Sosa Orantes v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
JORGE VINICIO SOSA ORANTES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 19-cv-549 (TSC)
)
U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS )
ENFORCEMENT et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Jorge Vinicio Sosa Orantes filed suit under the Privacy Act based on
records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s
International Prisoner Transfer Unit (“DOJ”). Defendants have supplemented the
record and moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, ECF No. 32. For the reasons
explained below, Defendants’ motion will be GRANTED.
What remains is Plaintiff’s request for copies of the international arrest warrants
relied upon to deny his transfer to Canada. 1 See Mem. Op. and Order, ECF No. 24
(granting partial relief to Defendants). ICE has never maintained copies of the actual
arrest warrants. See Supp. Decl. of Jordan Holz ¶¶ 32-33, ECF No. 32-3. DOJ located
1
Despite Plaintiff’s address of record in California, it is undisputed that on October 19,
2020, he was removed from the United States to Canada upon an Immigration Judge’s
finding that he had fraudulently obtained lawful permanent resident status. See Defs.’
Supp. Stmt. of Material Facts ¶¶ 1-4, ECF No. 32-3.
1
one arrest warrant from Guatemala. Decl. of Drew Lavine ¶ 10, ECF No. 32-4. “Heads
of agencies may, however, promulgate rules exempting particular systems of records
from § 552a(d)(1) under conditions described at § 552a(j)-(k).” Sussman v. U.S.
Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Subsection (j)(2) of the Privacy
Act “allows an agency to ‘exempt any system of records’ from the relevant disclosure
provisions if the agency ‘performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the
enforcement of criminal laws,’ and the record system itself consists of certain types of
law enforcement information.” Corley v. Dep’t of Just., 998 F.3d 981, 984 (D.C. Cir.
2021) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2)).
The heads of both ICE and DOJ have properly exempted their respective filing
systems containing law enforcement records from the Privacy Act’s disclosure
requirements. See Holz Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 35-43 (attesting to Homeland Security’s
exemption of files containing “INTERPOL Red Notices” of international warrants);
Lavine Decl. ¶¶ 14-19 (attesting to DOJ’s exemption of “CRM-001,” where the
Guatemalan arrest warrant was found). As for the remaining claim, then, Defendants
are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2 A corresponding order will issue
separately.
Date: August 30, 2021
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
2
To the extent Plaintiff questions the agencies’ substantive decisions, Opp’n at 3-9,
ECF No. 35, such arguments are misguided because the Privacy Act generally “allows
for correction of facts but not correction of opinions or judgments.” McCready v.
Nicholson, 465 F.3d 1, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
2