A recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed a case brought by immigration attorneys against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The case, Sanchez Mora v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Civil Action No. 2024-3136, centered around allegations that the agencies failed to process Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in a timely manner. This ruling affects not only the plaintiffs but also individuals who rely on timely access to their immigration records.

The plaintiffs in this case included three immigration attorneys and three individuals who claimed that their FOIA requests for travel and immigration records had been pending longer than the legally mandated time frame. The attorneys argued that delays in processing these requests hindered their ability to assist clients with immigration matters. The case highlights the challenges faced by individuals navigating the immigration system and the importance of timely access to records.

The dispute began when the plaintiffs filed their case on April 24, 2024, in the Northern District of California, alleging that CBP maintained a policy of taking longer than the statutory limit to process FOIA requests. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of individuals who had experienced similar delays. However, the defendants, CBP and DHS, moved to transfer the case to the District of Columbia, arguing that FOIA claims should be litigated in the district of the requestor's residency or in D.C. The case was subsequently transferred, and the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Judge Beryl A. Howell presided over the case and ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants. The court granted summary judgment to CBP and DHS, stating, "the record does not establish that Defendants maintain any sort of unlawful policy or practice as to how they handle FOIA requests." The judge noted that while the plaintiffs experienced delays, the defendants demonstrated that they were facing an increasing number of FOIA requests, which contributed to the backlog.

In her ruling, Judge Howell emphasized that the defendants had shown they were exercising due diligence in processing FOIA requests. The court acknowledged that the number of requests received by CBP had increased significantly over the years, from 66,690 in fiscal year 2016 to 207,396 in fiscal year 2025. This substantial increase in requests was cited as a primary reason for the delays experienced by the plaintiffs.

The court's decision also addressed the plaintiffs' claims for class certification and additional discovery. Both motions were denied, with the judge stating that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of a policy or practice of delay. The ruling indicates that the court found no systemic failure within CBP to comply with FOIA timelines.

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking records from CBP. It suggests that while delays may occur, they may not necessarily constitute a violation of FOIA if the agency can demonstrate that it is taking steps to address the backlog. The decision also underscores the challenges that immigration attorneys and their clients face in obtaining timely access to important records.

Moving forward, the plaintiffs have limited options for appeal. They could potentially appeal the ruling to a higher court, but it is unclear whether they will pursue this course of action. There is no indication of a related case pending that would impact the outcome of this decision.

The Sanchez Mora case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in the FOIA process and the importance of timely access to information for individuals navigating the immigration system. As the number of requests continues to rise, it remains to be seen how agencies like CBP will adapt to meet the needs of requestors.