FAQ re: President Trump’s Statements Regarding Afghan Nationals and Proposed Immigration Policy Changes

Updated 12.4.25

President Trump recently announced many possible changes to current immigration policy. Some are now in effect, some may be coming soon, and some are clearly illegal. No one should make any important decisions based on what has been said only in Truth Social posts so far. Immigration law, policy, and practice is changing so rapidly and dramatically that consulting only trusted sources for information and being aware of scams is more important than ever. MIRC will continue to share updates through our social media channels and community outreach.

Collective punishment based on nationality is not aligned with American values. Michigan’s newest Afghan community members risked their lives to further the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and deserve to live in peace, security, and freedom.

What policies have changed since the President’s announcement?

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) made several changes to how/when it makes decisions for Afghan and non-Afghan applicants for benefits.

• In the context of affirmative asylum applicants, asylum officers have been instructed to pause issuing ALL decisions – approvals, denials, and referrals to Immigration Court. This means that USCIS will continue to accept new filings and even perform interviews. However, until and unless this directive is changed, no affirmative asylum applicant can be approved for asylum.
• In the context of nationals from the 19 countries listed in the June 4, 2025 travel ban, of which Afghanistan is one of the listed nations, USCIS is pausing the adjudication of all benefit requests. This includes employment authorization renewals, green cards, family petitions, and more.
• In the context of nationals from the 19 countries listed in the June 4, 2025 travel ban, of which Afghanistan is one of the listed nations, USCIS will be applying even greater scrutiny in making decisions. This expands the use of discretionary denials first announced in a Policy Alert on August 19, 2025.
• In the context of Afghans, along with other nationals from these 19 countries, who entered the United States after January 20, 2021, it appears that USCIS – and likely, other law enforcement agencies – will attempt to review and potentially interview these individuals.  

What rights do individuals have?

• Everyone who is already here and already has lawful immigration status has many rights. No one should sign any documents or make any decisions based on what the President is saying or rumors they might be hearing. People who have asylum, Lawful Permanent Residence, and U.S. citizenship can never lose that status simply for being from a particular country. There always has to be an individualized reason why a person might lose their status and the individual has to have notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
• Individuals can review their rights and prepare for possible immigration enforcement: bit.ly/MIRCKYR

Should Afghans who are already here be concerned they are or will become targets for deportation? Would they receive notice if the administration is trying to remove them?

• The law always requires notice and an opportunity to respond to any government action like taking away someone's immigration status. It is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
• Any Afghan whose parole and/or TPS has expired, like any other noncitizen without formal status, is subject to be detained, even if they have a valid EAD and/or pending asylum or adjustment application.
• Some people may be asked to participate in voluntary interviews with law enforcement. Consult counsel immediately to understand risks, rights, and to secure legal advice.

Is there a process for removing people who have Special Immigrant Visas (SIV)?

The government has the right to initiate removal proceedings against any individual it believes is deportable. If the government believes that an Afghan or really, any noncitizen, received a green card in error, it must allege that the noncitizen misrepresented themselves by first filing a Notice To Appear (NTA) in immigration court. Then, once before an immigration judge in immigration court, the government must demonstrate by “clear and convincing” evidence, which is a very steep legal standard, that such a misrepresentation occurred and but for the misrepresentation, the decision to grant a green card would have been different. And then, and only if the government can meet this standard, would the noncitizen be required to respond to this allegation and inform the immigration judge what they want to do (like file for asylum or cancellation of removal). Again, U.S. law requires due process and an opportunity to respond. That applies here.