Ex. B. (emphasis added). The CIA offered, however, to search for the second part of the plaintiffs initial request, seeking “CIA reports relating to the violence of May 2005 and its aftermath, as well as subsequent trials and evaluation of refugees.” Id. (emphasis added). The plaintiff, despite his demonstrated ability to utilize the CIA’s administrative appeal process, accepted the CIA’s offer to search for the documents responsive to the narrowed request. Def.’s Mot., Ex. C.; see also Am. Comp. ¶ 8. Had the plaintiff, as he now claims, wanted more than just “CIA reports,” he was entitled to reject the CIA’s offer and appeal its decision to reject his initial FOIA request. See Wilson v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 730 F.Supp.2d 140, 153-54, 2010 WL 3184300, at *10 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2010) (<HOLDING>); Kenney, 603 F.Supp.2d at 189 (D.D.C.2009)
holding that when a plaintiff has no pending foia request with an agency and has not averred that he intends to make foia requests to the agency in the future any claim of future injury is simply too speculative and remote to give him standing holding that a foia request should be read to seek all documents covered by a catchall holding that where a foia plaintiff seeks sensitive foreignaffairs information the court should give substantial weight to a government affidavit that the information is exempt from foia but nevertheless consider contrary evidence presented by the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff who agreed to narrow his foia request cannot now argue that he meant something else holding that precursor to  102ail could shield against foia request