Fabian Grey v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals

140 F.4th 173 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 10, 2025 · No. 23-1910

Summary

This Fourth Circuit opinion affirms a district court's grant of summary judgment to USCIS on both a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) claim and a naturalization eligibility claim. The court held that USCIS properly withheld training materials under FOIA Exemption 7(E) and that the plaintiff lacked good moral character for naturalization purposes due to giving false testimony under oath during his deposition. The court also found the appeal regarding a provisional sealing order moot.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Rushing; Niemeyer; Thacker
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
June 10, 2025
Docket number
23-1910
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, which granted summary judgment to USCIS on both the FOIA claim and the naturalization claim.
Standard of review
De novo for legal issues; summary‑judgment standard for factual issues.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Fabian Grey v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, Acting Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

naturalizationjudicial review of agency actionagency adjudicationsummary judgmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

immigrationadministrative lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether USCIS properly redacted training materials under FOIA Exemption 7(E) and whether the agency needed to show a risk of circumvention.
  2. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Grey’s naturalization claim based on his false testimony.
  3. Whether the district court’s sealing and protective order was moot after its FOIA judgment.

Holdings

  1. Exemption 7(E) protects training materials compiled for law‑enforcement purposes without requiring the agency to demonstrate that disclosure would risk circumvention of the law.
  2. The district court correctly granted summary judgment; Grey’s false testimony under oath disqualifies him from the statutory requirement of good moral character for naturalization.
  3. The sealing and protective order are moot because the district court’s final FOIA judgment resolved the underlying dispute; no further review is required.

Key quotations

The exemption is not limited to records compiled for law enforcement proceedings; it extends more broadly to records compiled for law enforcement purposes. Training officers how to enforce the law is a “law enforcement purpose.” (at 9)
The district court concluded that Grey lacked good moral character because he gave false testimony during his deposition to obtain an immigration benefit. (at 14-15)

Factual background

Grey, a Jamaican citizen and lawful permanent resident, applied for naturalization in 2016. After a delayed decision, he sued USCIS for naturalization and for FOIA documents concerning marriage‑fraud investigations. During his deposition, Grey gave false testimony about a 2016 shooting incident, which the district court found disqualified him from good moral character. USCIS also produced FOIA documents that were partially redacted under the law‑enforcement exemption.

Procedural history

Grey filed suit seeking naturalization and FOIA documents. The district court granted summary judgment to USCIS on the FOIA claim, upheld redactions under Exemption 7(E), and granted summary judgment on the naturalization claim because Grey lacked good moral character due to false testimony. Grey appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…