When an agency misuses the B6 exemption to hide official information
FOIA requests are one of the most useful tools in immigration practice — especially when you are dealing with a request for evidence, a denial, or another adverse decision and you need to understand why it happened.
But agencies push back. Sometimes that pushback takes the form of an exemption that simply does not fit the records you asked for. Here is a recent example, and what it teaches about fighting overbroad withholdings.
The human element in immigration decisions
Behind every immigration decision is a person — an adjudicator with their own judgment, workload, and, sometimes, biases. They can see the names of the petitioner, the beneficiary, and the attorney of record, and those names can influence outcomes. With filing fees that can reach several thousand dollars, applicants deserve decisions made on the merits, not on who filed them.
Why we ask for the adjudication number
When we receive a denial, we often request the adjudicating officer’s identification number. This used to be included automatically; now it takes a specific request. That official identifier helps us spot patterns — whether the same officer is generating the same kinds of errors, or whether a particular set of cases is being handled inconsistently. It is a transparency tool, not a privacy intrusion.
Where USCIS got it wrong
We submitted a FOIA request seeking agency communications about specific petitioners. USCIS responded that we were seeking records about a U.S. citizen — which was not what we asked for at all. The request had been misread in a way that conveniently avoided answering it.
Then the agency invoked Exemption 6 (the “B6” personal-privacy exemption). That exemption is meant to protect genuinely personal information — Social Security numbers, home addresses, the kind of detail whose release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. But we had asked only for an adjudication number: an official identifier an officer uses in their professional capacity. That is not personal information, and B6 does not reach it.
The pattern to watch for: an agency misreads the request to dodge it, then layers on an exemption that doesn’t actually apply. Both moves are designed to discourage you from pressing. Neither is the end of the road.
Strategies for effective FOIA requests
Be specific. State precisely what you want, and frame it around official capacities rather than personal details — it both improves the search and forecloses a lazy privacy objection.
Know your rights. Understand the nine exemptions and how they are commonly misapplied, so you can name the overreach.
Expect pushback. Erroneous responses and discouraging replies are routine. Persistence is part of the process.
Use your legal recourse. If you do not receive an adequate response within the statutory window, you have the right to sue in federal court to compel the records.
Why we keep pressing
We use FOIA litigation to ensure fair treatment — not only for our own clients, but for the immigration bar generally. Challenging misapplied exemptions and demanding transparency is how government agencies are held accountable, and how the adjudication process gets better for everyone.
Learn how we draft and litigate these requests on our FOIA & Government Transparency Litigation page, or request a consultation.
This article is attorney advertising and general information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. FOIA timelines and exemptions are governed by statute and case law that change over time.
