Perlman filed a request under FOIA with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") seeking the release of a 143-page Report of Investigation ("ROI") by DOJ's Office of the Inspector General. The ROI discussed allegations of impropriety on the part of INS officials in running the EB-5 Investor Visa Program ("EB-5"), created in 1990 to offer special American visas to wealthy foreigners who invested between $500,000 and $1 million in business ventures employing at least 10 American workers. The INS approved for inclusion in the EB-5 program the use of limited partnerships to which foreign investors contributed cash in an amount less than $500,000 and pledged promissory notes to meet the minimum investment required by the EB-5 program. Participating investors could thus obtain a green card without having to put up the remaining money.

Allegations surfaced thatformer INS officials who were involved with these partnerships received improper preferentialtreatment from current INS employees.  The DOJ's Inspector General investigated the allegations, particularly the role of Paul Virtue, former INS deputy general counsel and produced the ROI. The ROI consists of (1) asynopsis, (2) a subject of investigation form, containing basic information on Virtue, (3) alist of the 40 memoranda of investigation ("MOIs"), and (4) the MOIs.

The DOJ's Office of Inspector General denied Perlman's FOIA request, relying on two FOIA exemptions: Exemption 6, concerning personnel and similarfiles, and Exemption 7(C), concerning reports compiled for law enforcement purposes. Perlmanadministratively appealed the denial. In response to Perlman's administrative appeal DOJ's Office of Information and Privacyordered the disclosure of 49 report pages, most redacted in some respect, but otherwise upheld theprior denial. Perlman filed a lawsuit challenging the agency’s failure to release the entire ROI. After the DOJ moved for summary judgment the trial court conducted in camera review of the entire ROI and granted DOJ's motion in part and denied it in part. It found the ROI was compiled for law enforcement purposes because it investigated possible violations of law by Virtue and was covered by Exemption 7(C). It also determined that the ROI was a "similar file" because it contained private information similar to that contained in personnel files, bringing it within Exemption 6. The district court further found Virtue's privacy interests in withholding the ROI outweighed the public's interest in disclosure. 

Questions:

1. Did Exemptions 7(C) and 6 exempt the ROI from disclosure under FOIA?

2. The Court of Appeals concluded that the ROI fell within Exemptions 7(C) and 6. Why didn’t that end the court’s analysis?

3. The court concluded that disclosure was warranted with respect to Virtue. How can that be accomplished while protecting the privacy interests of witnesses and third parties?