VIDEO: Masked ICE Agents Arrest Afghan Ally Following Immigration Court Hearing
Sayed Naser worked with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, fled after the Taliban killed his brother, and was awaiting asylum. ICE agents still took him in handcuffs—and the government won’t explain why.

In a video that has flooded the internet, Afghan ally Sayed Naser was arrested and put in handcuffs by two masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents following his June 12 hearing at a San Diego Courthouse.
"What's your name?" the agents asked.
"I work for the U.S. military back in my home country. I have all the documents….I was [an] interpreter," Naser explains, turning to a group filming the incident and continuing to speak calmly about his situation as ICE agents led him down a hallway and into an elevator with his lawyer, Brian McGoldrick.
McGoldrick told members of the press that the incident was only captured thanks to volunteers who gather daily outside the San Diego courthouse and "wait in the hallway along with all the ICE agents to video what's happening."
McGoldrick also said that prior to his client's arrest, the day held another difficult surprise for Naser when the counsel for the U.S. government motioned to have his asylum case dismissed on the grounds that his notice to appear had been "improvidently issued."
When the judge asked him to respond to the government's motion, McGoldrick says he requested the government "tell us what was improvident."
The government counsel responded, "We don't have to explain why it's improvident. We just have to make the allegation."
The judge has given McGoldrick 10 days to file an opposition in response to the government counsel's motion. In the event his opposition is successful, the judge scheduled a merits hearing for Naser's asylum case in September.
Naser remains in removal proceedings awaiting the outcome of his attorney's motion, though he is undoubtedly an ally who faces danger if returned to his homeland.
Naser initially applied for a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) after his country fell to Taliban control, citing years spent working with his two brothers as a translator and logistics contractor for U.S. personnel in multiple Afghan provinces as the rationale for his eligibility.
Naser was—and is still—awaiting Chief of Mission approval, the first phase of the SIV progress, when Taliban forces stormed a family wedding in 2023 and murdered his brother. Out of fear that he would be the Taliban's next target, Naser fled to Iran with his wife and two children.
Naser made the difficult choice to leave his family behind and travel to Brazil in April 2024. After making the grueling journey through the deadly Darien Gap and towards the U.S.-Mexico border, Nasr finally procured a CBP One App appointment in July 2024. He was subsequently paroled into the U.S. and placed into removal proceedings, standard practice for immigrants who are awaiting asylum adjudications or visa applications that would grant them permanent status.
Just months before his scheduled master calendar hearing, when his asylum request would be heard by an immigration judge, Naser received notice from the Department of Homeland Security in April explaining that parole had been revoked and that he must self-deport using the CBP Home App.
As an SIV-eligible ally awaiting asylum adjudication that should have offered him protection—and because his brother, who also fled to the U.S. through the Brazil route, received asylum just weeks ago—Naser believed that he was safe to remain in the U.S.
Now, his fate turns on the outcome of McGoldrick's opposition to the government counsel's motion to dismiss.
Amidst public outcry about his fate, Naser's wife and children only learned of his arrest by watching it online.
Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac, told the press that Naser's arrest is part of a "broader pattern" of "quiet policy shifts that make it harder for our allies to get protection." He also said he believes the dismissal of Naser's case "is a deliberate use of vague legal language to meet enforcement quotas," referencing the announcement that ICE officials have been told to arrest 3,000 individuals per day.
"What happened to Sayed is not the beginning," VanDiver said. "It's just the most recent and most visible moment in a long line of quiet decisions designed to make it harder for our allies to reach safety. And frankly, this is just what we know. We have no idea how many others this has happened to in silence," he said.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The judge has given McGoldrick 10 days to file an opposition in response to the government counsel's motion."
Seems suspiciously like that "due process" thing.
The 10 days isn't even in the law, a judge arbitrarily added it to the law. Yet Trump follows it until the appeals go through.
And he got a notice to self deport in April that he chose to ignore. More due process.
LOL in 10 days McGoldrick will be in an El Salvador gulag and the government will say "nothing we can do now, he's out of the country!"
Alright!
Sorry, that should be Naser, not McGoldrick
He was already out of Afghanistan and in Iran. How can he claim fear for prosecution in Afghanistan if he wasn't in Afghanistan? Deport. The United States does not owe the world American residency.
You don’t traverse the Darien gap if things are hunky-dory elsewhere.
We don't owe the world "hunky-dory".
McGoldrick also said that prior to his client's arrest, the day held another difficult surprise for Naser when the counsel for the U.S. government motioned to have his asylum case dismissed on the grounds that his notice to appear had been "improvidently issued."
When the judge asked him to respond to the government's motion, McGoldrick says he requested the government "tell us what was improvident."
The government counsel responded, "We don't have to explain why it's improvident. We just have to make the allegation."
------------------------
Eff U, that's why.
I'm starting to wonder why foreigners even help us these days. We burn everybody.
Maybe if they wise up and stop "helping" us, that will help us keep out of foreign misadventures.
Hmm.. so it's THEIR fault that WE can't stay out of foreign misadventures? OK.
Poor sarc. White savior mentality is your favorite virtue signaling. As long as others pay for your virtue signaling.
Another disgusting shitshow brought to you by Stephen Miller.
Any MAGAs want to defend ICE arresting anyone they want at any time dressing like thugs?
Obviously that's not what happened here, moron. The process played out normally and legally. Should you ever see an example of "ICE arresting anyone they want at any time", please bring it to our attention and we'll discuss it.
Enforcing the law as written is truly the most immoral thing ever. Better to shoot some unarmed women and peaceful citizens.
If this guy doesn't deserve asylum, then who does?
No one "deserves" it. It is a privilege we extend at our discretion.
Stupidly pedantic non-answer. IF there is going to be some type of asylum process in which applicants are chosen based on some type of criteria, why would this guy fail the test?
I don't have all the facts of his case (and neither do you) so I can't give a comprehensive answer about how his status was determined. But, there IS "some type of asylum process in which applicants are chosen based on some type of criteria", which this guy would appear at first to look to fail. Under international agreements, refugees are not permitted to "country-shop"—they must stop in the country they're in and request asylum there once they have escaped the danger from which they are fleeing. This guy passed through many other countries to get here, which under normal circumstances would disqualify him from refugee status in the US.
We have been over this before. The "safe third country" rule ONLY APPLIES to other nations with which the US has a treaty establishing that fact. And the only other country that the US has such a treaty with is Canada. Here it is, one more fucking time.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim
Do you see that bolded part? "Bilateral or multilateral agreement". There is only one, between US and Canada.
Could you at least acknowledge this?
And is this your only objection?
"may apply for asylum"—not must be granted asylum. Could you at least acknowledge this?
My only objection to what?
Does no one here seems to recall that the Afghans were our allies in the Cold War, who , with a little help from us , and a lot of valor on their part, catalyzed the collapse of the Evil Empire and the fall of the Soviet Union.
Had they not been betrayed in spades during the Clinton years, OBL would not have found so warm a welcome there after 9-11.
SOME were our allies. SOME were not. I suspect most just wanted to be left alone, and did the minimum necessary at the time to appease whoever was hassling them.
Afghanistan is a dirt-poor country infested with a religion which treats its women and children abysmally. We did not belong there, and they don't belong here in a country they don't like. The fact that now that we are gone, those situational allies who translated for us now wish they hadn't, but if they hadn't, we would probably have treated them miserably.
I am sure that a lot of them would prefer to be somewhere else, but then there's the Squad, women who obey that same religion which treats them like shit. If they were here on their own, without handouts, and not flown in as refugees, I'd be a lot more forgiving.
Life sucks. I don't wish it were so, but I see no reason to help other people make it suck more.
Naser received notice from the Department of Homeland Security in April explaining that parole had been revoked and that he must self-deport using the CBP Home App.
And he didn't because...?
Trump defenders are truly disgusting creatures.
The government counsel responded, "We don't have to explain why it's improvident. We just have to make the allegation."
Too bad the judge didnt lock the government counsel in jail on contempt of court until someone from his office can explain it to the court. Charges for perjury to follow if it wasnt improvident.
Do you know the law better than the judge? He apparently thought that was a tolerable response. He also saw nothing wrong with masked police in his courtroom.
We have a crappy judicial system which focuses on ritual, not justice. Whining about one side in one case not getting justice doesn't make you a lawyer.
OK, so you're touching on something that is very near and dear to me. I'm going to give you the abridged version (with a few examples).
We have a judicial system that focuses on proceduralism, not justice. That is to say: the goal isn't the right result, the goal is to make sure that all the steps were followed (5A) and everyone was treated equally (14A).
That is due process in a nutshell. THAT'S what the Courts care about first and foremost.
If we have live video of a murderer committing his murder, but we obtained that live video incorrectly - the murderer maybe walks. It's not justice, but it is process.
If the cops followed all their established procedures and made an innocent mistake that harmed someone it shouldn't have - they're given qualified immunity. It may not be satisfactory justice, but it is satisfactory process.
If a CAF is seized and the owner doesn't feel compelled to appeal it because he doesn't think the juice is worth the squeeze he therefore (wait for it...) forfeits it. May not be justice, but it is process.
Justice demands getting the right answer, the right result, and the right remediation. NO COURT can promise you that, because they'll rarely (if ever) be able to determine what that is (let alone guarantee its delivery). And the Founders knew it. Process only demands satisfaction. The same rules applied the same way to everyone. All the boxes were checked. It's the best any Court in a free society can offer. Y'all get the same shake by the same rules as anyone else.
This is why law students learn CivPro and CrimPro and ConLaw in their 1L year, but don't actually learn CrimLaw or Trial Ad until their 2L or 3L (and even then, it's usually an elective). The 1L year teaches them jurisprudence and how to think the way the law works.
NGL, "We don't have to explain why it's improvident. We just have to make the allegation." - that gave me pause as well. I know a bit about immigration law, but I'm by no means an expert. If I had to guess, I'd say they're responding to the Biden Admin's Oprah-like fan-fav declarations of, "You get asylum! And you get asylum! Everybody in the audience gets asylum!" (Democrats suck at chess, only ever thinking the immediate move and never the next few.) They're arguably asserting those grants were bogus, which they have a strong case for making, and are now challenging Naser that his was actually legitimate. Which, frankly, he can probably do. They don't have to do that FOR him, he has to do that for him.
And that seems appropriate, given the context of the litigants.
At the end of the day, a court of justice ultimately desires an arbiter who will us his own judgment to determine what is right (or wrong). A court of law, however, demands an arbiter that's forced to ignore that, and follow a set of rules, procedures, and standards - regardless of its result.
You callously dismiss that as "ritual." It evidences that you have no understanding whatsoever of the justice system, jurisprudence, its workings, its foundings, and its purpose. Sorry not sorry.