The U.S. government has asked a judge to deport a father of two to Afghanistan, where he fears the Taliban would likely kill him, despite the fact that he has not been accused of any crime, terrorism, or disloyalty. The Department of Homeland Security argued that Afghanistan is safe for his return, a claim that The Washington Post reports has sparked concern among legal experts and human rights advocates. Identified only as H to protect his safety, the man worked for a U.S.-based nonprofit and attended an American university in Kabul before fleeing the country, seeking asylum because of his public support for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.
Government attorneys contended that the Taliban have allowed the institutions he was associated with to continue operating, suggesting that H would not be at risk. However, The Washington Post found both institutions have drastically changed under Taliban control: the nonprofit’s U.S. headquarters closed years before the country collapsed, and its former Afghan office now operates under strict Taliban oversight. The American University of Afghanistan no longer offers in-person classes, with the campus seized by the regime and replaced by its own school.
The stakes of H’s case are far-reaching, potentially affecting tens of thousands of Afghan asylum seekers in the U.S. Legal experts warn that if Homeland Security prevails, it could set a precedent with sweeping consequences for Afghans the U.S. evacuated and promised to protect. The Trump administration has dismantled programs that previously safeguarded Afghan allies, leaving many at risk of deportation to a brutal regime.
H and his wife face the prospect of being returned to Afghanistan despite extensive vetting by U.S. military, Homeland Security, and FBI investigators over the past four years. The man testified at his asylum hearing that the Taliban would target him for his past affiliations, his rejection of extremist interpretations of Islam, and his U.S.-linked family connections. Experts interviewed by The Washington Post said the government’s argument—that the Taliban would not target H because they had not done so before he fled—is false, noting the regime’s history of using kidnappings and targeted attacks as strategic tools.
The case also highlights structural concerns in the U.S. immigration system. Immigration courts are under pressure from the Trump administration, with asylum claims denied at far higher rates than in previous years. The overhaul of the Board of Immigration Appeals has drawn criticism for compromising judicial independence, raising fears that H’s case could set a binding precedent that affects countless other Afghan asylum seekers.
The outcome of H’s case will have implications well beyond his personal fate, potentially shaping the futures of hundreds or thousands of Afghans who relied on U.S. protection during the country’s collapse, The Washington Post reports.
