Just to be clear, there's no evidence to suggest Harry has done anything along the lines of what Gibney did. The cases are about freedom of information requests being made by thirds parties (a journalist, the Heritage Foundation) to the Department of Homeland Security about visa processing by government departments, not about the crimes per se of the applicants. The case is being cited as an analogous situation of whether the privacy of the individual (Gibney/Harry) outweighs the public interest. The salient commonality between Gibney and Harry is that both are alleged to have lied on their application forms to cover up declarable matters (criminal charges/drug use) that should have prevented their visas being granted; and/or that the DHS and possibly other official or quasi official bodies have intervened on their behalf to "cure" these problems in their applications, which would be a matter of public interest.
As with the Gibney case, the judge in the Harry case has been persuaded that there is enough public interest for the DHS to have to hand over Harry's application file to the judge so that the can assess what process was followed during the application. In the Gibney case, redacted documents were released under FOI after the judge had looked at his DHS file. The Heritage Foundation will be hoping the same thing happens in Harry's case, now the judge has the file of documents that had previously been unreleased by DHS.
It's a pretty clear cut case, imo. Either Harry is on an "A" visa for diplomats (meaning he represents the government he is suing and the head of state he is dishing dirt on) and has been breaching its terms by working; or he lied about drug use to get a regular visa; or someone in the DHS has intervened on his behalf to ensure he can stay (the sort of special dispensation that should be open to public scrutiny). And this is why I think his lawyers were trying to rush the RAVEC appeal into court in July - to press for IPP status and make the visa case go away.