Gutierrez Guillen v. United States Department of Homeland Security
- Michael Davis
- 0:20-cv-01713
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 27
In Gutierrez Guillen v. Homeland Security, Judge Davis granted defendants’ summary judgment, denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the records case with prejudice.
Melvin Gutierrez Guillen and Marleny Pineda Gutierrez; the Department of Homeland Security and its components; and the immigration employees whose identifying information was redacted.
What happened
In Gutierrez Guillen v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Melvin Gutierrez Guillen sought records about his credible-fear interview and immigration proceedings. The agencies later produced 19 referred pages with some information redacted, and only Guillen’s claims against Immigration and Customs Enforcement remained.
The court dismissed Guillen’s claim that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had delayed responding because the agency had produced the requested records. The court ruled that the agency properly withheld the names and identifying information of immigration employees under Freedom of Information Act privacy exemptions, because the employees had privacy interests and Guillen identified only a personal interest in contacting them.
Judge Michael J. Davis granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez Guillen v. United States Department of Homeland Security · No. 0:20-cv-01713
- Michael Davis
- Sept. 30, 2021
Background
Melvin Gutierrez Guillen requested records from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services concerning his credible-fear interview, including the interview transcript, recording metadata, and the names and language qualifications of the asylum officer and interpreter. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services produced many records, referred 19 potentially responsive pages to United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement, and later settled with the plaintiffs. The court dismissed all claims against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The amended complaint also included claims by Marleny Pineda Gutierrez. The opinion states that Gutierrez’s claims had been dismissed. The parties agreed that one claim involving Gutierrez was moot and that another had been abandoned. The remaining claims were Guillen’s claim that Immigration and Customs Enforcement unlawfully delayed responding to the referred request and his claim that the agency unlawfully withheld information from the 19 pages it produced.
Count 2: Unlawful Delay
The court held that Guillen’s delay claim was moot because Immigration and Customs Enforcement had produced the 19 pages after the lawsuit was filed. In a Freedom of Information Act case, production of the requested documents eliminates the requester’s legally recognized interest in obtaining them, and no additional relief for the delay was available. The court therefore dismissed Count 2 as moot.
Count 6: Unlawful Withholding
The only challenged redactions were the names and other identifying information of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services employees. The plaintiffs did not challenge the redactions concerning the bond obligor, the redactions on pages 8 through 15, or the redactions made under Exemption 7(E).
The court upheld the redactions under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act. Exemption 6 protects information in personnel, medical, and similar files when disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption 7(C) protects information compiled for law-enforcement purposes when disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The court found that the lower-level immigration employees had substantial privacy interests in keeping their identities and work information from public disclosure, including because disclosure could expose them to harassment or unwanted contact. The court also found that the records were connected to law-enforcement work involving enforcement of federal immigration laws. Guillen’s stated reason for seeking the names was to contact or interview the employees in connection with his pending removal proceedings. The court held that this was a personal interest, not the public interest in understanding government operations required to overcome the privacy exemptions.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.