A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia rejected the U.S. government’s request to throw out a lawsuit filed by Afghan asylees and their families seeking to reunite safely in the United States on May 29, 2026. The case, A.A. v. State, challenges the Department of State’s policy of applying President Trump’s Proclamation 10949, commonly known as the “travel ban,” to asylee Follow-To-Join applications.
What changed
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia rejected the U.S. government’s request to throw out a lawsuit filed by Afghan asylees and their families. The plaintiffs are represented by the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), Williams & Connolly LLP, and Keler & Kershow PLLC, and are Afghan nationals who were granted asylum in the United States as a result of their support for the U.S. military, as well as their spouses and children who are still in danger abroad.
The U.S. government has argued that it can deny the entry of family members of asylees from Afghanistan and other countries subjected to the travel ban, even though the text of the ban exempts asylees from inclusion.
The denial of the government’s motion to dismiss means the case proceeds to the merits phase. This is the first judicial determination on whether the travel ban, as written and implemented, can lawfully be applied to block family reunification for people already granted asylum in the United States.
Why it matters
If you represent Afghan asylees seeking to bring family members to the United States through the Follow-to-Join process, this ruling opens a path for judicial review of State Department denials. Family members of people granted asylum in the United States have the right to file for derivative asylum status through a formal process known as “Follow-to-Join,” and the June 4 Proclamation explicitly does not apply to asylees or people seeking asylum, but the State Department has been denying final approval and travel documents to family members whose derivative asylum applications have already been approved.
The court’s refusal to dismiss signals judicial skepticism of a core government argument: that a proclamation explicitly exempting asylees from entry restrictions nonetheless empowers the State Department to deny travel documents to their approved family members. For clients in administrative limbo waiting for their derivatives’ travel documents, this ruling may give grounds for supplemental advocacy—though the underlying case may take time to resolve.
Way forward
- For pending Follow-to-Join cases: If a client’s derivative asylum application is approved but travel documents are being withheld, consider whether supplemental evidence or a separate request for expedited processing is warranted in light of this decision.
- Document State Department delays: Preserve a record of when applications were approved and when the government cited Proclamation 10949 as the reason for denying travel documents. This may support future claims of arbitrary or capricious action.
- Monitor the docket: Follow A.A. v. State (Eastern District of Virginia) for developments on the merits. The government may appeal any adverse ruling, and the case could take 12–24 months to resolve.
- Advise clients realistically: A denial of a motion to dismiss is not a victory on the merits; it only means the court will hear the case. The government may ultimately prevail.
Disclaimer
This article summarizes a court decision and is not legal advice. It reflects the state of law as of the date of publication; policy and court rulings can change without notice. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to evaluate your specific situation and verify current guidance against the primary source documents linked above.