Prince Harry Visa Drop: What New Files Say as Mystery Continues

Releasing Prince Harry’s exact visa status could expose him to “harassment as well as unwanted contact by the media,” according to unsealed court filings.

New files relating to Harry’s visa status were unsealed with redactions by a federal judge in D.C. on Tuesday.

Some news outlets had suggested the Duke of Sussex’s papers were going to be released, though as Newsweek previously reported this was never on the cards.

Instead, Judge Carl J. Nichols released previously secret declarations by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) describing why Harry’s records could not be made public. They have now been redacted to allow part of the government’s justification to be revealed.

What Do New Prince Harry Visa Lawsuit Filings Say?

The Duke of Sussex’s visa application has come under scrutiny after revelations in his book Spare that he has taken drugs including cocaine, cannabis, magic mushrooms and ayahuasca.

Right-wing think tank The Heritage Foundation sued the Department of Homeland Security seeking access to Harry’s visa application, arguing he must have either lied about his past drug use or been given favorable treatment.

An unsealed DHS court filing, seen by Newsweek, reads: “To release his exact status could subject him to reasonably foreseeable harm in the form of harassment as well as unwanted contact by the media and others.

“The records also contain very specific private and personal information including specific file and record identifiers in the records [Redacted].”

The case has mostly centered around what Harry said about whether or not he took drugs. However, the discussion in the filing also accounts for his actual immigration status, which could include what type of visa he has or when it might be due for renewal.

Speculation Over Prince Harry’s Visa

Some immigration experts have said Harry could be on a highly prized A1 visa, used by diplomats and royals, in which case, he would not have gone through the same process as other applicants.

U.K. based firm Chavin Immigration published an online article that says: “Prince Harry is a member of the British Royal Family. So, he is a likely A-1 visa holder.

“Moreover, there is a category of highest level members of a country’s public leaders called A-1 Head of State, for which Prince Harry could qualify as a member of a royal family, for which he need not be a ‘working’ royal or even a ‘working’ government official.

“Most A-1 diplomats need to be coming to the United States on behalf of their national government primarily to engage in official activities for that government. But a Head of State meets the eligibility for an A-1 visa ‘regardless of the purpose of the visit to the United States.'”

Another possibility is that he originally entered America on a P1 visa for internationally recognized entertainers, as he gave a speech at an exclusive JP Morgan event in Miami in February 2020, a month before relocating to California.

However, there has been no confirmation for either speculation either within the lawsuit or outside it.

And the filings suggest it is a general DHS policy not to release a person’s visa status: “To release such information would potentially expose the individual to harm from members of the public who might have a reason to manipulate or harass individuals depending on their status in the United States.”

Allegations of Government Misconduct

“In most cases,” the filing continued, “there is no discernable public interest in the disclosure of nonimmigrant/immigrant records because disclosure of private information in [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service] files regarding specific individuals does not shed light on the activities of USCIS, and as a result would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy.”

DHS also said that if Heritage is alleging “government misconduct” in order to push for Harry’s private records to be released then they must provide “compelling evidence that the agency denying the FOIA request is engaged in illegal activity and shows that the information sought is necessary to confirm or refute that evidence.”

And DHS appeared dismissive of the idea there was misconduct: “[Heritage] allege that the records should be disclosed as public confidence in the government would suffer or to establish whether the Duke was granted preferential treatment.

“This speculation by [Heritage] does not point to any evidence of government misconduct. The records, as explained above, do not support such an allegation.”

How Heritage Foundation Responded to New Filings

The Heritage Foundation’s Nile Gardiner told GB News: “The fight continues to release Prince Harry’s immigration application to the American people.

“We still do not know whether or not Prince Harry lied on his application, and whether he received any kind of preferential treatment.”

What the Experts Say

Charlotte Slocombe, partner and U.K.-U.S. immigration law expert at Fragomen, said in a statement sent to Newsweek: “If Prince Harry did disclose any prior drug use or violation on his visa forms, there is provision in U.S. law for a waiver to be granted to temporary visa applicants who are inadmissible to the U.S. as a result of prior substance violation.

“These laws have existed since 1952, so there is no need for special treatment by any prior or existing U.S. Administrations. It exists in law for all visa applicants. These waivers are not available for Green Card applications for substance violation, unless under 30g of marijuana.

“However, if Prince Harry did not disclose any violation on his visa forms, it would arguably not meet the criteria for ‘admission’ that would lead to visa inadmissibility.”

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek’s The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III and Queen Camilla, Prince William and Princess Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We’d love to hear from you.