OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University (the “Knight Institute” or “Institute”) filed this action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552 (“FOIA”) against the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (“ICE”), the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) within the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Department of State (“DOS”), the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs (“OPA”), and Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) (collectively “Defendants”) seeking records relating to the government’s authority to exclude or remove individuals from the United States based on their speech, beliefs, or associations. ECF. No. 42. Pending before the Court are USCIS and ICE motions for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions are granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiffs cross-motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with the previous summary judgment opinion (the “Opinion”) in this matter, which provides a more complete background, and discusses here only those facts necessary for its disposition of the instant motions. See ECF No. 140. In short, Plaintiff seeks information relating to communications between government agencies and the White House concerning its authority to exclude or remove individuals from the United States based on certain beliefs and associations. Am. Compl. 4, ECF No. 42. The President addressed these concerns in Executive Order 13,780 (“E.O. 13,780″), which directed the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to develop a more robust vetting program for visa applicants and refugees seeking entry into the United States. Exec. Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209, 13,215 (Mar. 6, 2017).1 In the Opinion, the Court addressed the parties’ arguments regarding the adequacy of certain agencies’ searches, as well as the lawfulness of certain withholdings and redactions. ECF No. 140.2 Defendants and Plaintiff now cross-move for summary judgment regarding the following agency withholdings: 1. ICE In response to Plaintiff’s original FOIA request, ICE produced 2,574 pages of responsive records and withheld certain pages pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E). March 15, 2019 Fuentes Declaration 11 & Exhibit A (Vaughn Index). Thereafter, ICE re-reviewed the collected documents to identify materials responsive to the Narrowed Request. See ECF. No. 64. Upon re-review, ICE determined that 99 pages of documents were responsive to the Narrowed Request and released 50 pages in whole or in part applying withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), and referred 49 pages to other agencies, which were released in whole or in part on August 3, 2018.3 See ECF. No. 77; Fuentes Decl.
9-11. 2. USCIS USCIS determined that documents responsive to the Narrowed Request would include “records related to [USCIS'] enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), particularly its provisions on terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (TRIG), found in INA §212, codified in 8 U.S.C. §1182[.]” Declaration of Jill A. Eggleston, dated March 14, 2019 (“ Eggleston Decl.”), 9. USCIS initially compiled over 2,200 pages of potentially responsive documents and determined that 1,278 pages were responsive to the Narrowed Request. Id. at 11. On May 30, 2018, and June 29, 2018, USCIS produced 957 pages in their entirety, and withheld 357 pages in part. Id. Specifically, USCIS partially withheld 17 pages pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, and 256 pages and 33 slides pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(E). Id.
