Lida, a young woman from Afghanistan, was evacuated by the US military after the Taliban takeover in 2021. Her US-funded job in education put her life at risk. (The Globe is identifying her by a pseudonym used in court documents.)
After enduring an arduous screening process while she waited in Qatar, she entered the United States as a refugee in early 2024. Safe at last, she could begin rebuilding her life.
Or so she thought. Last year, the Trump administration began re-vetting refugees admitted under the Biden administration and paused the processing of their green card applications. Last month, officials tightened the vise further, announcing that refugees notified of a revocation of status would have just have ten days to contest the decision.
Now, like thousands of other refugees, Lida is terrified of being sent back to Afghanistan, where she fears she and her family could be killed by the Taliban. In the meantime, her life here has ground to a halt; she had to put aside her plan to attend college this year because part of her merit scholarship was only for legal permanent residents and citizens.
“Every morning that I wake up, I feel like this might be my last day here,” Lida, 27, said in an interview with the Globe.
“That feeling scares me. It’s always with you,” she said.
Lida is trying to challenge the new rules; she is a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed last week against the US government by a group of refugees and advocacy groups who argue the administration’s policy changes targeting refugees admitted during the Biden administration are “illegal and unconstitutional.”
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the administration is on a “baseless fishing expedition” to terminate the refugee status of thousands of people who have already gone through months and years of backgrounding.
Refugees undergo rigorous security checks, including interviews and biometrics collection. They have historically been allowed to apply for legal permanent residency after being present for one year in the country, and to eventually become US citizens.
“Refugees are the most vetted immigrants of any type of immigrant who enters the United States,” said Hussein E. Elbakri, a senior staff attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project, and one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The administration, however, said in a statement to the Globe that it found an “alarming erosion of screening and vetting measures” had occurred during the Biden administration “in order to rush processing and maximize the number of refugees admitted.”
“This lawsuit is yet another frivolous attempt to disrupt the Trump administration’s commitment to enforce our country’s immigration laws,” Zach Kahler, a spokesperson for US Citizenship and Immigration Services, said in a statement to the Globe. “DHS is strengthening accountability and ensuring that refugee status is reserved only for those who were eligible under the law.”
The United States Refugee Admissions Program, which has provided a crucial lifeline for refugees fleeing dire humanitarian circumstances, including war and persecution, since 1980.
The second Trump administration has been dismantling the program since Trump returned to the White House. In addition to rolling back benefits and protections for refugees admitted under Biden, the administration has slashed refugee admissions to a historical low, arguing the country does not have the resources to absorb a large number of refugees. White Afrikaners from South Africa are virtually the only group now allowed to resettle in the US through the program.
The lawsuit, brought against the federal government by several refugee rights organizations and four refugees including Lida, was filed in Boston federal court late last month. The plaintiffs include two Massachusetts-based organizations supporting refugees, the International Institute of New England and Jewish Family Service of Western Massachusetts.
Along with other restrictions, their complaint focuses on the administration’s new 10-day deadline for responses to revocation notices. For 45 years, refugees had 30 days to respond to any “intent to terminate” notice.
Elbakri, from the International Refugee Assistance Project, called the new limit a “trap.” It’s an extraordinarily short amount of time for a refugee to find legal assistance and evidence to challenge the government’s decision, said Elbakri, who came to the United States through Egypt as a refugee from Sudan when he was six years old.
If refugees don’t respond on time, or the government decides their response is insufficient, their legal status can be terminated. That leaves them at risk of being detained or deported, Elbakri said. A judge temporarily blocked this policy, but advocates say refugees are feeling deeply shaken.
“There’s a tragic amount of fear,” said John Moses, a retired Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and cofounded the Massachusetts Afghan Alliance, a nonprofit assisting Afghan families in the state.
The International Institute of New England, which works to help resettle refugees across the area, said none of its clients have received intent to terminate notices so far, but the institute joined the lawsuit to help prevent the administration from carrying out this policy and others like it, said Jeff Thielman, the President and CEO of the institute.
“This is completely unprecedented,” said Thielman. “It’s totally un-American not to give people a chance to defend themselves.
“Especially,” he added, ”refugees who have been lawfully admitted to the United States."
A number of refugees in Minnesota, however, have been arrested and detained under the administration’s so-called “Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening” program, and sent to facilities hundreds of miles away.
Abdi B., a refugee from Ethiopia who is a plaintiff in the Massachusetts lawsuit, was among them. He was arrested by immigration authorities, shackled, and sent to Texas, according to the complaint. He was held there for a week until a court ordered him released.
The other refugee plaintiffs in the lawsuit are members of the LGBTQ+ community who fled violence and discrimination in Colombia and Iraq, according to the complaint.
Lida, the young woman from Afghanistan, said going back to a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan is not a viable choice for her as someone who worked for a US-funded organization that helped promote educational opportunities for women and young people.
“I had to decide to save my life,” Lida said. “If there was a hope to live there [in Afghanistan], I wouldn’t have left in the first place.”
Under the Taliban, women are generally banned from receiving an education past primary school. They face severe restrictions on work, travel, and public expression. “Being a woman in Afghanistan is the hardest ... most terrifying thing,” Lida said.
Still, she is trying to remain hopeful about her future. She’s applying to other colleges and plans to pursue a master’s degree and Ph.D., and eventually work in education here.
“My dream since childhood has been to be part of a change in my community, to be someone that my family would be proud of,” she said. “I will keep trying.”
Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio can be reached at giulia.mcdnr@globe.com. Follow her @giuliamcdnr.