NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER POPOV, No. 24-5703 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-09001-AB-AJR v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 8, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Peter Popov appeals a district court order granting summary judgment in
favor of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The district court
concluded that DHS properly withheld H.T.’s Alien File (“A-File”) in response to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Popov’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request because Exemption 6
allows agencies to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
review de novo “summary judgment decisions in FOIA cases.” Animal Legal Def.
Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
1. Popov waived his argument that DHS did not satisfy its burden under
Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), because Popov did not raise that
argument “in any developed manner” before the district court. Cascadia Wildlands
v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, __ F.4th __, __ (9th Cir. 2025). In any case,
the declaration DHS filed satisfied the government’s burden by identifying the
document withheld (A-File), the claimed FOIA exemption (Exemption 6), and a
“particularized explanation” of why Exemption 6 applied. Lahr v. Nat’l Transp.
Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Popov does not
explain “what additional clarification” he seeks, id., or why the declaration did not
“afford” Popov “a meaningful opportunity to contest” and “the district court an
adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the withholding,” Wiener v.
F.B.I., 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
2. We use a two-step inquiry to determine whether Exemption 6 applies.
Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 856 F.3d 626, 637 (9th Cir. 2017). The agency
2 24-5703 must first show that disclosure of the document “implicates a personal privacy
interest that is nontrivial or … more than de minimis.” Id. (internal quotation and
alteration omitted). If so, “we balance the individual’s right of privacy against the
public interest in disclosure.” Id. at 639. The public interest must be “significant”
and disclosure must “likely [] advance that interest.” Id. (citation omitted). Popov
concedes H.T.’s privacy interest in H.T.’s A-File is nontrivial, so we proceed to the
balancing.1
Popov has not demonstrated that the public interest in disclosing H.T.’s A-
File outweighs H.T.’s privacy interest in non-disclosure. Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at
637, 645. Relying on Muchnick v. DHS, 225 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2016),
and Union Leader Corp. v. DHS, 749 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2014), Popov argues that
Exemption 6 does not apply because disclosing H.T.’s A-File would reveal DHS’s
gross misconduct. Popov alleges that H.T. committed marriage fraud, reported
fraudulent addresses on his immigration petitions, and possessed cannabis
cultivation licenses and permits that rendered H.T. ineligible for naturalization.
Muchnick and Union Leader are inapposite. In both cases the privacy
interests were significantly lower and the public interest higher. In Muchnick, a
1 An A-File is an individual’s comprehensive immigration file which contains “information relating to the adjudication of benefits, investigation of immigration violations, and enforcement actions.” Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records, 82 Fed. Reg. 43556, 43556 (Sep. 18, 2017).
3 24-5703 former Irish Olympic coach was charged with multiple counts of sexually
assaulting swimmers, which the Irish Supreme Court ruled were barred by the
statute of limitations. 225 F. Supp. 3d at 1073. Anyone who Googled the coach’s
name could “get their hands on the sordid details of his alleged crimes,” which
were the subject of a book written by an award-winning journalist and sold on
Amazon. Id. at 1076 & n.6. Thus, the coach had “no privacy interests in preventing
disclosure of [his] widely known” crimes. Id. (internal quotation and citation
omitted). Although the coach did have “a privacy interest” in DHS’s “immigration
decisions,” his public criminal past was “enough to ‘warrant a belief by a
reasonable person’ that” DHS acted improperly, and disclosure would significantly
advance the public’s interest by revealing how DHS allowed the coach to stay in
the United States for more than two decades. Id. at 1076-77 (quoting Nat’l
Archives & Recs. Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004)). The same was true
in Union Leader. There the privacy interests were “attenuated” because the history
of criminal convictions and arrests of the six aliens were “matters of public
record.” 749 F.3d at 56. And the public’s interest in disclosure of the aliens’ names
was substantial because the newspaper needed the names in order to investigate
how and why the government had allowed these aliens with long criminal histories,
including in one case an order of removal, to stay in the United States. Id.
4 24-5703 H.T.’s privacy interests are substantial, not attenuated. H.T. is a “private
citizen” and thus “the privacy interest[s]” are at their “apex.” Favish, 541 U.S. at
166 (citation omitted). Popov has not provided evidence that H.T. has been
charged, arrested, or convicted of a crime. H.T.’s A-File includes “highly personal
information …linked publicly with [] named individuals.” U.S. Dep’t. of State v.
Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 175-76 (1991). Disclosing H.T.’s A-File would affect H.T.’s
“control” of that information. U.S. Dep’t of Just. v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER POPOV, No. 24-5703 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-09001-AB-AJR v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 8, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Peter Popov appeals a district court order granting summary judgment in
favor of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The district court
concluded that DHS properly withheld H.T.’s Alien File (“A-File”) in response to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Popov’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request because Exemption 6
allows agencies to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
review de novo “summary judgment decisions in FOIA cases.” Animal Legal Def.
Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
1. Popov waived his argument that DHS did not satisfy its burden under
Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), because Popov did not raise that
argument “in any developed manner” before the district court. Cascadia Wildlands
v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, __ F.4th __, __ (9th Cir. 2025). In any case,
the declaration DHS filed satisfied the government’s burden by identifying the
document withheld (A-File), the claimed FOIA exemption (Exemption 6), and a
“particularized explanation” of why Exemption 6 applied. Lahr v. Nat’l Transp.
Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Popov does not
explain “what additional clarification” he seeks, id., or why the declaration did not
“afford” Popov “a meaningful opportunity to contest” and “the district court an
adequate foundation to review, the soundness of the withholding,” Wiener v.
F.B.I., 943 F.2d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
2. We use a two-step inquiry to determine whether Exemption 6 applies.
Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 856 F.3d 626, 637 (9th Cir. 2017). The agency
2 24-5703 must first show that disclosure of the document “implicates a personal privacy
interest that is nontrivial or … more than de minimis.” Id. (internal quotation and
alteration omitted). If so, “we balance the individual’s right of privacy against the
public interest in disclosure.” Id. at 639. The public interest must be “significant”
and disclosure must “likely [] advance that interest.” Id. (citation omitted). Popov
concedes H.T.’s privacy interest in H.T.’s A-File is nontrivial, so we proceed to the
balancing.1
Popov has not demonstrated that the public interest in disclosing H.T.’s A-
File outweighs H.T.’s privacy interest in non-disclosure. Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at
637, 645. Relying on Muchnick v. DHS, 225 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2016),
and Union Leader Corp. v. DHS, 749 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2014), Popov argues that
Exemption 6 does not apply because disclosing H.T.’s A-File would reveal DHS’s
gross misconduct. Popov alleges that H.T. committed marriage fraud, reported
fraudulent addresses on his immigration petitions, and possessed cannabis
cultivation licenses and permits that rendered H.T. ineligible for naturalization.
Muchnick and Union Leader are inapposite. In both cases the privacy
interests were significantly lower and the public interest higher. In Muchnick, a
1 An A-File is an individual’s comprehensive immigration file which contains “information relating to the adjudication of benefits, investigation of immigration violations, and enforcement actions.” Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records, 82 Fed. Reg. 43556, 43556 (Sep. 18, 2017).
3 24-5703 former Irish Olympic coach was charged with multiple counts of sexually
assaulting swimmers, which the Irish Supreme Court ruled were barred by the
statute of limitations. 225 F. Supp. 3d at 1073. Anyone who Googled the coach’s
name could “get their hands on the sordid details of his alleged crimes,” which
were the subject of a book written by an award-winning journalist and sold on
Amazon. Id. at 1076 & n.6. Thus, the coach had “no privacy interests in preventing
disclosure of [his] widely known” crimes. Id. (internal quotation and citation
omitted). Although the coach did have “a privacy interest” in DHS’s “immigration
decisions,” his public criminal past was “enough to ‘warrant a belief by a
reasonable person’ that” DHS acted improperly, and disclosure would significantly
advance the public’s interest by revealing how DHS allowed the coach to stay in
the United States for more than two decades. Id. at 1076-77 (quoting Nat’l
Archives & Recs. Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004)). The same was true
in Union Leader. There the privacy interests were “attenuated” because the history
of criminal convictions and arrests of the six aliens were “matters of public
record.” 749 F.3d at 56. And the public’s interest in disclosure of the aliens’ names
was substantial because the newspaper needed the names in order to investigate
how and why the government had allowed these aliens with long criminal histories,
including in one case an order of removal, to stay in the United States. Id.
4 24-5703 H.T.’s privacy interests are substantial, not attenuated. H.T. is a “private
citizen” and thus “the privacy interest[s]” are at their “apex.” Favish, 541 U.S. at
166 (citation omitted). Popov has not provided evidence that H.T. has been
charged, arrested, or convicted of a crime. H.T.’s A-File includes “highly personal
information …linked publicly with [] named individuals.” U.S. Dep’t. of State v.
Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 175-76 (1991). Disclosing H.T.’s A-File would affect H.T.’s
“control” of that information. U.S. Dep’t of Just. v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of
the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 763 (1989). If Popov’s allegations of marriage fraud are
true, disclosure would also subject H.T. to “embarrassment.” Cameranesi, 856
F.3d at 638.
Popov has not “produce[d] evidence that would warrant a belief by a
reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.”
Favish, 541 U.S. at 174. In both Muchnick and Union Leader, that evidentiary
burden was met because the crimes were public. But Popov concedes H.T.’s
alleged fraud and crimes are not. And in Cameranesi, we explained that even a
well-substantiated showing of government error in a small set of isolated cases
“does not amount to a ‘meaningful evidentiary showing’” of government
impropriety. Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 644 (citation omitted). So H.T.’s single A-
File falls short for that reason, too.
5 24-5703 Finally, H.T.’s serious privacy interest outweighs the marginal benefit to the
public of disclosing H.T.’s A-File. Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1137
(9th Cir. 2008). “Where”—as here—“serious privacy interests are present on one
side,” a “marginal” advancement of the public interest “will not be enough.”
Cameranesi, 856 F.3d at 645. Government error in the processing of one
individual’s petitions and applications where none of the alleged fraud or crimes
are public would at best marginally advance the public’s understanding of United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ performance of its statutory duties,
but not “significantly.” Id. at 640. That is insufficient to outweigh Todorov’s
“serious privacy interests.” Id.
DHS correctly withheld H.T.’s A-File pursuant to FOIA Exemption 6,
because Popov failed to show the public interest in disclosure outweighed H.T.’s
serious privacy interest in withholding.
AFFIRMED.
6 24-5703