FOIA Timeliness and Remedies Clarified: Delay Does Not Merit Declaratory Relief, FOIA Bars APA Claims — Libarov v. ICE

Introduction

Sotir Libarov v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (No. 24-2620) is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, issued May 27, 2025. Libarov, a Bulgarian national whose application for lawful permanent residence had been denied by USCIS, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with ICE seeking all documents ICE held on him. After months without any “determination” or tracking number, ICE finally located a six-page investigative report and withheld it in full under FOIA Exemption 7(A). Libarov sued both ICE and USCIS, seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that ICE violated FOIA’s timing provisions, (2) production of the six-page report, and (3) an alternative remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for alleged agency delay. The district court granted summary judgment to ICE on all counts, and Libarov appealed.

Key issues:

• Whether a FOIA requester may obtain declaratory relief solely for an agency’s failure to meet the 20-business-day timing requirement.
• Whether ICE properly withheld portions of a six-page investigative report under Exemption 7(A) (law enforcement proceedings).
• Whether FOIA’s statutory remedies preclude independent APA claims for agency delay.

Parties:

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Sotir Libarov (Bulgarian citizen).
• Defendant-Appellee: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court in its entirety. The panel held:

1. No declaratory relief for delayed FOIA determinations: Once ICE conducted an adequate search and provided the requested documents (even with redactions), any FOIA claim became moot. A requester cannot obtain a declaratory judgment solely for an agency’s failure to meet the statutory 20-day determination deadline absent a “pattern or practice” of delay that would impair future requests.
2. Exemption 7(A) withholding upheld: The court had sufficient factual basis (agency affidavits, Vaughn index, in camera review) to conclude the six-page report was compiled for law enforcement purposes and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing investigations.
3. FOIA remedies preclude APA claims: FOIA itself provides the exclusive remedy for delayed or withheld disclosures. Because FOIA authorizes a district court to order production of improperly withheld records, the APA cannot supply a parallel cause of action.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s reasoning rested on binding Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court decisions, as well as persuasive authority from sister circuits:

• Walsh v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 400 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2005): A FOIA claim becomes moot once the documents are disclosed, and delay alone does not warrant declaratory relief.
• Cornucopia Institute v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 560 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2009): Once a FOIA requester receives all the information sought, there is no longer a case or controversy over production, foreclosing declaratory relief.
• Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988): Exception for “policy or practice” claims where an agency’s persistent, repeated delays impair future FOIA rights.
• Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 214 (1978): Elements of Exemption 7(A) — law-enforcement purpose and reasonable expectation of interference with proceedings.
• Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988): § 704 of the APA does not provide judicial remedies where Congress has provided “special and adequate review procedures.”

Legal Reasoning

1. No Declaratory Relief for Delay Alone
FOIA § 552(a)(6)(A) requires agencies to determine within 20 business days “whether to comply” with a request. If an agency fails to meet that deadline, § 552(a)(6)(C)(i) deems the requester to have exhausted administrative remedies and allows him to sue. But by the time of suit, ICE had eventually conducted an adequate search and sent Libarov a tracking number, header, and partial disclosures. Under Walsh and Cornucopia Institute, once documents are released (or the requester has all relief FOIA provides), there is no longer a live controversy for injunctive or declaratory relief. Absent a showing of future harm (a “pattern or practice” of delay), delay alone does not sustain a FOIA suit to obtain a declaration of liability.

2. Exemption 7(A) Withholding
ICE invoked Exemption 7(A), which exempts “records compiled for law enforcement purposes” if disclosure “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” The court applied a two-step test:

• Law-enforcement purpose: ICE is statutorily tasked with investigating immigration violations; the six-page report was clearly an investigative memorandum.
• Interference with proceedings: Through agency affidavits and an in camera review, the court found that disclosing the withheld information could jeopardize witnesses, reveal tactics, or otherwise impede an ongoing investigation.

Having performed its own in camera review, the court concluded the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous.

3. Preclusion of APA Claims
Under the APA, a plaintiff may challenge “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” FOIA itself grants a specific remedy—judicial review under § 552(a)(4)(B) to compel production of improperly withheld records. In Bowen, the Supreme Court held that when Congress has provided a “special and adequate” statutory review procedure, the general APA jurisdiction provision (§ 704) cannot be used to obtain additional relief. This court’s precedents (e.g., Walsh) and several other circuits reject parallel APA suits where FOIA is the exclusive avenue for relief. Libarov’s attempt to use the APA to attack ICE’s alleged “practice” of delay therefore fails.

Impact

Libarov v. ICE reinforces and clarifies several important FOIA principles:

• Exhaustive FOIA Remedies: Requesters cannot turn to the APA for additional relief when FOIA provides an adequate, exclusive remedy to compel production.
• No Declaratory Suits for Delay Alone: Absent evidence of a “pattern or practice” that would impair future FOIA rights, mere agency noncompliance with § 552(a)(6)(A) timing provisions does not sustain a separate declaratory-judgment action once documents are produced.
• Standard for Exemption 7(A): The decision reaffirms the approach of combining agency affidavits, Vaughn index, and in camera review to assess whether disclosure “could reasonably be expected to interfere” with investigations.

Future litigants should ensure they either challenge the adequacy of an agency’s search or withholdings, or present evidence of systemic, repeat delays that hinder subsequent FOIA requests, to preserve a live controversy in court.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• FOIA “Determination” and Timing: Agencies have 20 business days to decide whether they will release any records and must notify the requester. If they miss that deadline, the requester can sue immediately—this is called “constructive exhaustion.” But once the agency actually gives you the documents (or validly withholds them), you generally cannot keep suing just to get a declaration that they were late.
• Vaughn Index: A document-by-document list showing what the government is withholding and under which FOIA exemptions. It helps the court review claims without releasing the material publicly.
• Exemption 7(A) (“Law Enforcement”): Protects records compiled during investigations when releasing them could reasonably interfere with ongoing enforcement—e.g., exposing witnesses, tipping off suspects, or revealing investigatory techniques.
• APA § 704 Jurisdiction: The APA gives courts power to review “final agency actions” when there is no other “adequate remedy.” FOIA itself is a detailed, exclusive scheme, so courts will not allow a parallel APA lawsuit to compel the same records.

Conclusion

Libarov v. ICE cements the principle that FOIA’s own provisions supply the exclusive remedy for delayed or withheld disclosures—once an agency has conducted an adequate search and released or properly withheld records, any challenge to timing alone is moot unless the requester can show a pervasive, continuing pattern of undue delay. The decision also reaffirms the standard for invoking Exemption 7(A) and underscores that the APA cannot be used to circumvent FOIA’s remedial framework. As a result, FOIA practitioners and requesters must focus on the adequacy and scope of agency searches, the legitimacy of claimed exemptions, and tangible evidence of systemic delays rather than procedural timing errors alone.