Hundreds of Afghans denied humanitarian entry into US

Haseena Niazi, a 24-year-old from Afghanistan, holds a parole denial notice she received from the Department of Homeland Security, while posing outside her home, Friday, Dec. 17, 2021, north of Boston. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 30 December 2021
Follow

Hundreds of Afghans denied humanitarian entry into US

  • Federal immigration officials have issued denial letters to hundreds of Afghans seeking temporary entry into the country for humanitarian reasons in recent weeks
  • The despair has led some immigration attorneys to give up on filing parole applications altogether

BOSTON: Haseena Niazi had pinned her hopes of getting her fiancé out of Afghanistan on a rarely used immigration provision.
The 24-year-old Massachusetts resident was almost certain his application for humanitarian parole would get approved by the US government, considering the evidence he provided on the threats from the Taliban he received while working on women’s health issues at a hospital near Kabul.
But this month, the request was summarily denied, leaving the couple reeling after months of anxiety.
“He had everything they wanted,” said Niazi, a green card holder originally from Afghanistan. “It doesn’t make any sense why they’d reject it. It’s like a bad dream. I still can’t believe it.”
Federal immigration officials have issued denial letters to hundreds of Afghans seeking temporary entry into the country for humanitarian reasons in recent weeks, to the dismay of Afghans and their supporters. By doing so, immigrant advocates say, the Biden administration has failed to honor its promise to help Afghans who were left behind after the US military withdrew from the country in August and the Taliban took control.
“It was a huge disappointment,” said Caitlin Rowe, a Texas attorney who said she recently received five denials, including one for an Afghan police officer who helped train US troops and was beaten by the Taliban. “These are vulnerable people who genuinely thought there was hope, and I don’t think there was.”
Since the US withdrawal, US Citizenship and Immigration Services has received more than 35,000 applications for humanitarian parole, of which it has denied about 470 and conditionally approved more than 140, Victoria Palmer, an agency spokesperson, said this week.
The little-known program, which doesn’t provide a path to lawful permanent residence in the country, typically receives fewer than 2,000 requests annually from all nationalities, of which USCIS approves an average of about 500, she said.
Palmer also stressed humanitarian parole is generally reserved for extreme emergencies and not intended to replace the refugee admissions process, “which is the typical pathway for individuals outside of the United States who have fled their country of origin and are seeking protection.”
The US government, meanwhile, continues to help vulnerable Afghans, evacuating more than 900 American citizens and residents and another 2,200 Afghans since the military withdrawal. The state department said it expects to help resettle as many as 95,000 people from Afghanistan this fiscal year, a process that includes rigorous background checks and vaccinations.
Many of them, however, had been whisked out of Afghanistan before the US left. Now, USCIS is tasked with this new wave of humanitarian parole applications and has ramped up staffing to consider them.
The agency said in a statement that requests are reviewed on an individual basis, with consideration given to immediate relatives of Americans and Afghans airlifted out.
And while USCIS stressed that parole shouldn’t replace refugee processing, immigrant advocates argue that isn’t a viable option for Afghans stuck in their country due to a disability or hiding from the Taliban. Even those able to get out of Afghanistan, they say, may be forced to wait years in refugee camps, which isn’t something many can afford to do.
Mohammad, who asked that his last name not be used out of fear for his family’s safety, said his elder brother, who used to work for international organizations, is among them. He has been in hiding since the Taliban came looking for him following the US withdrawal, Mohammad said.
On a recent visit to the family home, Taliban members took his younger brother instead and held him more than a week for ransom, he said. Now, Mohammad, a former translator for US troops in Afghanistan who lives in California with a special immigration status, is seeking parole for this brother, too. He hopes a conditional approval letter can get them a spot on one of the US evacuation flights still running out of the country.
“I can provide him housing. I can provide him everything,” he said. “Let them come here.”
Immigrant advocates began filing humanitarian parole applications for Afghans in August in a last-ditch effort to get them on US evacuation flights out of the country before the withdrawal.
In some cases, it worked, and word spread among immigration attorneys that parole, while typically used in extreme emergencies, might be a way out, said Kyra Lilien, director of immigration legal services at Jewish Family & Community Services in California’s East Bay.
Soon, attorneys began filing thousands of parole applications for Afghans.
When the US immigration agency created a website specifically to address these applications, Lilien said she thought it was a sign of hope. By November, however, the agency had posted a list of narrow criteria for Afghan applicants and held a webinar telling attorneys that parole is typically granted only if there’s evidence someone faces “imminent severe harm.”
A few weeks later, the denial letters began arriving. Lilien has received more than a dozen but no approvals.
“Once the US packed up and left, anyone who was left behind has only one choice, and that is to pursue this archaic refugee channel,” she said. “It is just so angering that it took USCIS so long to be clear about that.”
Wogai Mohmand, an attorney who helps lead the Afghan-focused Project ANAR, said that the group has filed thousands of applications and that since the US troop withdrawal, has seen only denials.
The despair has led some immigration attorneys to give up on filing parole applications altogether. In Massachusetts, the International Institute of New England is holding off filing new applications until it hears on those that are pending after receiving a flurry of denials.
Chiara St. Pierre, an attorney for the refugee resettlement agency, said she feels clients like Niazi are facing an “unwinnable” battle.
For Niazi’s fiancé, they had provided copies of written threats sent to the hospital where he works as a medical technician and threatening text messages he said came from Taliban members, she said. It wasn’t enough.
A redacted copy of the denial letter provided by St. Pierre lists the USCIS criteria released in November but doesn’t specify why the agency rejected the application, which had been filed in August.
For now, Niazi says her fiancé is living and working far from Kabul as they weigh their options. They could potentially wait until Niazi becomes an American citizen so she can try to bring him here on a fiancé visa, but that would take years.
“He can’t wait that long. It’s a miracle every day that he’s alive,” Niazi said. “I’m feeling like every door is closing in on him.”
___
Taxin reported from Orange County, California.


Over 100 former senior officials warn against planned staff cuts at US State Department

Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

Over 100 former senior officials warn against planned staff cuts at US State Department

  • State Secretary Rubio faulted for recklessness in amid "unprecedented challenges from strategic competitors, ongoing conflicts, and emerging security threats"

WASHINGTON: More than 130 retired diplomats and other former senior US officials issued an open letter on Thursday criticizing a planned overhaul of the State Department that could see thousands of employees laid off.
“We strongly condemn Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announced decision to implement sweeping staff reductions and reorganization at the US Department of State,” the officials said in the letter.
The signatories included dozens of former ambassadors and senior officials, including Susan Rice, who served as national security adviser under President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
The timing of the cuts remains unclear, with the US Supreme Court expected to weigh in at any moment on a bid by US President Donald Trump’s administration to halt a judicial order blocking the firings.
The administration in late May notified Congress of a plan to overhaul its diplomatic corps that could cut thousands of jobs, including hundreds of members of its elite Foreign Service who advocate for US interests in the face of growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia.
Initial plans to send the notices last month were halted after a federal judge on June 13 temporarily blocked the State Department from implementing the reorganization plan.
The shake-up forms part of a push by Trump to shrink the federal bureaucracy, cut what he says is wasteful spending and align what remains with his “America First” priorities.
“At a time when the United States faces unprecedented challenges from strategic competitors, ongoing conflicts, and emerging security threats, Secretary Rubio’s decision to gut the State Department’s institutional knowledge and operational capacity is reckless,” the former officials wrote. 

 

 

 


US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight

Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight

  • Trump administration has sought to deport 8 migrants to unstable South Sudan
  • District judge had said the deportation attempt violated his injunction

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump’s administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan.
The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy’s April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called “third countries” where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out.
The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy’s separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The US State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation “due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.”
Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision.
The court said that Murphy should now “cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.”
Murphy’s May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the US government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-US citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety.
After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy’s April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order “remains in full force and effect.” Calling that ruling by the judge a “lawless act of defiance,” the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy’s May 21 decision as well.
Murphy’s ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its “lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan,” and disrupted diplomatic relations. Its agents are being “forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict,” it added.
Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation.
The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal members dissented from the June 23 decision pausing Murphy’s injunction, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor calling it a “gross abuse” of the court’s power that now exposes “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”
After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face.
In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there “without the need for further procedures.”
Murphy found that the administration’s policy of “executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims” likely violates due process requirements under the US Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.
The Justice Department on Tuesday noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture.”
The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration’s treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.

 


Russian shelling kills five in and near eastern Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk

Updated 03 July 2025
Follow

Russian shelling kills five in and near eastern Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk

  • Two people had been killed in Pokrovsk, a key logistics hub

KYIV: Russian shelling killed five people on Thursday in and near the eastern Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk, the regional governor said, a key target under Russian attack for months.

Vadym Filashkin, writing on the Telegram messaging app, said two people had been killed in Pokrovsk, a key logistics hub, where local authorities have been urging residents to evacuate.

Two died in Bylitske, northwest of Pokrovsk, and another in Illinivka, between Pokrovsk and Kramatorsk, another frequent target in Russia’s slow westward advance through Donetsk region.


University of California reiterates ban on student government boycotts of Israel

Updated 03 July 2025
Follow

University of California reiterates ban on student government boycotts of Israel

SAN FRANCISCO: The president of the University of California this week reiterated that student governments are prohibited from financial boycotts of companies associated with any particular country, including Israel, as the Trump administration continues its probe of alleged antisemitism on college campuses.
Michael Drake did not mention Israel by name, but he did single out student governments in a letter he sent to chancellors of the university system. He said that while freedom of speech and inquiry are core commitments of the university, its policies also require that financial decisions be grounded in sound business practices, such as competitive bidding.
“This principle also applies to student governments,” he wrote. “Actions by University entities to implement boycotts of companies based on their association with a particular country would not align with these sound business practices.”
UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz said in a statement that the letter is in keeping with the university’s opposition to financial boycotts of companies associated with a particular country.
“While our community members have the right to express their viewpoints, financial boycotts are inconsistent with UC’s commitment to sound business practices, academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas,” she said.
College campuses exploded with pro-Palestinian protests in the wake of the war in Gaza, including a particularly brutal clash involving police at the University of California, Los Angeles last year. At the start of his term this year, President Donald Trump launched antisemitism probes at several universities, including the University of California, Berkeley.
The US Department of Health and Human Services and National Science Foundation are requiring research grantees to certify they will not engage in boycotts of Israel or promote diversity, inclusion and equity or risk federal funding.
The UC Student Association, which represents students across the campuses, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But its president, Aditi Hariharan, told the Los Angeles Times that she disagreed with the ban.
“Students already have little influence on how the university works, and student government is one of the few places where they can really get involved and have their voices heard,” she said in an interview before the letter was released.


Trump says ‘didn’t make any progress’ on Ukraine during Putin call

Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

Trump says ‘didn’t make any progress’ on Ukraine during Putin call

  • Putin told Trump Russia will not ‘give up’ aims in Ukraine: Kremlin
  • Ukraine’s Zelensky hopes for Friday call with US president

WASHINGTON/MOSCOW: US President Donald Trump said he had made no progress with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin toward a ceasefire in Ukraine after the two leaders spoke by phone on Thursday.

“No, I didn’t make any progress with him at all,” Trump told reporters when asked if he had moved closer toward a deal to end Russia’s invasion, adding that he was “not happy” about the ongoing war.

The Kremlin earlier said Putin told Trump that Moscow will not “give up” on its aims in Ukraine.

The pair spoke as US-led peace talks on ending the more than three-year-old conflict in Ukraine have stalled and after Washington paused some weapons shipments to Kyiv.
The Kremlin said the call lasted almost an hour.

Trump has been frustrated with both Moscow and Kyiv as US efforts to end fighting have yielded no breakthrough.
“Our president said that Russia will achieve the aims it set, that is to say the elimination of the root causes that led to the current state of affairs,” Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters.
“Russia will not give up on these aims.”
Moscow has long described its maximalist aims in Ukraine as getting rid of the “root causes” of the conflict, demanding that Kyiv give up its NATO ambitions.
Moscow’s offensive in Ukraine has killed hundreds of thousands of people and Russia now controls large swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine.
Even so, Putin told Trump that Moscow would continue to take part in negotiations.
“He also spoke of the readiness of the Russian side to continue the negotiation process,” Ushakov added.
“Vladimir Putin said that we are continuing to look for a political, negotiated solution to the conflict,” Ushakov said.
Moscow has for months refused to agree to a US-proposed ceasefire in Ukraine.
Kyiv and its Western allies have accused Putin of dragging out the process while pushing on with Russia’s advance in Ukraine.
The Kremlin said that Putin had also “stressed” to Trump that all conflicts in the Middle East should be solved “diplomatically,” after the US struck nuclear sites in Russia’s ally Iran.
Putin and Trump spoke as Kyiv said that Russian strikes on Thursday killed at least eight people in Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was visiting ally Denmark on Thursday.
A senior Ukrainian official told AFP that Trump and Zelensky planned to speak to each other on Friday.
The US deciding to pause some weapons shipments has severely hampered Kyiv, which has been reliant on Western military support since Moscow launched its offensive in 2022.
Zelensky told EU allies in Denmark that doubts over US military aid reinforced the need for greater cooperation with Brussels and NATO.
He stressed again that Kyiv had always supported Trump’s “unconditional ceasefire.”
On Wednesday, Kyiv scrambled to clarify with the US what a White House announcement on pausing some weapons shipments meant.
“Continued American support for Ukraine, for our defense, for our people is in our common interest,” Zelensky had said on Wednesday.
Russia has consistently called for Western countries to stop sending weapons to Kyiv.