Thousands of Afghans in the US face deportation after court refuses to extend their protected status
A three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia said in a ruling late Monday there was 'insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement" of the administration's decision not to extend Temporary Protected Status for people from Afghanistan and Cameroon.
TPS for Afghans ended July 14, but was briefly extended by the appeals court through July 21 while it considered an emergency request for a longer postponement.
The Department of Homeland Security in May said it was ending Temporary Protected Status for 11,700 people from Afghanistan in 60 days. That status — in place since 2022 — had allowed them to work and meant the government couldn't deport them.
CASA, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy group, sued the administration over the TPS revocation for Afghans as well as for people from Cameroon — those expire August 4, saying the decisions were racially motivated. A federal judge allowed the lawsuit to go forward but didn't grant CASA's request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out.
A phone message for CASA on Tuesday was not immediately returned. Without an extension, TPS holders face a 'devastating choice -abandoning their homes, relinquishing their employment, and uprooting their lives to return to a country where they face the threat of severe physical harm or even death, or remaining in the United States in a state of legal uncertainty while they wait for other immigration processes to play out," CASA warned in court documents.
In its decision on Monday, the appeals court said CASA had made a 'plausible' legal claim against the administration, and urged the lower court to move the case forward expeditiously.
It also said many of the TPS holders from the two countries may be eligible for other legal protections that remain available to them.
Temporary Protected Status can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people who face safety concerns in their home countries because of armed conflict, environmental disaster or other conditions. They can't be deported and can work legally in the U.S., but they don't have a pathway to citizenship.
The status, however, is inherently precarious because it is up to the Homeland Security secretary to renew the protections regularly — usually every 18 months. The Trump administration has pushed to remove Temporary Protected Status from people from seven countries, with Venezuela and Haiti making up the biggest chunk of the hundreds of thousands of people affected.
At the time that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the temporary protected status for Afghans, the department wrote in the decision that the situation in their home country was getting better.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Muslim leaders increase security after vandalism reports at Texas and California mosques
After a spate of vandalism reports involving graffiti at a few mosques in Texas and California, Muslim leaders there have stepped up existing efforts to keep their sacred spaces and community members safe. The incidents and subsequent hypervigilance add to what many American Muslims say has already been a charged climate amid the fallout in the U.S. from the Israel-Hamas war that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and devastated Gaza. The war started in October 2023 with a deadly attack by Hamas on Israel. 'The past two years have been extremely difficult for American Muslims,' said Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization. A constant stream of images showing the death, destruction and ongoing starvation in Gaza has taken a toll, said Mitchell, as has a rise in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian bigotry in the U.S. He pointed to one of the most egregious examples of that bigotry: After the war started, an Illinois man killed a 6-year-old Palestinian American Muslim boy and wounded his mother in a hate-crime attack. Worry and frustration The recent vandalism reports have left some worried and frustrated — but not entirely surprised. 'Since October 2023, we've definitely seen rise in Islamophobia,' said Rawand Abdelghani, who is on the board of directors of Nueces Mosque, one of the affected mosques in Austin, Texas. 'Anti-Palestinian, anti-immigrant, all of that rhetoric that's being said … it has contributed to things like this happening.' Nueces security footage showed someone, their face partially covered, spray-painting what appears to be Star of David symbols at the property. CAIR Austin said similar incidents were reported at two other Austin mosques. They all seemingly happened on the same night in May, in what the group described as part of 'a disturbing pattern of hate-motivated incidents.' It called for increased security patrols and protective measures. Shaimaa Zayan, CAIR Austin operations manager, called them an intimidation attempt. Less than two weeks earlier, someone had spray-painted graffiti at the Islamic Center of Southern California, including the Star of David on an outer wall there, center spokesperson Omar Ricci said. 'In light of what's going on within Palestine and the genocide in Gaza, it felt like an attack,' said Ricci, who's also a reserve Los Angeles Police Department officer. Some specifics remained unresolved. The LAPD said it opened a vandalism/hate crime investigation and added extra patrols, but added it has neither a suspect nor a motive and noted that nonreligious spaces were also targeted. The Austin Police Department did not respond to Associated Press inquiries. Nueces had already increased its security camera use following three incidents last year, including someone throwing rocks at the mosque, Abdelghani said. After the May vandalism, it also added overnight security, she added. Nueces serves many university students and is considered a 'home away from home,' Abdelghani said. It's where they learn about their faith, meet other Muslims and find refuge, including during tense times, like when some students got arrested amid campus protests last year, she added. CAIR says that in 2024, its offices nationwide received 8,658 complaints, the highest number it has recorded since its first civil rights report in 1996. It listed employment discrimination as the most common in 2024. The group says last year, U.S. Muslims, along with others of different backgrounds, 'were targeted due to their anti-genocide … viewpoints.' Referencing former President Joe Biden, the CAIR report said that for 'the second year in a row, the Biden-backed Gaza genocide drove a wave of Islamophobia in the United States.' Israel has strongly rejected allegations it's committing genocide in Gaza, where its war with Hamas has killed more than 59,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials. The initial Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023, killed some 1,200 people, while about 250 were abducted. Tensions in multiple spaces The war has fueled tensions in myriad U.S. settings. After it started, Muslim and Jewish civil rights groups reported a surge of harassment, bias and physical assaults reports against their community members. Pew Research Center in February 2024 found that 70% of U.S. Muslims and nearly 90% of U.S. Jews surveyed say they felt an increase in discrimination against their respective communities since the war began. More recently, leaders of U.S. Jewish institutions have called for more help with security after a firebomb attack in Colorado on demonstrators showing support for Israeli hostages in Gaza that left one person killed and others injured, as well as a fatal shooting of two Israeli Embassy staffers outside a Jewish museum in Washington, D.C. Politically, the conflict loomed over last year's presidential election, leaving many pro-Palestinian U.S. voters feeling ignored by their own government's support for Israel. It has roiled campuses and sparked debates over free speech and where political rhetoric crosses into harassment and discrimination. There've been bitter disagreements, including among some Jewish Americans, about exactly what the definition of antisemitism should cover, and whether certain criticism of Israeli policies and Zionism should be included. That debate further intensified as President Donald Trump's administration sought to deport some foreign-born pro-Palestinian campus activists. The Islamic Center of Southern California has been targeted before, including vandalism in 2023 and separate threats that authorities said in 2016 were made by a man who was found with multiple weapons in his home. Incidents like the latest one cause concern, Ricci said. 'People see that it's not going to take very much to spark something in the city,' he said. 'There's a lot of emotion. There's a lot of passion' on both the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli sides. Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said 'if people think they can get away with graffiti, then the next step is to firebomb a mosque or even go attack worshippers.' Opening doors and receiving support Al-Marayati and others praised how many have shown support for the affected Muslim communities. 'The best preparation is what we did in Los Angeles and that's to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies and be there for one another,' he said. In Texas, a gathering at Nueces brought together neighbors and others, including Christians and Jews, to paint over the vandalism, clean up the property and garden, Zayan said. 'It was beautiful,' she said. 'It's really important to open your doors and open your heart and invite people and to rebuild this trust and connection,' she said. 'For non-Muslims, it was a great opportunity for them to show their love and support. They really wanted to do something.' ___ Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
David Letterman slams CBS over Stephen Colbert exit
David Letterman has backed his successor Stephen Colbert and suggested CBS canceled The Late Show because he was 'always shooting his mouth off' about Donald Trump. The 78-year-old late-night legend created The Late Show in 1993 after NBC denied him the chance to succeed Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show. Colbert took over for Letterman in 2015 and took the show in a decidedly more political direction. But despite leading in the ratings, a shrinking late-night landscape led CBS to claim losses in the tens of millions of dollars. In his first comment on the show's cancellation, Letterman noted that Colbert's show was more about political satire than his version of The Late Show, but was still complimentary, calling the decision by CBS 'pure cowardice.' 'I think one day, if not today, the people at CBS who have manipulated and handled this, they're going to be embarrassed, because this is gutless,' he told former Late Show producers Barbara Gaines and Mary Barclay. Letterman then said that he believed CBS was acting on behalf of Skydance CEO and incoming Paramount CEO David Ellison to make their lives easier after acquiring Paramount, taking away a constant critic of Trump. 'Hey boys, here's what we're gonna do: not only are we gonna get rid of that guy, we're gonna get rid of the entire franchise so you don't have to worry about another guy. It's gone,' Letterman said. The longtime talk show host noted CBS's $16 million settlement with the Trump administration over a deceptively edited interview with election rival Kamala Harris, which Colbert had previously mocked as a 'big fat bribe.' He also referred to Ellison as a 'bottom feeder,' saying he should've bought a Dairy Queen instead of a television network. 'Stay out of this business.' He also tore into accusations that the show lost so much money, with both Gaines and Barclay saying they had cut budgets to help the network several times when they were at CBS. 'You're telling me losing this kind of money happened yesterday? I bet they were losing this kind of money a month ago, six weeks ago, or they have never been losing money,' he said. Letterman noted that despite the show supposedly losing tons of money, CBS is allowing Colbert to stay on the air for the next ten months. 'That's another huge chunk of money they're gonna lose according to them. I don't think it was money. I think it was all to make sure the Ellisons were solid spending Dad's money,' he said, referring to Ellison's father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. He said of the treatment of Colbert: 'They did not handle Stephen Colbert, the face of that network, in the way he deserves to have been handled.' Letterman echoed Colbert's own joking words from earlier this week when the former Comedy Central comic called himself 'a martyr.' 'For Stephen, I love this: he's a martyr, good for him. If you listen carefully, you can hear them unfolding chairs at the Hall of Fame for his induction,' he joked. Ultimately, he said he envies the position Colbert is now in with his liberal viewers. 'I only wish this could've happened to me. This would've been so great for me. Now we've all gotta kiss Stephen Colbert's ring now,' he quipped. The comedian's decade-long run as host of CBS's late-night flagship will end next May, with network insiders suggesting the top-rated show was canceled because it was losing anywhere from $40 to $100 million per year. Trump posted a celebration on Truth Social when the news was announced, saying, 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings.' Colbert, who briefly addressed the move the day of its announcement, devoted much of his Monday show to the controversy, eventually uniting with almost every other liberal late-night talk show host in a show of support, as well as Adam Sandler and even Lin-Manuel Miranda. The 61-year-old comic opened after a standing ovation and lengthy applause from the New York City crowd by saying 'cancel culture has gone too far'—then joked that now the show is ending, he can say whatever he feels. Colbert said sarcastically of Paramount: 'They made one mistake, they left me alive! For the next ten months, the gloves are off!' He then referenced Trump's comments, turned to an 'Eloquence Cam' and said: 'How dare you, sir? Would an untalented man be able to compose the following satirical witticism? Go f*** yourself.' He also addressed Trump's claim that Jimmy Kimmel is next, replying: 'Nope, no, no. Absolutely not. Kimmel, I am the martyr. There's only room for one on this cross. And the view is fantastic from up here. I can see your house!' He went on to say that cancellation meant he could finally admit what he felt about the president. In contrast to his often over-the-top anti-Trump monologues, he dryly said: 'I don't care for him. Doesn't seem to have the skill set to be president. Just not a good fit, that's all.' He addressed his bosses at CBS—who he said 'have always been great partners'—before turning to Paramount's decision to cancel the show. 'How could it be a purely financial decision if The Late Show is number one in ratings? A lot of folks are asking that question, mainly my staff's parents and spouses.' He quipped: 'I could see us losing $24 million but where would Paramount have possibly spent the other $16 million, oh…'—naming the amount the company settled with Trump over his 60 Minutes lawsuit. He returned to mocking Trump and the recent news accusing him of writing a 'bawdy' letter to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. 'I'll have more to say about all this after the commercial break. The only other story is a small one... the president is buddies with a pedophile.' Puck journalist Matthew Belloni revealed Colbert's 'lack of profitability' Friday, hours after CNN first broke the news that the show was canceled because it was in the red. Belloni outlined how The Late Show—whose cancellation was announced last Thursday—costs $100 million a year to produce, with Colbert getting paid between $15 and $20 million a year.
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Columbia's capitulation to Trump begins a dark new era for US higher education
One of the chauvinistic, self-glorifying myths of American liberalism is that the US has especially strong institutions. In this story, trotted out occasionally since 2016 to reassure those who are worried about Donald Trump's influence, the private and public bodies of American commerce, governance, healthcare and education are possessed of uncommonly robust internal accountability mechanisms, rock-hard rectitude, and a coolly rational self-interest. Trump can only do so much damage to America's economy, culture and way of life, it was reasoned, because these institutions would not bend to his will. They would resist him; they would check his excesses. When forced to choose, as it was always accepted that they one day would be, between Trump's demands and their own principles and purposes, the institutions would always choose themselves. This week put another nail into the coffin of this idea, revealing its valorization of American institutions to be shortsighted and naive. The latest intrusion of reality comes in the form of a deal that Columbia University made with the Trump administration, in which the university made a host of academic, admissions and governance concessions to the Trump regime and agreed to pay a $200m fine in order to restore its federal research funding. The deal marks the formal end of Columbia's academic independence and the dawn of a new era of regulation by deal making, repression and bribery in the field of higher education. The story goes like this. After Columbia became the centerpiece of a nationwide movement of campus encampments in protest of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, the university administration began a frantic and at times sadistic crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus speech in an effort to appease congressional Republicans, who had gleefully seized upon the protests to make cynical and unfounded accusations that the universities were engaged in antisemitism. Columbia invited police on to its campus, who rounded up protesting students in mass arrests. This showed that the university would bend to Republican pressure, but did nothing to satisfy its Republican adversaries – who demanded more and more from Columbia, making their attacks on the university the center of their broader war on education, diversity and expertise. When the Trump administration was restored to power in January, the White House partnered with the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Justice to exert further pressure on Columbia, looking to exert a level of control over the university's internal operations that is unprecedented for a private institution. This time, the university's vast federal research funding – issued in the form of grants that enable university scientists, doctors and academics to make discoveries and pursue knowledge that has enormous implications for American commerce, health and wellbeing – was held hostage. Facing the end of its functioning as a university, Columbia capitulated and went to what was euphemistically called 'the negotiating table' – really, an exchange on the precise terms of its extortion. The deal that resulted gives the Trump administration everything it wants. A Trump-approved monitor will now have the right to review Columbia's admissions records, with the express intent of enforcing a supreme court ban on affirmative action – in other words, ensuring that the university does not admit what the Trump administration deems to be too many non-white students. The Middle Eastern studies department is subject to monitoring, as well, after an agreement in March. The agreement is not a broad-level, generally applicable regulatory endeavor that applies to other universities – although given the scope of the administration's ambitions at Columbia, it is hard to say whether such a regulatory regime would be legal. Instead, it is an individual, backroom deal, one that disregards the institution's first amendment rights and the congressionally mandated protections for its grants in order to proceed with a shakedown. 'The agreement,' writes the Columbia Law School professor David Pozen, 'gives legal form to an extortion scheme.' The process was something akin to a mob boss demanding protection money from a local business. 'Nice research university you have here,' the Trump administration seemed to say to Columbia. 'Would be a shame if something were to happen to it.' That Columbia folded, and sacrificed its integrity, reputation and the freedom of its students and faculty for the federal money, speaks to both the astounding lack of foresight and principle by the university leadership as well as the Trump movement's successful foreclosure of institutions' options for resistance. With the federal judiciary full of Trump appointees – and the supreme court showing itself willing to radically expand executive powers and rapidly diminish the rights of other parties in its eagerness to facilitate Trump's agenda – there is little hope for Columbia, or the other universities that will inevitably be next, to successfully litigate their way out of the administration's threats. But nor does capitulation seem likely to put an end to the Trump administration's demands. The installation of an administration-approved monitor seems poised to offer a toehold from which the government will impose more and more limitations on scholarship, speech and association. There is, after all, no limiting principle to the Trump administration's absolutist expansion of its own prerogatives, and no way for Columbia to ensure that its funding won't be cut off again. The university, in time, will become more what Trump makes it than what its students do. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is likely to use its experience at Columbia as a template to extract substantive concessions and big payouts from other institutions. And these are not just limited to universities. On Thursday, the day after Columbia's capitulation, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger of Paramount and Skydance. The pending merger – and the Trump administration's threat to squash it – had been a rumored motivation for CBS's decision to pay Trump millions to settle a frivolous defamation suit; it was also rumored to have caused an outcry at the CBS news magazine program 60 Minutes and the end of the evening talkshow The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, when writers, journalists, and performers on those shows stood by their critical coverage of the president or mocked the deal their bosses paid him. The shakedown, after all, is a tactic that lots of institutions are vulnerable to, and Trump is already using it effectively to stifle some of the most visible forms of dissent. The institutions are not standing firm against him; they are capitulating. They are choosing their short-term interest over their long-term integrity. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
