A Department of Homeland Security watchdog review found adjudication or vetting-related errors in about 40% of a statistical sample of asylum files from Afghan evacuees brought to the United States under Operation Allies Welcome, including missed aliases, missing security checks and two cases involving potential terrorism-related inadmissibility issues.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal watchdog has identified errors in roughly 40% of a sample of asylum files from Afghan evacuees resettled in the United States following the Biden administration’s 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, finding missed aliases, incomplete security checks and unresolved records that could have prevented immigration officials from identifying derogatory information.
The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General issued its final report Sept. 23 after examining U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ handling of asylum applications from Afghans who entered the country through Operation Allies Welcome.
Investigators reviewed a statistical sample of 678 applications drawn from 13,682 adjudicated asylum applications involving the OAW population, according to the inspector general’s report.
Read the Full Report: OIG-26-26-Sep26-Redacted
The watchdog identified 303 missed aliases, 23 missing security checks, 45 unresolved records and 115 other documentation problems across the files examined.
“The prevalence and type of errors suggest U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may have missed opportunities to potentially link names provided by applicants to derogatory information,” the inspector general wrote, “which in turn would compromise the integrity of alien registration file (A-File) contents that future users rely upon for immigration administration and enforcement activities.”
The report does not conclude that 40% of Afghan evacuees were security threats. Rather, it found errors in approximately 40% of the sampled asylum files, ranging from administrative documentation problems to deficiencies that could have more serious consequences.
Two cases identified by investigators involved potential inadmissibility on terrorism-related grounds.
The inspector general summarized its review:
“We analyzed a statistical sample of 678 applications from the 13,682 adjudicated applications from the OAW population of Afghan evacuees who resettled in the United States. Within the applications we reviewed, we identified 303 missed aliases, 23 missing security checks, 45 unresolved records, and 115 other documentation issues. Most errors resulted from missed aliases or incomplete documentation, including two cases related to potential inadmissibility on terrorism-related grounds. Some errors resulted from an Asylum Officer not identifying a spelling variation of a name or not reprinting and adding a document to the A-file.”
The watchdog said the seriousness of the errors varied.
Some documentation mistakes could amount to little more than an administrative inconvenience when the missing information was available elsewhere in government systems. Others could carry greater consequences if an alias, security check or unresolved derogatory record prevented officials from properly reviewing an applicant.
The missed aliases were particularly significant because asylum officers use names and known aliases when conducting checks against law enforcement, intelligence and national security databases.
If an applicant used another name or a different spelling and the variation was not entered into the appropriate systems, investigators warned, USCIS could miss information connected to that identity.
The report found 303 missed aliases among the files reviewed.
Investigators also identified 23 applications in which required security checks were missing and 45 cases containing records that had not been fully resolved.
The watchdog further found 115 other documentation issues.
In one of the two cases involving potential terrorism-related inadmissibility, supporting paperwork was not properly included, preventing a required second-level review from being completed, according to reporting on the findings.
In the second case, documentation had been included and reviewed by higher-level officials, but the form did not clearly indicate whether the analysis had been approved or rejected.
The findings concern asylum adjudications conducted after one of the largest emergency evacuation and resettlement operations in recent U.S. history.
Following the collapse of the Afghan government and the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, the Biden administration launched Operation Allies Welcome to receive and resettle tens of thousands of Afghans evacuated from the country.
Roughly 75,000 Afghans were resettled in the United States during the initial operation, including former U.S. partners, family members and other evacuees.
Many initially entered through humanitarian parole rather than traditional refugee or immigrant visa procedures and later sought more permanent immigration status, including asylum.
The speed and scale of the operation immediately raised questions about the government’s ability to complete identity, biometric and security screening during the evacuation.
Some evacuees were processed overseas before traveling to the United States, while others underwent additional screening after reaching U.S. ports of entry or military installations.
Previous DHS inspector general reviews have also identified problems with the Afghan evacuation process, including incomplete or inaccurate information available to federal officials performing security checks.
The latest report focuses specifically on the later asylum-adjudication process rather than the initial decision to evacuate or parole individuals into the country.
Asylum files are important beyond the immediate application because the information they contain becomes part of an individual’s permanent immigration record.
Future USCIS officers, immigration enforcement officials and other government personnel can rely on those Alien Registration Files, or A-Files, when making decisions about immigration benefits, enforcement or other matters.
That is why the inspector general warned that errors made during an initial asylum adjudication can have consequences long after the application itself has been decided.
The review found that many of the problems arose from relatively basic failures, including officers overlooking different spellings of applicants’ names or failing to print and place required documentation into case files.
But in an immigration system that relies on names, aliases and other identifiers to connect applicants with government databases, those procedural mistakes can potentially prevent relevant records from being matched to the correct individual.
The inspector general’s finding of two files involving possible terrorism-related grounds illustrates the stakes of those errors.
Under federal immigration law, certain associations, activities or other circumstances connected with terrorism can make a foreign national inadmissible to the United States, subject to specific legal standards and exemptions.
The report did not conclude that the two applicants were terrorists. It found deficiencies involving cases in which potential terrorism-related inadmissibility required proper review and documentation.
The distinction is significant because the inspector general was evaluating whether USCIS followed required procedures, not making independent final immigration determinations about every applicant in the sample.
The report nonetheless raises new questions about the quality of asylum adjudications conducted for a population that entered the United States during an emergency evacuation.
Operation Allies Welcome was created as the Biden administration rushed to relocate Afghans following the final withdrawal of U.S. forces and the rapid Taliban takeover.
The operation faced immense logistical pressure as U.S. agencies attempted simultaneously to evacuate people, establish identities, conduct security screening, arrange temporary housing and move evacuees into communities across the United States.
The newly released inspector general review indicates that problems continued during the subsequent process of adjudicating asylum applications after evacuees had already entered and resettled in the country.
The watchdog’s findings do not mean every error resulted in an improper asylum approval, and the report does not establish that all affected applicants concealed information intentionally.
Some errors resulted from government personnel failing to identify spelling variations or properly maintain records.
But the inspector general warned that the frequency of the deficiencies created opportunities for important information to be missed.
That concern is particularly significant when the omitted information involves aliases or security checks used to locate potentially derogatory records.
The September report adds to a series of federal oversight findings examining the Afghan evacuation and resettlement operation several years after it began.
What started as an emergency response to the collapse of Afghanistan’s U.S.-backed government has continued to generate questions about how thoroughly evacuees were screened, how their immigration cases were processed and whether federal agencies maintained reliable records.
In the latest review, the inspector general’s conclusion is narrower but consequential: among 678 randomly selected asylum applications from 13,682 adjudicated OAW cases, errors were found in about four out of every 10 files examined.
Those deficiencies included hundreds of missed aliases, dozens of missing or unresolved security-related records and two cases in which documentation problems intersected with potential terrorism-related inadmissibility concerns.
The report now places renewed attention on whether USCIS procedures were sufficient to ensure that information collected during the Biden administration’s Afghan resettlement effort was accurate, complete and reliable for future immigration and national security decisions.
Comments