This document is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request sent by the law firm Gibbs Houston Pauw to the Department of Homeland Security. The request seeks documents related to the Department of State's replacement of the October 2015 visa bulletin dated September 9, 2015 with a new version dated September 25, 2015. Specifically, it requests communications, analyses, methodologies, and other documents related to the decision to change the visa bulletin dates and the administration of the visa system. The letter provides definitions, lists 20 specific document requests, and offers to pay fees up to $1,500 for the response.

1. Law Offices
Gibbs Houston Pauw
1000 Second Avenue Suite 1600
Seattle WA 98104
(206) 682-1080
FAX (206) 689 2270
www.ghp-immigration.com
Robert H. Gibbs
Robert Pauw
Erin Cipolla
Ralph Hua
Devin Theriot-Orr
Neha Vyas
October 12, 2015
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Karen Neuman
Chief Privacy Officer/Chief FOIA Officer
The Privacy Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
245 Murray Lane SW
STOP-0655
Washington, D.C. 20528-0655
Dr. James V.M.L. Holzer, CIPP/G
Sr. Director, FOIA Operations
The Privacy Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
245 Murray Lane SW
STOP-0655
Washington, D.C. 20528-0655
Re: October 2015 Visa Bulletin
Dear Sir or Madam:
We are writing to make a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request pursuant to 5
U.S.C. § 552. We are seeking this information on our behalf for our personal, non-commercial
use.
For purposes of this FOIA request, the following definitions apply:
• The term “Agency” means the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
and any or all of its subdivisions and departments, including but not limited to United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the Office of the DHS Secretary, the Director
of USCIS, USCIS Service Center Operations, and USCIS Field Operations.

2. • The term “Decision” refers to the decision by the Department of State (“DOS”) in
conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security to replace the October 2015 visa bulletin
dated September 9, 2015 with a new version dated September 25, 2015.
• The words “document” and “documents” are used herein in the broadest sense
permissible under the Freedom of Information Act and any applicable case law construing that
statute. The terms include, without limitation, any “writing” as that term is defined in Rule 1001
of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and any original and non-identical copy of any and all written,
typed, computer, mechanical, photographic, printed, magnetic, audio, video and other electronic
recordings or records and/or other tangible records and forms of recorded information, however
produced or reproduced, including but not limited to all letters, correspondence, interoffice
communications, electronic correspondence such as “e-mail,” and other communications
recorded in any form or medium. All non-identical copies (whether different from the original
by reason of notations made on such copies or otherwise) are separate documents within the
meaning of the term. The term also includes information, stored in, or accessible through,
computer or other information retrieval systems, together with instructions and all materials
necessary to retrieve, use or interpret such data. Where documents are available in Excel
spreadsheets, we intend this request to obtain these documents in electronic format with
necessary logins and passwords for access of the data. “Document” includes all documents as
defined above in your possession, custody or control.
We hereby request:
1. All communications within the Agency and with any other agency or branch of the
United States government or any of its subdivisions regarding the Decision, including the
Executive Office of the President, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Department
of Justice. This request includes, but is not limited to, all communications to or from
(including by copy) Felicia Escobar, Manar Waheed, David Shahoulian, Ur Jaddou,
Charles Oppenheim, and Nick Perry regarding the Decision.
2. All documents reflecting any communications regarding the Decision after September 25,
2015. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (documents
protected by decisional process privilege must be “predecisional”).
3. All documents relating to communications that the Agency had or steps that the Agency
took (whether within the Agency or with other U.S. government agencies or branches)
regarding the initiative to revise "the monthly Visa Bulletin to better estimate immigrant
visa availability for prospective applicants" and "ensure that the maximum number of
available visas is issued every year, while also minimizing the potential for visa
retrogression," as described at page 29 of the White House report titled "Modernizing &
Streamlining Our Legal Immigration System for the 21st Century," available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/final_visa_modernization_report1.pd
f. This request includes all documents relating to any changes in the data, analysis or
methodology underlying the calculation of the operative dates for purposes of the visa
bulletin. This request includes, but is not limited to, all communications to or from
(including by copy) Felicia Escobar, Manar Waheed, David Shahoulian, Ur Jaddou,

3. Charles Oppenheim, and Nick Perry regarding the visa bulletin initiative described in the
White House report cited in this paragraph.
4. All documents reflecting the Agency’s consultations with the Department of State
referenced in the September 25, 2015 version of the October 2015 visa bulletin. This
request includes any communication by DHS (and supporting documents) requesting that
DOS “republish the Bulletin for October with all Dates for Filing Visa Applications
retrogressed to where DOS anticipates the Final Action Dates are likely to be in 8 to 12
months,” as described in the Government’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order in Mehta v. U.S. Dept. of State, Case No. 2:15-cv-1543-RSM
(W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2015).
5. All documents regarding the methodology and data by which the Agency determined
(whether or not in conjunction with other agencies or branches of the United States
government) that the dates provided in the September 9, 2015, version of the October
2015 visa bulletin should be revised. This request includes but is not limited to any
communications with any other U.S. government agency or branch regarding concerns
with the filing dates listed in the September 9 visa bulletin and any communications
regarding whether those dates were inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”).
6. All documents regarding the legal necessity of or legal basis for the Decision, including
any determination that the Decision was consistent with or required by the INA or that
the dates listed in the September 9, 2015 version of the October 2015 visa bulletin were
inconsistent with the INA or any section thereof (including Section 245).
7. All documents reflecting the methodology and data by which the Agency determined or
assisted in determining the number of family-sponsored preference and employment-
based preference visas available in Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016 under the INA, including
any calculations made, methods for calculating those numbers, and communications
regarding the calculation of those numbers.
8. All documents reflecting the methodology and data bywhich the Agency determined or
assisted in determining the “Dates for Filing Employment-Based Visa Applications” or
the “Application Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Preference Cases” in both
the September 9 and September 25, 2015 versions of the October 2015 visa bulletin.
9. All documents regarding the estimated or actual number of applications for adjustment of
status by preference category, country of birth, and priority date received by USCIS in
Fiscal Year 2015 or to be received by USCIS in Fiscal Year 2016.
10. All documents reflecting any estimates of the potential or actual consequences of the
Decision, including but not limited to any estimates of the potential economic harm to
individuals or entities stemming from the changes between the September 9 and
September 25, 2015 versions of the October 2015 visa bulletin.
11. All documents concerning the timing and mechanics of the issuance of the September 25,
2015 version of the October 2015 visa bulletin.
12. All documents concerning “[h]istorical drop off rate of applicants for adjustment of status
(for example, denials, withdrawals and abandonments)” as referenced at
http://www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo. Such information is intended to include any
underlying data by year showing the dropoff numbers and rates by preference category,
priority date, and country of birth.

4. 13. All documents reflecting the methodology and data by which the Agency determined or
assisted another agency in determining the cutoff dates listed in the chart in the
Employment-Based Preferences section of the visa bulletins from October 2014 through
September 2015.
14. All documents concerning any instance in which the “information underlying the
estimates of cut-off dates” in the visa bulletin has been determined to be incorrect by the
Agency (whether or not in conjunction with any other U.S. government agency or
branch), as referenced by the Government’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order in Mehta v. U.S. Dept. of State, Case No. 2:15-cv-1543-RSM
(W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2015).
15. All documents concerning the methodology by which the Agency has ever calculated or
assisted another government agency or branch in the calculation of a “qualifying date” as
described in 9 FAM 42.55 PN1.1.
16. All documents reflecting the methodology and data behind DOS’s estimation of “where
cut-off dates are likely to be in the next 8 to 12 months” for purposes of calculating a
qualifying date, as referenced in the Declaration of Charles Oppenheim submitted in
Mehta v. U.S. Dept. of State, Case No. 2:15-cv-1543-RSM (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2015).
17. All documents concerning DOS’s “policy” of not retrogressing qualifying dates when
corresponding cut-off dates have retrogressed, as referenced in the Declaration of Charles
Oppenheim submitted in Mehta v. U.S. Dept. of State, Case No. 2:15-cv-1543-RSM
(W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2015).
18. All documents concerning any and all “qualifying dates” for employment-based visas in
Fiscal Years 2015 or 2016, including any contemplated or actual revisions to those
“qualifying dates” resulting from the Decision.
19. All documents concerning the number of “documentarily qualified applicants for
numerically limited visas” reported by consular officers or “applicants for adjustment of
status” in Fiscal Years 2015 or 2016, as referenced in the September 2015 and October
2015 visa bulletins.
20. A copy of the waiting list maintained pursuant to INA §203(e)(3) as of September 1,
2015.
21. A copy of the waiting list maintained pursuant to INA §203(e)(3) as of October 1, 2015.
We are willing to pay all applicable fees for this request up to the amount of $1,500.
Please contact us if you anticipate that the fees for the request will exceed this figure.
We look forward to your prompt action concerning this request. Please send all documents to
the address listed in our signature block. If you have any questions or concerns about this
request, please do not hesitate to contact us at the phone number above.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Gibbs
GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW