Albaladejo v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 19-3806 (RC) |
| Citation | 518 F.Supp.3d 496 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
| Parties | Angelika ALBALADEJO, Plaintiff, v. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant. |
C. Peter Sorenson, Sorenson Law Office, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff.
Brenda A. Gonzalez Horowitz, Brian P. Hudak, Diana Viggiano Valdivia, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In this case brought under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), Plaintiff, a California-based investigative journalist, seeks documents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") regarding air transportation of noncitizen detainees with certain medical conditions. Based on Plaintiff's research, she believes that ICE Air Operations ("IAO"), the division responsible for transporting detainees by air, possesses air travel authorization documents and medical summaries for detainees with medical considerations such as psychological conditions or pregnancy. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request for any medical documents related to authorizations to air transfer detainees who may have special medical needs. ICE conducted a search for responsive documents and determined that searching the agency's medical record system, which likely does contain responsive documents, would be unduly burdensome and that no responsive records exist in any other location. Consequently, ICE has not provided any documents to Plaintiff. The parties have both moved for summary judgment based on the adequacy of ICE's search for responsive records. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that ICE has not yet justified the adequacy of its search for responsive documents. The Court, therefore, denies the motions for summary judgment and directs ICE to reassess its search for responsive records.
Plaintiff is an independent investigative journalist currently focusing on immigration enforcement. Compl. ¶ 1–3, ECF No. 1. Based on her review of an internal agency policy guide, the ICE Air Operations Handbook, see Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 5 ("IAO Handbook"), ECF No. 8-5, she learned that "medical providers must provide clearance for air travel for detainees with medical considerations ... [and that] these considerations and clearances must be annotated on a medical summary," Compl. ¶ 16.
Plaintiff submitted the following request for documents:
All U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) medical summaries (or equivalent medical forms) for individuals transported between 2003 and the present by the ICE Air Operations (IAO) division of the Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). These medical forms include the ICE Medical Summary, Medical/Mental Health Transfer Summary and Medical Summary of Alien in Transfer, as well as written statements from ICE-contracted physicians or officials authorizing travel by aircraft. The medical summaries are completed by ICE Health Services Corps (IHSC) officials, Flight Medical Providers, Flight Nurses and Flight Officers in Charge/Deportation Officers.
Fuentes Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 8-1. In response, ICE informed Plaintiff that her request was too broad in scope and suggested that she narrow it. See Fuentes Decl. Ex. B. Plaintiff then submitted a revised and narrowed request for documents:
All U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) medical summaries—or equivalent forms, such as the Medical/Mental Health Transfer Summary, Medical Summary of Alien in Transfer, or other written statements authorizing detainee travel by aircraft—that authorize the involuntary administration of psychotropic medications or provide clearance for detainees with special medical needs or psychiatric conditions, such as pregnant or "Special Handling"/"Afflicted/Dangerous" cases, transported for removal between FY2008 and the present by the ICE Air Operations (IAO) division of the Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).
Fuentes Decl. Ex. C. Alongside this revised request, Plaintiff indicated that the requested forms are submitted "to the relevant ERO field offices and IAO's headquarters, the Arizona Removal Operations Coordination Center (AROCC) located at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport." Id. ICE then issued a final response to Plaintiff's FOIA request stating that no responsive records had been found. See Fuentes Decl. Ex. D.
Plaintiff administratively appealed. See Fuentes Decl. Ex. E. She argued that ICE failed to conduct an adequate search because the agency did not describe how it searched for responsive records or why the searched locations were reasonable. Id. at 4.1 Plaintiff stated that ICE should have searched for records at the IAO headquarters, the Arizona Removal Operations Coordination Center ("AROCC"), and IAO's other locations around the country. See id. Plaintiff also argued that ICE has released similar documents to other news outlets in the past. See id. at 4–5, 7. ICE denied her appeal and stated that "[u]pon a complete review of the administrative record ... the search was adequate in all respects and was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Fuentes Decl. Ex. F. Plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of ICE's decision. See generally Compl. The parties have both moved for summary judgment. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. & Mem. of P. & A. Supp. ("Def.’s Mot."), ECF No. 8; Pl.’s Mem. of P. & A. Opp'n Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. and Supp. Pl.’s Cross Mot. Summ. J. ("Pl.’s Opp'n"), ECF No. 10-4. The parties’ disagreement centers on the adequacy of the agency's search for responsive records.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, ICE submitted four declarations. See Fuentes Decl.; Pineiro Decl., ECF No. 14-1; Alicea Decl., ECF No. 14-2; Truong Decl., ECF No. 3. Toni Fuentes, the Deputy Officer of ICE's FOIA Office, submitted a declaration that outlined the procedural history of Plaintiff's FOIA request and explained how ICE searched for responsive records. See Fuentes Decl. ¶¶ 5–13, 28–33. The declaration indicates that ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO") Information Disclosure Unit directed the ICE Health Services Corps ("IHSC") to conduct a search for responsive records. Id. ¶¶ 27–30. The Unit Chief of the IHSC Special Operations Unit, who ICE determined "would be the person in the office reasonably likely to have responsive records," "searched his desktop computer and Outlook email account" for the following terms: involuntary, psychotropic, special needs, pregnant, special handling, afflicted, and dangerous. Id. ¶ 30. "The Unit Chief's search resulted in no records being located." Id. Ms. Fuentes's declaration further explains that IHSC's system of medical records does not separately track cases involving air transport authorizations for detainees with special medical considerations and, therefore, "a search would have been useless." Id. ¶ 33.
Fernando Pineiro, the Deputy FOIA Officer for ICE, submitted a declaration in response to Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Pineiro Decl. ¶ 6. His declaration admits that ICE did not initially conduct a search for responsive documents within IAO. Id. ¶ 7. In light of Plaintiff's arguments, however, ICE instructed IAO to conduct a supplemental search. Id. Mr. Pineiro's declaration indicates that "the supervisory mission support personnel" within IAO, "based on his knowledge and expertise of the mission of the office, searched paper files, his computer files, and Outlook by using the search function, with the term ‘medical.’ " Id. ¶ 9. The declaration then indicates that a Mission Support Specialist within IHSC "conducted a search of her desktop computer and Outlook account using the search function, with the terms ‘Involuntary’ and ‘Psychotropic Medications.’ " Id. ¶ 11. Neither search uncovered responsive records. See id. ¶¶ 9, 11. Mr. Pineiro's declaration states that IAO does not have "medical records, or medical summary records, or equivalent." Id. ¶ 12.
Captain Felix A. Alicea, RN, the Unit Chief for IHSC's Special Operations Unit, also submitted a declaration in response to Plaintiff's opposition and motion. Alicea Decl. ¶ 1. Mr. Alicea's declaration reiterates portions of the Fuentes Declaration, but adds that "[Mr. Alicea] and another employee, who have been the oldest members of this Unit, made every effort to search for and locate any potentially responsive records to Plaintiff's FOIA request." Id. ¶ 7.2 Furthermore, Mr. Alicea's declaration states that, based on his expertise and knowledge, IHSC's Special Operations Unit "does not have a policy or practice [of] administrating psychotropic medication." Id. ¶ 9.
Finally, ICE submitted the declaration of John Truong, the Enterprise Service Branch Chief for the Office of the Chief Information Officer of ICE. Truong Decl. ¶ 1. Mr. Truong provides information about ICE's electronic backup systems and the difficulties associated with searching for records created prior to 2008. See id. ¶¶ 8–15.
In opposition to the declarations submitted by ICE, Plaintiff submitted a declaration of her own. See Albaladejo Decl., ECF No. 10-1. In it, Plaintiff explains her background as a journalist and some of the research underlying her FOIA request. See id. ¶¶ 1–19. She points to evidence that she claims undermines the adequacy of ICE's search for responsive records. First, she explains that the IAO Handbook indicates that "medical providers must provide clearance for air travel for detainees with medical considerations, such as psychological issues or pregnancy." Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff suggests that the IAO Handbook, which details how ICE authorizes travel for detainees with special medical considerations, and her communications with ICE should have prompted the agency to search...
To continue reading
Request your trial