Cury v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 23-0499, 2025 WL 2145378 (W.D. Wash. July 29, 2025) (Robart, J.)

Cury v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 23-0499, 2025 WL 2145378 (W.D. Wash. July 29, 2025) (Robart, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning revocation of plaintiff’s visa

Disposition:  Granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3: “The court agrees with State that the withholding of visa revocation documents is justified by Exemption 3 and INA § 222(f) . . . .”  “INA § 222(f), meanwhile, provides that:  ‘The records of the Department of State and of diplomatic and consular offices of the United States pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States shall be considered confidential and shall be used only for the formulation, amendment, administration, or enforcement of the immigration, nationality, and other laws of the United States[.]’”  The court finds that “[i]t has long been established that INA § 222(f) is a qualifying statute under Exemption 3.”  “Plaintiffs argue, however, that although INA § 222(f) may justify withholding documents specifically relating to the ‘issuance or refusal’ of a visa, it cannot be read to justify withholding documents relating to the cancellation or revocation of a visa.”  “The Ninth Circuit has not considered whether the protections of INA § 222(f) extend to visa revocation documents.”  “As Plaintiffs acknowledge, however, the only two Courts of Appeals to consider that question have held that they do.”  “The Second Circuit was the first Court of Appeals to rule that documents relating to the revocation of a visa ‘f[e]ll within the ambit of INA § 222(f).’”  “[That] court observed that the ‘use of the word “pertaining” ma[de] clear that the reach of the statute’ was wider ‘than mere issuances and refusals.’”  “Applying this broad interpretation of ‘pertaining to’ to visa revocation records, the court concluded that ‘it [was] clear that the revocation of a visa pertains to the issuance of a visa because they are so closely related – namely, a revocation constitutes a nullification of that issuance.’”  “Four years later, the Eleventh Circuit adopted [the Second Circuit’s] reasoning and held that visa revocation documents ‘unambiguously fall within the “pertaining to” scope of § 222(f) and must be kept confidential.’”  “The court finds [the Second and Eleventh Circuits] persuasive, and holds that visa revocation documents are within the scope of INA § 222(f) and are thus exempted from FOIA disclosure under Exemption 3.”