Table Of ContentUS, Department of Justice
December 21, 2018
Ms, Robin Thurston
Democracy Forward Foundation
P.O, Box 34553
‘Weashinglon, D.C. 20043-4583
‘Ms. Sisine Shebaya
Muslim Advocates
P.0..Box 71080
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Ms, Thurston aud Ms. Shebaya:
"his letter zespords to the Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Request for Corcection
‘Under the Information Quality Act submitted by Democraey Forwerd Foundation and Mustim,
Advocates (“Muslim Advocates") on September 13, 2018, .
On January 29,2018, Muslim Advocates quested, pursuant tothe Information Quality Act
GOA) and implementing guidelines, thatthe Departecent of Justice (Department) and the
Deparment of Homeland Seeurity (DUS) retract and coetet their Janaary 2018 jot report
(Report) issued punuaat to Sestion | of Executive Order 13780 (“Request for Comestion”
‘The Department issued its Final Response to the Keques fot Correction ("Final Rexpouse”) on
July 31, 2018, dectining to retractor correct the Report. On Septernber 13, 2018, Muslion
Advocates requested that the Department reconsider its decision declining Yo retract or vorrct
the Report ("Request fr Reconsideration”),
‘As diseusscd in detail below, the Department concludes on reconsideration that information in
‘the Report could be criticized by some readers, consistent with some ofthe concerns volsed in
‘your Request for Reconsideration, However, the Department also eonclides that wes,
Sufficient transparent in its presentation ofthe information, und asa esul, the Report should
‘ot be withdranm or corrected, Working closely with DHS, the Department wil eotaider Qa
Blucples in isouing future ropots under Seetion 11 of Executive Onder 13780 to better present
such information to the public.
‘The 1QA ancl applicable guidelines create a framework under which agencies, in presenting
ion, ive to rect the stated goals of the IQA to maximize the quality, objectivity,
‘uly, and integrity oftheir information, The Deparment committed ints QA guidelines that
disseminated information.
(Youhave raised five goueral arcas of concer regarding the Report. Each ofthese concems is
addressed in tur belo
1 qeiceutive Order 13780 directed the Departnent and DHS to report onthe sumer of fosign
nationals in the United Status who have heen charged with or coveted of tervorism related
offenses while
‘The Department's response to the Request for Comeetion stated:
{tis no violation [o tho 1QA] to provide udluional dat, parcioulesly when
Executive Order 13780 requires “any other information relevact i aety and
Seoutty as determined by the Seeretry of Homcland Security or the Attorney
General
Gonsistent withthe Departmen’s espouse to yoor Request for Coxretion, the Report i
sparen ints description ofthe information presented, notwithstanding Chat it was net Emited
formation about which Fxccutive Onder 13780 directed the ageacies to report
wea Deparimentcisegrces vith Must Advocates’ unsupported contention tha the report lacks
Man Te Department cllected the inforniaton at ispuc bere fo law enforcement puepases,
and Ir elas to matters described in the Report, The agencies’ inclusion of tie inteonetes
{(uhich Muslin Advocates does not contend is inaccurate) is relevant to public sats nga
Security, within the meaning of Executive Order 13780, and televan to the Repowt iit
{herefore presumed usetl on that basis alone. Tha sore of hs information provided as
beyond the scope of Section 11"s dettes does not diminish is uiity,
Feenamment cannot control the way in which information inthe Report is used or interpreted,
Ee slim Advocates’ point, however, in future reports the Department oa sre ts minions
Se potential for misinterpretation by some reader to the extent possible weigh toe tansagh
‘explanation oF the context for information and clearer differetition of te nf maton
rescaled, and by noting when information presented gocs beyond the specific dict of
Section 11, The Departnent wil proeced accordingly in hte Seeing 1] reports
2. Asroted shove, Section 11 roquired the agencies fo report on “terovismerclatel offenses
ind activity. Muslim Advocates mrgue tha itis domestic terorism, nat international lerorien,
that is relovant for Section 11 purposes, Mustim Advocates claim thatthe Departaven's
inclusion uf information about imernational terrorism, and omission of inforination related 10
lomestie tori, inflates the proportion of terrorist incidents as having been conumiied by
foreign nationals, thus violating IQA principles of objectivity and wily. Muslim Advoraes
{so contend that te Depurtment has other more rlevant data wouresavalable otto epost
{information Zimited to domestic tervoviem,
ata in future reports,
3. Muslim Advocates asscr that, in light of Seotion {1's fous on terorisa-elated offenses
‘committed by foreign nationals
ee sno requirement in ether the IQA or the OMB or Depurtment implementing guidelines
{fat agencies mus lays provide underlying data when dissemngting information to the publi
ile the Department's response to your Requss fr Correction is un accurate statement,
accurate, cess, complete and unbiased presentation.” 67 Fed. Reg. a 8459. Further the
Department's guidelines provide that in achieving objectivity, the Department will davesnent
Gaw sourees. Novertheless, neither OMB nor Department gudelines identi th citometces
tnder which a need to provide “additional information” should be found to txiee
Peroeption of objectivity in the presentation ofthe information. The Departonent will work with
‘DHS in ure sepors to ensure that information provided maximlzes the goals ofthe IQA
4: Muslim Advocates challenge the presentation of eight “illustrative examples” out of 402
Convicted individuals ~ which umber included both foreign nationals and natuxalioea U8
tenes lacking objectivity and bly, Muslim Advocates note tet the examples aly
inctule Masti men “who arived in the United States through the precise inamignation
‘provisions the Administration secks to eliminate.” Further, Muslim Advocates note that the
{diinisration has used these cxaraples vo promote its policy agenda, which, acooning ta
‘Muslim Advocates, itslf support the chaacteriaiion thatthe examples are misleading, and
<RetPstates a disriminetory native.” Muslim Advocates also contend thal the public eamot
{has the representativeness” ofthe examples because the report lacks unerlyig information
‘Tre Department Gisgreed with these arguments in ts Finel Response, responding Gas Muslin
Advocates’ argument reflected “a subjective conclusion based on fits] inerpretation of the
Report”
Although the Department did not adress this in its Final Reeponse, we note that Muslin
Advocates shifted the Department's premise that the examples ae “lusinative” to an certo,
{hat they were intended to bo “representative.” In fac, dhe Depertment did not ascot that the
igh! prosecution summaries wers “representative” ofthe esire body of 402 temorsen elated
avictions of foreign nationals oF naturalized citizens. Nevertheless, on reconsideration the
[Pxpartnent ecknovwledges that a focus on eight spemingly similar “illustrative examples” from a
st of more than 400 convictions could cause some readers ofthe Report to questing
objectivity and ulilily. While the Departmen realTins is Vinal Decision, we recopnine thatthe
Rersepion of objectivity and utility of to Repons could be eohanoed by releasing underlying
ta = if accomplished consistent with national security and privacy restraints ~and Soult
Provide readers with more complete information irom which to dea their ov comslacions,
Should examples aguin be included in future reports, the Department will work with DHS to
include more varied examples and describe the method of sefection of exameles tothe extent
Dossible, while noting that they are not intended us be repeesertative ofall exese
5, Sesion 11 rected thatthe Report preset infomation reguing so-called! “honor killings"
and gender-hesed violence against women by foreign nationals. Muslim Advocates contd hat
the Report, while eknowledzing a lack of responsive or relevant data, inscadpresesiod
imelevant, unretiable, and misleuding information, cnd therefore tale fom
Mosfim Advocutes assert that the Report simply shuld ave included no in
Seamus about th additional sts nd nkoeaton cit inthe Report. lndesd, ie Keport
lel sated the lack offacused data meant the Department und DHS were male te pee
jaformation responsive to Section 11(@i) uf the Execusve Order, Nevertheless both ho
Report andthe Department's response t your Request for Correction refeted to ora
Sigua information raed generals to the subject of geoder-based viuleneo against wemes of
or ate under development, Muslim Advacates
‘sontnos to objec fo the ands cited in the Repry, nla part bess the studies allegedly
‘uvene connecion to immignaion stats, ae awed and inaccurate and donot et IQA
‘requirements,
‘The Reports reference to studies and statistics
‘against women other than specifically to
sex offenses generally, wont beyond what
‘he Report identified the origins and Finietins ofthe information contained within i. Asa
Ue HePem was suficlently transparent and consistent withthe IQA and implemeating
‘idence. The Deperment reaffirms its prior dcision not a ree or eorost the Roper
‘The Departonent will work closely wich DIS in preparing fture Section 11 report o continue
‘oting Department guidetincs andthe objectives of the IQA.
‘Thank you for bringing these eonoems tothe attention ofthe Department
Sincerely,
Wek Mh)
Michael H. Allen
Deputy Assistant Attorney Generel
Policy, Management, and Planaing.
