‘National Security’ Too Vague in Immigration FOIA Case

     (CN) – Immigration officials must provide more detail on why they withheld certain documents relating to the ACLU’s concerns that Muslim and Arab immigrants are treated differently than other applicants, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
     Although the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adequately explained how the release of some of the documents requested by the ACLU could create national security risks, the government lacked specificity with respect to other documents, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan found.
     The ACLU issued a Freedom of Information Act request to Immigration Services in May 2012 seeking records relating to “policies for the identification, vetting and adjudication of immigration benefits applications with national security concerns” and statistical information related to the processing of benefits applications.
     Underlying the request was the ACLU’s concern that Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants are treated differently than other applicants when they seek naturalization and other immigration benefits.
     Immigration Services withheld a number of documents under the law enforcement exemption, stating that revealing the records would risk circumvention of the law and could create a national security risk.
     Although Immigration Services is primarily engaged in civil administration and not law enforcement, national security concerns do play an important role in the agency’s policies and procedures, Chutkan said.
     Immigration Services is, therefore, considered a “mixed-function agency” and its law enforcement exemption claims must be analyzed with some skepticism, the judge said.
     The government provided sufficient justification for withholding some of the documents. For example, Immigration Services stated that if one of the documents requested by the ACLU were to be disclosed, it would show an immigration applicant “how to avoid certain words or behaviors that assist USCIS officers in identifying a potential national security concern.”
     Chutkan found it “particularly puzzling” that for other documents there was “no explanation of how the information, if released, could risk circumvention of the law, no explanation of what laws would purportedly be circumvented, and little detail regarding what law enforcement purpose is involved (other than vague references to ‘national security concerns.’).”
     “This is not enough to justify withholding records under the FOIA,” the judge said.
     Chutkan ruled that the government need not turn over the records in which it adequately explained the security risks. However, Immigration Services must provide additional information behind its reasoning for withholding the remaining documents.
     The agency implied during oral argument that providing such information might be untenable because it would reveal the very information Immigration Services sought to withhold.
     Although “puzzled by this explanation given USCIS’s ability to provide adequate descriptions for some of the withheld documents,” Chutkan said that the agency can move the court for leave to file the information in camera.

%d bloggers like this: