ChronicleCraft: What We Know: The Immigration History and Vetting of Rahmanullah Lakanwal

Lakanwal is an Afghan national who came to the United States in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome (OAW), the program set up after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan to evacuate and resettle Afghans who had worked with U.S. forces or faced persecution under the returning Taliban. As is standard for many OAW evacuees, he initially entered on a humanitarian parole status — not as a permanent resident.

According to government officials, Lakanwal underwent “thorough vetting” before being admitted. That vetting involved multiple agencies: the intelligence community (including Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA), the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and relevant counterterrorism and immigration authorities.
This screening reportedly used biometric and biographic checks (fingerprints, background data, etc.) — part of what many experts call among the most intensive vetting processes for arriving Afghan evacuees.
Some of these vetting steps pre-date his arrival: he had already served in a CIA-backed Afghan special-forces unit (the so-called “Zero Unit” / “Unit 03”) during the war in Afghanistan. That prior association meant he had been vetted earlier, before working with U.S. forces.

In 2024, Lakanwal applied for asylum. That triggered a separate — and required — immigration screening process under U.S. law.
In April 2025, his asylum application was granted. That approval came under the current (2025) administration.
At the time of the shooting, his application for a green card (permanent residency) — which would follow asylum — was still pending.

Experts and former security officials note that vetting systems rely on matching identifiers — biographic data, biometrics, known criminal or terrorism-related records — to flag threats. They emphasize that vetting screens for past history or known links, not for what a person might do in the future.
As one analyst put it, the fact that Lakanwal passed “the most comprehensive vetting” when arriving does not — and cannot — guarantee that he would never commit a violent crime later.

Reports say Lakanwal lived for about a year in Bellingham, Washington, with his wife and five children. Neighbors described him as polite but fairly private; few had more than brief interactions with him.
According to his asylum-case worker and other sources, he struggled to adapt: he had difficulty holding a job, faced mental health challenges, and reportedly experienced isolation after arriving in the U.S.
In 2024, some case-worker emails noted that Lakanwal had “spent weeks on end” in isolation — signs that he was struggling emotionally before the shooting.

Why the Vetting & Immigration Process Is Under Scrutiny Again

The shooting has sparked broad criticism and political backlash — especially from critics who argue that admitting Lakanwal was a mistake, regardless of prior vetting. The fact that he had passed extensive checks yet allegedly carried out a deadly attack has fueled that criticism.
The current administration has responded by pausing all immigration processing for Afghan nationals, halting asylum decisions, and pledging a thorough review of green-card and visa cases tied to Afghans.
Officials argue the attack demonstrates the need for stricter vetting protocols — or even a reconsideration of how parole/asylum/resettlement programs operate.
However, experts warn that vetting systems are not predictive tools: screening can detect past risk factors, but cannot foresee whether a person will become radicalized or engage in violence after arrival.

The case highlights a limitation of vetting: even well-screened individuals can — for complex personal or psychological reasons — commit violent acts. Vetting can reduce risk, but cannot eliminate it.
The background and history of Lakanwal — including his service in a CIA-backed Afghan unit — complicates the narrative. He was both once trusted by U.S. forces and later became a suspect in a violent crime. That paradox fuels debate about what “vetting” ought to mean.
At the same time, the broader consequences are significant: the welfare of thousands of Afghan evacuees, the credibility of resettlement programs, and the balance between security and humanitarian commitments are now under renewed public and political pressure.
A key unknown: what exactly triggered whatever changed within Lakanwal after arrival. Was it mental-health deterioration, isolation, radicalization — or a mix? Investigators are still examining his mental-health records, communications, and possible external influences.