4. I make this declaration in support of ICE’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The statements contained in this declaration are based upon my personal knowledge, my review of records kept by ICE in the ordinary course of business, and information provided to me by other ICE employees in the course of my official duties. II. BACKGROUND REGARDING ICE’S PROCESSING OF FOIA REQUESTS 5. Each program office within ICE has a designated point of contact ("POC") who is the primary person responsible for communications between that program office and the ICE FOIA Office. Each POC is a person with detailed knowledge about the operations of their particular program office. When the ICE FOIA Office receives a FOIA request, its first step is to identify which program offices, Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 2 of 12 3 based on their experience and knowledge of ICE’s program offices, within ICE are reasonably likely to possess records responsive to that request if any and to initiate searches within those program offices. Once the ICE FOIA Office determines the appropriate program offices for a given request, it provides the POCs within each of those program offices with a copy of the FOIA request and instructs them to conduct a search for responsive records. The POCs then review the FOIA request along with any case-specific instructions that may have been provided, and based on their experience and knowledge of their program office practices and activities, forward the request and instructions to the individual employee(s) or component office(s) within the program office that they believe are reasonably likely to have responsive records, if any. Per the ICE FOIA Office's instructions, the individuals and component offices are directed to conduct searches of their file systems, including both paper files and electronic files, which in their judgment, based on their knowledge of the manner in which they routinely keep records, would most likely be the files to contain responsive documents. Once those searches are completed, the individuals and component offices provide any potentially responsive records to their program office’s POC, who in turn provides the records to the ICE FOIA Office. The ICE FOIA Office then reviews the collected records for responsiveness. 6. ICE is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the second largest investigative agency in the federal government. Created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 3 of 12 4 Naturalization Service, ICE now has more than 20,000 employees and offices in all 50 states and 47 foreign countries. 7. The mission of ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is to identify, arrest, and remove aliens who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally or otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our border control efforts. ERO upholds America's immigration laws at, within, and beyond our borders, through efficient enforcement and removal operations. ERO prioritizes the apprehension, arrest, and removal of convicted criminals, those who pose a threat to national security, fugitives, and recent border entrants. Individuals seeking asylum also work with ERO. ERO transports removable aliens from point to point, manages aliens in custody or in an alternative to detention program, provides access to legal resources and representatives of advocacy groups, and removes individuals from the United States who have been ordered deported. 8. A thorough review of the information provided by ERO in response to the tasking associated with Plaintiff’s FOIA request indicates that ICE searched all locations that have a reasonable likelihood of containing responsive documents to Plaintiff’s request for records. III. ICE’S SEARCH AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUEST 9. By email dated May 30, 2016, Plaintiff indicated he was following up with an email FOIA request he submitted on October 2, 2014 to the ICE FOIA Office, seeking records held by ICE and stated he was “refilling [sic] FOIA request and supporting request and documents.” Plaintiff requested all ICE records pertaining to his state criminal court Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 4 of 12 5 transcripts for case number M707038. The request did not contain any personally identifiable information for the Plaintiff, such as name, date of birth, alien number, etc., that would permit ICE to conduct a search for records. 10. In response to the FOIA request, the ICE FOIA Office tasked ERO to conduct a search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s request, by forwarding the request to the ERO Information Disclosure Unite (IDU). ERO IDU is the ERO’s point of contact for the ICE FOIA Office. Because Plaintiff’s request appeared to be for records related to ERO’s immigration enforcement mission, ERO is the program office that may possess responsive records, should any exist. 11. On June 14, 2016, ERO IDU responded to the ICE FOIA Office, indicating ERO search conducted a search for records, and no records were located pertaining to the Plaintiff’s state court transcripts. 12. By email, with correspondence dated June 27, 2016, Mr. Vega Rojas appealed the search stating it was “limited in scope and time and therefore inadequate.” The ICE FOIA Office considered this email an appeal of the June 14, 2016 response, and accordingly forwarded the correspondence to the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor for adjudication. 13. On administrative appeal, the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Government Information Law Division (GILD) completed a review of the ICE FOIA Office’s response to Plaintiff’s request including the complete administrative record and affirmed the adequacy of the search conducted by ERO in correspondence sent to Plaintiff dated July 27, 2016. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 5 of 12 6 14. Note that, as previously indicated to the Court in connection with Case No. 13-cv-1540, transcripts of state court proceedings do not reside under the purview of ICE, a federal agency and component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 15. Upon Plaintiff’s filing of the Complaint in this case, ICE conducted a litigation review of the FOIA request and administrative records, and the associated documents proffered by Plaintiff. On January 30, 2017, ERO IDU conducted a search using the ENFORCE Alien Removal Module (EARM) application. EARM is a web based application that supports ICE’s processing and removal of aliens from the United States. EARM includes personal identifiers, photographs, and details of removal case proceedings to aid ERO in carrying out the removal of aliens from the United States, in accordance with the law. Through EARM, ERO accesses records related to the investigation, arrest, booking, detention, and removal of persons encountered during immigration and criminal law enforcement investigations and operations conducted by ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the three agencies within DHS immigration enforcement responsibilities. An ERO IDU Management and Program Analyst conducted a search using the Plaintiff’s first name, last name, country of birth, date of birth, and alien file number. 16. ERO IDU located thirteen (13) pages of EARM case summaries, listing information pertaining to Plaintiff’s immigration history. These pages are non-responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and do not pertain to any state court transcripts, record of Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 6 of 12 7 proceedings, or state plea bargain. However, out of abundance of caution and in the agency’s discretion, ICE released the records to Plaintiff on April 4, 2017.1 17. The records were sent via Federal Express Tracking Number 778820569761. On April 20, 2017, the records were returned in hard copy to the ICE FOIA Office as undeliverable to the address in Costa Rica provided by Plaintiff. 18. Upon learning of the mailing issue, ICE disseminated the responsive records to Plaintiff via email on May 11, 2017. IV. ORGANIZATION OF THE VAUGHN INDEX 19. ICE submits this Vaughn Index to the Plaintiff, encompassing the April 4, 2017 release, which provides a description of each redaction and correlates each redaction to the corresponding exemption applied. 20. Each record has been assigned a Document Identification number (or bates stamp number, located at the bottom of every page) associated with that record. This number is located in the first column of the Vaughn index. The second column contains the date of each record, which is located in various areas of each record. Column three of the Vaughn index describes the title of each record. The fourth column identifies whether the records were redacted in full or in part. Column five is entitled “Document Description and Applicable Exemptions.” Within this column, the Plaintiff will find a description of the record, a description of the type of information that was redacted, and the reason for the redaction. Specifically, this column highlights the personal privacy and/or law enforcement interests found within the record and the harm that could occur, 1 Due to an administrative error, ICE believed it emailed these records to Plaintiff on February 27, 2017 and communicated such to the USAO. Upon discovering the error, on April 4, 2017, ICE immediately sent Plaintiff the records on that same date. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 7 of 12 8 should the record be released. Finally, the sixth column of the Vaughn Index contains the statutory exemption(s) applied to the redaction(s) within the record(s). 21. A Vaughn index is provided for FOIA Exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(E). 22. Exemption 6 of the FOIA allows the withholding of personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Records that apply to or describe a particular individual, including investigative records, qualify as “personnel,” “medical,” or “similar files” under Exemption 6. When applying this exemption to responsive documentation, the agency must balance the individual’s personal privacy interest against the public need for the information. 23. ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(6) to protect from disclosure the personally identifiable login information of ICE employees who accessed EARM. 24. The disclosure of such sensitive PII to the public could lead to the identification of law enforcement officers who work for ICE and could subject law enforcement officers and other government personnel to harassing telephone calls and unwarranted hostility, which could disrupt and impede official law enforcement activity. Law enforcement officers handle a myriad of tasks relating to the enforcement of federal immigration law, including the investigation of noncitizens who may be illegally present in the United States. Law enforcement officers have a privacy interest in not being targeted by individuals who may begrudge them for ICE affiliation. The privacy interests of law enforcement officers in the information contained in the records outweighs any minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. The disclosure of this PII Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 8 of 12 9 serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying out its statutory responsibilities. Further, Plaintiff has not articulated a public interest or public need to justify release of this information. 25. Exemption 7 establishes a threshold requirement, which must be met in order for information to be withheld on the basis of subpart (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). Specifically, the redactions at issue must be contained within a record of information compiled for a law enforcement purpose. 26. The information for which FOIA Exemption (b)(7) has been asserted in the instant matter satisfies this threshold requirement. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the Secretary of Homeland Security is charged with the administration and enforcement of laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, subject to certain exceptions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103. ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS, and is responsible for identifying and eliminating vulnerabilities within the nation’s borders. ICE is tasked with preventing any activities that threaten national security and public safety by investigating the people, money, and materials that support illegal enterprises. The records at issue in this matter pertain to ICE’s immigration enforcement actions. 27. 5 U.S.C § 552 (b)(7)(C) is applied to protect from disclosure records or information compiled for a law enforcement purpose, to the extent that release of the information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Prior to asserting this exemption, consideration was given to the strength and nature of any third party privacy interests. Having determined that the records at issue were compiled for law enforcement purposes, and third-party privacy Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 9 of 12 10 interests existed in the documentation, the ICE FOIA Office then considered whether release of the information served to inform the public about ICE’s performance of its statutory mission. 28. ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(C) to withhold the personally identifiable information of ICE employees who access EARM. The disclosure of such sensitive PII could lead to the identification of ICE employees and subject ICE employees to harassing telephone calls and unwarranted hostility, which could disrupt and impede official law enforcement activity. Law enforcement officers handle a myriad of tasks relating to the enforcement of federal immigration law, including the investigation of noncitizens that may be illegally present in the United States. Law enforcement officers have a privacy interest in not being targeted by individuals who may begrudge them for ICE affiliation. Plaintiff failed to articulate a public interest or public need for the release of internal login information. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in understanding how ICE is carrying out its statutory responsibilities. 29. FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) protects from disclosure information compiled for law enforcement purposes where release of the information “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,” or where it 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). 30. ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to protect from disclosure investigative techniques and law enforcement procedures including the following: internal URLs, case numbers, case categories, subject identification numbers, case identification numbers, and internal identifying codes and departure statuses. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 10 of 12 11 31. Disclosure of internal URLs, case numbers, case categories, subject identification numbers, case identification numbers, and internal identifying codes and statuses could assist unauthorized parties in deciphering the meaning of the codes and numbers, gaining improper access to law enforcement databases, and assist in the unauthorized party’s navigation of the law enforcement database. Disclosure of these techniques and practices for navigating law enforcement databases could permit people seeking to violate or circumvent the law to take proactive steps to counter operational and investigative actions taken by ICE during enforcement operations. How law enforcement officer’s internally label case, access databases, and maintain information regarding a case, is both a law enforcement technique and procedure that is not commonly known to the public. V. SEGREGABILITY 32. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) requires that “[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt.” 33. My staff, under my supervision, has reviewed each record line-by-line to identify information exempt from disclosure or for which a discretionary waiver of exemption could be applied. 34. With respect to the records that were released in part, all information not exempted from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions specified above was correctly segregated and non-exempt portions were released. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 11 of 12 12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated the 16 day of May 2017. ____________________________________ Matthew Riley Acting Deputy FOIA Officer FOIA Office, IGP U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-2 Filed 05/17/17 Page 12 of 12 1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Vaughn Index Dany Rojas-Vega. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et. al., 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ (D.D.C., filed November 14, 2016) Document ID/Page Number Document Date Document Title Withholding: Full / Partial Document Description and Applicable Exemptions Exemption (s) Applied Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-3 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 3 2 1-13 Varies EARM Case Summary Printouts Partial The documents released to Plaintiff are internal case summaries, printed from internal ICE databases. The case summaries detail Plaintiff’s immigration history. Withheld from the summaries pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) are internal ICE employee login information and personally identifiable information pertaining to the last ICE user who modified the data in the EARM system. Exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA allows the withholding information contained in personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Records that apply to or describe a particular individual, including investigative records, qualify as “personnel,” “medical,” or “ similar files” under Exemption 6. FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(C) is applied to protect from disclosure records or information compiled for a law enforcement purpose, to the extent that release of the information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy The PII of ICE employees is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA. The disclosure of such sensitive PII contained in records compiled for law enforcement purposes to the public could identify the ICE employee and subject law enforcement officers and other government personnel to harassing telephone calls and unwarranted hostility, which could disrupt and impede official law enforcement activity and could minimize their effectiveness in conducting future investigations. Law enforcement officers have a privacy interest in not being targeted by individuals who may begrudge them for ICE affiliation for an indefinite period of time and seek revenge. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying out its statutory responsibilities. (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E) Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-3 Filed 05/17/17 Page 2 of 3 3 Continued from above Furthermore, the privacy interest in this PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the disclosure of this information. Withheld from the case summaries pursuant to FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) are internal case numbers, subject identification numbers, internal case categories, internal URLs, and codes representing departure status. FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information that would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. Disclosure of information such as internal URLs, numbers, categories, and codes could assist unauthorized parties in deciphering the meaning of the codes and numbers, aid in gaining improper access to law enforcement databases, and assist in the unauthorized party’s navigation of the law enforcement databases. Disclosure of these techniques and practices for navigating the databases could permit people seeking to violate or circumvent the law to take proactive steps to counter operational and investigative actions taken by ICE during enforcement operations. Further, how law enforcement officer’s access databases, as well as the specific databases utilized, are law enforcement techniques and procedures that are not commonly known. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying out its statutory responsibilities. Case 1:16-cv-02291-ABJ Document 26-3 Filed 05/17/17 Page 3 of 3