Grey v. Alfonso-Royals: Fourth Circuit Confirms that FOIA Exemption 7(E) Shields Law-Enforcement Training Materials Without a “Risk-of-Circumvention” Showing

I. Introduction

Fabian Grey, a Jamaican national and lawful permanent resident, sued the acting director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) after prolonged inaction on his naturalization application. His two-pronged suit in the District of South Carolina sought:

An order declaring him eligible for naturalization; and
Production of records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) relating to his immigration file and USCIS’s marriage-fraud investigative techniques.

The district court granted summary judgment to USCIS on both claims, prompting Grey’s appeal. On 10 June 2025 the Fourth Circuit, in a published opinion authored by Judge Rushing, affirmed in all respects.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals held that:

USCIS validly redacted and withheld portions of its marriage-fraud training materials under FOIA Exemption 7(E). Crystallising circuit precedent, the Court ruled that:
- Training materials are “compiled for law-enforcement purposes.”
- The last-antecedent rule confines the “risk-of-circumvention” clause in Exemption 7(E) to guidelines; it need not be shown for “techniques and procedures.”
The district court correctly treated Grey’s false deposition testimony as disqualifying “false testimony” under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §1101(f)(6), thereby negating the “good-moral-character” requirement for naturalization.
Grey’s ancillary challenges—to sealing orders, discovery sanctions, and admission of late-produced police records—either failed on the merits or were moot.

III. Analytical Commentary

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Zaid v. Department of Justice, 96 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024)
– Confirmed the de novo standard for FOIA summary-judgment review.
Tax Analysts v. IRS, 294 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
– Recognised that law-enforcement manuals fall within Exemption 7(E); used to rebut Grey’s “training is not enforcement” argument.
Fogg v. IRS, 106 F.4th 779 (8th Cir. 2024); Broward Bulldog v. DOJ, 939 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 2019)
– Illustrated that even widely-known techniques may be protected when the details remain non-public.
Allard K. Lowenstein Int’l Human Rights Project v. DHS, 626 F.3d 678 (2d Cir. 2010)
– Applied the rule of the last antecedent to Exemption 7(E); the Fourth Circuit expressly “joined” that approach.
Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988)
– Established that false testimony need not be material to bar naturalization; directly applied to Grey’s deposition falsehoods.
INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988)
– Reiterated that the burden of proving eligibility for citizenship rests with the applicant.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. FOIA Exemption 7(E)

“Compiled for law-enforcement purposes.”
Training materials guiding Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) officers were deemed law-enforcement records because they facilitate enforcement of immigration laws. The Court rejected a narrow investigative/prosecutorial dichotomy.
Secrecy of Techniques.
Even if interview protocols, site-visit tactics, and database checks are publicly acknowledged, the operational specifics (locations, sequences, weights, patterns) remain protected. Disclosure would risk tipping off bad-faith applicants.
Last-Antecedent Grammar.
Exemption 7(E) contains two disjunctive clauses:
“would disclose techniques and procedures … or would disclose guidelines … if disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.”
Applying the rule of the last antecedent, the qualifier (“risk circumvention”) modifies only “guidelines.” Therefore, agencies need not prove circumvention risk when withholding “techniques and procedures.”

2. Naturalization – Good Moral Character

False Testimony. Grey’s deposition answers (denying presence of the shooter, professing ignorance of the incident) clashed with recorded police interviews. Because the deposition occurred during a suit aimed at securing naturalization, the statements were “to obtain an immigration benefit.”
No Materiality Requirement. Following Kungys, any intentional falsehood under oath suffices.
Burden and Standard. Summary judgment was proper because no genuine factual dispute remained once the contradictory transcripts were juxtaposed; Grey offered no evidence of alternative intent.

C. Potential Impact

FOIA Litigation in the Fourth Circuit.
- Agencies may now invoke Exemption 7(E) for training manuals and similar records without developing an evidentiary record on “risk of circumvention.”
- Requesters must frame arguments around whether the material truly reveals techniques and procedures, not around the circumvention test.
Immigration Practice.
- Applicants litigating naturalization claims should anticipate rigorous moral-character scrutiny extending to deposition conduct.
- Practitioners must carefully prepare clients for sworn testimony; discrepancies with prior law-enforcement statements are perilous.
Discovery Protocols. The Court signalled willingness to impose fee-shifting rather than exclusion for belated discovery, especially where evidence goes directly to statutory eligibility.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

FOIA Exemption 7(E): An exception allowing agencies to withhold law-enforcement records whose release would reveal investigative techniques, procedures, or certain guidelines.
Rule of the Last Antecedent: A grammatical canon stating that limiting phrases normally apply only to the nearest preceding clause or phrase.
Good Moral Character (INA §1427): A mandatory quality for naturalization applicants, assessed over a statutory period (usually the preceding five years). False testimony under oath automatically defeats GMC, regardless of the falsehood’s importance.
Misprision of a Felony: The federal crime of concealing knowledge of a felony’s commission. Grey was charged, though that charge did not ultimately drive the appellate outcome.
Vaughn Index: A document describing, in a FOIA case, the withheld portions of records and the justification for each withholding, enabling judicial review without in-camera inspection of every page.

V. Conclusion

Grey’s appeal produced two noteworthy holdings. First, the Fourth Circuit joined the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits in restricting the “risk-circumvention” qualifier of FOIA Exemption 7(E) to “guidelines,” while simultaneously validating the exemption for agency training materials. Second, the Court underscored that dishonesty in civil discovery can trigger INA §1101(f)(6) and doom a naturalization application. Together, these rulings fortify agency discretion over sensitive law-enforcement content and reaffirm stringent honesty demands on prospective citizens. Practitioners litigating FOIA requests or naturalization cases in the Fourth Circuit must recalibrate strategies accordingly.