DHS Report Reveals 40% Vetting Failure Rate in Afghan Asylum Applications

<p>Federal inspectors found documentation or vetting errors in 40% of asylum applications reviewed for Afghan nationals admitted under the Biden administration's Operation Allies Welcome program. The report concluded that these deficiencies increased the risk that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could overlook information that may have rendered some applicants ineligible for asylum.</p><p>The September 23 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General report reviewed a sample of 678 asylum applications filed by Afghan nationals admitted through Operation Allies Welcome, which was initiated after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Inspectors identified 303 missing aliases, 23 missing security checks, and over 150 additional documentation deficiencies, including two cases involving applicants who may have been inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds.</p><p>The findings come amid renewed scrutiny of Operation Allies Welcome following several high-profile arrests of Afghan nationals admitted under the program.</p><p>According to previous reports, arrests included an alleged ISIS-K supporter, an Afghan national charged with making terroristic threats, and another Afghan national who was later arrested after being convicted of indecent exposure to a minor.</p><p>In a press release, DHS stated that the report highlighted how the Biden administration mismanaged Operation Allies Welcome, arguing that a lawsuit settlement requiring USCIS to adjudicate 90% of asylum applications within 150 days forced the agency to prioritize speed over thorough reviews.</p><p>The DHS inspector general's report noted that hundreds of aliases had not been recorded for applicants, emphasizing the importance of accurate record-keeping. It pointed out that one applicant had 124 known aliases. The report indicated that missed FBI name checks accounted for nearly 60% of the absent security checks identified.</p><p>Additionally, the report flagged two asylum applications involving applicants with potential terrorism-related concerns. In one case, required documentation of the government's review was missing entirely, while in another, supervisors began the approval process but did not complete the final step, leaving no clear record that the review had been finalized.</p><p>Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, commented that the inspector general's findings reinforce concerns raised since the chaotic Kabul evacuation in 2021. He stated, "The fact that 40% of these applications have errors is alarming," and noted that the report underscores how superficial the vetting process was.</p><p>Krikorian explained that many evacuees were first flown to temporary processing hubs in third countries before being admitted to the United States. He argued that while these locations allowed for additional processing, the practical reality was that partner countries were unlikely to permanently accept the evacuees, effectively committing the United States to resettling them.</p><p>Krikorian further stated that the inspector general's report likely understated the scope of the problem, as inspectors could only identify documentation deficiencies visible in the files they reviewed, not whether every applicant had been thoroughly vetted.</p><p>The inspector general ultimately made five recommendations aimed at strengthening USCIS' review of Operation Allies Welcome asylum applications, including improving documentation of applicant aliases, ensuring required security checks are properly recorded, and enhancing oversight of adjudication files. USCIS agreed with all five recommendations, according to the report.</p>