Which immigration court or asylum office made the decision on Rahmanullah Lakanwal’s case?
Executive summary
Available reporting indicates Rahmanullah Lakanwal applied for asylum in December 2024 and was approved in April 2025, but the news articles and briefs in the provided set do not specify which exact immigration court, asylum office, or adjudicating official made the grant (available sources do not mention the specific adjudicator) [1] [2].
1. What the public record in these reports actually says
Multiple outlets cite a federal dossier or anonymous officials saying Lakanwal applied for asylum in December 2024 and that his claim was approved in April 2025 after President Trump took office; Reuters and related coverage report the approval date but stop short of naming the adjudicating body or decision-maker [1] [2]. Several news organizations — Reuters, The Guardian (citing Reuters), BBC, Newsweek and others — repeat the timeline that the asylum was granted in April 2025, but none of the linked excerpts identify a specific USCIS asylum office, asylum officer, immigration court, or immigration judge as the source of the approval [2] [3] [4] [5].
2. Why the distinction — asylum officer vs. immigration court — matters
In U.S. immigration practice, asylum can be granted either affirmatively by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers or defensively by an immigration judge in removal proceedings; which path applies affects appeal rights and records access. The articles in this packet report a grant of asylum but do not state whether the decision was an affirmative USCIS approval or a judicial grant, leaving an important procedural gap (available sources do not mention whether the approval was affirmative USCIS or judicial) [1] [6].
3. Reporting limitations and sources’ reliance on government files and anonymous officials
Reuters’ reporting is based on a U.S. government file and a federal law-enforcement dossier; some other outlets cite unnamed administration officials or sources familiar with the case [2] [1] [6]. Reliance on these documents and anonymous sources explains why precise administrative details — the specific asylum office, case file number, or adjudicator’s identity — are not published in the cited pieces [2] [1].
4. Conflicting narratives and political framing in coverage
Coverage quickly moved from reporting facts about the asylum approval to political responses: the Trump administration framed the approval as a vetting failure and ordered broad reviews of asylum cases; other voices, including U.N. agencies cited in Reuters, urged continued access to asylum and due process [6] [7]. Several outlets repeat administration claims that the approval occurred "under Trump" in April 2025, which critics say conflates procedural vetting with political responsibility — a distinction the available sources document but do not fully adjudicate [2] [7].
5. What the available documents do not disclose
None of the supplied snippets name the specific asylum office (e.g., which USCIS asylum office) or immigration court that decided Lakanwal’s claim, nor do they quote the decision language or provide a public case file number. The sources also do not provide documents showing whether the grant was affirmative or defensive, or whether the approval was subject to subsequent review before local asylum adjudicators (available sources do not mention the adjudicating office or judge) [1] [5].
6. How reporters could (and should) close the gap
To identify the adjudicating body, journalists typically seek the asylum approval notice, a USCIS FOIA release, court dockets, or confirmation from DHS/USCIS or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The current packet shows reporters relied on government files and anonymous sources; obtaining the formal approval document or a public docket entry would answer whether a USCIS asylum officer or an immigration judge signed the grant (available sources do not include those documents) [2] [1].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking certainty
The consistent timeline — application in December 2024, approval in April 2025 — is supported across the cited reporting [1] [2], but the specific immigration court or asylum office that made the decision is not identified in the available sources; therefore, any definitive statement naming a particular office would lack backing in this reporting (available sources do not mention the specific office).