Seven Afghan nationals who were granted asylum in the United States have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s application of its renewed “travel ban,” which has prevented their families from joining them in the country despite prior approval from immigration authorities.

The case, filed on October 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, names as defendants the U.S. Department of State, Secretary Marco Rubio, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Secretary Kristi Noem, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), its Director Joseph B. Edlow, and the United States government, The Diplomat reported.

The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), along with Williams & Connolly LLP and Keler & Kershow PLLC, is representing the plaintiffs — seven Afghans and 28 of their family members, including spouses and children.

According to the lawsuit, the Department of State has refused to issue travel documents for the families of Afghans who were granted derivative asylum under the “follow-to-join” process, citing compliance with President Donald Trump’s June 4 travel ban proclamation. The plaintiffs argue that this interpretation is unlawful because the proclamation explicitly exempts asylum seekers and refugees.

“Once again, the Trump administration is failing our Afghan allies,” said Pedro Sepulveda Jr., a litigation fellow at IRAP. “Our clients put their lives in danger for the United States and are now being told their loved ones are banned from this country, even though their petitions were approved by DHS.”

Trump’s June 4 proclamation reinstated and expanded the earlier travel ban, barring entry to citizens from 12 countries — including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen — while imposing partial restrictions on seven others. The order cited security concerns and the Islamic Emirate’s control of Afghanistan, claiming the country lacked a “competent or cooperative central authority” for document verification.

Despite this, the proclamation specifically stated that it “shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum by the United States” or refugees already admitted, nor should it limit anyone’s right to seek asylum or humanitarian protection under U.S. law.

Afghan plaintiffs and their families

The plaintiffs include several former Afghan Air Force pilots, mechanics, and bodyguards who worked closely with U.S. and coalition forces before the fall of Kabul in August 2021. Some were among those who flew their aircraft to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to avoid capture, later entering the U.S. through Operation Allies Refuge — later renamed Operation Allies Welcome — and were granted asylum.

Their wives and children, however, remain stranded abroad, many of them in Pakistan or other third countries, after being denied U.S. entry despite having been approved for family reunification. The lawsuit states that the denial letters were “boilerplate,” some even issued before consular interviews took place.

The lawsuit alleges that the State Department, DHS, and USCIS have “unlawfully applied” the travel ban to Afghans who are explicitly exempt, thereby violating federal law and the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. It calls for the immediate issuance of travel documents to allow the families to reunite with their loved ones in the United States.

IRAP and other advocacy groups have condemned the administration’s approach as a betrayal of Afghan allies who risked their lives for U.S. missions.

“The government is misinterpreting the law and putting families in harm’s way,” Sepulveda said. “These individuals stood with America — and now, America must stand by them.”

The case underscores ongoing tensions over immigration and refugee policy under the revived travel ban, particularly its impact on Afghans who aided U.S. military and diplomatic efforts during two decades of conflict.