In a motion to compel production of plaintiff’s immigration records, the Court found the U Visa information was relevant to plaintiff’s motive and potentially probative of fraud because plaintiff appeared to acknowledge the relevance of the documents as she agreed to request them from USCIS and produce them subject to a tailored protective order; Defendant's motion to compel was denied because the court did not have authority under 5 U.S.C.S. § 552(a)(4)(B), and defendants did not cite to any, to order USCIS to appear and answer defendants’; argument that the U Visa documents might not have been properly withheld in a civil sexual harassment and discrimination action to which USCIS was not a party; [3]-Plaintiff’s motion for protective order was denied as moot because plaintiff was not in possession of the U Visa documents, and so there was nothing to compel.