How did immigration and law-enforcement agencies handle the shooter's asylum status and background checks?

1. Asylum timeline: arrival, application, approval

Reporting across Reuters, BBC, AP and other outlets describes the same basic timeline: Lakanwal arrived under the 2021 Operation Allies Welcome parole program, filed an asylum application in late 2024 and — per documents reviewed and multiple news organizations — had that asylum approved on April 23, 2025 ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Major outlets treated the approval date as the decisive fact that the asylum determination happened this year, and law-enforcement sources quoted by ABC and others echoed that timeline ^{[1] [7]}.

2. What law-enforcement and immigration agencies did immediately after the shooting

Federal immigration officials and the Department of Homeland Security moved quickly to broaden reviews and pause processing. The director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a pause on asylum decisions “until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible,” and the State Department paused visas for holders of Afghan passports ^{[4] [5] [6]}. DHS also said it would review asylum approvals granted during the Biden administration, a review the White House and DHS framed as an expanded vetting effort ^{[6] [8]}.

3. Political framing and competing narratives

Republican officials seized on the suspect’s asylum approval to criticize Biden-era vetting, while reporting noted the approval occurred under the Trump administration — a point Reuters and other outlets highlighted ^{[1] [2]}. The administration used the shooting to justify sweeping policy actions: a permanent-sounding pause on some asylum processing and a wider review of green cards and asylum cases from “countries of concern,” according to multiple reports ^{[6] [8]}.

4. Operational limits of vetting that agencies acknowledged or implied

News accounts make clear agencies can and do vet refugees and parolees — Lakanwal was processed under Operation Allies Welcome and had been vetted by U.S. partners — but those vetting systems are not flawless and can be re-opened upon new information, which is what officials announced they would do ^{[3] [4]}. Sources state USCIS officers may continue casework up to but not including final decisions while the pause is in effect, illustrating that procedural review rather than case abandonment is the immediate administrative response ^[9].

5. Broader policy consequences and agency actions announced

The administration’s actions were broad: halting all asylum decisions, pausing Afghan passport visa issuances and ordering reviews of prior asylum approvals and green-card grants, steps reported by The Guardian, PBS, NPR, CNN and AP ^{[4] [5] [10] [6] [11]}. Those announcements carry immediate practical effects — millions of pending asylum claims already faced long backlogs before the pause — and they also shift the focus of DHS resources toward re-review and vetting ^[6].

6. What sources do not say and unresolved details

Available sources do not mention the specific investigative findings that led agencies to re-evaluate Lakanwal’s asylum file beyond the factual timeline and the administrative pauses (not found in current reporting). They also do not specify precisely which prior asylum approvals or green-card cases will be subject to individual review or the standards that will be applied in those reviews (not found in current reporting).

7. Context: how background checks and firearm checks intersect with immigration reviews

Reporting on background-check systems underscores procedural limits: federal background checks for firearms (NICS) rely on records that are sometimes incomplete and can allow “default proceed” sales if a response isn’t obtained in time — a structural vulnerability detailed by multiple policy sources ^{[12] [13] [14]}. Coverage of the shooting response did not, however, link public reporting to any specific failure in the suspect’s firearms background checks in the sources provided; that connection is not described in current reporting (not found in current reporting).

8. Bottom line and competing interpretations

Government sources and major outlets agree the suspect was granted asylum in April 2025 and that the administration responded by pausing asylum decisions and ordering wide reviews ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Political leaders used the facts to advance opposing narratives: opponents blamed earlier vetting choices; the administration used the incident to justify sweeping immigration rollbacks and reviews. Readers should note that news organizations consistently report the same asylum timeline, but available reporting does not yet disclose the precise evidentiary basis for the administrative re-reviews or whether systemic vetting breakdowns occurred in this individual’s case ^{[1] [4] [6]}.