with the asylum officer’s assessment of Abramyan’s credibility, the reasons for that assessment, and the asylum officer’s recommendation. Welsh Dec. ¶ 19. Assessments of credibility and recommendations are “quintessential deliberative information.” Anguimate v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 918 F.Supp.2d 13, 19 (D.D.C.2013) (finding that USCIS properly withheld an Assessment to Refer under the deliberative process privilege). Even the factual information in the Assessment to Refer can be considered deliberative, because it is a “distillation” of the facts, not a “verbatim transcript.” Welsh Dec. ¶ 21. The asylum officer’s particular selection of facts may reveal USCIS’s deliberative process. See Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 641 F.3d 504, 513-14 (D.C.Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Welsh’s description of the document is
holding that deliberative process privilege protects written advice opinions and recommendations to public body from outside consultants obtained during public bodys decistonmaking process recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law recognizing deliberative process privilege for factual summaries culled by the agency from a much larger universe of facts because they reflect an exercise of judgment as to what issues are most relevant to the predecisional findings and recommendations holding that internal emails about how to present an agency decision to the public were covered by the deliberative process privilege