Opinion
00 Civ. 5842 (JGK).
August 13, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Steven E. Perlman ("Perlman") brings this action contesting the denial of portions of his request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). The DOJ now moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
In addition to the DOJ, the plaintiff also brought this action against former United States Attorney General Janet Reno, Robert L. Ashbaugh, Howard L. Sribnick, Carol Herbert, and Deborah Marie Briscoe. By a Stipulation and Order dated November 10, 2000, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed these individual defendants from this action. See Stipulation and Order dated November 10, 2000.
I.
The facts in this case are largely undisputed. On November 17, 1999, the plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General ("OIG") seeking a copy of a report, including a list of exhibits and copies of the exhibits in their entirety (the "Report"), of an investigation conducted by OIG into the handling of the Alien Entrepreneur program, known as the EB-5 program ("EB-5 program") run by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). (Compl. ¶ 1; Declaration of Deborah Marie Briscoe dated December 1, 2000 ("Briscoe Decl."), ¶ 3 Ex. 1.) Under the EB-5 program, created by Section 121(b)(5) of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub L. No. 101-649, 1990 U.S.C.A.A.N. (104 Stat.) 4978, 4989-90 (Nov. 29, 1990) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)), alien investors may qualify for preferred visa status by investing a set amount of money in a United States business and creating full-time employment for a set number of individuals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(a). An alien seeking. to obtain lawful permanent residence in the United States under the EB-5 program must first file a petition with the INS. If the petition is approved, the immigrant investor (as well as dependents, if any) is admitted for permanent residence on a conditional basis. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). The investor must subsequently file another petition to have the conditional status removed within ninety days of the second anniversary of his lawful admission for permanent residence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(1), (d)(2). The EB-5 petition is granted if the INS determines that the alien sustained the required investment and entrepreneurial activities during the period of his or her conditional residency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(d)(1); See also 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4).
By letter dated November 18, 1999, a Paralegal Specialist at OIG, Deborah Marie Briscoe ("Briscoe"), acknowledged receipt of the plaintiff's FOIA request. (Compl. ¶ 2 Ex. 1.) In response to the plaintiff's FOIA request, OIG located a 143-page report of an investigation dated October 25, 1999. (Def.'s 56.1 St. ¶ 2.) OIG contends that the Report examines allegations that Paul Virtue ("Virtue"), then a senior official at the INS and specifically its general counsel, had improperly granted former INS officials preferential treatment and undue access and influence in the administration of the EB-5 program. (Def.'s 56.1 St. ¶ 3) The plaintiff, however, alleges that the Report investigated the entire EB-5 program and the implementation thereof and not simply Virtue's conduct. (Pl.'s 56.1 St. ¶ 1.) The Report itself consists of the two-page synopsis of OIG's investigation, a form setting forth basic identifying information concerning Virtue, a list of 40 exhibits, and the exhibits. (Def.'s 56.1 St. ¶ 4.)
Virtue left the INS in 1999. (Compl. ¶ 15.)
By letter dated January 27, 2000, Briscoe informed the plaintiff that OIG was withholding the Report in its entirety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (b)(7)(C) ("Exemption 6" and "Exemption 7(C)"). (Compl. Ex. 2; Def.'s 56.1 St. ¶ 5.) Exemptions 6 relates to personnel and similar files. Exemption 7(C) relates to records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes. On or about February 7, 2000, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Co-Director of the DOJ's Office of Information Privacy ("OIP"). (Compl. Ex. 3; Def.'s Rule 56.1 St. ¶ 6.) The plaintiff alleges that the DOJ failed to determine his appeal within the twenty business days provided by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). (Compl. ¶ 7.)
The plaintiff filed this action on August 7, 2000. By letter dated October 30, 2000, OIP Co-Director Richard Huff ("Huff") released to the plaintiff 49 pages of the Report, some of which were partially redacted. (Briscoe Decl. Ex. 3.) Huff, however, determined that OIG properly withheld the remaining portions of the Report pursuant to Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C). (Briscoe Decl. Ex. 3.) The DOJ disclosed an additional four pages of the Report to the plaintiff on February 6, 2001 pursuant to the privacy waiver of Sheldon Alexander Gisser. (Letter from Sarah S. Normand dated February 6, 2001.)
At a hearing held on June 22, 2001, the Court informed the DOJ that in order to evaluate properly OIG's reasons for redacting the remaining portions of the Report, it needed to review the redacted portions of the Report in camera. (Transcript dated June 22, 2001 ("Tr."), at 41.) The Court requested that the DOJ first review the Report to determine if any of the redacted portions should be disclosed before the Court reviewed the Report in its entirety. (Tr. at 41.) On June 29, 2001 the DOJ submitted an unredacted copy of the Report to this Court. In addition, after reviewing the prior redactions, the DOJ, in consultation with OIG, disclosed to the plaintiff an additional 30 pages of the Report, some of which were partially redacted. (Letter from Sarah S. Normand to the Court dated June 29, 2001; Letter from Sarah S. Normand to Mark S. Zaid dated June 29, 2001.)
Although "[i]n camera review is considered the exception, not the rule, . . . the propriety of such review is a matter entrusted to the district court's discretion." Local 3, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers. AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 845 F.2d 1177, 1180 (2d Cir. 1988); See also Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 295 (2d Cir. 1999). Thus, the Court, in its discretion, has chosen to review the Report in camera.
In response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that the declarations and Vaughn index, See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 823 (D.C. Cir. 1973), submitted by the DOJ were insufficient to support summary judgment. The plaintiff also contended that the DOJ's declarations were submitted in bad faith. Because the Court's has reviewed the Report in camera, the plaintiff's argument concerning the DOJ's declarations and Vaughn index are now moot because the Court has independently examined the Report and determined whether the redactions are in fact justified.
II.
FOIA "was enacted to facilitate public access to Government documents,"United States v. Ray, 502 u.s. 164, 173 (1991), and the statute reflects "a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language." Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360-361 (1976) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Within FOIA, Congress created nine exemptions to the general rule of agency disclosure, See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), all of which are "narrowly construed with doubts resolved in favor of disclosure." Federal Labor Relations Auth. v. United States Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 503, 508 (2d Cir. 1992).
An agency's decision to withhold or redact documents requested under FOIA is reviewed de novo. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); see also Massey v. FBI, 3 F.3d 620, 622 (2d Cir. 1993). Where an agency withholds or redacts documents requested under FOIA, the agency bears the burden of proving that the withheld or redacted documents fall within a FOIA exemption. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); See also 502 U.S. at 173;Massey, 3 F.3d at 622.
FOIA expressly authorizes redaction of information that would result in "a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" or that was otherwise exempt. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2) (b); See also Ray, 502 U.S. at 174 n. 9.
The Report consists of a two-page Synopsis of the Abbreviated Report of Investigation ("Synopsis"), a one-page Subject of Investigation, a List of Exhibits, and a series of forty exhibits consisting of Memorandums of Investigation ("MOIs"). The first 22 MOIs summarize interviews of certain witnesses. MOIs 23 through 40 refer to the receipt of certain documents pursuant to document requests and from various witnesses ("Exhibit Documents"). Each Exhibit Document is attached to a corresponding MOI. The DOJ, in consultation with OIG, has redacted various portions of the Report, including portions of the Exhibit Documents, relying on Exemption 6 and 7(C). The DOJ argues that the material withheld falls into three categories: (i) the names of OIG special agents involved in the investigation; (ii) the names of witnesses and others mentioned in the report and information relating to them; and (iii) information relating to Virtue. (Def.'s 56.1 St. ¶ 10.) The DOJ argues that OIG has released all portions of the report that can reasonably be segregated from material exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
The plaintiff does not seek disclosure of the identities of any OIG Special Agents or the personal information concerning Virtue contained on page 3 of the Report, except with respect to the information withheld in the category "Criminal Record." (Pl.'s Memorandum in Opposition at 14 n. 13.)
Exemptions 6 and 7(C) protect "personal privacy interests threatened by disclosure of agency records." Hopkins v. United States Dept. of Hous. Urban Dev., 99 F.2d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 1991). Exemption 6 permits an agency to withhold "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 7(C), to the extent relied on in this case, protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). Under both Exemption 6 and 7(C), a court must balance the individual privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure. United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 768, 776 (1989) Exemption 7(C), however, is more protective of privacy interests than Exemption 6. Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 756 ("[T]he standard for evaluating a threatened invasion of privacy interests resulting from the disclosure of records compiled for law enforcement purposes is somewhat broader than the standard applicable to personnel, medical, and similar files.").
A.
To invoke Exemption 7(C), an agency must first establish that the requested records were "compiled for law enforcement purposes." See FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 622 (1982); Ferguson v. FBI, 957 F.2d 1059, 1065 (2d Cir. 1992). The plaintiff argues that the Report was not "compiled for law enforcement purposes," but rather was conducted for purposes of administrative oversight. The plaintiff contends that that the investigation examined the overall implementation of the EB-5 program and not just Virtue's conduct.
In this case, the Report was compiled for law enforcement purposes. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stated that "once the government has demonstrated that the records were compiled in the course of an investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency, the purpose or legitimacy of such executive action are not proper subjects for judicial review." Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 296 (2d Cir. 1999); See also Ferguson, 957 F.2d at 1070; Williams v. FBI, 730 F.2d 882, 883 (2d Cir. 1984). "An Inspector General of a federal government agency engages in law enforcement activities within the meaning of FOIA." Ortiz v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 70 F.3d 729, 732-33 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Local 32B-32J Serv. Employees Int'l Union v. GSA, No. 97 Civ. 8509, 1998 WL 726000, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1998); Ligorner v. Reno, 2 F. Supp.2d 400, 404-405 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 1998); Williams v. McCausland, Nos. 90 Civ. 7563, 91 Civ. 7281, 1994 WL 18510, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 1994). Here, having review the Report and the Declaration of Gail Robinson dated December 1, 2000, at ¶ 8, it is plain that the Report was compiled in connection with an investigation by OIG into possible violations of law and, in particular, whether a certain employee, namely Virtue, committed acts that could subject that employee to criminal or civil penalties. Thus, the Report was "compiled for law enforcement purposes" within the meaning of Exemption 7(C). See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 89 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("[A]n agency's investigation of its own employees is for "law enforcement purposes' . . . if it focuses directly on specifically alleged illegal acts, illegal acts of particular identified officials, acts which could, if proved, result in civil or criminal sanctions.")
B.
Exemption 6 permits an agency to withhold "personnel and medical files and similar files" where disclosure "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The primary purpose of Exemption 6 is to "protect individuals from the injury and embarrassment that can result from the unnecessary disclosure of personal information" and the exemption is not limited to discrete personal information. United States Dept. of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 599-602 (1982). The Supreme Court has interpreted "similar files" broadly to include "detailed Government records on an individual which can be identified as applying to that individual."Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. at 601-602 (internal quotation and citation omitted); Ray, 502 U.S. at 175; Williams, 1994 WL 18510, at *11.
In this case, the Report contains information with respect to alleged misconduct by Virtue, including information affecting his reputation. The sort of information contained in the Report with respect to Virtue has privacy value similar to information generally found in personnel files. Thus, with respect to Virtue, the Report constitutes a "similar file" under Exemption 6. See e.g., Ligorner, 2 F. Supp.2d at 405 (noting that "`[s]imilar files' refers to files that have a privacy value similar to those found in medical or personnel files."); Pototsky v. Dept. of Navy, 695 F. Supp. 1084, 1087 (0. Hawaii 1988) (finding that investigative records concerning alleged misconduct of a particular individual are "similar files" under Exemption 6), aff'd, 912 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1990).
In addition, certain documents attached to various MOIs relating to the receipt of certain documents contain information applying to particular alien investors in the EB-5 program, such as names and identification numbers, which have privacy value akin to information found in personnel files. Thus, to the extent that certain attached documents contain such identifying information, Exemption 6 covers those documents, with respect to the alien investors, because these documents are "similar files." See Ray, 502 U.S. at 178 (finding redaction of identifying information concerning Haitian nationals returned to Haiti was justified because the invasion of the returnees' privacy interests was "clearly unwarranted").
C.
The plaintiff argues that any privacy interests of the witnesses, third parties mentioned in the Report, and Virtue are substantially outweighed by the public interest in uncovering alleged corruption in a government agency. In particular, the plaintiff asserts that the Report involves high-ranking government officials acting in a public capacity, thus minimizing their need for privacy, while magnifying the public interest in disclosure. The plaintiff also contends that the DOJ has failed to introduce any evidence that there is sufficient harm to the privacy interests of the witnesses, third parties identified in the Report, or Virtue.
In applying both Exemption 6 and 7(C), courts balance the individual privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure.Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 775; Massey, 3 F.3d at 624. The relevant public interest in disclosure to be weighed in this balance is the extent to which disclosure would serve FOIA's basic purpose, which is to preserve `the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to." Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 773 (internal quotation marks omitted). This statutory purpose is furthered by disclosure of "[O]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties." Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 773; See also United States Department of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 495 (1994); Ray, 502 U.S. at 175; Massey, 3 F.3d at 624-25.
The purpose for which a FOIA request is made does not determine whether an invasion of privacy is warranted. FLRA, 510 U.S. at 496;Reporters Comm., 489 U.S., at 771.
Here, the DOJ has satisfied its burden by showing that the privacy interests implicated in this case are not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of those redacted portions of the Report contained in the Synopsis, the Subject of Investigation, the List of Exhibits, and the various MOIs with attachments that pertain to the names of witnesses and third parties and other identifying information, along with information concerning Virtue.
There are important privacy interests that would be lost by the disclosure of the redacted portions of the Report contained in the Synopsis, the Subject of Investigation, the List of Exhibits, and the MOIs with attachments. "[A]lthough government officials . . . may have a `somewhat diminished' privacy interest, they do not surrender all rights to personal privacy when they accept a public appointment." Kimberlin v. Dept. of Justice, 139 F.3d 944, (D.C. Cir. 1998) (internal quotation omitted). A government employee who has been the subject of investigation has a privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of the details of the investigation of his alleged misconduct. See id. at 949. Disclosure of the identities of individuals whose names have turned up in an investigation or who are the subjects of an investigation could subject those individuals to embarrassment, harassment, or the stigma of being associated with a criminal or federal investigation. See Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 767; Halperin, 181 F.3d at 296-97; Massey, 3 F.3d at 624; Williams, 1994 WL 18510, at *12. Such privacy interests cannot be waived through prior public disclosure or through the passage of time.Halperin, 181 F.3d at 297.
In addition, disclosure of the names of individuals who provided information during an investigation or the disclosure of other information identifying those persons may subject such individuals to embarrassment, harassment or threats of reprisal. See Diamond v. FBI, 707 F.2d 75, 77 (2d Cir. 1983); Williams, 1994 WL 18510, at *12. Moreover, third parties identified in agency records have an important privacy interest in remaining anonymous because the "mention of an individuals name in a law enforcement file will engender comment and speculation and carry stigmatizing connotation." Lawyers Comm. for Human Rights v. INS, 721 F. Supp. 552, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (quotation omitted); see also Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 767; Massey, 3 F.3d at 624.
Having reviewed the entire Report in camera, and having considered all of the plaintiff's arguments, the Court finds that the substantial privacy interests in this case outweigh the public interest in the disclosure of the information redacted in the Synopsis, the Subject of Investigation, the List of Exhibits, and the MOIs. In general, the identities of witnesses or third parties in a particular investigation shed no light on the Government's performance of its public duties. See Halperin, 181 F.3d at 297; Massey, 3 F.3d at 625. The overwhelming amount of the Report concerns the details of the investigation of the subject of the investigation — Paul Virtue. Virtue has a significant privacy interest in avoiding the disclosure of the details of the investigation.See Kimberlin, 139 F.3d at 949. That interest is not outweighed by any light those details may shed on the operation of the EB-5 program, particularly in view of the substantial disclosures made in the unredacted portions of the Report, and the additional disclosures that the Court orders below with respect to the operation of the EB-5 program.
Although portions of the information redacted in the Synopsis and the various MOIs summarizing witness interviews concern the performance of INS's public duties in administering the EB-5 program, the privacy interests of the witnesses, third parties mentioned in the Report and Virtue outweigh the public interest in that information. Thus, with respect to these redactions, disclosure of this information could "reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under Exemption 7(C) and would "clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under Exemption 6.
The DOJ, however, has not sustained its burden with respect to the redaction of portions of the Exhibit Documents attached to MOIs 23 through 40, except to the extent that certain Exhibit Documents contain the names of alien investors in the EB-5 program and other identifying information. While the MOIs themselves were created in the course of the investigation and reveal the names of people who cooperated in the investigation, and are properly subject to redaction, the Exhibit Documents were significant privacy interest in avoiding the disclosure of the details of the investigation. See Kimberlin, 139 F.3d at 949. That interest is not outweighed by any light those details may shed on the operation of the EB-5 program, particularly in view of the substantial disclosures made in the unredacted portions of the Report, and the additional disclosures that the Court orders below with respect to the operation of the EB-5 program.
Although portions of the information redacted in the Synopsis and the various MOIs summarizing witness interviews concern the performance of INS's public duties in administering the EB-5 program, the privacy interests of the witnesses, third parties mentioned in the Report and Virtue outweigh the public interest in that information. Thus, with respect to these redactions, disclosure of this information could "reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under Exemption 7(C) and would "clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under Exemption 6.
The DOJ, however, has not sustained its burden with respect to the redaction of portions of the Exhibit Documents attached to MOIs 23 through 40, except to the extent that certain Exhibit Documents contain the names of alien investors in the EB-5 program and of her identifying information. While the MOIs themselves were created in the course of the investigation and reveal the names of people who cooperated in the investigation, and are properly subject to redaction, the Exhibit Documents were not created in the course of the investigation that produced the Report, but rather are pre-existing documents that were produced to the OIG from various witnesses and in response to requests for documents. Although these Exhibit Documents, as part of the Report, were "compiled for law enforcement purposes," and are thus subject to Exemption 7(C) balancing, see John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 154-55 (1989), the privacy interests of the persons named in the Exhibit Documents is diminished, as compared to the other sections of the Report, because the Exhibit Documents themselves were not created as a result of any investigation and the association between those named in the Exhibit Documents and any potentially unlawful activity or law enforcement purpose is attenuated. In addition, with the exception of the information contained in certain of the Exhibit Documents identifying specific alien investors by name or through an identification number, the information contained in the Exhibit Documents does not have privacy value similar to information generally found in personnel files or medical files.
The public interest in the disclosure of the information contained in the Exhibit Documents is high because it sheds light on the INS's performance of its statutory duties in implementing the EB-5 program. Accordingly, the public interest in the disclosure of the Exhibit Documents, with the exception of the names of alien investors participating in the EB-5 program and other information identifying those investors, outweigh the privacy interests implicated in those documents. The DOJ has already produced a considerable amount of the previously redacted Exhibit Documents. Because the production of the remaining redacted portions of the Exhibit Documents, subject to the exceptions noted below, could not "reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under Exemption 7(C) or "clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under Exemption 6, the remaining redacted portions of the Exhibit Documents, excepted as noted below, as set forth in the accompanying Appendix, must be produced to the plaintiff.
For the reasons explained above, however, the redactions in the MOIs of the names of witnesses interviewed in connection with the investigation that produced certain of the Exhibit Documents is proper. The redactions in the MOIs themselves are justified.
The public interest in the disclosure of the identities of those alien investors participating in the EB-5 program, however, is minimal because this information is not relevant to the INS's performance of its statutory duties and the disclosure of that information would "clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under Exemption 6. Thus, the DOJ correctly redacted the identities of alien investors participating in the EB-5 program. See Ray, 502 U.S. at 174-76. As a consequence, the attachment to MOI 26 was properly redacted because it consists almost entirely of personal identifying information about specific alien investors without disclosing the operation of the EB-5 program.
In addition, the redacted portions of the electronic mail message dated March 5, 1998, attached to MOI 36, and the electronic mail message dated July 2, 1998, attached to MOI 38, are protected by Exemption 6 because they are documents concerning a particular individual which can be identified as applying to that individual and are thus similar to information contained in a personnel file. Because the significant privacy interests in the information redacted from these documents outweigh any public interest in disclosure, the redaction of these two electronic mail messages was proper. Disclosure of this information would therefore "clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under Exemption 6.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the DOJ's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The DOJ's motion is granted with respect to the redactions contained in the Synopsis, the Subject of Investigation, the List of Exhibits, and the various MOIs. The DOJ's motion is also granted with respect to the redaction of the identities of alien investors participating in the EB-5 program in the Exhibit Documents and the electronic mail messages attached to MOI 36 and 38. The DOJ's motion is denied with respect to the redaction of various Exhibit Documents, as set forth in the attached Appendix, and the DOJ is ordered to produce those Exhibit Documents to the plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment in accordance with this Opinion and to close this case. SO ORDERED.
The plaintiff, while not formally moving for summary judgment, has sought the disclosure of the entire Report. Neither party has suggested that any further evidence should be submitted or that final judgment should not be entered on the basis of all the current submissions to the Court.
To the extent not specifically listed, the redactions in the Exhibit Documents are justified or the Exhibit Documents have already been disclosed.
The specific Exhibit Documents which have been redacted but should be produced are as follows:
1. The redactions contained in the electronic mail message dated July 24, 1996 from Katherine Lorr, Senior Adjudications Officer, courtesy copied to Paul Virtue, Deputy General Counsel, regarding the nature of an American Immigration Services' scheme attached to MOI 23.
2. The Redactions contained in the telefax dated August 8, 1996, attached to MOI 24, with the exception of the names of individual alien investors.
3. The redactions contained in the correspondence, dated August 8, 1996, attached to MOI 25.
4. The redactions contained in the telefax memorandum, dated August 23, 1996, attached to MOI 27, with the exception of the names of individual alien investors and their INS case numbers, and other identifying information.
5. The entire electronic mail message, dated November 2, 1998, from Janice Podolny, Associate Counsel, INS, courtesy copied to Paul Virtue, Deputy General Counsel, INS, attached to MOI 31.
6. The redactions contained in the telefax correspondence, dated November 7, 1997, from William P. Cook, former INS General Counsel, to Mike Lebow, Associate Counsel, INS, attached to MOI 34, with the exception of the names of individual alien investors.