Did U.S. immigration or security agencies vet Rahmanullah Lakanwal before entry?

1. What the public record says about vetting before U.S. entry

Multiple outlets report Lakanwal underwent U.S. vetting tied to his role assisting American forces in Afghanistan, including CIA screening when he worked with U.S. intelligence beginning around 2011, and security checks during evacuation in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome ^{[1] [5] [6]}. Reuters and other reporting say government files noted he “had been vetted by the U.S. because of his work with U.S. government partners during the war in Afghanistan” and that no disqualifying information was found ^[2].

2. Layers of screening after evacuation and before asylum

Sources describe multiple rounds of vetting: initial in-theater vetting (including biometric and database checks), reviews by counterterrorism authorities during evacuation or at transit locations, and a separate asylum process that included background checks and interviews and resulted in approval in April 2025 ^{[1] [3] [7]}. News organizations state he “passed his reviews” and was granted asylum this year ^{[8] [3]}.

3. Government and media disputes about how “thorough” the vetting was

Senior officials and some media describe “thorough” counterterrorism vetting prior to U.S. entry ^{[4] [9]}. Other officials, pundits and some news accounts contest that vetting for combat or intelligence service differs from vetting for permanent resettlement and argue that screening for suitability to live in U.S. communities may not have been equivalent ^{[10] [1]}. Reuters notes high-level claims blaming a particular administration for failures, and that those claims lacked offered evidence ^{[11] [2]}.

4. The asylum decision and timing matter to the debate

USCIS records and multiple outlets report Lakanwal applied for asylum in December 2024 and was approved in April 2025; that asylum approval is central to why some officials say he was admitted under Trump-era decisions even though the evacuation occurred in 2021 ^{[7] [3] [10]}. That timeline prompts differing attributions of responsibility across political actors in public statements ^{[2] [11]}.

5. Where reporting notes limits, gaps or unanswered questions

Reporting shows documented vetting in multiple phases but also cites a 2022 DHS Inspector General finding that screening evacuees faced obstacles and that agencies sometimes lacked critical data to fully vet individuals — a structural caveat to claims of flawless screening ^[3]. CBS reporting also notes caseworker emails raising concerns that may not have been seen by DHS or USCIS during asylum adjudication, indicating potential information gaps in administrative records ^[8].

6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in the coverage

Officials aligned with the prior administration have used the case to allege vetting failures by the Biden administration, while defenders of Afghan evacuees counter that the cohort generally underwent extensive checks and that one incident does not prove a systemic failure ^{[2] [6]}. Advocacy groups for Afghan evacuees emphasize the population’s low rates of violent crime and warn against broad conclusions ^{[6] [7]}. Each side’s emphasis advances different policy goals: tighter immigration controls versus protection and resettlement continuity.

7. Bottom line and reporting limitations

Available sources consistently report that Lakanwal was vetted multiple times — by CIA and counterterrorism authorities, during evacuation, and during an asylum adjudication approved in April 2025 — but outlets and officials disagree about whether those processes were adequate for long-term resettlement or if procedural gaps existed ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Specific operational details of the vetting (searches run, databases consulted, or whether certain internal communications reached adjudicators) are not disclosed in these reports; available sources do not mention those granular details ^{[3] [8]}.