Foreign‑Policy Removal Case

A little-used deportation power that usually sits deep in the Immigration and Nationality Act just surfaced in a case tied to one of Iran’s most recognizable military figures. On April 4, 2026, the State Department said Secretary of State Marco Rubio terminated the lawful permanent resident status of Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, identified as a niece of Qasem Soleimani, and of her daughter, after which both were taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. (state.gov) The same State Department statement said Afshar’s husband was barred from entering the United States and that another Iranian-connected pair, Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani and Seyed Kalantar Motamedi, were no longer in the country and were barred from future entry. The department described Afshar as an outspoken supporter of Iran’s regime and said she had praised the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the United States treats as a designated terrorist organization. (state.gov) That is where the legal hook becomes more important than the family name. The apparent basis is section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a provision that makes a noncitizen deportable when the secretary of state has reasonable ground to believe the person’s presence or activities in the United States could have potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences. (cis.org, uscis.gov) In plain terms, this is a removal tool built for situations where immigration status and foreign policy collide. Congress’s immigration framework has long allowed the executive branch not only to admit people through family, employment, diversity, refugee, and asylum channels, but also to remove people whose conduct or status triggers one of the law’s deportation grounds. (congress.gov, uscis.gov) Lawful permanent residence does not work like an irrevocable membership card. A green-card holder can still be placed into removal proceedings if the Department of Homeland Security alleges that one of the deportation grounds in section 237 applies, and an immigration judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review then decides the case in formal removal proceedings. (congress.gov, congress.gov) That process matters because the foreign-policy ground is unusual even by immigration-law standards. Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies wrote on April 6, 2026, that the provision is “hardly ever used” and difficult to apply, which is one reason this case drew immediate attention beyond the usual immigration-policy circles. (cis.org) The same provision was already in the spotlight in 2025 in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and green-card holder. In that matter, the Department of Homeland Security charged Khalil under section 237(a)(4)(C), turning an obscure clause into a live test of how far the executive branch can go when it says a noncitizen’s presence affects American foreign policy. (cis.org, cis.org) The Soleimani-relative case is different from the Khalil dispute in one important way: the government is tying the removal action to alleged support for the Iranian regime and for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, not to campus protest activity. The State Department’s April 4 statement said Afshar promoted Iranian regime propaganda, celebrated attacks against American soldiers and military facilities, and voiced support for the Guard Corps while living in Los Angeles. (state.gov) Even so, the statute is not a blank check. Arthur noted that the law cross-references another section that bars deportation based only on a person’s beliefs, statements, or associations when those would be lawful in the United States, unless the secretary of state personally determines that the person’s presence would compromise a compelling United States foreign-policy interest. (cis.org) That built-in speech safeguard is one reason these cases are politically sensitive as well as legally technical. When the government uses a foreign-policy removal ground against a green-card holder, the fight quickly becomes two arguments at once: one over national security and one over whether the government is punishing protected expression or actual support for a hostile foreign power. (cis.org, cis.org) The case also raises a quieter question about vetting. The State Department said Afshar and her daughter held lawful permanent resident status before that status was terminated, and the Center for Immigration Studies used the episode to argue that asylum and other immigration pathways can be exploited by people with sensitive foreign ties. (state.gov, cis.org) The larger story is not that foreign-policy removal is becoming routine. The available reporting points the other way: this remains a narrow authority used in exceptional cases, but the cases now being chosen are unusually visible, involving either a high-profile campus activist or relatives of Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian commander killed in a United States airstrike in January 2020. (cis.org, cis.org) That makes this episode less a mass-enforcement story than a signal about reach. A statute written for serious foreign-policy conflicts is being used not broadly, but selectively, against people whose names, affiliations, or public conduct carry diplomatic and national-security consequences far beyond an ordinary immigration file. (state.gov, cis.org, congress.gov)