Connect with us

News

Many Afghans living in the U.S. fear being tortured or killed if they get deported

Published

on

Many Afghans living in the U.S. fear being tortured or killed if they get deported

Sayedyaqoob Qattali moved to Houston with his family after legally entering the United States in late 2023.

Sayedyaqoob Qattali


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Sayedyaqoob Qattali

HOUSTON — Sayedyaqoob Qattali spent years aiding U.S. forces as a security commander for the Afghan Interior Ministry in Herat province. He was caught there when Afghanistan’s government fell to the Taliban in August 2021 and was unable to get U.S. help to evacuate.

“I went to Iran, and I applied for Brazil, [to get a] humanitarian visa. That was just the option that was left. Then, after one year, I got the visa, humanitarian visa,” Qattali said.

What happened next was an odyssey. From Brazil, he and his family went to Peru, then to Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and finally Mexico. Most of the time, they walked.

Advertisement

“In all these countries, we got … the legal paper that [said] we can stay there,” Qattali said.

When they arrived in Mexico in November of 2023, Qattali and his family used the CBP One app to apply for U.S. humanitarian parole.

“Some of [the] people … they were waiting one, two, three months,” Qattali said. “And, fortunately, we received an appointment after two days.”

Qattali and his family entered the U.S. at the San Ysidro Port of Entry between Tijuana and San Diego. They came to Houston, getting relocation help from the Houston-based veterans organization Combined Arms.

Qattali speaks seven languages. He got a job as an apartment leasing agent, where his language skills enabled him to help fellow Afghans settle into the community. And he enrolled his two children in a charter school.

Advertisement

Everything was going well. Then, President Trump took office, and one of his first actions was to end the CBP One function for new applicants.

Initially, that wasn’t a problem for Qattali, as he and his family were already settled in the U.S. and had begun applying for asylum.

That changed last month.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “we got an email … that you have to leave. We have like seven days. After that, they’re going to charge … $900 per day.”

Qattali’s attorney told him not to worry, as he’s protected by the asylum application process, but he’s still frightened for his future.

Advertisement

“I have … a threatening letter,” Qattali said. “If I go back, like, 100% they’re going to kill me and my family as well.”

A man in a baseball cap stands with arms crossed. Art that looks like a U.S. flag is on the wall behind him.

Khalil Yarzada, a former interpreter for U.S. and NATO forces, now heads a program with the Houston-based veterans group Combined Arms, which helps Afghans who aided U.S. forces to settle in the United States.

Andrew Schneider


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Schneider

“We don’t feel safe”

Even Afghans who have legal permanent residency in the U.S. worry what Trump’s policies mean for them.

Muhammad Amiri is a former pilot trainee with the Afghan air force who found himself stranded in the United Arab Emirates when the Taliban took Kabul.

Amiri managed to get to the United States on what’s known as a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV), a status for which individuals who fought and worked alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan are eligible and which can lead to permanent legal status.

Advertisement

Four months ago, Amiri received his green card.

“The words cannot express just my feeling,” Amiri said. “It was out of my control. I started crying, and the tears were coming, just without any control. And just, I thanked God.”

Amiri has had several jobs since coming to the U.S. He’s currently a security supervisor at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and he’s taking IT courses with the goal of getting a job working as a computer help desk associate. He also recently got engaged.

But Amiri’s fiancée is still in Afghanistan, and until his legal situation is settled, he doesn’t dare leave the U.S. to see her, for fear he might not be allowed to return.

Indeed, he worries even his green card won’t protect him in the current political climate in the U.S.

Advertisement

“It doesn’t matter just how you got here,” Amiri said. “We don’t feel safe, and we don’t feel good because now, we feel threatened, if they send us back to our country, it will be the same story. [We] feel threatened to be tortured, maybe be killed by [the] Taliban.”

Ali Zakaria, an immigration attorney based in West Houston, said people like Amiri are right to be worried.

“As unfortunate as it sounds,” Zakaria said, “my first advice to all my clients — and my family and friends — is that, if you’re not a U.S. citizen, do not talk or post on your social media anything that’s negative about the current administration. Do not voice your opinion. Do not engage in any protest, because you will be targeted by this administration for revocation of your status.”

The end of Enduring Welcome and temporary protected status

Roughly 200,000 Afghan immigrants and refugees came to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021. That includes about 10,000 in Greater Houston.

Sayedyaqoob Qattali served as a security commander with the Afghan Interior Ministry in Herat Province, Afghanistan, before the Afghan government fell to the Taliban in August 2021.

Sayedyaqoob Qattali served as a security commander with the Afghan Interior Ministry in Herat province, Afghanistan, before the Afghan government fell to the Taliban in August 2021.

Sayedyaqoob Qattali

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Sayedyaqoob Qattali

Advertisement

While some of them have since received green cards or even U.S. citizenship, many have more tenuous legal status, such as humanitarian parole or temporary protected status (TPS).

TPS is a program that allows individuals from countries where their lives might be in danger — due to wars or natural disasters — to legally live and work in the United States until it is safe for them to return home.

The current TPS for Afghans began in September 2023 and extends through May 20 of this year.

Afghans who are here on TPS got a shock in April when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that she would not be renewing the protection when it expires.

After that, any Afghans in the U.S. under the program will be at risk of deportation to Afghanistan.

Advertisement

“Everyone I speak to is concerned that if this protection is revoked, a lot of people’s lives are going to be in danger,” said Khalil Yarzada, a former Afghan translator for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan who became a U.S. citizen in February. “A lot of people are going to see a target on their back.”

Soon after President Trump took office, the State Department shut down its Office of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts (CARE) and the program that CARE oversees, Operation Enduring Welcome.

U.S. Congressman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, is the former chair of both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee.

In March, he and two other Republican representatives sent a joint letter to President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Noem urging them not to end the Enduring Welcome program.

“Such a decision would abandon over 200,000 wartime allies and have lasting consequences for America’s global credibility, military operations, and veterans,” McCaul and his House colleagues wrote. “The Taliban considers anyone who worked with the U.S. to be an enemy. They are being hunted, detained, and executed. Over 3,200 documented killings and disappearances of former Afghan military personnel, interpreters, and U.S. government partners has already occurred.”

Advertisement

The reasons for the policy change

Zakaria, the Houston immigration attorney, thinks the president’s motivation for ending programs like TPS for Afghans is because of his campaign pledge to enact mass deportations when he took office.

“What the Trump administration’s policy [is] at this moment is to create this mass group that can be deported,” Zakaria said, “and one way is to cancel the existing legal protocols or legal protections that are in place, and thus making those people unlawfully here, and then deport them.”

A man sits in a high-backed office chair with his hands folded on a table in front of him.

Ali Zakaria is an immigration attorney based in West Houston.

Andrew Schneider


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Andrew Schneider

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS,) issued the following statement explaining the decision to end TPS for Afghans:

“Secretary Noem made the decision to terminate TPS for individuals from Afghanistan because the country’s improved security situation and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country,” McLaughlin wrote. “Additionally, the termination furthers the national interest and the statutory provision that TPS is in fact designed to be temporary. Additionally, DHS records indicate that there are Afghan nationals who are TPS recipients who have been the subject of administrative investigations for fraud, public safety, and national security.”

Advertisement

While Noem argues that the security outlook in Afghanistan has improved, the U.S. State Department’s website lists the travel advisory for Afghanistan at the highest risk, Level 4: “Do Not Travel, due to armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping. Travel to all areas of Afghanistan is unsafe.”

NPR reached out to two of the staunchest critics of former President Joe Biden’s handling of Afghanistan, Congressman McCaul and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, for their reactions to the approaching end of TPS for Afghans.

Cornyn did not respond to repeated requests for comment. McCaul sent the following statement:

“From the Houthis in Yemen to the cartels on our coasts, the Trump administration is taking decisive action to root out terrorism and make our world safer,” McCaul wrote. “The Taliban, however, have made their thirst for retribution against those who helped the United States clear. Until they demonstrate clear behavioral changes, I urge the administration to continue prioritizing the safety of the Afghan men and women who risked their lives to help our troops.”

The last two Congresses have taken up a bill called the Afghan Adjustment Act, aimed at speeding up the path to permanent legal status for Afghans who aided U.S. forces during the war and expanding the eligibility for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs).

Advertisement

The measure died at the end of 2022 and 2024, and the current Congress has yet to refile the bill.

“Personally, I would like to see that happen yesterday,” said Yarzada, who heads the SIVs and Allies Program at Combined Arms. “The SIVs have given so much of their life, of their livelihood, to be in a place where they are, and I think it is our duty as Americans to support them, to give them a fair shot, a fair chance to be able to build a life here in the United States, because this is the most American thing that we can do.”

News

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Published

on

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

Mario Tama/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.

In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.

Advertisement

The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.

Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

Continue Reading

News

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

Published

on

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.

A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.

Advertisement

City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”

Advertisement

Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.

Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.

“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.

Advertisement

Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.

Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.

Advertisement

“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.

@fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Advertisement

Image from @fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Image from @Bogs4NY via X

Advertisement

The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.

Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.

“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.

Advertisement

Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”

He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.

Advertisement

Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.

On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

Published

on

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.

The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”

Advertisement

“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.

The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting. They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.

“An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.

Advertisement

Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”

“Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”

The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.

While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending