A federal district court in Washington D.C. has granted summary judgment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components—ICE, CBP, and USCIS—in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by the law firm Williams & Connolly, LLP. The firm sought records pertaining to Reza Zarrab, an Iranian, Turkish, and North Macedonian citizen who famously testified in a high-profile sanctions evasion case in New York. The court found that the agencies had complied with their FOIA obligations concerning search adequacy and proper withholding of information under privacy exemptions.
The litigation centered on three separate FOIA requests submitted by Williams & Connolly between 2021 and 2022, all targeting records mentioning Zarrab, his family members, associates, and affiliated companies. Dissatisfied with the agencies’ responses—which included finding no records at ICE and withholding records at CBP and USCIS—the firm sued and subsequently moved for partial summary judgment. The government agencies cross-moved for summary judgment, which the court ultimately granted.
ICE’s Search Deemed Adequate
Williams & Connolly argued that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failed to conduct an adequate search, claiming the agency only checked one component (Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI) and only one database (the Investigative Case Management system, or ICM). The firm suggested ICE should have broadened its search to include other databases like “ICE ENFORCE” or the Enforcement Integrated Database (EID), and even searched emails related to the U.S. Attorney’s Office correspondence mentioned in Zarrab’s plea agreement.
However, the District Court sided with ICE, relying heavily on the declaration provided by Fernando Pineiro, the Director of ICE’s FOIA office. The court noted that HSI was the correct component to search, as it handles financial crimes and sanctions violations. Furthermore, the ICM system was described as ICE’s “primary tool for managing both criminal and civil enforcement matters.”
The searches conducted by HSI personnel in November 2021—using the exact name permutations provided by Williams & Connolly, without any date restrictions—yielded no responsive records. The court emphasized that the adequacy of a FOIA search is judged by the *methods* used, not the *fruits* of the search. Since ICE provided a detailed, good-faith affidavit, the burden shifted to the law firm to show substantial doubt. The court found the firm’s arguments—including the “incredulity” that no records were found—were “purely speculative” and insufficient to rebut the agency’s sworn statements.
Regarding the suggested email search based on the plea agreement, the court found that the agreement only indicated the U.S. Attorney’s Office *intended* to contact ICE under certain conditions; this was not a “clear and certain” lead that obligated ICE to conduct further searches beyond the scope of the initial request.
CBP and USCIS Properly Invoked Privacy Exemptions
The law firm also challenged the decisions by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to withhold records entirely under FOIA Exemptions 6 (personal privacy) and 7(C) (law enforcement records that constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy).
The court noted that Exemption 7(C) is generally more protective than Exemption 6, so the analysis focused there. Both agencies argued that confirming the existence or non-existence of records mentioning Zarrab would itself violate his privacy interests, leading USCIS to issue a “Glomar response” (neither confirming nor denying the existence of records).
Williams & Connolly contended that Zarrab, as a public figure who testified in open court about his nationality and having pleaded guilty to felonies, had a minimal privacy interest in his immigration status.
The court strongly disagreed, finding that Zarrab maintains a substantial privacy interest in his immigration records, even if he is a public figure. Citing precedent, the court stated that association with a law enforcement investigation grants broad privacy rights, and individuals connected to such matters have privacy interests that are “particularly difficult to overcome.” Furthermore, the court found that Zarrab’s public admissions about his nationality did not eliminate his interest in keeping specific immigration details private.
Weighing Public Interest
To overcome this substantial privacy interest under Exemption 7(C), the requester must demonstrate a significant public interest in disclosure that outweighs privacy concerns. Williams & Connolly argued the public had a strong interest in seeing whether immigration agencies treated Zarrab—a felon who cooperated with authorities—differently than other immigrants facing deportation.
The court found this public interest to be “minimal.” Relying on prior D.C. Circuit rulings, the judge stated that disclosure about a single individual’s admission or status reveals, at best, limited information about the agency’s *general policy*. The court distinguished this case from a precedent (the *Muchnick* case involving an alleged sexual predator) where the public interest in uncovering systemic failures was deemed strong. Here, the court concluded that the marginal public benefit did not outweigh Zarrab’s significant privacy interest.
Finally, the court confirmed that CBP and USCIS satisfied the requirement to release “reasonably segregable” non-exempt portions of documents because they either conducted a line-by-line review finding nothing segregable (CBP) or properly issued a Glomar response, negating the need for a segregability analysis (USCIS).
In conclusion, the court granted summary judgment to the government defendants, denying the law firm’s motion.