DEREK D. GREEN, OSB #042960 ALICIA J. LEDUC, OSB #173963 ...media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/ACLUOR_v_ICE_Compla… · DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue,

Page 1 – COMPLAINT FOR DEC. & INJ. RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF FOIA 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201-5610 (503) 241-2300 main (503) 778-5299 fax

DEREK D. GREEN, OSB #042960 Email: [email protected] ALICIA J. LEDUC, OSB #173963 Email: [email protected] DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, Oregon 97201 Telephone: (503) 241-2300 Facsimile: (503) 778-5299

MATHEW W. DOS SANTOS, OSB #155766 E-mail: [email protected] KELLY K. SIMON, OSB #154213 E-mail: [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF OREGON P. O. Box 40585 Portland, Oregon 97240 Telephone: (503) 227-6928

Attorneys for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

AT PORTLAND

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OREGON,

PLAINTIFF,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

DEFENDANTS.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.

INTRODUCTION

1. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon (“Plaintiff” or “ACLU of

Oregon”) brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et

seq., as amended, to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief requiring Defendants U.S.

Case 3:18-cv-00247-PK Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 11




Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“ICE”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to respond to a FOIA request submitted by Plaintiff on

October 10, 2017 (“Request”), and to promptly disclose the requested records. A true and

correct copy of the Request is attached as Exhibit 1.

2. As described therein, the Request seeks records concerning ICE practices of

monitoring, detaining and arresting individuals on suspicion of immigration violations at and

around state courthouses within Oregon. It also seeks records related to ICE surveillance of

people exercising their First Amendment rights as legal observers filming federal immigration

agents or as participants in rallies, protests and vigils in the vicinity of courthouses in Oregon

during the relevant time periods specified in the Request.

3. ACLU of Oregon issued the Request in response to troubling public accounts of

ICE practices and enforcement actions under the current federal Administration at and around

state courthouses. On January 30, 2017, ICE confirmed to the media that agents were making

arrests at courthouses in Oregon.1 Eyewitness accounts related that ICE agents were undercover,

in plainclothes and unmarked vehicles, and were stopping and questioning individuals based on

their race.2

4. Through legal observers, media coverage and individual complaints to the ACLU

of Oregon, Plaintiff and the public have become increasingly aware of and concerned about the

detrimental effects of ICE enforcement actions in and around Oregon courthouses. In response,

the ACLU of Oregon has dispatched ICE Legal Observers to various courthouses to document

such activities.

5. In one particular instance on September 18, 2017, a group of interfaith leaders

1 Conrad Wilson & Phoebe Flanigan, ICE Confirms Portland Officials’ Fears About Immigration Arrests At Courthouse, OPB (Jan. 30, 2017), http://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-ice-immigration-arrests-multnomah-county-courthouse/

2 Id.





held a vigil outside of the Washington County courthouse in Hillsboro, Oregon, where they

declared that ICE’s presence at the courthouse is hurting their community. ACLU of Oregon

staff and volunteers were present at the vigil. ACLU of Oregon’s ICE Legal Observers were

also present in and around the courthouse, as they had been for months prior.

6. While the vigil was occurring nearby, multiple agents in plain clothes and

unmarked vehicles surrounded two individuals, both United States citizens, and – while refusing

to announce the agents’ identities or agency affiliation – insisted that the individuals identify

themselves. The agents showed the two individuals a photograph of a person and asserted that it

was a picture of the man being stopped. According to the man detained for interrogation, the

only element he had in common with the man in the photograph was the color of his skin.

7. That same day, ACLU of Oregon representatives witnessed those same ICE

agents photographing and surveilling people attending the vigil at the courthouse, a “sensitive

location” according to ICE policy memoranda.3

8. Oregon, as well as communities throughout the United States, took serious

interest in the events on September 18, 2017. Local news outlets, a number of whom were

present during the vigil, began reporting on the issue that same day. Soon thereafter, local and

national media outlets were sharing the video that ACLU of Oregon disseminated of the events. 4

Oregon’s congressional representatives called upon ICE to investigate its officers and apologize

3 U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, POLICY NO. 10029.2, ENFORCEMENT

ACTIONS AT OR FOCUSED ON SENSITIVE LOCATIONS (Oct. 24, 2011), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ero-outreach/pdf/10029.2-policy.pdf.

4 See, e.g., Everton Bailey Jr., ICE Agents Mistakenly Try to Grab Latino County Worker Near Courthouse, THE

OREGONIAN (Sept. 19, 2017), http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2017/09/ice_mistakenly_tries_to_grab_l.html; FOX 12 Staff, OR Lawmakers Call on ICE to Investigate Questioning of Hispanic Man Outside Courthouse, KPTV (Sept. 20, 2017), http://www.kptv.com/story/36415316/or-lawmakers-call-on-ice-to-investigate-questioning-of-hispanic-man-outside-courthouse; Suzanne Gamboa, U.S. Citizen Questioned by ICE Blames ‘Hatred to Latinos,’ NBC NEWS (Sept. 21, 2017), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/u-s-citizen-questioned-ice-blames-hatred-latinos-n803511; NOW THIS

NEWS (SEPT. 22, 2017), https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1714759568555526/ (receiving 6.3 million views on its Facebook post of ACLU of Oregon’s video).





to the man and his wife who were wrongly suspected of violating immigration laws.

Representatives from other states followed suit.

9. Disclosure of the records Plaintiff seeks through this action will help facilitate the

public’s understanding of how Defendants have implemented and enforced federal policy. It will

also aid the public’s understanding of how public officials are conducting themselves, in order to

assess whether such conduct is consistent with the values and laws of the Constitution.

10. This action is necessary because Defendants have not provided the requested

records to which Plaintiff and the public are entitled.

JURISDICTION

11. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and personal

jurisdiction over the parties under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. § 701–706, and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.

VENUE

12. Venue in the District of Oregon is proper under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) as the

requested agency records are, upon information and belief, situated within this District at ICE

facilities at or near the ICE Portland Sub-Office, 1220 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300, Portland,

Oregon, 97204, and Plaintiff’s principal place of business is in the District of Oregon. For the

same reasons, venue also is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

13. Assignment to the Portland Division is proper under District of Oregon LR 3-2

Divisions of Court because the ICE Portland Sub-Office, DHS, and the ACLU are all located in

Multnomah County, which falls within the divisional venue of the Portland Division.

PARTIES

14. Plaintiff is a nonprofit, 501(c)(4) membership organization that educates the

public about the civil liberties implications of government practices and proposed local, state and

federal policies and legislation, provides analysis of such practices and policies, directly lobbies

elected officials, and mobilizes its members and supporters to lobby their elected officials.





Plaintiff regularly disseminates information about the impact of government practices and

policies on constitutional rights to over 43,000 members and supporters.

15. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a department of the

executive branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(f)(1).

16. Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is a component

of DHS and is a federal agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).

17. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have possession, custody or

control of the requested records.

FACTS

18. On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff sent the Request to ICE’s Portland Sub-Office and

to ICE’s FOIA Office at ICE Headquarters.

19. The Request sought copies of records concerning ICE enforcement actions in and

near Oregon’s courthouses, in addition to specific records related to events near the Washington

County courthouse in Hillsboro, Oregon on September 18, 2017. The Request expressly noted

that “ICE has an obligation to search all field offices and sub-offices that are reasonably

expected to produce any relevant information.”5 Exhibit 1 at 6.

20. Specifically, the Request sought the following:

1) Records created or received in the Seattle Field Office or any ICE offices or suboffices in Oregon on or after January 20, 2017, regarding immigration enforcement actions in or near Oregon courthouses.

2) Records concerning the number of individuals who have been detained, arrested or otherwise subject to questioning by ICE agents or any officials working in cooperation with ICE in or near

5 Citing Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Marks v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978) (agency not required to search all of its field offices because request did not ask for a search beyond the agency’s central files); Am. Immigration Council v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 950 F. Supp. 2d 221, 230 (D.D.C. 2013).





an Oregon courthouse dating back to January 1, 2017.

3) Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards of conduct for officers conducting enforcement actions at or near courthouses, including but not limited to policies about selection of enforcement targets, clothing worn by agents during arrests, in particular, uniforms, display of name and/or badges, providing identification, production of warrants, presence of warrants, use of vehicles and responding to questions raised by those being detained, questioned, arrested and/or witnesses thereto.

4) Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards of conduct related to discrimination, race-based or otherwise, for officers conducting enforcement actions.

5) All records regarding compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(e), including internal policies.

6) Communications—from January 1, 2017, through the date of fulfilling this request—between any public employee(s) working in an Oregon county’s district attorney’s office and any ICE employee(s) working in (physically or virtually) Oregon.

7) Communications—from January 1, 2017, through the date of fulfilling this request—between any public employee(s) working in Oregon’s judicial branch and any ICE employees(s) working in (physically or virtually) Oregon.

8) Communications—from January 1, 2017, through the date of fulfilling this request—between any public employees working for an Oregon law enforcement agency and any ICE employee(s) working in Oregon.

9) All records concerning activities and enforcement action(s) of ICE agents or officials working in Hillsboro, Oregon on September 18, 2017.

10) All records created by ICE agents or officials that were deployed to, worked in, present in Hillsboro, Oregon on September 18, 2017, including, but not limited to, photographs, videos, reports, notes, documents, etc., including but not limited to, records relating to both the questioning of the two United States citizens stopped by ICE agents as well as the video surveillance of ACLU ICE Legal Observers and the vigil.

11) All communications with or records sent from any ICE official





to any other federal government agency or official with information from, about or related to events or persons at the Washington County courthouse(s) and/or in Hillsboro, Oregon on September 18, 2017.

Exhibit 1 at 5-6.

21. The Request included an application for expedited processing, on the grounds that

there is a “compelling need” for these records under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) because the

information requested is “urgent[ly]” needed by an organization primarily engaged in

disseminating information “to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal

Government activity.” Exhibit 1 at 7.

22. The Request provided detail showing that the ACLU of Oregon is primarily

engaged in disseminating information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v), given

that a critical and substantial aspect of the ACLU of Oregon’s mission is to obtain information

about government activity, analyze that information, and publish and disseminate that

information widely to the press and public. Exhibit 1 at 7-9. The Request also included

examples of the ACLU of Oregon’s information-dissemination function. Exhibit 1 at 9-10.

23. The Request further included an application for a fee waiver or limitation under

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii), and a waiver of search fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).

Exhibit 1 at 9-11.

24. ICE received the Request on October 10, 2017. See Exhibit 2.

25. ICE provided a preliminary response on October 23, 2017, assigning the Request

reference number 2018-ICFO-03359. See Exhibit 3.

26. In the preliminary response, ICE conditionally granted Plaintiff’s fee waiver

request and confirmed that ICE had “queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for

responsive records.” ICE also invoked a 10-day extension to the Request, citing 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(a)(6)(B). See Exhibit 3.





27. ICE’s preliminary response denied Plaintiff’s request for expedited processing.

See Exhibit 3. Four days later, however, on October 27, 2017, ICE sent Plaintiff a follow-up

communication notifying Plaintiff that the request for expedited processing was granted. See

Exhibit 4.

28. ICE’s October 27, 2017 communication again confirmed that “ICE has queried

the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. . . . Please be assured that

one of the processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible.”

See Exhibit 4.

29. On November 14, 2017, ICE issued a “Clarification Request” to Plaintiff. The

ICE communication stated:

In conducting a search for responsive records, the ICE FOIA office has determined that further clarification is needed regarding your request. During the search for responsive records, the program office found that the communication requests are too broad. Specifically, what type of communications are you requesting and please identify the subject of the communication. Please provide the ICE FOIA office with a response as soon as possible to avoid further delay in the processing of your request. If a response is not received within 30 days, your request will be administratively closed.

See Exhibit 5.

30. Plaintiff responded to ICE’s communication on November 17, 2017, disagreeing

with ICE’s conclusion that the portion of the Request related to certain communications was “too

broad.” See Exhibit 6. Plaintiff’s response further indicated that it construed ICE’s actions to be

a denial of the Request, and that the ACLU of Oregon was, accordingly, administratively

appealing that decision. Plaintiff’s response stated: “While we appreciate ICE FOIA’s reversal

of its denial of expedited processing, the ACLU also notes that ICE FOIA’s deadline for

providing responsive documents under a non-expedited schedule was November 9, 2017. As

such, please consider this letter to be an appeal of the denial of the ACLU’s request and untimely





response thereto.” See Exhibit 6.

31. Plaintiff further requested that “[p]er 8 C.F.R. § 5.8, please provide to the ACLU

within 20 working days, i.e. by December 15, 2017, responsive documents or a denial of this

appeal. Failure to respond will necessitate court review.” See Exhibit 6.

32. ICE received Plaintiff’s response to the clarification request and administrative

appeal on November 17, 2017. See Exhibit 7.

33. After receiving no reply from ICE to Plaintiff’s November 17, 2017 appeal, in a

further good faith attempt to obtain records without resorting to litigation, Plaintiff again wrote

to ICE inquiring about the Request’s status on January 2, 2018:

I am writing on behalf of the ACLU of Oregon to inquire as to the status of case number 2018-ICFO-03359. The ACLU of Oregon submitted its original request on October 10, 2017, which I understand created a non-expedited deadline of November 9, 2017, to provide responsive documents. ICE did not meet that deadline despite granting the ACLU of Oregon’s request for expedited processing. On November 17, 2017, the ACLU of Oregon submitted an appeal. I understand that ICE’s timeline for responding to administrative appeals is 20 working days. Given that that deadline has also passed, the ACLU of Oregon respectfully requests to be provided with an estimate as to when responsive documents or a response to the appeal can be expected.

See Exhibit 8.

34. ICE received Plaintiff’s communication on January 2, 2018. See Exhibit 9.

35. Despite having granted expedited processing for Plaintiff’s Request, on February

7, 2018, ICE responded to Plaintiff’s January communication stating that Plaintiff’s Request “is

currently in the queue to be processed,” but that cases are processed “on a first in, first out basis”

and that the process is taking longer than normal. See Exhibit 10.

36. As of the filing date of this Complaint, Defendants have not provided a

substantive response to Plaintiff’s Request or administrative appeal, and have not produced any

documents.





37. As of February 7, 2018, more than 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays and

legal public holidays) have elapsed since ICE received the original Request, and more than 20

days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays) have elapsed since Plaintiff

submitted its November 17, 2017 administrative appeal.

38. Because Defendants failed to comply with the provisions of FOIA, 5 U.S.C.

§§ 552(a)(6)(A)(i) and (ii), Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted its administrative remedies

with respect to the Request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of FOIA for Failure to Make Records Available

39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

38 above, inclusive.

40. Plaintiff has a legal right under FOIA to obtain the specific agency records

requested on October 10, 2017, and there exists no legal basis for Defendants’ failure to

promptly make the requested records available to Plaintiff, its members, and the public.

41. Defendants’ failure to promptly make available the records sought by the Request

violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.

42. On information and belief, Defendants currently have possession, custody, or

control of the requested records.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court award them the following relief:

A. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by unlawfully withholding the requested

records;

B. Order Defendants to immediately disclose the requested records to the public and

make copies immediately available to Plaintiff without charge for any search or duplication fees,

or, in the alternative, provide for expedited proceedings to adjudicate Plaintiff’s rights under

FOIA;

C. Award Plaintiff its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and





D. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED this 7th day of February, 2018.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

By:s/DEREK D. GREEN Derek D. Green, OSB #042960 Email: [email protected]: (503) 778-5264 Alicia J. LeDuc, OSB #173963 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (503) 778-5236 Facsimile: (503) 778-5299

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF OREGON Mathew W. dos Santos, OSB #155766 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (503) 552-2105 Kelly Simon, OSB #154213 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (503) 444-7015

Attorneys for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon


i&

z,q

Ë¡z3ett¡-

AH E*,tC*X CIVIL uBEfi TI E5 ürfll'tl{of OREûül{

Re:

October 10,2017

SENT VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL & E.MAIL

U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementFreedom of Information Act Office500 l2th Street, S.W., Stop 5009Washington, D.C. [email protected]

Portland Sub-Offrce - Office of Chief Counsel (Seattle)1220 SW 3'd Avenue Suite 300Portlancl, OR 97204

Freedom of Information Act Request (Expedited Process & Fee

\ilaiver/LÍmitation Req uested)

To Whom It May Concern:

By this letter, which constitutes a request pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. $ 552 etseq., and the relevant implementing regulations, see 6 C.F.R. $ 5 e/ seq.,the AmericanCivil Liberties Union of Oregon ("ACLU") submits this Freedom of Information Act("FOIA") request ("Request") for records about Immigration and Customs Enforcement("ICE") arrests in and around the Washington County Circuit Court, located at 145 NE2nd Ave, Hillsboro, OR 97124; the surveillance of those exercising their FirstAmendment rights as both legal observers filming federal immigration agents or as

participants in rallies, protests and vigils; and, more generally, information regarding tallICE enforcement actions in the vicinity of courthouses in Oregon.

I. Backeround

During the Trump presidential campaign, the now-President's rhetoric set the

stage for race-based attacks on immigrants and refugees in the United States. Thisrhetoric was particularly toxic toward people from Muslim majority countries and

Latinos. For example, as a candidate, Mr. Trump attempted to use the Spanish language

to criminalize implicitly Latino people in the United States when he stated in the frnalpresidential debate, "[W]e have some bad hombres here and we're going to get them

EXHIBIT 1, Page 1 of 12

Case 3:18-cv-00247-PK Document 1-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 12

out."l Candidate Trump's attack on Latinos was not limited to his comments about hisimmigration policy stance, as evidenced by his assertion that a federal court judge withMexican heritage had a conflict in hearing fraud lawsuits made against Donald Trump'suniversity.2 Such comments from the Trump campaign clearly signaled to the public thatif Donald Trump entered offìce, the Latino population would be a target. Immigrationoffìcials in Oregon are now delivering on the Trump campaign's promise, engaging in aclear pattern of racial profiling of Latinos.

Soon after President Trump took office, attorneys began to report to the ACLUthat ICE agents were stopping their Latino clients both in and around Oregoncourthouses, with many reports coming from Multnomah, Clackamas, and WashingtonCounty courthouses. On January 30, 2017,ICE confirmed to the media that agents weremaking arrests at courthouses in Oregon.3 Eyewitnesses' accounts related that ICE agentswere undercover, in plainclothes, and were stopping and questioning individuals based ontheir race alone.a On April 6,201J, Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Balmerwrote a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Homeland Security JohnKelly explaining that ICE enforcement at Oregon's courthouses was deterring court-mandated appearances and formally requesting that the definition of sensitive locationsbe expanded to include courthouses.s

Oregon is not alone in its conoern about ICE enforcement at courthouses. Statejudges and law enforcement in California,6 New York,7 Connecticut,s Coloradoe and

I Carolina Moreno, Here's Wlry Trump's 'Bad Hombres' Comment LI/as So Offensive, HuFFINcToN Posr,

c*::.:iyc*so*f$g$s] ll e.{b_û I 8-{}a3{:c"?-Þå?5.

z Id.

3 Conrad Wilson & Phoebe Flanigan, ICE Con/ìrms Portland Officials' Fears About Immigration AnestsAt Courthouse, OPB, Feb. 1,2017, htlp:r',rt_¿¡*tvrv.ç¡.p.J:..org.r*crvs/ar{i-ci.ç....p-cr'th¡lel-ic_C-ì-r}n¡ìg.rati.gn-alr¿sls-m,u lf rip,nì îh:ççtt*dÏ :çs gltl'I-()-nçs,l

4 Id.

s Ryan Haas & Conrad'Wilson, Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Telts ICE To Stay Out OfCourthouses, OPB, April 7,2017, h:1.ru/*¡n3y.ggþ.0t9/trç:y$j¿äfì"Ç"¡Si$J_çågg:.5g¡:rg$*ÊûSrl*q$ij-çS:içÊ:çtÈlr{thQ-vö9: l ettq{/ .

6 Patrick McGreevy, Blasting federal action on immigration, California's chiefjustice warns the rule f lawis under threal,L.A. Tllrlrs, March 27 , 2017 , available at þitp:ilwlvlv.lal:irnes.0ilfirr'p{}lilif:$,'çs-$e-ntiåli'lji:Jlç-h*a-ess-*ntíal-pçlilþs-rtpciat*s-cêlif-{.¡r:¡ria-s-chìef.ig$tLisç:gau:$.rrul*- lS.f}0-{i5778û-lrtmlstcLv-.h:.!:*i.

7 h.tl#:ii-Þ.-r:*.:l.ppliticç.-qç-nii¡3¿lgs;'nerv:ïqrlçiçi*-.:hplllstolv.l?O1?lSg¿Q"lilat:::-ç-nl'p{çcnrq¡rr*çqprþofi;¡-çial¡-

di ffèr:gm¡"cp-,ts"t*sÈtË*-ç,ç*t$Lh.a:¿gç:irxlis$t$:.1,1.å?"$*1".

8 Roque Planas, Chief Justice In Connecticut Asks ICE To Stay Out Of Courthoerses, Huffìngton Post,available ø¡ h$p:'lmblÀ{S*SluåSsÞtçff:¿$*,ry¿iudg*çf{}:fhçËiçai}rìn1ig#lisu:a.ilçsts:l¡s*5 ?3 9I0Ç6-c4b{.}ç5ìii $ c9{$q?"$-.



Washingtonl0 have also formally requested that ICE not make arests in theircourthouses, explaining that the courts should be open arid safe locations for all people

regardless of citizenship status, and that ICE's actions were interfering withconstitutionally protected rights of due process and access to justice. Despite this requestfrom Oregon's highest court, ICE continues to take actions at courthouses. Sessions,

Kelly, and ICE spokespeople consistently blame local so-called "sanctuary policies" forthe need to take enforcement action in courts.ll

Through its legal observers, media coverage and individual complaints to theACLU, the ACLU and the public have become increasingly aware of and concernedabout the detrimental effects of ICE enforcement actions in and around Oregoncourthouses, particularly in Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas County, Oregon.ICE actions at Oregon courthouses threaten the safety and security of our country.

The ACLU received numerous reports of routine ICE actions or presence inWashington County, prompting the ACLU to send ACLU ICE Legal Observers todocument the arrests every week. On September 18, 2017, a group of interfaith leadersheld a vigil outside of the Washington County courthouse in Hillsboro, Oregon, wherethey solemnly declared through prayer, song, and meditation, that ICE's presence incourthouses is hurting their community. ACLU staff and volunteers were present at the

vigil. ACLU ICE Legal Observers were also present in and around the courthouse as theyhad been for months prior. While the vigil was occurring nearby, multiple agents in plainclothes and unmarked vehicles surrounded two citizens, refused to announce theiridentity or agency affiliation and insisted that those citizens identiff themselves. Theagents showed a picture of a person to the two people they stopped and asserted that itwas a picture of the man they stopped. According to the man detained for interogation,the only thing he had in common with the man in the photograph was the color of hisskin. Additionally, ACLU witnessed the same ICE agents photographing and surveillingthose attending the vigil, a o'sensitive location" according to ICE policy memoranda.12

Oregon, as well as communities throughout the United States, took seriousinterest in the events on September 18. Local news outlets, a number of whom were

e Noelle Phillips, ICE ofiìcíal tells Denver Mayor Michael Hancock that courthouse arrests wíll continue,THE DENVER Post, June 8,2017, available ø -h1tp.i1,l-!:.!-v.-Þ:"-tlgt¡--r:-ç{RLt$1.ç-s:¡:¡?.0.!-7-rÇ6¡{"ìSiicg&n¿g::"

ç-rru$tKNåË:ê$çì,:l'xtv-i"l.hs-cr*Í*gç::.

r0 Joseph O'sullivan, Chiefiustice asl<s ICE not lo track immigrants at state courthouses, THE SEATTLE

TTMES, lr4arch 22, 2017 , available al ¡t{$¡lr,vlv*,.sçôLiiçtj¡ries.cor¡¡'s{i¡lttlç:Íri*rs¡:p{}üliq$"chiçlrjt}$*{Lçç:i¡$1s$:

ix:.*ç*:l*iraglr:rn:$rt$åuþ:skskìÍs:çi¡låtlhssÉs-sl'

11 See, e.g., Letter from Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Attorney General, and John F. Kelly, Sec. ofHomeland Security, to Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California (March29,2017), available ør h"llt¡-li;ülusTs.il).|jü$,1"-ç,âåltiuåslê.s-1jisåql-?1-Q,"U3-1.,1t¡.tlwlsis-ns:-ksll::åçti*¡:"ht"ru1.

12 Memorandum from John Morlon, Director, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement to Field OfficeDirectors, Special Agents in Charge and Chief Counsel (October 24,2011), available athifps:lrvvrv.icç.Sc-V¡i'loclib/ero-p*ulÏeílchþilf1l ÛÇ?9.1-pc¡lic'l.pllf.



present at the vigil, began reporting on the issue the same day.13 Soon thereafter, localand national media outlets were sharing the video that ACLU disseminated of theevents.14 Oregon's congressional representatives were gravely concerned and called uponICE to investigate its officers and apologize to the man and his wife who were wronglysuspected of violating immigration laws.ls Representatives from other states followedsuit.l6

t3 Interfaith group protcsts outsìde Il/ashington Co. courthouse oyer recent ICE arrests,Fox 12, September18,2017, þ1"1¡1rl/prarv.Jip*.:,ær.¡:jst"çr_r,l.l{.11} l ll?{J,'i*fp-rf.bi.th:$5rrÅft*i*"{"Ç"$lt:p_111i*.d*}yåghj*S}$-ç$:

çqurill!ìqçe$-:i.-{i.{:tçqi,nt-içç:$'rç$lå

ra For local Oregon outlets sharing ACLU's video, see e.g., Everton Bailey Jr., ICE agents mistakenly tty tograb Latino countyworker near courthouse, THo OnncoxnN (Sept. 79,2017),ht{p;i¡wry-u*.oregoulív__c.conr/lríllsb-c¡'o¡ljJrJ*.r.sstrjg l7{}liicc*ruis-t¿rkcgl}'*t¡ics*to*Âr'al*.irtml.; Fox l2

Staff, OA lawmakers call on ICE to investigate questioning of Hispaníc man outside courthouse,KPTY(Sept. 20, 2017), h*::.:¿j'þ-"F's'.!p-i},.cor¡rl$I-o. *'r.3{j"4I g-i lólar:larvmak*rs-call-{:nicc*t*:iìtriq$gg.atQrft{Ë:sli$t]ip$:Q{:h-lSnAruc:¡lïl:Al¡t$-ii!$:-Ç$l¡$lr_er:s-ç; Katherine Cook, US citizen says ICE profiled him inc onfr ont ati on out s ide c our t hou s e, KGW ( Sept. 21, 20 l7),

{"o1.*.lhor¡s*;'..{77461}ll; Ericka Cruz Guevana, Oregon Sheriff: Courthouse ICE Incident Builds Fear,Lowers Trust, OPB (Sept.22,2017)

Doug Brown, Good Morning N¿w¡ Ttrs PoRTLAND MERcunv (Sept. 21,2017)lrtls:llrvrl':¿.FcltlandrngrcurysÊ¡r¡'þlnslgtgnl2ûlJ¡ìfrZ]¡ 19334i85_l$.gqd:fl:r¡ltii¡rg-us!vs-Srarl$*rr!:ias-{ha-¿t"{"s-::1i¡-*åtXh{Af¡:kli-CLqs:iû:lk:S9.çe; For national outlets sharing ACLU's video, see e.g., SuzanneGamboa, U.S. Citizen Questioned by ICE Blames 'Hatled to Latinos,'NBC NBws (5ept.21,2017),

Elizabeth Elizalde, U.S. citizen says ICE agents stopped him because he's Latino, NEw YoRK DAILv NEws

L35l l!)5?; Breanna Edwards, Plainclothes ICE Agents Who Did Not ldentifu Themselves Caught on VideoHarassìng Latino Citizen, THE Roor (Sept. 21, 2017), !ttlr:,¡rtrv:l:\i::.1!_:s.Lr.¡_$lücxlrrlplainck¡fhçsriçer+$çTrt$.r

:ghs:çlid*:ç,tki{!euliLV-th*ß$*el\,€$-!¡l8.úâlSJ"$_; Vanessa Crider, ICE Agents Caught On Video RaciallyProfile Man After Folloving Him From Court,BtpARTrsAN REpoRT (Sept. 21, 2017),

lri-trr-{i'p:t-i-cçult;'; María Pefla, ICE detuvo e interrogó a mexicano con ciudadanía esÍadounídense,de m ó cr at as e xi g e n r e s p ue s t as, L A OptNIóN (S ept. 22, 20 l7),ht{¡:sllQ-aÍ:i¡ínn^conr,'l0l 7¡0911?;'ic(-d*l!r,o-e"í.¡lterfggo-aq'¡i*xicano-cnn*ciuclad.aní.a-es_tedcun ldqnsc-¡ìE¡:-¡:-ç.1-¿:!a¡:-sX¡9.$lL:fç$S.¡¿g$-t¿l$j; Agentes de ICE sin uniforme interrogan a un hispano con ciudadanía enplena calle, UNIVISION,

Cå*lm*C*Él*:vtdelr. The preceding citations do not take into account outlets with strong social mediafollowing and dissemination. See e.g., Now Trus News,h$gtj¿rr:$r*lirc*hr.¡$k*q$,i.1$$lyïbis.N"r*:ysjrri{t*$çi.l?.t4?5tS"liôå$-i.1åö; (receiving 5.4 million views on itsFacebook post of ACLU's video).

15 Everton Bailey Jr., Oregon lawmakers demand investigation, apologlt over mistaken ICE stop,T$øOREcoNIAN, September 20,2017, available atlrttp:.,'',,wl-rily.pr-eS0nlir;e.-ço_*¡/hij.l-sbQ{p,,ìr¡ilex.ssfl?_0lJi0!},¡q$$?_n*1ûX¡ll$.lrcJ'.ç.JLgmancl*ir¡vest.li.rr$1.

t6 More lØumakers call for ICE investigation of incident outside Oregon courthouse, Fox 12, September22,2017, available a¡ httl::ll*w!q,rx.liå:t!:.ç-g¡ï1"${uryl}õ;l.l?i l8/..,t}ll¡.¡:::-t"al-v":nekcr$-çirl¡:fu¡

fi tç-r.iktl:çtìf åid{:at:ç.ëp$:.ç a$l-f l.¡.euåç.



We have strong reason to believe that ICE agents working in Oregon are violatinginternal policies as well as the constitutional rights of Oregonians. Such aggressive racialprofiling threatens the safety and security of our coun{ry. So, too, does targetingindividuals at courthouses. Through this request, the ACLU seeks to facilitate thepublic's indispensable role in checking the power of our public offrcials and to learn the

facts about exaotly how their publiu ofhuials are uontluuting thuursclvcs itr urdsr'[u asscss

rryhether such conduct is consistent with the values and laws cnshrined in olìrConstitution.

II. Requested Records

For the purposes of this Request, "records" are collectively defined to include, butare not limited to: text communications between phones or other electronic devices(including, but not limited to, communications sent via SMS or other text, BlackberryMessenger, iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Gchat, or Twitter direct message); e-mails;images, video and audio recorded on cell phones; voicemail messages; social-mediaposts; instructions; directives; guidance documents; formal and informal presentations;

training documents; bulletins; alerts; updates; advisories; reports; legal and policymemoranda; contracts or agreements; minutes or notes of meetings and phone calls; and

memoranda of unclerstanding. The ACLU seeks release of the following:

l) Records created or received in the Seattle Field Office or any ICE offices or sub-

offrces in Oregon on or after January 20, 2017, regarding immigrationenforcement actions in or near Oregon courthouses.

2) Records concerning the number of individuals who have been detained, arestedor otherwise subject to questioning by ICE agents or any officials working incooperation with ICE in or near an Oregon courthouse dating back to January 1,

2017.

3) Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards of conduct for officersconducting enforcement actions at or near courthouses, including but not limitedto policies about selection of enforcement targets, clothing worn by agents duringarrests, in particular, uniforms, display of name andlor badges, providingidentification, production of warrants, presence of warants, use of vehicles and

responding to questions raised by those being detained, questioned, arrested

and/or witnesses thereto.

4) Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards of conduct related todiscrimination, race-based or otherwise, for offtcers conducting enforcementactions.

5) All records regarding compliance with 8 U.S.C. $ 1229(e), including internalpolicies.



6) Communications-from January 1,20L7, through the date of fulfilling thisrequest-between any public employee(s) working in an Oregon county's districtattorney's office and any ICE employee(s) working in (physically or virtually)Oregon.

7) Communications-from January l, 2017, through the date of fulfilling thisrequest-between any public employee(s) working in Oregon's judicial branchand any ICE employees(s) working in (physically or virtually) Oregon.

8) Communications-from January 1,2017, through the date of fulfilling thisrequcst-bctween any public employees working for an Oregon law enforcementagency and any ICE employee(s) working in Oregon.

9) All records concerning activities and enforcement action(s) of ICE agents orofficials working in Hillsboro, Oregon on Septemb er 18,2017 .

10)All records created by ICE agents or officials that were deployed to, worked in,present in Hillsboro, Oregon on September 18,2017, including, but not limited to,photographs, videos, reports, notes, documents, etc., including but not limited to,records relating to both the questioning of the two United States citizens stoppedby ICE agents as well as the video surveillance of ACLU ICE Legal Observersand the vigil.

11) All communications with or records sent from any ICE official to any otherfederal government agency or official with information from, about or related toevents or persons at the Washington County courthouse(s) andlor in Hillsboro,Oregon on September 18,2017.

To reiterate: the ACLU seeks records concerning ICE enforcement actions inand near Oregon's courthouses, in addition to specific records related to events nearthe Washington Counfy courthouse in Hillsboro, OR on September 18, 2017. ICEhas an obligation to search all field ofÍices and sub-offices that are reasonably expected toproduce any relevant information. See, e.g., Oglesby v. U.S. Dep't of Army,920 f.2d 57,68 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Marks v. U,S. Dep't of Justice,578F.2d26l,263 (9th Cir. 1978)(agency not required to search all of its field offices because request did not ask for asearch beyond the agency's central fìles); see also Am. Immigration Council v. U.S. Dep'tof Homeland 9ec.,950 F. Supp.2d 221,230 (D.D.C. 2013).

We request that searches of all electronic and paper/manual indices, frling systemsand locations for any and all records relating or referring to the subject ofour Request beconducted. Given the observations of agents using cellphones and swift media attentioncalling for reactions to events on September 18, 2017, the Request includes searches ofpersonal email accounts, work phones of all employees and former employees who mayhave sent or received emails or text messages regarding the subject matter of thisRequest. It also includes institutional, shared, group, duty, task force and all other joinandlor multi-user email accounts and work phones which may have been utilized by each



such employee or former employee. Additionally, for each relevant email accountidentified, all storage areas must be searched, including the inbox "folder" (and allsubfolders therein), sent folder, deleted folder, and all relevant archive files.

If any records responsive or potentially responsive to the Request have been

destroyed, our Request includes, but is not limited to, any and all records relating orreferring to the destruction of thoso reoords. This includes, but is not limited to, any and

all records relating or referring to the events leading to the destruction ofthose records.

As required by the relevant case law, the agency should follow any leads itdiscovers during the conduct ofits searches and should perform additional searches whensaid leads indicate that records may be located in another system. Failure to follow clearleads is a violation of FOIA.

With respect to the form of production, see 5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(3)(B), the ACLUrequests that responsive electronic records be provided electronically in their native fileformat, if possible. Alternatively, the ACLU requests that the records be provided

electronically in a text-searchable, static image format (PDF), in the best image quality inthe age¡rcy's possession, and that the records be provided in separate, Bates-stamped

files.

III.Anplication for Expedited Processins

The ACLU requests expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. $ 552(aX6XE).1?There is a "compelling need" for these records, as defrned in the statute because the

information requested is "urgent[y]" needed by an organization primarily engaged indisseminating information "to inform the public ooncerning actual or alleged Federal

Government activity." 5 u.s.c. $ 552(aX6XE)(v)(II).

A, The ACLU is an organization primarily engaged in disseminating informationin order to inform the public about actual or alleged government activity,

The ACLU is "primarily engaged in disseminating information" within themeaning of the statute. 5 U.S.C. $ 552(aX6)(E)(v)(II).18 Obtaining information aboutgovernment activity, analyzing that information, and widely publishing and

disseminating that information to the press and public are critical and substantial

components of the ACLU's work and are among its primary activities. See ACLU v. U..9.

Dep't of Justice, 321 F.Supp.2d 24, 29 n.5 (D.D.C. 2004Xfinding non-profrt publicinterest group that "gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public,uses its editorial skills to turn the raw material into a distinct work, and distributes thatwork to an audience" to be "primarily engaged in disseminating information").

t7 See also 6 C.F.R. $ 5.5(eXl).tE See also 6 C.F.R. $ 5.5(eXlXii).



With respect to the subject of this Request, the ACLU has already been primarilyengaged in this activity. We wish to gather and disseminate additional information notalready in our or the public's possession. Our national organization regularly publishes a

printmagazine called STAND that is disseminated to over 600,000 people. The ACLU inOregon publishes a print newsletter that is distributed to about 42,000 people. ACLU ofOregon also publishes regular alerts, comments and updates via social media. ACLU ofOregon has over 9,000 Twitter followers and over 19,000 Facebook followers. Similarly,dissemination happens using e-mail alerts to approximately 70,000 people.

The ACLU also regularly issues press releases to call attention to documentsobtained through FOIA and public records requests, as well as other breaking news.ACLU attorneys and staff are interviewed frequently for news stories about documentsreleased through ACLU public records requests, and stories directly related to thisRequest.

Similarly, the ACLU publishes reports about govemnrent conduct and civilliberties issues based on its analysis of information derived from various sources,including information obtained from the government through FOIA and public recordsrequests. This material is broadly circulated to the public and widely available toeveryone for no cost. ACLU national projects regularly publish and disseminate reportsthat include a description and analysis of government documents obtained through FOIArequests. The ACLU also regularly publishes books, 'oknow your rights" materials, factsheets, and educational brochures and pamphlets designed to educate the public aboutcivil liberties issues and government policies that implicate civil rights and liberties.

The ACLU publishes a widely-read blog where original editorial contentreporting on analyzing civil rights and civil liberties news is posted frequently. ,See

htll:s://wwrv"acln-r-¡r"er$lbl*_gi. That blog includes content about specif,rc events that arethe subject of this request.le Similarly, the ACLU publishes, analyzes and disseminatesinformation about civil rights and civil liberties issues through other pages on its heavilyvisited website. ,See httårs://rv$,'ll,.acìu*ry:.rlrg. Through its numerous website pages, theACLU provides the public with educational material, recent news, analyses of relevantlegislative and executive actions, government documents obtained through recordsrequests, and other multi-media features.

The ACLU plans to analyze, publish, and disseminate to the public theinformation gathered through this Request. The records requested are not sought forcommercial use and the requesters plan to disseminate the information disclosed as aresult of this Request to the public at no cost.

re Mat dos Santos, I4thy are federal immigralion agents stopping people outside the county court inHillsboro? ACLU of ORlcow, September 25,2017,ht"CpilÍåçhkffç1g$il:"r1fl{-:igh::A:S:jçSJç_¡.a[Agç*lS:slo¡rpi nS.$¡$-up I e:outsidç:cr.¡i¡r'ltr'-qi:_ur.til..iJl sbûrg.



B. The records sought are urgently needed to inform the public about actual oralle ge d government activity.

These records are needed urgently to inform the public about actual or allegedgovernment activity. ,See 5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).20 Specifically, as discussed inPart I, suprü, the requested records seek to inform the public about ICE's cunent, localimmigration enforcement activity that Oregon leaders have called an end and that threats

the civil rights of Oregonians. As Chief Justice Balmer noted, the ICE activities aboutwhich the ACLU requests records are deterring Oregonians from attending court. In orderto counteract this detrimental effect, the public has an urgent need for transparency inICE arrests and enforcement actions in Oregon courts.

Given the foregoing, the ACLU has satisfied the requirements for expeditedprocessing of this Request.

IV.Annlication for Waiver or Limitation of Fees

The ACLU requests a waiver of document search, review, and duplication fees on

the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest and because

disclosure is "likely to contribute significanl.ly to public understanding of the operationsor activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of therequester." 5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(a)(Axiii).21 The ACLU also requests a waiver of search

fees on the grounds that the ACLU qualifies as a "representative of the news media" andthe records are not sought for commercial use. 5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(a)(AxiÐ(II).

A. The Request is lil<ely to contribute to the public understanding of the opevationsor activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest ofthe ACLU.

As discussed above, news accounts underscore the substantial public interest inthe records sought through this Request. Given the ongoing and widespread mediaattention to this issue, the records sought will significantly contribute to publicunderstanding of an issue of profound public importance. Especially because of the

secretive nature of the enforcement actions the ACLU seeks information about, the publicknows very little about how ICE operations and activities. Therefore, the records soughtare certain to contribute significantly to the public's understanding of these issues.

The ACLU is not filing this Request to fi.lrther its commercial interest. Asdescribed above, any information disclosed by the ACLU as a result of this FOIARequest will be available to the public at no cost. Thus, a fee waiver would fulfillCongress's legislative intent in amending the FOIA. See Judicial l4latch, Inc. v. Rossotti,326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2O03X"Congress amended FOIA to ensure that it be

20 See qlso 6 C.F.R. $ 5.5(e)(l)(ii).

2t See also 6 C.F.R. $ 5.11(k).



liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters." (quotation marksomitted)).

B. The ACLU is a representative of the news media and the records ale not sought

þr commercial use.

The ACLU also requests a waiver of search fees on the grounds that the ACLUqualifies as a "representative of the news media" and the records are not sought forcommercial use. 5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(a)(AXiÐ(ID. The ACLU meets the statutory andregulatory defrnitions of a "representative of the news media" because it is an "entity thatgathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skillsto turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience." 5

U.S.C. $ 552(a)(a)(A)(ii)(III);22 see also Nat'l Sec. Archive v. tJ.S. Dep't of Defense, 880F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (finding that an organization that gathers information,exercises editorial discretion in selecting and organizing documents, "devises indices andfrnding aids," and "distributcs thc rcsulting work to thc public" is a "rcprcscntativc of thenews media" for purposes of the FOIA); Serv. llomen's Ac:tion Networkv. U.S. Dep't ofDefense, 888 F. Supp. 2d 282 (D. Conn. 2012) (requesters, including ACLU, wererepresentatives of the news media and thus qualified for fee waivers for FOIA requests tothe Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs); ACLU of l4rash. v. U,S.Dep't of Justice, No. C09-0642RSL,2011 WL 887731, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 10,2011) (finding that the ACLU of Washington is an entity that "gathers information ofpotential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the rawmaterials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience"); ACLU,32l F.Supp. 2d at 30 n.5 (finding nonprofit public interest group to be "primarily engaged indisseminating information"). The ACLU is therefore a o'representative of the newsmedia" for the same reasons it is "primarily engaged in the dissemination ofinformation."

Furthermore, courts have found other organizations whose mission, firnction,publishing, and public education activities are similar in kind to the ACLU's to beo'representatives of the news media" as well. See, e.g., Cause of Action v. IRS, 125 F.Supp. 3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr.,24l F. Supp. 2d at 10-15 (findingnon-profit public interest group that disseminated an electronic newsletter and publishedbooks was a "representative of the news media" for purposes of the FOIA); Nat'l Sec.Archive, 880 F.2d at 1387; Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 133 F. Supp. 2d52, 53-54 (D.D.C. 2000) (finding Judicial Watch, self-described as a "public interest lawfirm," a news media requester).23

22 See also 6 C.F.R. $ 5.11(bX6).

23 Courts have found these organizations to be "representatives of the news media" even though theyengage in litigation and lobbying activities beyond their dissemination of information / public educationactivities. See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr.,24l F. Supp. 2d 5; Nat'l Sec. Archive,880 F.2d at 1387; seealso Leadership Conference on Ciril Rights,404F. Supp. 2d at 260; Judicial 'Watch, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2dat 53-54.



On account of these factors, fees associated with responding to FOIA requests are

regularly waived for the ACLU as a "representative of the news media."24 As was true inthose instances, the ACLU meets the requirements for a fee waiver here.

* * ,r

Pursuant to applicable statutes and regulations, the ACLLI expects a determinationregarding expedited processing within 10 days. See 5 U.S.C. $ 552(a)(6XEXii); 6 C.F.R.

$ s.s(eXa).

If the Request is denied in whole or in part, the ACLU asks that you justifr alldeletions by reference to specific FOIA exemptions. The ACLU expects the release of allsegregable portions of otherwise exempt material. The ACLU reserves the right to appeal

a decision to withhold any information or deny a waiver of fees.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please furnish the applicablerecords to:

ACLU Foundation of Oregonc/o Kelly SimonP.O. Box 40585Portland, Ox-97240k.Ti,xw q¡ v,íixì*a *$: {¡ v. t¡ ls

2a In May 2016, the FBI granted a fee-waiver request regarding a FOIA request issued to the DOJ fordoçuments related to Countering Violent Extremism Programs. In July 2013, the Department of Defensegranted the ACLU of Colorado a fee-waiver with respect to contracts between the Department and a localnewspaper. In April 2013, the National Security Division of the DOJ granted a fee-waiver request withrespçat to a request for documents relating to the FISA Amendments Act. Also in April 2013, the DOJgranted a fee-waiver request regarding a FOIA request for documents related to "national security letters"issued under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In August 20l3,the FBI granted a fee-waiverrequest related to the same FOIA request issued to the DOJ. In June 2011, the DOJ National SecurityDivision granted a fee waiver to the ACLU with respect to a request for documents relating to the

interpretation and implementation of a section of the PATRIOT Act. In March 2009, the State Deparlmentgranted a fee waiver to the ACLU with regard to a FOIA request for documents relating to the detention,

interrogation, treatment, or prosecution of suspected terrorists. Likewise, in December 2008, the

Department of Justice granted the ACLU a fee waiver with respect to the same request. In November 2006,

the Department of Health and Human Services granted a fee waiver to the ACLU with regard to a FOTA

request. In May 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce granted a fee waiver to the ACLU with respect toits request for information regarding the radio-frequency identification chips in United States passpofis. InMarch 2005, the Depaftment of State granted a fee waiver to the ACLU for a request regarding the use ofimmigration laws to exclude prominent non-citizen scholars and intellectuals from the country because oftheir political views, statements, or associations. In addition, the Department of Defense did not charge the

ACLU fees associated with FOIA requests submitted by the ACLU in April 2007, June 2006, February

2006, and October 2003. The DOJ did not charge the ACLU fees associated with FOIA requests submitted

by the ACLU in November 2007, December 2005, and December 2004. Finally, three separate agencies-the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, and the DOJ Office ofInformation and Privacy-did not charge the ACLU fees associated with a FOIA request submitted by the

ACLU in August 2002.



I affirm that the information provided supporting the request for expeditedprocessing is true and corect to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Sincerely

Mat dos SantosLegal Director, ACLU of Oregon



FromrTolSubject:Date:

r"ÇË-F0rå

Kellv Simon

Automatlc reply: FOIA Request - ACLU of Oregon

Tuesday, October 10, 2017 5:37:58 PM

ICE has received the information you submitted to the |CE-l¡Ç-lA.P-.dils.gqy mailbox,

lf you are submitt¡ng a FOIA request, this courtesy reply does not replace the Acknowledgement

Letter which will be sent to you once your request has been entered into our FOIA Request Tracking

System.

lf you are seeking the status of a pending FOIA request for which you have a FOIA case number, you

may check the status of your request online at www.ice.gor¿/foia/statusl.

Please visit the ICE FOIA Library at wrq¡w,ìce.gov,1{oia1lìhralyl.

As this reply is automatically generated, please do not respond to this notification



From:To:Subject:Date:

iç*.:fajëÕdh$,g0v

Kelly_..s¡rììon

ICE FOIA Request 2018-ICFO-03359

Monday, October 23,20t7 12:10:19 PM

October 23,20Ll

KELLY SIIVON

ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON

PO BOX 40585

PORTLAND, OR97240

RE: ICE FOIA Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359

Dear SIMON:

Thìs acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (lCE), dated October I0,2017, and to your request for a waiver of all assessable FOIA fees. Your request was

received in this office on October 70,2017. Specifically, you requesled The ACLU seeks release of the following: Records

created or received in the Seattle Fìeld Office or anylCE offices or suboffices in Oregon on or after January 20,2017,regarding immigration enforcement actions in or near Oregon courthouses. Records concerning the number of individuals

who have been detained, arrested or otherwise subject to questioning by ICE agents or any officìals working in

cooperation with ICE in or near an Oregon courthouse dating back to.January 1,2017 Records concernlng policìes,

guidelines, and standards of conduct for officers conducting enforcement actions at or near courthouses, including but notlimited to policies about selection of enforcement targets, clothing worn by agents during arrests, ìn particular, uniforms,display of name and/or badges, providing identification, production of warrants, presence of warrants, use of vehicles and

responding to questions raised by those being detained, questioned, arrested and/or witnesses thereto, Records

concerning policies, guidelines, and standards of conduct related to discrimination, race-based or othenvise, for officersconducting enforcement actions. Records concernlng the number of individuals who have been detained, arrested orotherwise subject to questìoning by ICE agents or any officials working in cooperation with ICE in or near an Oregoncourthouse dating back to January I,2017. Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards of conduct for officersconducting enforcement actions at or near courthouses, including but not limited to policies about selection ofenforcement targets, clothing worn by agents during arrests, in particular, uniforms, display of name and/or badges,

providing ìdentifìcation, productìon of warrants, presence of warrants, use of vehicles and responding to questions raised

by those being detained, questioned, arrested and/or witnesses thereto. Records concerning policies, guidelines, and

standards of conduct related to discrimination, race-based or otherwise, for officers conducting enforcement actions. All

records regarding compliance with B U.S.C. 51229(e), including internal policies. All records concerning activìties and

enforcement actìon(s) of ICE agents or officials working in Hillsboro, Oregon on September IB,2017 . See request forfurther details..

Due to the increasing number of tOlA requests received by thìs office, we may encounter some delay in processing yourrequest. Per Section 5.5(a) of the DHS FOIA regulations,6 C.F.R. Part 5, ICE processes FOIA requests according to theirorder of receipt, Although ICE's goal is to respond within 20 business days of receipt of your request, the FOIA does permit

a 10- day extension of this time period. As your request seeks numerous documents that will necessitate a thorough and

wide-ranging search, DHS wìll invoke a 10-day extensìon for your request, as allowed by Title 5 U.S.C. 5 552(aX6XB). If you

care to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We wili make every effort to comply with your request

ìn a timely manner.

Your request for expedited treatment is hereby denied

Under the DHS FOIA regulations, expedited processing of a FOIA request is warranted if the request involves"circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to thelife or physical safety of an individual,'6 C F.R. 5 5.5(eXlXì), or "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or allegedfederal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information," 6 C.F.R. 5 5 5(eXlXìi).

Requesters seeking expedited processing must submit a statement explaining in detail the basis for the request, and thatstatement must be certified by the requester to be true and correct. 6 C.F.R. 5 5 5(eX3).



Your request for expedited processing is denied because you do not quali! for either category under 6 C.F.R. 5 5.5(eX1).

You failed to demonstrate a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request

beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. Your letter was conclusory in nature and did not

present any facts tojustif,T a grant of exped¡ted processing under the applicable standards.

You have requested a fee waiver. The DHS FOIA Regulations at 6 CFR 5 5.11(kX2) set forth six factors ICE must evaluate todetermine whether the applicable legal standard for a fee waiver has been met: (1) Whether the subject of the requested

records concerns "the operations or activities of the government," (2) Whether the disclosure is 'likely to contribute" to an

understanding of government operations or activlties, (3) Whether disclosure of the requested information wiìl contributeto the understanding of the public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester or a narrow

segment of interested persons, (4) Whether the contribution to public understanding of government operations oractivitìes will be "significant,' (5) Whether the requester has a commercìal interest that would be furthered by the requested

disclosure, and (6) Whether the magnitude of any ìdentified commercial interest to the requester is sufficiently large in

comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

Upon review of the subject matter of your request, and an evaluation of the six factors identified above, ICE has

determined that it will conditionally grant your request for a fee waiver. The fee waiver determination will be based upon asampling of the responslve documents received from the various ICE program offices as a result of the searches conducted

in response to your FOIA request. ICE will, pursuant to DHS regulations applicable to non-commercial requesters/ process

the first 100 pages. If upon review of these documents, ICE determines that the disclosure of the information contained in

those documents does not meet the factors permltt¡ng ICE to waive the fees, then ICE will at that time either deny your

request for a fee waiver entirely, or wìll allow for a percentage reduction in the amount of the fees corresponding to the

amount of relevant material found that meets the factors allowing for a fee waiver. In either case, ICE will promptly notlf,7

you of lts final decision regarding your request for a fee waiver and provide you with the responsive records as required by

applicable law.

In the event that your fee waiver ìs denied, and you determine that you still want the records, provisions of the FOIA allow

us to recover part of the cost of complying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS

Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requestors. As a non-commercìal requester you will be charged

for any search time and duplication beyond the free two hours and 100 pages mentioned in the previous paragraph, You

will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication and search time at the per quarter-hour rate ($4,00 for clerical personnel,

$T.00forprofessional personnel,$10.25formanagerial personnel) ofthesearcher. Intheeventthatyourfeewaiverisdenied, we will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. This office will contact you

before accruing any additional fees,

ICE has queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. If any responsive records are located,

they will be reviewed for determination of releasability. Please be assured that one of the processors in our office will

respond to your request as expeditiously as posslble. We appreclate your patìence as we proceed with your request.

Your request has been assigned reference number 2018-ICFO-03359. Please refer to this identifier in any future

correspondence. To check the status of an ICE FOIA/PA request, please visit hllÐ,,1¡:'¡'i'ti!t¿.lill;,ei;t¡¡ilrri¡:,çl;tìu:. Please note

that to check the status of a request, you must enter the 2017-ICFO-XXXXX or 2018-ICFO-XXXXX tracking number. Ifyouhave any questions or wish to discuss reformulation or an alternative time frame for the processing of your request, please

contact FOIA office. You may send an e-mail to [email protected], call free (866) 633-1182, or you may contact ourFOIA Public Liaison, Fernando Pineiro, in the same manner. Additionally, you have a right to seek dispute resolution

services from the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) which mediates disputes betlveen FOIA requesters and

Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to lìtìgation, If you are requesting access to your own records (which is

considered a Privacy Act request), you should know that OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests made under

the Privacy Act of 1974. You may contact OGIS as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives

and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at [email protected];

telephone aT202-741"-5770; toll free atI-817-684-6448; or facsimile aL202-747-5769.

Regards,

ICE FOIA OfficeImmigration and Customs EnforcementFreedom of Information Act Office500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009



Washington, D.C. 20536-5009Telephone: 1-866-633-1182

Visit our FOIA websìte at wwurjceçLoylfoia



To:From

Subject:Date:

ice-fBiA(*dh.s"gr0v

KeilY-Slmnn

ICE FOIA Request 2018-ICFO-o3359

Friday, October 27,2077 11:22:00 AM

Oclober 27,2017

KELLY SIMONACLU FOTJNDATION OF OREGON

PO BOX 40585

PORTLAND, OF.97240


Dear SIMON:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to U,S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE), dated October 10,2017, and to your request for expedited treatment and a waiver ofall assessable FOIAfees. Your request was received in this office on October 10,201'7 . Specifically, you requested The ACLU seeks release ofthefollowing: Records created or received in the Seaüle Field Office or any ICE offices or suboffices in Oregon on or after

January 20,2017, regarding immigration enforcement actions in or near Oregon courthouses. Records conceming the number

ofindividuals who have been detained, arrested or otherwise subject to questioning by ICE agents or any officials working in

cooperation with ICE in ornear an Oregon courthouse dating back to January 1,2017. Records conceming policies,

guidelines, and standards of conduct for offrcers conducting enforcement actions at or near courthouses, including but not

limited to policies about selection ofenforcement targets, clothing wom by agents during arrests, in particular, uniforms,

display ofname and/or badges, providing identification, production ofwarrants, presence ofwarrants, use ofvehicles and

responding to questions raised by those being detained, questioned, anested and/or witnesses thereto. Records conceming

policies, guidelines, and standards of conduct related to discrimination, race-based or otherrvise, for officers conducting

enforcement actions. Records concerning the number of individuals who have been detained, anested or otherwise subject toquestioning by ICE agents or any officials working in cooperation with ICE in or near an Oregon courthouse dating back to

January 1,2017 . Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards of conduct for officers conducting enforæmsnt

actions at or near courthouses, including but not limited to policies about selection ofenforcement targets, clothing worn by

agents during arests, in particular, uniforms, display ofname and/or badges, providing identification, production ofwarrants,presence ofwarants, use ofvehicles and responding to questions raised by those being detained, questioned, arrested and/or

rvitnoosoo thsroto. Rooords concerning policies, guidelines, and standards ofconcluct relatecl to discrimination, race.based orotherwise, for officers conducting enforcement actions. All records regarding compliance with 8 U.S.C. $ 1229(e), including

intemal policies. All records concerning activities and enforcement action(s) of ICE agents or officials working in Hillsboro,Oregon on September 18,2017. See request for further details..

Your request for expedited treatment is hereby granted.

As it pertains to your request for a fee waiver, ICE evaluates fee waiver requests under the legal standard set forth above and

the fee waiver policy guidance issued by the Department of Justice on April 2, 1987, as incorporated into the Department ofHomeland Security's Freedom of Information Act regulationslll. These regulations set forth six factors to examine in

determining whether the applicable legal standard for fee waiver has been met. I have considered the following factors in my

evaluation ofyour request for a fee waiver:

(1) Whether the subject of the requested records concems "the operations or activities of the govemment";

(2) Whether the disclosure is "likely to contribute" to an understanding of govemment operations or activities;

(3) Whether disclosure ofthe requested infomation will contribute to the understanding of the public at large, as

opposed to the individual understanding ofthe requestor or a narrow segment ofinterested persons;

(4) Whether the contribution to public understanding of govemment operations or activities will be "significant";

(5) Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and

(6) Whether the magnitude of any identified commercial interest to the requestor is sufficiently large in comparison

with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor.

Upon review ofyour request and a careful consideration of the factors listed above, I have determined to grant your request



for a fee waiver.ICE has queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. If any responsive records are located, theywill be reviewed for determination ofreleasability. Please be assured that one ofthe processors in our offrce will respond toyour request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.

Ifyou have any questions or wish to discuss reformulation or an alternative time frame for the processing ofyour request,please contact FOIA office. You may send an e-mail to [email protected], call free (866) 633-1182, or you may contactour FOIA Public Liaison, Femando Pineiro, in the same manner. Additionally, you have a right to seek dispute resolutionservices from the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) which mediates disputes between FOIA requesters andFederal agencies as a non-exclusive altemative to litigation. Ifyou are requesting access to your own records (which isconsidered a Privacy Act request), you should know that OGIS does not have the authorþ to handle requests made under thePrivacy Act of 1974. You may contact OGIS as follows: Offìce of Govemment Information Seruices, National Archives andRecords Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20'740-6001, e-mail at [email protected]; telephoneat202-741-5770; toll free at l-877-684-6448; or facsimile at202-747-5769.

Your request has been assigned reference number 2018-ICFO-03359. Please refer to this identifier in any futurecorespondence. To check the status of an ICE FOIA/PA request, please visit hltp:/iwrvw.rlh . Please notethat to check the status of a request, you must enter the 2OI7-ICFO-XXXXX or 2OI8-ICFO-XXXXX tracking number.

Regards,

ICE FOIA Office

Immigration and Customs EnforcementFreedom of Information Act Office500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009

Washington, D.C. 20536-5009

Telephone: 1-866-633-1182Visit our FOIA website at wwu¡,ice4rovfiola

uJ 6 CFR $ 5.r l(k).



From:To:SubjectrDate:

rc*faiaeshs,savKeJly Simon

ICE Clarification Request FOIA Number 2018-ICFO-03359

Tuesday, November l4t 2017 10:58i30 AM

November 14,2017

KELLY SIMONACLU FOTJNDATION OF OREGON

PO BOX 40585PORTLAND, OP'9724O


This e-mail is in regards to your October 10,2017 ICE FOIA request for The ACLU seeks release of the following:

Records created or received in the Seattle Field Offìce or any ICE offices or suboffices in Oregon on or after

January 20,2017,regarding immigration enforcement actions in or near Oregon coufthouses. Records concerning

the number ofindividuals who have been detained, arrested or otherwise subjectto questioning by ICE agents or

any officials working in cooperation with ICE in or near an Oregon coufthouse dating back to January 1,2017.

Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards ofconduct for officers conducting enforcement actions at or

near courthouses, including but not limited to policies about selection ofenforcement targets, clothing worn by

agents during arrests, in particular, uniforms, display ofname and/or badges, providing identification, production ofwarrants, presence ofwarrants, use ofvehicles and responding to questions raised by those being detained,

questioned, arrested and/or witnesses thereto. Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards ofconduct

related to discrimination, race-based or otherwise, for officers conducting enforcement actions, Records concerning

the number ofindividuals who have been detained, arrested or otherwise subject to questioning by ICE agents or

any officials working in cooperation with ICE in or near an Oregon courthouse dating back to January 1,2017.

Records.concerning policies, guidelines, and standards ofconduct for officers conducting enforcement actions at or

near courthouses, including but not limited to policies about selection of enforcement targets, clothing worn by

agents during arrests, in particular, uniforms, display ofname and/or badges, providing identification, production ofwarrants, presence of warrants, use of vehicles and responding to questions raised by those being detained,

q¡estioned, arrested and/or witncssçs thçreto, Records concerning policies, guidelines, and standards ofconduct

related to discrimination, race-based or otherwise, for officers conducting enforcement actions. All records

regarding compliance with 8 U.S.C. $ 1229(e), inclutlirrg ittl"errtal policies. All rccurtls curtuctttittg activities artd

enforcement action(s) of ICE agents or officials working in Hillsboro, Oregon on September 18,2017 . See request

for further details..

In conducting a search for responsive records, the ICE FOIA office has determined that further clarification is

needed regarding your request. During the search for responsive records, the program office found that the

communication requests are too broad. Specifically, what type of communications are you requesting and please

identify the subject of the communication. Please provide the ICE FOIA office with a response as soon as possible

to avoid any further delay in the processing of your request. If a response is not received within 30 days, your

request will be administratively closed.

Sincerely,

ICE FOIA



From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:Attachments:

Kelly Simon < [email protected]>Friday, November 17,2017 3:18 PM

[email protected] dos Santos

Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359

20L7 Ll-17 ACLU OR ICE FOIA Admin Appeal - Case No 2018-ICFO-03359.pdf

To Whom lt May Concern:

Please see the attached FOIA appeal for case number 2018-ICFO-03359

Sincerely,

Kelly Simon {she/her}Staff AttorneyACLU sf OregonPO Box 40585, Portland, OR 97240¡ o 503.444,701"5

r [email protected]

www,aclu-or.org ll ffi

Ihrs mossago may contain inforntation that is confidentiat or tagatty privileged. lf you are not the intonded recipient, please immodiately advise tha

sencler by reply email that this nressâge has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this email from your system.

.a}{€ãtÉåÉi ctËft ltsåf,11[6 u¡li$t*ût ü*Etûçt



*ËérR¡råN Èrutt tåBE*TiE* uH¡t?{r*uH*åTtüt{

{3rr:6rsx"a

SENT VIA E-MAIL

November 17,2017

U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementFreedom of Information Act Office500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009Washington, D.C. 2053 [email protected]

RE: Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359


I write in response to your e-mail dated November 14, 2017 regañing our Freedom ofInformation Act ("FOIA") request dated October t0,2017 (the "Request"), In that e-mail, ICEFOIA requests that the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon ("ACLU") provide "furtherclarification" because "the [ACLU's] communication requests are too broad." More specifically,ICE FOIA wants to know o.what type of communications are [ACLU] requesting" and requests

that the ACLU also "identi$ the subject of the communication."

We respectfully disagree with your determination that the Request for communications is

too broad. The Request includes the information you seek. Here are the communicationsrequests that were submitted:

1) Communications-from January 1,2017, through the date of fulfrlling this request-between any public employee(s) working in an Oregon county's district attorney's officeand any ICE employee(s) working in (physically or virtually) Oregon.

2) Communications-from January I,2017, through the date of fulfilling this request-between any public employee(s) working in Oregon's judicial branch and any ICEemployees(s) working in (physically or virtually) Oregon.



3) Communications-from January 1,2Q17,through the date of fulfilling this request-between any public employees working for an Oregon law enforcement agency and anyICE employee(s) working in Oregon.

4) All communications with or records sent from any ICE official to any other federalgovernment agency or official with information from, about or related to events orpersons at the Washington County courthouse(s) and/or in Hillsboro, Oregon onSeptember 18,2017.

All the requests are limited by time. Subject matter has been provided where ACLU intended tolimit the request to a particular subject matter. Parties to the communications are provided wherethe request does not desire to limit the subject matter but would like to see records of a//communications between the stated parties.

Further, the ACLU does not wish to limit the Request to any specìfìc type ofcommunication. The ACLU wants a// communications for which there are records between theparties specified andlor the subject matter identified. "Communication" should mean anydisclosure, transfer, exchange, or transmission of fact, information, adviceo statement, or opinionby means whatsoever, including, but not limited to, oral, electronic, or written transmission. Asthe term "communication" suggests, that may include, but is not limited to, e-mails, textmessages, leffers, facsimile, social media messages, and/or communications exchanged usingplatforms such as Snapchat, WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, etc.

The Request satisfies I C.F.R. $ .5.3(h) hy specifically iclentifuing (l) the parties whosecommunications are of interest; (2) the specific subject matter of those communications whereknown and relevant; and (3) the date range for those communications. The ACLU believes thatany such communications likely were created by or are in the control of the Seattlg Field Office,Portland Sub-Office, and the individual ICE employees working in Oregon. But because theACLU does not know which DHS components or offices may possess these records, we do notlimit our request to these components and offices at this time.

While we appreciate ICE FOIA's reversal of its denial of expedited processing, theACLU also notes that ICE FOIA's deadline for providing responsive documents under a non-expedited schedule was November 9,2017 . As such, please consider this letter to be an appeal ofthe denial of the ACLU's request and untimely response thereto.

Per 8 C.F.R. $ 5.8, please provide to the ACLU within 20 working days, i.e. byI)ecember 15,2017, responsive clocuments or a denial of this appeal. Failure to respond willnecessitate court reviEw.

Sincerely,

Mat dos Santos, Legal Director



From:To:Subject:Date:

TCË-r"ff.åKellv Simon

Automatlc reply: Freedom of Informatlon Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359

Friday, Novembet t7,2017 3:18:36 PM

tCE has received the information you submitted to the lCt.ll-OlAlPtj.hs.gr:y mailbox.

lf you are submitting a FOIA request, this courtesy reply does not replace the Acknowledgement


System.


may check the status of your request online at www.be,gÇv/ia"iå&lêtusl.

Please visit the ICE FOIA Library at www,ìce.govlfoìallihraryl.

As this reply is automatically generated, please do not respond to this notification



From:lo:Cc:Subject:Attachments:

f-cüs.-Simç[ice-foiatõdhs.oovIt4at doslantosRE: Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359

imaqe003.Ëfrg

lo Whonr lt May Concern

I am writìng on hehalf of f he ACLI.J of Oregon to inquire ,rs to the st;ìtrrs of cãse n{rmber 201"8-lcf û-03359. The AüLL} of Oregon submitl"ed its original requesl on Ocl"r:ber I0,2û1-7, which I understand

createcl a non-expeditecl cjearjline of Novenrber 9,2017, to provitie responsive rjocuments. lC[ did

not meet that rJtladlinn cle spite granting the ACt t.J of Oregon's rcque st for expeclited proce ssing. On

Nover¡rber 17,7017 , the ACLU of t)regon subrylitted an appeal. I understand that ICE's tirneline forresponding to aclministrativtl appeals ìs ?0 working elays. Give n that that dtladline has also passed,

the ACILU of Oregon respectiully requests lo be provided wil"h an eslimale as to when responsìve

documents or a response to the appeal can be expectecl.

We appreciate your ¿ìtterìtion to this rnatter

Kinci regards,

K*lly SimonPronounç: she, here¡

StafT:\ttorneyA¡nerican Civil Libert.ies l-lnion of Oregon

P{) Box 40¡585, Foriland. (}n S7240

{503.444.701i; I ksimo¡[email protected]

å*lu."s[^,ç*g,:, ;

þY-e...(tre"írì th,.e Gãt:e!Ç"t¡i{.Lg.j- #íttíng hn,,s neuer felt sa g*erd"

Iñr,s mossage may contaín informatian that is canfidential ar legally privileged. If yau are nçt the intonded recipiant, pleasaimmediately advrse ffie sender by reply email that this,??esssge has been inadverfently transmifted ta you and delete thisemail from yaur system.

From: Kelly Simon

Sent: Friday, November 17,2017 3:L8 PM

To:'[email protected]' <ice-foia@ dhs.gov>

Cc: Mat dos Santos <[email protected]>

Subject: Freedom of lnformation Act Appeal - Case Number 201-8-ICFO-03359

To Whom lt May Concern



Please see the attached FOIA appeal for case number 201"8-ICFO-03359

Sincerely,

K*lly Si*on {she/her}Staff AttorneyACLTJ of Oregon

P0 Box4ü585, Portland, CIR 97240

I o 5CI3.444.7015

I ksimontôaclu-or.oro' r'_'! 4" ":

www.aclu*r.org i il

This message may contain infarmation that is confidential or legally privileged. lf yau are not the intended recipient, pleaseimmediately advise the sender by rëpty êma¡l that fhís nressage has þeen inadveftently transmittêd ta you and delete thisemail from your sysferr.



From:To:Subject:Date!

ïçË-rÇ;åKellv Sim0n

Automatic reply: Freedom of Informatlon Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359

Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:23:48 PM

ICE has recelved the information you submitted to the |.C[.FOlA€ù.eJhs.gpy mailbox'

lf you are submitting a FOIA request, this courtesy reply does not replace the Acknowledgement


System.


may check the status of your request online at www,ice.gov/loia/stalusl.

Please visit the ICE FOIA Library at www,ìr:e.govlfaÌallibr:aryl.

As this reply ls automatically generated, please do not respond to this notification



From: Stadnicki, David <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 9:02 AM To: Kelly Simon Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359

Good afternoon,

Your request is currently in the queue to be processed by an analyst. Please be advised that cases are processed on a first in, first out basis. Due to the tremendous volume of requests, it is taking longer than normal to process. Apologies for any inconveniences this may cause. You can now check the status of your FOIA requests online at: htto://www.dhs.gov/foia-status. Ensure that you input the entire case number (2018-ICF0-03359).

Sincerely, ICE/FOIA

From: Kelly Simon [mailto:KSimonOaclu-or.orq]Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 7:24 PM To: ice-foiaCa Cc: Mat dos Santos Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359


I am writing on behalf of the ACLU of Oregon to inquire as to the status of case number 2018-ICFO-03359. The ACLU of Oregon submitted its original request on October 10, 2017, which I understand created a non-expedited deadline of November 9, 2017, to provide responsive documents. ICE did not meet that deadline despite granting the ACLU of Oregon's request for expedited processing. On November 17, 2017, the ACLU of Oregon submitted an appeal. I understand that ICE's timeline for responding to administrative appeals is 20 working days. Given that that deadline has also passed, the ACLU of Oregon respectfully requests to be provided with an estimate as to when responsive documents or a response to the appeal can be expected.

We appreciate your attention to this matter.

Kind regards,

Kelly Simon Pronouns: she, hers

Staff Attorney American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon .P0 Box 40585, Portland, OR 97240 503.444.7015 I [email protected] aclu-or.org

ACLU Oregon

We are in the Give/Guide! Giving has never felt so good.

1

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Stadnicki, David < [email protected]>Wednesday, February 07,2018 9:02 AMKelly SimonRE: Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Case Number 201-8-ICFO-03359

Good afternoon,

Your request is currently in the queue to be processed by an analyst. Please be advised that cases are processêd on a

first in, first out basis. Due to the tremendous valume of requests, it is tal<ing longer than normal tc process. Apologiesfor any inconveniences This may cause. You can now check the status of your FOIA requests online at:httn:/lwww.dhs"gov/fç_iå-statuS. Ënsure that you input the entire case number (201"8-ICFO-03359).

Sincerely,rcñ/ËorA

From : Kelly Simon tmedþSSmnmRAClU:Af .stglSent: Tuesday, January 0Z,20LB 7:24 PM

To : :Egj-fp-iåQ.dhå,SeyCc: Mat dos SantosSubject: RE: Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359


I am writing on behalf of the ACLU of Oregon to inquire as to tl¡e sl.ätus of case number 201$-lct0-CI3359. The ACLU ofûregon submitted its original requeston October !A,2tl"7, which I understand created a non-expedited deadline ofi'*lovember g,z}:r7,to provide responsive documents. lCË did nÕt meet that deadline despite granting the ACLU ofûregon's request for expedited processing. On November 17,2017, the ACLU of Ûregon submitted an appeal. I

understand that ICE's timeline for responding to administrative appeals is 20 working days. 6iven that that deadline has

also passed, the ACLU of Oregon respectfully requests to be provided with an estimate as to when responsivedocuments or ã response to the appeal can be expected.

We appreciate your attention to this matter

Kind regards,

Kelly flimonPl:onoun¡i: she, hers

Staff Attorne_vAn: er:ican Clivil l,jberties I Inion ofi Orr:gon

P() t3ox"1058,5, Portlancl, 0R 9724tì

5A3.444.7 0 I5 I ksl¡usnçêçlË-çr.oscaclu-or.org f,} ff}

nßl.ü{}reErlr

We are ín the GiuelGuide! üí,uítzg hus neuer fel,t so goad.

1



This message may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply email that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this email from your system.

From: Kelly Simon Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:18 PM To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>Cc: Mat dos Santos <[email protected]>Subject: Freedom of Information Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359


Please see the attached FOIA appeal for case number 2018-ICFO-03359.

Sincerely,

Kelly Simon (she/her) Staff Attorney ACLU of Oregon PO Box 40585, Portland, OR 97240 ■ o 503.444.7015 ■ ksimonaaolu-or.orq

www.aclu-or.org E

BOORMAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION of OREGON

This message may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply email that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this email from your system.

2

Ihls message may contaín information that is canfidential ar legalty privileged. If you are nat the intended recipient, please immediately advise thesender by reply emait that ff¡rs rnessage has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this email from your system.

From: Kelly SimonSent: Friday, November t7,2Ot7 3:18 PM

To :' í ce -f o i a @ d h s. gov' <.¡e*fgj.*.ffi..dh"Lggv>

Cc : M a t d o s S a n to s <M dqå€$-n tp-å-Qa Clikg¡"ffg>Subject: Freedom of lnformation Act Appeal - Case Number 2018-ICFO-03359


Please see the attached FOIA appeal for case number 2018-ICFO-03359

Sincerely,

Kelly Sirncn {she/her}Staff AttorneyACLU of OregonPO Box 40585, Portland, CIR 97240¡ o 503.444.7015r [email protected]

www.aclu-or.g.rg B *ä

Iha message may contain informatian that is confidentiat or tegally privileged. If you are not the intended recipíent, please immediately advise thesender by reply emait that fhrs message has been i¡tadvertently transmitted to you and delete this email fram your system.

wÅrÈ8ûtctti fivrL ilBçattÉg uHlt¡lôl 6*g${ti

2



DEREK D. GREEN, OSB #042960 ALICIA J. LEDUC, OSB #173963 ...media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/ACLUOR_v_ICE_Compla… · DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue,

Documents