Dr. Ibrahim was given a letter by the consular officer informing her that the Department of State was unable to issue her a visa...The consular officer wrote the word (Terrorist) on the form to explain why she was deemed inadmissible.

The judge helpfully includes a photocopy of the letter with the handwritten note.

> and the very real misapprehension on her part that the > later visa denials are traceable to her erroneous 2004 > placement on the no-fly list

The judge's choice of the word 'misapprehension' implies that the visa denials were not related to the original mistake, and were for some other reason.

> Plaintiff’s counsel became cleared to receive SSI, > but never tried to become cleared to read classified > information

> Everyone else in this case [except the plaintiff] knows it.

This implies that in the case, 'Security Sensitive Information' was presented about the real reason her visa was denied - and part of the order is that the plaintiff should be given this information.

> One might wonder why, if Dr. Ibrahim herself is > concededly not a threat to our national > security, the government would find her inadmissible > under the Act. In this connection, please remember that > the Act includes nine ineligible categories. Some of them > go beyond whether the applicant herself poses a national > security threat.

This strongly hints that the section the visa was denied under was this one: "is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years".

Therefore, it seems very likely that the information that the government was ordered to hand over (but was censored) is that the government believes that her husband or one of her parents meets the criteria for exclusion under the terrorist activities section.