CLOSED,STAYED,TYPE I-FOIA
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cv-01967-RC

MUSLIM ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al Assigned to: Judge Rudolph Contreras Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Date Terminated: 06/16/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff MUSLIM ADVOCATES

represented by MUSLIM ADVOCATES PRO SE

Matthew W. Callahan MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 Washington, DC 20043 (202) 897-2622 Fax: (202) 508-1007 Email: matthew@muslimadvocates.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sirine Shebaya NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 202-656-4788 Email: sirine@nipnlg.org TERMINATED: 08/16/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Johnathan James Smith MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440

V. Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Defendant UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

Washington, DC 20043 (202) 897-1897 Fax: (202) 508-1007 Email: johnathan@muslimadvocates.org TERMINATED: 02/01/2019
Nimra H. Azmi DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1251 6th Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10020 804-387-1303 Email: nimra@muslimadvocates.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Johnny Hillary Walker , III U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division 555 4th Street NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2575 Email: johnny.walker@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doris Denise Coles-Huff U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2557 Fax: (202) 252-2599 Email: doris.coles@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Doris Denise Coles-Huff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/23/2018 08/23/2018 08/23/2018 08/27/2018
08/27/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-5654213) filed by MUSLIM ADVOCATES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet, # 5 Summons DOJ, # 6 Summons ICE, # 7 Summons U.S. Attorney General, # 8 Summons USAO-DC)(Smith, Johnathan) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
2 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Nimra H. Azmi, :Firm- Muslim Advocates, :Address- P.O. Box 34440, Washington, D.C. 20043. Phone No. - 202-897-2564. Fax No. - 202508-1007 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-5654300. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by MUSLIM ADVOCATES (Smith, Johnathan) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (zmd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: Local Rule 83.2(c)(2) provides that "[a]n attorney who engages in the practice of law from an office located in the District of Columbia must be a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Bar of this Court to file papers in this Court." On motion submitted by a member of the Bar of this Court, attorney Nimra H. Azmi seeks pro hac vice admission to represent Plaintiff in this case. Ms. Azmi declares that she works from an office located in the District of Columbia and that she has a pending application for membership to the District of Columbia Bar. Notwithstanding Local Rule 83.2(c)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that Nimra H. Azmi is admitted to represent Plaintiff pro hac vice in this case. As soon as practicable after Ms. Azmi's admission to the District of Columbia Bar, she must seek admission to the Bar of this Court. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on August 27, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
3 SUMMONS (4) Issued Electronically as to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Consent) (zmd) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

08/28/2018 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Sirine Shebaya on behalf of MUSLIM ADVOCATES (Shebaya, Sirine) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

09/06/2018 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Johnny Hillary Walker, III on behalf of All Defendants (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/10/2018

6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 8/29/2018, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 8/29/2018., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/29/2018. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 9/28/2018.) (Shebaya, Sirine) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/10/2018

7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT served on 9/10/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shebaya, Sirine) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/27/2018

8 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

MINUTE ORDER granting 8 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall have up to and including October 12, 2018 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 9/27/18. (lcrc1) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

10/12/2018

9 ANSWER to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT.(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and jointly submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before October 26, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/12/2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 10/26/2018 (tj) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/26/2018

10 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/26/2018

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 10 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit another joint status report by December 10, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/26/2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

12/10/2018

11 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/10/2018

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 11 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by January 24, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on December 10, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/13/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 1/24/2019 (tj) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

01/23/2019

12 Unopposed MOTION to Stay and for extension of time by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Coles-Huff, Doris). Added MOTION for Extension of Time to on 1/28/2019 (znmw). (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/24/2019

MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Motion to Stay: It is hereby ORDERED that this case is stayed until appropriations are restored to the Department of Justice. The deadline for submitting the joint status report, previously due on January 24, 2019, is extended until 14 days after appropriations are restored. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on January 24, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

02/01/2019

13 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MUSLIM ADVOCATES. Attorney Johnathan James Smith terminated. (Smith, Johnathan) (Entered: 02/01/2019)

02/08/2019

14 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 14 the parties' joint status report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties will file another joint status report by March 8, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on February 8, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

03/01/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/8/2019 (tj) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/07/2019

15 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/07/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 15 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by April 7, 2019. (So Ordered Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on March 7, 2019). (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/07/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 4/7/2019 (tj) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

04/05/2019 16 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/05/2019)

04/08/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 16 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by May 31, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on April 8, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 04/08/2019)

04/11/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/31/2019 (tj) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

05/31/2019

17 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

06/03/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 17 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by July 19, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on June 3, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

07/19/2019

18 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

07/19/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 18 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by September 6, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on July 19, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

07/23/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/6/2019 (tj) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

08/16/2019

19 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MUSLIM ADVOCATES. Attorney Sirine Shebaya terminated. (Shebaya, Sirine) (Entered: 08/16/2019)

08/22/2019

20 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew W. Callahan on behalf of MUSLIM ADVOCATES (Callahan, Matthew) (Main Document 20 replaced on 8/23/2019) (znmw). (Entered: 08/22/2019)

09/06/2019

21 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

09/16/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 21 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before November 8, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 09/16/2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

11/08/2019

22 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/12/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 22 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before December 13, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/12/2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

12/13/2019

23 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

12/16/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 23 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before January 13, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/16/2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/17/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 1/13/2020 (tj) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

01/13/2020

24 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 01/13/2020)

01/15/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 24 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before February 12, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/15/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/15/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 2/12/2020 (tj) (Entered: 01/15/2020)

02/12/2020 25 Joint STATUS REPORT by MUSLIM ADVOCATES. (Azmi, Nimra) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

02/13/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 25 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint joint status report on or before March 12, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/13/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/13/2020

NOTICE OF ERROR re 25 Status Report; emailed to nimra@muslimadvocates.org, cc'd 5 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Invalid attorney signature, 2. In future, the signature on the pleading and the PACER login must match. (ztth, ) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/20/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/12/2020 (tj) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

03/12/2020

26 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 03/12/2020)

03/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 26 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint Status Report on or before April 10, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/12/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/12/2020)

03/18/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 4/10/2020 (tj) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

04/10/2020

27 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/13/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 27 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint Status Report on or before May 8, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4/13/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/8/2020. (zcal) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

05/08/2020

28 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/08/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 28 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint Status Report on or before May 29, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/8/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/08/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/29/2020. (zcal) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/29/2020

29 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 29 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint Status Report on or before June 15, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/29/2020. (lckc) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

06/01/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 6/15/2020. (tj) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/15/2020

30 STIPULATION of Dismissal by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

01/15/2021 23:08:46

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code: Leake

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:18-cv-01967RC

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.50

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason: Not Exempt

 Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 Washington, D.C. 20043
Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
and
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 500 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20024
Defendants.

CASE NO.____________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff Muslim Advocates brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. for declaratory, injunctive, and other appropriate relief to compel the disclosure and release of documents from Defendants U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Muslim Advocates is a not-for-profit legal advocacy and educational organization. On January 11, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA Request (the “Request”) for materials related to denaturalization efforts by the federal government, including but not limited to “Operation Janus,” a joint initiative between DOJ and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), where
1

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 15
federal agencies reviewed the files of naturalized citizens for the purpose of identifying misrepresentations in their naturalization applications that could render American citizens eligible for denaturalization. The Request was sent to the DOJ’s National Security Division (“NSD”), DOJ’s Civil Division (“Civil Division”), DHS, and DHS’s component agency, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See Ex. A. On January 25, 2018 DHS referred the Request to its component agency, ICE. On February 13, 2018, Muslim Advocates submitted a revised FOIA request to ICE after the agency requested clarification on the scope of the request (hereinafter, the “Second ICE Request”). See Ex. C.
2. As of this filing, Defendants have wholly failed to comply with their obligations under FOIA: Defendant DOJ wrongfully denied Plaintiff’s Request and has thereafter failed to adjudicate Plaintiff’s administrative appeal of the Civil Division’s denial within the time limit. Defendant ICE has outright refused to process either Muslim Advocates’ initial Request or the Second ICE Request and has likewise failed to respond to any appeals. To date, neither of the Defendants have produced a single document in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. 1
3. The interests at stake in government transparency on the issue of denaturalization could not be more important. An aggressive pursuit of denaturalization by the federal government is unprecedented in recent history and has the potential to disrupt thousands of U.S. citizen lives and families.2 The documents and information Muslim Advocates seeks would help provide much-
1 Neither NSD nor USCIS are named in this action. NSD issued a final determination on Muslim Advocates’ request on July 6, 2018. Muslim Advocates is currently in discussions with USCIS regarding the production of responsive documents. 2 See, e.g., Adiel Kaplan, Miami grandma targeted as U.S. takes aim at naturalized immigrants with prior offenses, MIAMI HERALD (July 9, 2018); Masha Gessen, In America, Naturalized Citizens No Longer Have an Assumption of Permanence, THE NEW YORKER (June 18, 2018).
2

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 3 of 15
needed transparency with respect to the means, ends, and enforcement patterns of the government’s ongoing denaturalization efforts.
4. Plaintiff brings this action to compel Defendants to immediately process and release to Plaintiff all responsive records that they have unlawfully withheld.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over all parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). 6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District, and because Defendants maintain records and information subject to the Requests in this District.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Muslim Advocates is a non-profit organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Oakland, California that works to ensure civil rights for Americans of all faiths through legal advocacy, litigation, policy engagement, and civic education. Muslim Advocates also regularly disseminates information to the public through its website, social media platforms, and email distribution lists. Muslim Advocates is a “person” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 551(2). 8. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice is the United States agency responsible for the enforcement of law and in particular, the prosecution of civil denaturalization suits. The Civil Division is a component of DOJ and a direct recipient of the Request at issue. The Civil Division litigates cases related to immigration enforcement on behalf of the United States, including
3

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 4 of 15
prosecuting denaturalization lawsuits. DOJ has possession of and control over the documents and information requested by Plaintiff.
9. Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). ICE is the component agency of DHS that enforces U.S. immigration law. ICE has possession of and control over the documents and information requested by Plaintiff.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND 10. The Freedom of Information Act provides that any member of the public may request records from a United States agency. Upon receipt of a FOIA request, an agency must determine within 20 business days—or, in “unusual circumstances,” by 30 business days— whether it will comply with a request and notify the requestor of its determination and reasoning in writing. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)-(B)(i). This determination must also timely indicate the scope of the documents the agency intends to produce and the exemptions, if any, that it will apply to withhold documents. 11. In response to a FOIA request, an agency, after engaging in a reasonable search for responsive records, including of any field offices that may possess relevant materials, must disclose in a timely manner all records that do not fall within nine narrowly construed statutory exemptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(3)(A), (C), (b)(1)-(9). 12. Typically, a requester under FOIA must appeal agency action administratively before commencing litigation. However, if the agency has failed to abide by its obligations and issue a determination on the request or a determination on an administrative appeal within the statutory timeframe, the administrative appeal process is considered exhausted. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
4

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 5 of 15
13. Upon complaint, a district court can enjoin an agency from withholding records and order production of records improperly withheld. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 14. Historically, denaturalization has been used sparingly and almost exclusively against perpetrators of war crimes, such as members of the Schutzstaffel (“SS”), Nazi concentration camp guards, and other genocidaires who lied on their U.S. immigration documentation.3 However, systematic denaturalization has come to the fore occasionally: during the Red Scare, the government initiated a program of denaturalization proceedings against suspected Communists.4 Likewise, during World War II, DOJ pursued denaturalization against German Americans and against Indian Americans following the Supreme Court’s 1923 decision in United States v. Thind, which held that Indians were ineligible for citizenship because of their race.5 15. Seventy years after the Red Scare, the federal government has mounted a concerted campaign to increase the use of denaturalization to strip foreign-born U.S. citizens of their citizenship and deport them, regardless of how long they have resided in the country and the families and lives they have built.
3 See, e.g., Linda Greenhouse, Justices Revoke U.S. Citizenship of a Nazi Guard, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 22, 1981), at A1, available at https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/22/us/justices-revoke-uscitizenship-of-a-nazi-guard.html. 4 Ruth Ellen Wasem, Trump administration now has naturalized citizens in its sights, THE HILL (July 17, 2018), http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/396923-trump-administration-now-hasnaturalized-citizens-in-its-sights. 5 See Kritika Agarwal, Stripping Naturalized Immigrants of Their Citizenship Isn’t New, SMIHTSONIAN MAG (Jul. 24, 2018), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/strippingnaturalized-immigrants-their-citizenship-isnt-new-180969733/.
5

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 6 of 15
16. In 2016, DHS launched Operation Janus, an effort coordinated with DOJ, where
immigration agencies reviewed the files of hundreds of thousands of naturalized citizens. Through
Operation Janus, DHS identified 315,000 cases where “some fingerprint data was missing from the centralized digital fingerprint repository.”6
17. The current administration has increased and intensified these denaturalization
efforts.
18. On September 19, 2017, DOJ announced that it had filed “denaturalization
complaints” in the Middle District of Florida, District of Connecticut, and District of New Jersey, alleging that each defendant had obtained his U.S. citizenship fraudulently.7 The defendants are two men of Pakistani origin and one man of Indian origin.8 Each of these cases were referred to
DOJ for prosecution as a result of Operation Janus. According to the DOJ press release, these cases
resulted from “an ongoing collaboration between [DHS and DOJ] to investigate and seek denaturalization proceedings….”9 On January 5, 2018, a judge in the District Court of New Jersey ordered a citizen denaturalized as part of Operation Janus.10
19. Those prosecutions are the tip of the iceberg. In January 2018, DOJ announced in that USCIS intends to refer approximately 1,600 cases to DOJ for prosecution.11 As part of this
6 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice Off. Pub. Affairs, Justice Department Secures First Denaturalization As a Result of Operation Janus (Jan. 9, 2018), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-first-denaturalization-resultoperation-janus. 7 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice Off. Pub. Affairs, United States Files Denaturalization Complaints in Florida, Connecticut and New Jersey Against Three Individuals Who Fraudulently Naturalized After Having Been Ordered Deported Under Different Identities (Sept. 19, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-denaturalization-complaints-floridaconnecticut-and-new-jersey-against. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice Off. Pub. Affairs, supra note 6. 11 Id.
6

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 7 of 15
growing, coordinated interagency effort, in June 2018, DHS announced the institution of a new office within USCIS dedicated to reviewing and referring cases to DOJ for denaturalizing and deporting U.S. citizens.12
20. Transparency about this initiative is of the utmost concern to the American public. As of 2015, there are 19.8 million naturalized U.S. citizens, with 500,000 to 750,000 new citizens naturalized each year. The growing government policy of actively seeking denaturalization of everyday Americans effectively renders naturalized citizens “second-class”13 and has the potential to disrupt lives and families in violent and unpredictable ways. This effort is therefore of exceptional importance to these citizens, their families, their communities, and the American public at large.
A. PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUESTS 21. Plaintiff submitted the Request to NSD, the Civil Division, DHS, and USCIS on
January 11, 2018. See Ex. A. 22. The Request seeks records concerning policies and procedures relating to how DHS
and its component agencies, including USCIS, identify denaturalization cases and refer them to DOJ for prosecution, interagency guidance shared between DHS, USCIS, and/or DOJ pertaining to denaturalization complaints and/or Operation Janus, and DOJ guidance and memoranda regarding denaturalization complaints and Operation Janus. The Request further seeks nonidentifying information reflecting the countries of origin and/or ethnic background of individuals identified as candidates for denaturalization complaints.
12 Nicole Rojas, New USCIS Office Aims to Strip U.S. Citizenship from Naturalized Americans for Lying on Application, NEWSWEEK (June 13, 2018), available at http://www.newsweek.com/new-uscis-office-aims-strip-us-citizenship-naturalized-americanslying-975484. 13 Gessen, supra note 2.
7

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 8 of 15
23. Muslim Advocates sought a determination on the Request within ten calendar days pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(4). Muslim Advocates also sought a fee waiver pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II), (iii) because disclosure of documents pertaining to denaturalization and Operation Janus is in the public interest and because Muslim Advocates is a member of the news media. See Ex. B.
B. AGENCY RESPONSE AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 1. Defendant DOJ’s Response
24. On January 18, 2018, DOJ’s Civil Division sent a letter via email acknowledging receipt of the Request in their office on January 11, 2018. See Ex. B. The letter denied expedited processing. It also found that Muslim Advocates is a member of the news media and reserved decision on the grant of a full fee waiver until after it processed the request. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I), the Civil Division invoked a 10-day extension beyond the typical 20-day statutory limit to respond to Plaintiff’s Request.
25. The following day, on January 19, 2018, the Civil Division sent a letter via email to Plaintiff denying in full Plaintiff’s request for records related to Operation Janus, invoking 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) (“Exemption 7(A)”), claiming that the records had been compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which would be “reasonably expected” to interfere with enforcement. The Civil Division further invoked 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) (“Exemption 7(E)”), claiming that the requested documents would disclose law enforcement investigation and prosecution techniques and procedures. See id. The Civil Division letter was conclusory and provided no description of the relevant law enforcement investigation and prosecution techniques and procedures. The Civil Division did not explain why all of the documents were covered by the
8

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 9 of 15
claimed exemptions or how their disclosure would present a risk of circumvention of the law.14 As such, the Civil Division’s withholding of responsive documents was improper.
26. This letter advised Plaintiff that they could file an administrative appeal to OIP within ninety days of this determination.
27. On January 29, 2018, in light of this complete denial, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Civil Division requesting a Vaughn Index, in which the government provides an itemized index of the withheld portions of documents justifications for each withheld document. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
28. The Civil Division did not respond to this request. 29. On April 5, 2018, Plaintiff timely submitted an administrative appeal of the Civil Division’s denial to DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”). OIP was required to respond to this appeal within 20 days. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). 30. On April 18, 2018, Muslim Advocates received a letter from OIP stating that the appeal had been received in their office on April 9, 2018. 31. Accordingly, a response on this appeal was due to Muslim Advocates by April 30, 2018. 32. As of this filing, Plaintiff has not received the required determination from OIP regarding its appeal of the Civil Division’s determination. Undersigned counsel called OIP on June
14 See, e.g., N.L.R.B v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 235 (1978) (“Where an agency fails to demonstrat[e] that the . . . documents [sought] relate to any ongoing investigation or . . . would jeopardize any future law enforcement proceedings, Exemption 7(A) would not provide protection to the agency’s decision.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); See PHE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 983 F.2d 248, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“An agency that chooses to withhold requested information bears the burden of justifying its decision.”).
9

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 10 of 15
19, 2018 and was told by an agency official that there are no updates on the status of Muslim Advocates’ appeal.
33. A complete copy of Muslim Advocates’ correspondence with DOJ is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
2. Defendant ICE’s Response 34. On January 25, 2018, DHS informed Muslim Advocates by letter sent via email that they had transferred the Request to Defendant ICE. See Ex. C. 35. On February 7, 2018, ICE sent a letter via email acknowledging receipt of the Request in their office on January 25, 2018. 36. On February 5, 2018, the ICE FOIA Office acknowledged receipt of the Request, invoking a 10-day extension and granting Muslim Advocates’ request for a fee waiver. 37. On February 9, 2018, ICE sent a boilerplate letter to Muslim Advocates stating that the Request submitted was “too broad in scope, did not specifically identify the records which you are seeking, or only posed questions to the agency” and that accordingly, ICE refused to process the Request. 38. Even though the original letter was appropriately specific, Muslim Advocates, in response to ICE’s letter, submitted a revised version of its FOIA request, augmenting it with further detail. ICE failed to respond to the Second ICE Request for over a month. 39. On March 6, 2018, Muslim Advocates emailed the ICE FOIA Office seeking confirmation of receipt of the Second ICE Request and stating that FOIA required a determination by March 14, 2018 or 20 business days after the revised request was submitted. 40. On March 15, 2018, the ICE FOIA Office sent a response to the Second ICE Request, claiming that the Second ICE Request submitted on February 13, 2018 was received in
10

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 11 of 15
their office over a month later on March 15, 2018. The ICE FOIA Office claimed once more in a boilerplate letter that the Second ICE Request was “too broad in scope, did not specifically identify the records which you are seeking, or only posed questions to the agency.”
41. Plaintiff’s Second ICE Request sought a narrow subset of records pertaining to denaturalization and Operation Janus, listing specific types of records sought, and posed no questions to ICE.
42. ICE’s categorical denials of Muslim Advocates’ Requests obstruct public access to agency records and are squarely at odds with the purpose of FOIA.
43. On April 16, 2018, Muslim Advocates timely appealed the ICE FOIA Office’s refusal to respond to the Second ICE Request to ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor in the Government Information Law Division, explaining that courts have repeatedly held that agencies have a duty to construe FOIA requests liberally and that a refusal to do so violates FOIA. See Ex. C. Muslim Advocates also cited to ICE’s duty under FOIA to exert a “reasonable amount of effort” and utilize “common sense” when interpreting FOIA requests.
44. Under the statutory 20-day time limit for responding to an appeal, ICE’s determination with respect to Muslim Advocates’ appeal was due by May 7, 2018.
45. As of the date of this filing, over three months after that deadline, the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor has neither responded to the appeal nor issued a determination.
46. A complete copy of Muslim Advocates’ correspondence with ICE is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
11

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 12 of 15
3. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 47. Despite their clear obligations under FOIA, Defendants have not provided any substantive determination in response to the Requests or appeals submitted nor released any records responsive to the Requests within the statutory timeframe. 48. OIP has failed to timely adjudicate Muslim Advocates’ appeal of DOJ – Civil Division’s invocation of Exemptions 7(A) and 7(E). 49. ICE has wholesale and improperly refused to process Plaintiff’s Requests. The Government Information Law Division has failed to timely adjudicate Muslim Advocates’ appeal of ICE’s refusal to process the Second ICE Request. 50. Because Defendants have not complied with the statutory time limits set forth in the FOIA statute, Plaintiff’s administrative remedies are considered exhausted under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Freedom of Information Act
5 U.S.C. § 552(a) Against DOJ
51. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
52. Defendant DOJ has violated 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder by improperly withholding documents from Plaintiff without providing reasons for its determination.
12

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 13 of 15
53. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) authorizes the grant of injunctive relief to Plaintiff because Defendant DOJ continues to flout FOIA and improperly withhold agency records. Defendant DOJ’s refusal to reach a determination on Plaintiff’s Request and release responsive documents prevents Plaintiff from properly advising impacted individuals and from educating the public about Operation Janus and other denaturalization efforts. Defendant DOJ’s withholding of responsive documents will continue to cause Plaintiff irreparable injury.
54. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 authorizes declaratory relief because an actual and justiciable controversy exists regarding Defendant’s improper withholding of agency records in violation of FOIA.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Freedom of Information Act
5 U.S.C. § 552(a) Against ICE
55. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
56. Defendant ICE has violated 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) by inappropriately refusing to process Plaintiff’s proper requests and by failing to make a determination on Plaintiff’s appeal within 20 days.
57. Defendant ICE’s failure to timely release agency records in response to Plaintiff’s Request and Second ICE Request violates 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
58. Defendant ICE has violated 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C)-(D) by failing to make reasonable efforts to search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests to ICE.
59. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) authorizes the grant of injunctive relief to Plaintiff because Defendant ICE continues to flout FOIA and improperly withhold agency records. Defendant ICE’s refusal to reach a determination on Plaintiff’s Request and release responsive documents prevents
13

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 14 of 15
Plaintiff from properly advising impacted individuals and educating the public about the ramifications of Operation Janus and other denaturalization programs. Therefore, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendant ICE’s withholding of government documents subject to Plaintiff’s Request to ICE in defiance of FOIA mandates.
60. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 authorizes declaratory relief because an actual and justiciable controversy exists regarding Defendant’s improper withholding of agency records in violation of FOIA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Muslim Advocates respectfully prays that this Court: A. Enter judgment that Defendants DOJ – Civil Division and ICE’s failure to timely adjudicate Plaintiff’s administrative appeals violates FOIA; B. Enter judgment that Defendants’ unlawful withholding of the records requested violates FOIA; C. Enter an order requiring Defendants to immediately release any and all responsive, non-exempt records or reasonably segregable portions of records to Plaintiff; D. Enter an order requiring Defendant DOJ – Civil Division to immediately release a Vaughn Index of any responsive records withheld; E. Award Plaintiff their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §  552(a)(4)(E); and   F. Award such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: August 23, 2018
14

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 15 of 15
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Johnathan Smith Johnathan Smith (D.C. Bar No. 1029373) Sirine Shebaya (D.C. Bar No. 1019748) Nimra H. Azmi*° MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 Washington, D.C. 20043 Tel: (202) 897-2622 Fax: (202) 508-1007 johnathan@muslimadvocates.org sirine@muslimadvocates.org nimra@muslimadvocates.org * application for pro hac vice admission forthcoming °admitted in New York only; supervised by members of the D.C. Bar
15


On August 23, 2018, Muslim Advocates filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Department of Justice [DOJ] and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]. The complaint alleged that the defendants improperly withheld information in violation of the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Muslim Advocates had requested information from both defendants regarding Operation Janus, where the DOJ, in conjunction with other agencies, reviewed the files of naturalized citizens and began intensive denaturalization efforts. In-house counsel along with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP represented the plaintiff. 

The plaintiff had requested information from both defendants on January 11, 2018. The Civil Division of the DOJ denied the request in full on January 19, 2018, claiming that the release of the documents would be "reasonably expected" to interfere with law enforcement. The DOJ did not explain their reasoning for this determination. The plaintiff then requested a Vaughn index, in which the government provides an itemized index of withheld documents and justification for doing so. The DOJ did not respond to this request. On February 9, 2018, ICE informed the plaintiff that the scope of the request was too broad, and thus did not process the FOIA request. Even after the plaintiff amended its request for information on several occasions, ICE did not release any of the requested documents. 

The case was assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras.

Status reports indicate that the parties reached an agreement on all FOIA issues on January 13, 2020; that agreement has not yet been publicized. Negotiations over ICE's payment of plaintiff's attorneys fees are ongoing as of June 9, 2020; the next status report is due June 15, 2020.