The Trump administration has initiated a controversial review of refugees already admitted to the United States, leading to the detention and questioning of individuals who previously sought asylum. This shift in policy particularly impacts those who settled in Minnesota, where approximately 5,600 refugees are currently under scrutiny.
The situation for one Venezuelan family highlights the distress faced by many. Fleeing from a government that retaliated against their father, a state oil company employee, this family obtained refugee status in 2021. They relocated to Minnesota in 2023, hoping for safety. However, their peace was disrupted when federal officers began re-evaluating their legal status.
In a dramatic incident last month, three masked officers arrived outside a St. Paul apartment complex, detaining a 24-year-old woman and her mother while informing them that their immigration status was under review. The women, who requested anonymity due to fears of retaliation, described their ordeal as a significant departure from the protections typically afforded to refugees.
Notably, immigration authorities have reportedly detained or questioned dozens of refugees in Minnesota, generating concerns among advocates and legal experts. According to attorneys, this policy represents a major shift from previous practices, where once refugees were granted asylum, their status was rarely re-examined.
Matthew Tragesser, a spokesperson for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, stated that refugees are “REQUIRED to be subject to a full inspection after a year within the United States.” While the requirement for refugees to apply for green cards after one year is not new, the current administration’s actions mark a departure from decades of tradition. Advocates argue that this new focus on “revetting” places undue stress on vulnerable populations.
Among those affected is Saw Ba Mya James, a 46-year-old refugee from Myanmar, who fled military persecution and arrived in St. Paul in 2023. Despite having a pending green card application, James was called in for a post-admission review, where immigration officials questioned him about matters he believed had already been settled during his initial vetting process.
Describing the process as anxiety-inducing, James reflected on how the uncertainty has impacted his life. He avoided public spaces, adhering to advice from friends to remain indoors for fear of detention.
Another poignant case involves a Congolese woman who settled in Minnesota in November 2024. Early in the morning on January 14, 2024, an immigration officer approached her vehicle, handcuffing her despite her attempts to present identification and work authorization documents. After being flown to Houston for questioning, she was released but was left without her identification. Her employer made the long drive to bring her back home, highlighting the personal toll of these policies.
Beth Oppenheim, CEO of HIAS, a leading refugee assistance organization, criticized the new approach, stating, “They’ve been heavily vetted and were admitted by the government with approval.” She emphasized that the only way to strip someone of their refugee status is to prove that they should never have been admitted in the first place.
The implications of this policy are profound. Refugees, who often flee life-threatening situations, are now left questioning their safety and future in the United States. As legal challenges against the Trump administration’s actions unfold, many individuals remain anxious, uncertain, and fearful of what lies ahead in their pursuit of safety and stability.
The current wave of scrutiny contrasts starkly with the bipartisan consensus that has historically characterized refugee admissions in the United States. Since the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980, welcoming refugees has garnered overwhelming support. The act established procedures that have made refugee applications among the most meticulously reviewed in the immigration system.
As the legal landscape evolves, the stories of those affected serve as a reminder of the human impact behind policy changes. For many, the hope for a safe and stable life in the United States is overshadowed by a fear of retribution and uncertainty about their legal status.
