Was Rahmanullah Lakanwal vetted in the U.S?
Executive summary
U.S. and international reporting show Rahmanullah Lakanwal underwent multiple rounds of vetting tied to his work with U.S. partners in Afghanistan, arrived under Operation Allies Welcome/humanitarian parole in 2021, and was approved for asylum in April 2025 — with officials from different agencies and administrations disputing whether that vetting was adequate (see CNN, Reuters, CBS, BBC) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What “vetted in the U.S.” means in this case — multiple steps, multiple agencies
Reporting describes Lakanwal’s screening as layered: initial vetting while working with U.S. intelligence and military partners in Afghanistan (around 2011 onward), further checks during evacuation and resettlement after 2021, and formal asylum adjudication that culminated in approval in April 2025 — a process that involved agencies such as the CIA, interagency database checks and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) [1] [5] [3].
2. Evidence that he was vetted
Several outlets report explicit vetting actions: a government file and officials said he “had been vetted by the U.S. because of his work with U.S. government partners” and that no disqualifying information was found; CNN and BBC describe “multiple layers of vetting by multiple US government agencies,” and USCIS is reported to have approved his asylum claim in April 2025 [2] [1] [4] [3].
3. Where critics say vetting failed — and what they cite
Senior Trump administration officials and appointees at a press conference blamed the Biden-era process for admitting Lakanwal and said background checks were inadequate; Reuters and The Guardian record those assertions but note the officials offered no publicly produced evidence in those statements [2] [6] [7].
4. Where defenders and independent reviews push back
Other sources and advocacy groups say the opposite: BBC relayed that advocates and some reviewers reject claims of systematic vetting failures, noting past reviews “found no systematic vetting failures” and that evacuees generally show low involvement in violent crime; reporting emphasizes that Lakanwal’s case appears an outlier and that he arrived under Operation Allies Welcome/humanitarian parole, which included screening [4].
5. The asylum approval and its significance
USCIS approved Lakanwal’s asylum application in April 2025, which multiple outlets report as a formal adjudication step after arrival; news organizations present that approval as evidence additional vetting opportunities occurred after his evacuation and while he lived in the U.S. [3] [8] [9].
6. What reporting does not settle — key unknowns
Available sources do not provide a single, public audit trail of every database check, interview, or negative/positive flag in Lakanwal’s file, nor do they supply the specific dates and contents of every vetting step; several outlets note it is “not clear when” or exactly how certain agency checks (for example CIA internal procedures tied to his case) were conducted or concluded [5] [6].
7. Why officials from different political camps disagree
The dispute tracks political incentives: Trump-era appointees and Republican leaders emphasize vetting failures to argue for stricter immigration controls, while advocates and some security reviewers highlight long-standing, multilayered vetting and call the incident an isolated tragedy — both sides cite portions of the record (evacuation vetting; asylum approval) to support competing narratives [2] [7] [4].
8. Context from past reviews of the evacuation screening system
Reporting references a 2022 Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General review that found obstacles to accurate screening of evacuees and that some agencies lacked complete data — a structural caveat that commentators use to explain how isolated lapses could occur even inside a multi-agency process [3].
9. Bottom line for readers
Multiple credible outlets report Lakanwal was vetted repeatedly — initially through U.S. partner units and later via interagency checks and a USCIS asylum decision — but whether those steps collectively amounted to adequate vetting is contested by senior officials and has not been settled by a single, public, comprehensive disclosure of case-level vetting records; independent reviews and advocates argue there is no evidence of a systemic failure, while political critics say the outcome proves lapses [1] [3] [6] [4].
Limitations: this summary relies exclusively on the cited news reports; those reports themselves note gaps in the public record about specific checks and timing [5] [3].