DOJ uses Alien Terrorist Removal Court for first time ever

In a significant move, the Department of Justice has, for the very first time, utilized the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to deport an individual deemed a national security threat. This situation coincided with the disruption of an election day terror plot involving an Afghan national named Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi. Additionally, there’s news on the TSA rolling out new gateside access at thirteen airports for pre-approved visitors.

Federal inspectors recently found that 40% of asylum applications reviewed for Afghan nationals, who entered the U.S. under the Biden administration’s Operation Allies Welcome program, contained documentation or vetting errors. As a result, concerns were raised that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) might overlook critical information that could render some applicants ineligible for asylum.

A report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General on September 23 examined a sample of 678 asylum applications from Afghan nationals within the aforementioned program, initiated following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Inspectors uncovered 303 missing aliases, 23 absent security checks, and over 150 other documentation issues. Notably, two cases involved applicants who might have been denied on terrorism-related grounds.

These findings have drawn further scrutiny towards Operation Allies Welcome, especially after several Afghan nationals admitted through the program were arrested recently.

Reports have linked some of these arrests to individuals, including an accused ISIS-K supporter and another Afghan national arrested after being convicted of indecent exposure to a minor.

DHS has stated that the report highlights a significant mismanagement of Operation Allies Welcome by the Biden administration, asserting that a lawsuit settlement requiring USCIS to process 90% of asylum applications within 150 days led to rushed reviews at the expense of thoroughness.

The report emphasized accurate record-keeping, pointing out that some applicants had numerous aliases, with one individual having as many as 124. It revealed that missed FBI name checks accounted for nearly 60% of the absent security checks identified in the report.

There were two asylum applications flagged in the report that raised potential terrorism-related alarms. In one case, essential paperwork for review was entirely missing, while in another, although supervisors had initiated the approval process, they did not complete the final steps, leaving uncertainty about the review’s conclusion.

Mark Krikorian, director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, remarked that the inspector general’s discoveries reinforce long-standing worries about the chaotic evacuation from Kabul in 2021. He noted, “The fact that 40% of these applications have errors is alarming,” indicating issues with the vetting process that many were assured was thorough.

Krikorian mentioned that evacuees were often taken to temporary processing hubs, somewhat misleadingly termed as “lily pads,” before being admitted into the U.S. Though these locations allowed further processing, he noted that countries housing these hubs would not permanently accept evacuees, effectively committing the U.S. to resettle them once they boarded evacuation flights.

The inspector general’s report ultimately made five recommendations to strengthen USCIS’s review of asylum applications under Operation Allies Welcome. These included improving documentation for applicant aliases, ensuring thorough records of security checks, and enhancing oversight of adjudication files. USCIS agreed with all five suggestions outlined in the report.