Castro Tum Judicial E-mails

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:

The documents related to assignment of an Immigration Judge in the matter of In Re Reynaldo CASTRO-TUM. It is our understanding that after the Attorney General reversed the administrative closure decision and remanded this matter, the original Immigration Judge, Steven Morley, set a briefing schedule for the parties to address the issues. However, recently the agency has without explanation or advance notice assigned a new Immigration Judge , ACIJ Deepali Nadkarni, to this case and has scheduled a hearing for July, 2018. It is unclear whether the respondent has been notified of the change in IJ or the hearing date. Given this relatively unorthodox development, we are requesting the records in the possession of the agency that would explain what has occurred following remand. That would include the following:
1. Any written records (non-electronic documents) related to the assignment or change of the Immigration Judge in the Castro Tum between May 17, 2018 and the date this request is processed.
2. Any e-mail messages to or from IJ Steven Morley about the Castro Tum matter or about judicial assignments between May 17, 2018 and the date this request is processed.
3. Any e-mail messages to or from ACIJ Deepali Nadkarni about the Castro Tum matter or about judicial assignments between May 17, 2018 and the date this request is processed.
4. The records from the agency's Case Access System for EOIR ("CASE") database related to the Castro Tum matter or about judicial assignments between May 17, 2018 and the date this request is processed.

We are requesting that this matter be expedited, given that the case appears to be scheduled for a Master Calendar hearing in July, 2018. Also, because the change in IJ may in fact by unlawful or otherwise improper, it is important that the records be produced in an expedited manner because the issue is one of public interest. Further, given the widespread publicity about the Castro Tum matter, there is substantial interest in the developments following remand. I will likely be writing about this development as a member of the news media and need the documents requested to complete my writing. Because I am a member of the news media and have no commercial interest in these documents, I am also asking that any search and/or reproduction fees be waived.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Matthew Hoppock

1. We asked for all documents related to the assignment of an Immigration Judge in the Castro-Tum matter but the response does not address this broader request.

2. In addition to the broader request, we specified several items that should include. With respect to item 1, it appears the agency did not conduct an adequate search. We asked for all non-electronic (paper) documents related to the change in judge in the Castro-Tum matter. We are aware the agency maintains a paper file on each immigration court case. There should be an assignment sheet or some other paper records related to the change in IJ. Although the decision says there are no records, that would be highly abnormal.

2. With respect to Item 4, the agency improperly withheld the CASE Database entries entirely, rather than redact the portions of information related to a specific person (Mr. Castro Tum). Arguably, the privacy protections have been waived because the Attorney General published a decision about Mr. Castro Tum (and the Attorney General has authority to waive the privacy requirements related to immigration files). However, the part we are looking for is the part related to reassignment of the judge, which does not relate to the specifics of Mr. Castro Tum's case. It is unclear why the information specific to Mr. Castro-Tum's case could not have been redacted.

A grievance filed by the IJs' union this morning indicates there are documents that the EOIR previously claimed don't exist in its July 27, 2018 letter. In particular:

1. A May 19, 2018 e-mail from Director McHenry to an unknown recipient directing that the case be scheduled for a hearing within 14 days
2. A July 19, 2018 e-mail from Jack Weil to Immigration Judge Morley stating that the Castro-Tum case had been reassigned because the Court had been expected to make a decision at the May 31, 2018 hearing
3. A second July 19, 2018 e-mail from Jack Weil to IJ Morley

The FOIA request asked for "The documents related to assignment of an Immigration Judge in the matter of In Re Reynaldo CASTRO-TUM" and specifically any e-mail messages to or from IJ Morley "between May 17, 2018 and the date this request is processed." The request was processed on July 27, but the denial letter stated no such records existed. That was false.

Please produce the responsive records.

Joseph,

It seems the 5/18/2018 e-mail you describe would have fallen under the request for "the documents related to assignment of an Immigration Judge in the matter of In Re Reynaldo CASTRO-TUM."

It sounds like based on the search parameters you used, the document did turn up. Would the EOIR be willing to produce it now?

Matthew Hoppock

Yes, that's fine. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a nice weekend.

Joseph,

Can I ask a question about these e-mails? These are three responses to a May 18 e-mail from Director McHenry. However, we haven't yet seen the Director McHenry e-mail they're responding to. I know the text of it is quoted in the replies, but the actual e-mail itself would show us who was copied or BCC'd on the e-mail and possibly other things. Will that e-mail be produced?

Thank you.

Please withdraw this appeal. We previously wrote to OIP to withdraw it.