The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is one of the largest providers of legal services to people in immigration proceedings in New York City. P provides low-income clients with a number of services, including direct representation in removal defense and asylum proceedings. D is tasked with interpreting and applying immigration law. D hears appeals from cases decided by immigration judges and district directors of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. From 2012 to 2016 D issued more than 30,000 decisions per year in individual cases. The vast majority are 'non-precedential,' meaning that, although they are binding on the parties, they are not binding on future immigration courts. About 30 decisions a year are designated as precedential, and therefore binding on future immigration courts. This designation requires a majority vote of the active members of D. Designated precedential decisions are available online in D's electronic reading room. A handful of D's unpublished decisions - those that the agency has deemed frequently requested - are also available on the agency's website. The balance of D’s unpublished decisions are not publicly available electronically. D discourages but does not prohibit, parties from citing unpublished BIA decisions in immigration proceedings. D itself has cited them in its decisions. P seeks access to unpublished decisions so that it can use them in representing clients in immigration proceedings. P requested, pursuant to § 552(a)(2), that D make publicly available in electronic form all unpublished BIA decisions issued after November 1, 1996. D claimed the request was overly broad and denied it. D contends that unpublished opinions are not 'final opinions' or 'orders' within the meaning of § 552(a)(2). P administratively appealed the denial of its request with no response. P sued D pursuant to § 552(a)(4)(B). D moved to dismiss the case under 2(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that FOIA's remedial provision does not authorize district courts to grant the relief P seeks. The district court granted the D's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that 'while the D may have an obligation to make available for public inspection certain opinions, the court only has jurisdiction to order the production of documents to the complainant. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.