WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — The U.S. government is seeking to deport an Afghan man back to Afghanistan, a country he says he fled to escape the Taliban. The move has alarmed legal experts who warn it could affect thousands of Afghans who sought refuge in the United States after helping American forces during the 20-year war.

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked an immigration judge to deport a father of two identified only as H for his safety. He fears the Taliban will kill him if he returns. The government has not accused him of any crime, disloyalty, or terrorism. Instead, DHS attorneys claimed that Afghanistan is now safe for his return.

H sought asylum after publicly supporting the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Before fleeing the country in 2021, he worked for a U.S.-based nonprofit and attended the American University of Afghanistan (AUAF) in Kabul. Both ties have put him at risk, he says, under Taliban rule.

To reject his asylum claim, DHS lawyers argued that the Taliban had allowed both the nonprofit and AUAF to continue operating. They said this shows H’s past would not endanger him.

However, The Washington Post found that both institutions have drastically changed since the Taliban takeover. The nonprofit’s U.S. headquarters closed years ago, and its former Afghan office now operates under Taliban supervision. The university no longer holds in-person classes. The regime seized its campus and replaced it with a Taliban-run school.

The case is being heard in a Virginia courtroom and could set a precedent for tens of thousands of Afghan asylum seekers. Legal experts say the outcome may determine whether other Afghans who supported U.S. forces will be able to stay.

“It’s worrying,” said Anam Petit, a former immigration judge and Georgetown Law professor. “Many asylum seekers from Afghanistan who have similar facts will have a much harder, if not impossible, time being granted asylum.”

Since the end of the U.S. war, more than 200,000 Afghans have settled in America. Many worked alongside U.S. troops or organizations and entered legally under humanitarian parole. But the Trump administration dismantled key protections that allowed them to stay while their asylum cases were processed.

The rollback of humanitarian parole and other safeguards has left many Afghans at risk of deportation. Without these programs, legal experts warn that people who helped the U.S. government could be sent back to a regime that the U.S. itself refuses to recognize.

A United Nations report in July documented cases of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, enforced disappearance, or other irreparable harm” for Afghans forced to return from other countries.

In July, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers detained H while he was driving to his accounting job in Virginia. The officer said his immigration documents had expired. Federal records later showed that his humanitarian parole was still valid for several more weeks.

Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called H “illegal” and “unvetted,” though she later admitted the label “illegal” applied only because DHS revoked his parole at the time of his arrest.

Government lawyers told the judge that the Taliban had not targeted H before he fled, suggesting they would not target him now. But experts on Afghanistan dispute that claim. They note that the Taliban routinely punish people who support the U.S. or Western institutions.

H told The Post that his background makes him a target. He worked for a U.S. nonprofit, studied at AUAF, escaped on a U.S. military flight, and lives with his brother, a U.S. Army interpreter who is now a citizen. He is also raising two U.S.-born children in Virginia.

Over the past four years, he says he has been thoroughly vetted by the U.S. military, Homeland Security, and the FBI. “I’ve answered every question they’ve asked,” he said. “The Taliban know who we are and what we stand for.”

The outcome of this case could shape how U.S. courts handle future Afghan asylum claims. If DHS wins, immigration judges may find it harder to approve similar cases.