Which immigration court heard Rahmanullah Lakanwal's asylum case?
Executive summary
Available reporting identifies that Rahmanullah Lakanwal applied for asylum in December 2024 and was granted asylum in April 2025, but none of the provided sources specify which particular immigration court heard his asylum claim (available sources do not mention the specific immigration court) [1] [2] [3].
1. What the public record does say about Lakanwal’s asylum timeline
Multiple outlets reporting from law enforcement and government documents say Lakanwal entered the U.S. in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, filed an asylum application in December 2024, and received asylum approval in April 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Reuters and other organizations cite a federal dossier and government files for those dates; CBS and Newsweek likewise report he “passed his reviews” and was approved in April 2025 [2] [3] [4].
2. What reporters and officials have emphasized about vetting — not the courtroom
Reporting has focused heavily on interagency vetting and immigration administrative processes rather than naming an immigration court. Several sources emphasize that multiple agencies vetted Lakanwal before admission and during adjudication of his asylum claim, with officials saying no disqualifying information was found in those reviews [2] [5] [6]. The coverage frames the approval as an administrative decision following vetting, not as the product of a particular immigration-court hearing recorded in these stories [2] [6].
3. Why the specific immigration-court name might be missing from reports
Journalists cite government dossiers, agency statements and law enforcement sources that summarize application dates and outcomes but do not always include the administrative venue or file locations [1] [2]. Immigration adjudications can occur through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum offices, Department of Justice immigration courts, or via affirmative asylum approvals by USCIS without an immigration-court removal proceeding; available reporting documents the approval but does not name which pathway or court handled the case [3] [6]. Therefore, the absence of a court name in these stories may reflect either an approval through asylum-office channels or simply that sources did not disclose the venue [3] [6].
4. Conflicting political narratives about responsibility and vetting
Political actors have used the case to advance competing narratives. The Trump administration and some senior officials blamed prior (Biden-era) admission processes and announced broader reviews; other reporters and agency sources say counterterrorism and vetting checks were performed and found no disqualifying material [2] [6] [5]. News outlets record both the administration’s statements that asylum was “granted this year under President Donald Trump” and independent reporting that highlights multi-agency vetting [2] [5].
5. How immigration-case records are typically accessible — and why they matter here
Immigration-court dockets and USCIS adjudication records can be public but are often redacted; prosecutors or immigration attorneys can cite specific court venues when cases go through DOJ’s immigration courts. The stories you’ve provided rely on law enforcement dossiers and agency confirmations for timeline and outcome rather than on publicly posted immigration-court dockets, which explains why no court name appears in the cited coverage [1] [3] [6].
6. What would be needed to identify the court conclusively
To state which immigration court heard Lakanwal’s asylum claim, reporting would need either: (a) an immigration-court docket number or hearing notice cited by government sources or journalists; (b) a USCIS approval notice specifying adjudicating office; or (c) a public filing from the Department of Justice or an attorney identifying the venue. The available sources do not include any of those documents or statements (available sources do not mention the specific immigration court) [2] [1] [3].
7. Takeaway for readers and next steps for reporters
Readers should understand the difference between an asylum approval date and the adjudicating venue: media reporting establishes application and approval timing and highlights vetting debates, but it does not identify the immigration-court or adjudicating office in the sources provided [1] [2] [6]. If you need the court name, the next steps are to request the USCIS approval notice, seek court docket records from EOIR (immigration courts), or obtain a direct government statement that names the adjudicating body — none of which appear in the supplied reporting (available sources do not mention the specific immigration court) [3] [6].