What Is Happening Procedurally

On January 21, 2026, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem formally referred Matter of D-K- to Attorney General Pamela Bondi for review.

Under immigration law, the Attorney General has authority to certify and overrule Board of Immigration Appeals decisions. When the Attorney General issues a decision through certification, it becomes binding precedent nationwide unless reversed by a federal court or changed by later action.

DHS is asking the Attorney General to vacate an existing Board decision and replace it with a new interpretation of how refugee admission works under the statute.

This is an effort to overturn established precedent.

What the Original Case Held

In Matter of D-K-, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that:

• A refugee who has been admitted to the United States

• And who has not yet adjusted to lawful permanent residence

• May be placed in removal proceedings

• But generally must be charged under “deportability” grounds under INA §237, not under “inadmissibility” grounds under INA §212

The Board treated an admitted refugee as someone who is already inside the country, not as someone seeking admission again.

That distinction matters.

Why the Distinction Matters

Immigration law uses two different legal frameworks to remove people:

• Deportability (INA §237) applies to people who have already been admitted into the United States. The grounds are narrower.

• Inadmissibility (INA §212) applies to people seeking admission. These grounds are broader and give the government more removal options.

For years, refugees have been treated as admitted individuals once they enter the country. If the government seeks to remove them, it generally must use the narrower deportability grounds.

That framework provides meaningful legal stability.

What DHS Is Trying to Change

DHS argues that refugee admission under INA §209 is temporary and conditional. The statute requires that, after one year, a refugee must “return or be returned” for inspection in connection with adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence.

DHS contends that this inspection should be treated as a new admission decision. Under that interpretation, refugees at the one-year mark would effectively be reapplying for admission and could therefore be charged under inadmissibility grounds.

Importantly, this “return” is not a physical border crossing. It is a statutory inspection tied to the required one-year adjustment process. DHS is arguing that this inspection functions as a renewed admission decision.

If the Attorney General agrees, refugees could be charged under the broader inadmissibility framework rather than the narrower deportability framework.

Why This Is Significant

If the Attorney General adopts DHS’s interpretation, the consequences would extend beyond this single case.

It would mean:

• Refugee admission is treated as provisional rather than durable.

• After one year, refugees could be subject to broader inadmissibility grounds.

• DHS would gain expanded authority to initiate removal proceedings.

• The legal footing of refugee status before green card adjustment would become less secure.

• The burden dynamics in removal proceedings would shift in meaningful ways.

This reframes refugee protection from a stable admission pathway to something more conditional.

Strategic Implications

Three structural consequences are likely if this interpretation becomes binding precedent:

1. Expanded removal authority
   DHS would have broader statutory tools available when seeking to remove refugees.

2. Increased legal vulnerability during the adjustment process
   The mandatory one-year adjustment period would become a more precarious legal moment.

3. Greater systemic uncertainty
   Refugee status would be understood as less secure, which could have downstream effects on integration, employment, and admissions policy.

This is a doctrinal shift accomplished through administrative reinterpretation of the law rather than a deliberative process with appropriate stakeholders and congressional oversight.

What This Means for Afghan Refugees

This development does not directly affect the limited number of Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders, who are admitted as immigrants.

It could affect Afghans admitted through the refugee pathway.

For refugee families, the first year in the United States is already the most fragile period, involving housing, employment, school enrollment, medical care, and legal paperwork. The one-year mark is when refugees are required to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent residence.

If the Attorney General adopts DHS’s approach:

• Refugees could face removal under a broader set of legal theories.

• Issues traditionally treated under deportability could be reframed as inadmissibility.

• The adjustment process would carry greater litigation risk.

• Refugee admission would be characterized as conditional rather than durable.

Refugees were admitted with the understanding that they were on a pathway to permanence. Reinterpreting that pathway after arrival raises reliance and fairness concerns.

Impact on the Legal System

If implemented, this shift would:

• Increase litigation over charging decisions.

• Raise the stakes in removal proceedings.

• Expand detention exposure in certain cases.

• Generate additional appeals and emergency motions.

• Add pressure to already congested immigration courts.

Legal service providers would need to triage more cases under tighter timelines.

Impact on Employers and the Workforce

Refugees are a significant part of the workforce in healthcare support, manufacturing, logistics, hospitality, food processing, and small business.

A shift toward broader removal authority would:

• Increase workforce instability.

• Create compliance and HR challenges for employers.

• Raise the risk of detention or prolonged court proceedings for employees.

• Inject uncertainty into local economies that rely on refugee labor.

Legal instability does not remain confined to immigration court. It ripples outward into employers, communities, and state economies.

Impact on Communities and Local Governments

Local governments, schools, and service providers have invested heavily in refugee integration.

If refugee status becomes more conditional:

• Community trust declines.

• Family stability is disrupted.

• Social service systems face greater unpredictability.

• Integration efforts become harder to sustain.

Communities that welcomed refugees in good faith may face renewed instability and confusion in partnership with families who believed they were on a secure and durable path.

The Broader Systemic Shift

At its core, this is a reinterpretation of what refugee admission means.

For decades, admission as a refugee has functioned as a stable humanitarian commitment leading to permanent residence. The DHS referral asks the Attorney General to reframe that admission as temporary and conditional in a way that expands executive removal authority.

This is not a technical adjustment. It is a substantive shift in how refugee protection is understood under U.S. law.

If adopted, the decision would narrow the security of refugee status nationwide and reshape the legal landscape for thousands of families.