What was the final immigration court ruling in Rahmanullah Lakanwal's case and on what date was it issued?

1. What the press reports as the decisive immigration outcome

Major news organizations reporting on the case—CBS, ABC, Reuters and others—state that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Lakanwal’s asylum claim in April 2025, effectively granting him asylee status and derivative benefits for immediate relatives ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Reuters and The Guardian note the approval came “this year” and link the approval to files or government statements; ABC and CBS explicitly give April 2025 as the month of approval ^{[2] [1] [3]}.

2. Distinction between USCIS asylum approval and an “immigration court ruling”

News coverage attributes the April 2025 outcome to USCIS approval of asylum, not necessarily to an immigration judge’s written order issued in immigration court. Multiple outlets describe an asylum decision or USCIS approval rather than quoting a particular immigration-court document or docket entry ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Available sources do not mention a separate immigration-judge opinion or a specific immigration-court docket number or ruling text.

3. Conflicting attributions and the political framing

Trump administration officials publicly emphasized that Lakanwal’s entry and status reflected failures in prior vetting, while reporting from other outlets stresses that he was vetted and that his asylum approval occurred under the current administration ^{[4] [5]}. Reuters and The Washington Post cite government files or people with knowledge to say he was vetted; Trump officials have argued the system “improperly” allowed him to enter — a political framing Reuters reports without reproducing a judicial finding ^{[4] [5]}.

4. What the sources explicitly confirm and what they don’t

Confirmed by multiple reports: Lakanwal entered the U.S. under Operation Allies Welcome in 2021 and his asylum status was recorded as approved in April 2025 ^{[6] [1] [2]}. Not found in current reporting: a published immigration-court judgment document or an immigration judge’s written “final ruling” with a specific calendar date distinct from the USCIS asylum approval that news outlets cite ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Why the distinction matters legally and for public debate

An asylum grant by USCIS (an administrative adjudication) and an immigration court order (a judge’s decision) are different procedural mechanisms; public statements that someone was “granted asylum” can flow from either USCIS approval or a judge’s grant in removal proceedings. Reporting currently attributes Lakanwal’s status to USCIS approval in April 2025, a fact used by both critics and defenders of the vetting process to advance opposing policy points ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

6. Where to look next for the definitive court document

If you need the literal immigration-court ruling text or docket entry and the exact date it was signed by a judge, available sources do not supply that document. The news pieces rely on government files, officials and USCIS reporting; to locate a formal immigration-court order you would need to consult Department of Justice/Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) public records or court dockets, or request the specific decision from reporters who examined government files ^{[1] [2]}.

Limitations and competing viewpoints: reporting uniformly cites April 2025 for an asylum approval ^{[1] [2]}, but outlets differ on whether that outcome reflects thorough vetting or system failure; some sources stress counterterrorism scrutiny before entry ^[5], while others quote officials saying he was “improperly allowed” in ^[4]. Available sources do not provide a separate, dated immigration-judge ruling to quote as the final immigration-court decision ^{[1] [2] [5]}.