Federal immigration agents in Los Angeles took into custody two relatives of slain Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani following the State Department's decision to revoke their lawful permanent resident status, officials confirmed Saturday.
Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, identified as Soleimani's niece, and her daughter were arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Friday, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the same day that he had terminated their legal status, citing what he called national security concerns.
The Trump administration says Afshar has been an outspoken supporter of Iran's regime, which the U.S. designates as a state sponsor of terrorism. Rubio posted on X that Afshar 'celebrated attacks on Americans' and referred to the United States as the 'Great Satan.'
The arrests come more than six years after a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad killed Soleimani in January 2020, during President Donald Trump's first term. The Iranian general commanded the IRGC's Quds Force and was blamed by the U.S. for killing hundreds of American service members through proxy attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What the Left Is Saying
Civil liberties advocates and some Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns about the legal process used in these revocations. Critics argue that retroactively denying green cards based on political speech raises due process questions, particularly when the individuals had previously been granted asylum under the Biden administration.
Representative Jerry Nadler of New York, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, has previously expressed concerns about using immigration enforcement as a tool to punish political speech. 'We cannot conflate advocacy or even support for a foreign government with terrorism itself,' Nadler said in a statement. 'The First Amendment protects lawful permanent residents, and we must ensure that due process is followed in any removal proceeding.'
Immigration attorneys have noted that asylum grants are presumptively valid and that revoking status based on speech made after an asylum grant could set a troubling precedent. 'The question is whether someone can be removed for expressing political opinions, even objectionable ones, without evidence of actual terrorist activity,' said former immigration judge Paul Schmidt.
Some progressive advocacy groups have also drawn attention to the broader implications for Iranian Americans. 'We are concerned about collective punishment of families based on their political associations,' said a spokesperson for the National Iranian American Council. 'The administration's approach risks casting a wide net that could affect thousands of lawful Iranian immigrants.'
What the Right Is Saying
Trump administration officials have defended the actions as necessary for national security. Rubio characterized Afshar as someone who 'enjoyed a lavish lifestyle in Los Angeles' while promoting Iranian regime propaganda and praising attacks on American military personnel.
The State Department statement emphasized that 'the Trump Administration will not allow our country to become a home for foreign nationals who support anti-American terrorist regimes.' Officials noted that Afshar made multiple trips to Iran after receiving her green card, which they say contradicts her original asylum claims.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a close ally of the Trump administration on foreign policy, praised the move. 'This is exactly what a serious national security policy looks like,' Cotton said in a post on social media. 'We should not be granting green cards to people who celebrate attacks on American troops and promote terrorist propaganda.'
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina also expressed support, saying the administration was 'right to deny safe haven to those who cheer on our enemies.' The White House has indicated this represents a broader shift in how the administration evaluates the legal status of immigrants with ties to designated terrorist regimes.
Conservative commentators have largely embraced the administration's position. 'Supporting a terrorist regime that has killed Americans should disqualify you from living in this country,' wrote commentary writer and former congressional candidate Rachel Campos-Duffy. 'This is about protecting American国家安全.'
What the Numbers Show
According to DHS, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar entered the United States on a tourist visa in June 2015. She was granted asylum in 2019, during the Trump administration's first term, and became a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) in 2021 under the Biden administration. Her daughter entered on a student visa in July 2015, also received asylum in 2019, and obtained green card status in 2023.
DHS officials said Afshar filed a naturalization application in July 2025, disclosing at least four trips to Iran since receiving her green card. The department argues these trips demonstrate that her original asylum claims were fraudulent.
In addition to Afshar and her daughter, the State Department earlier this month terminated the legal status of Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, the daughter of a former senior Iranian official. Both she and her husband have been removed from the United States and barred from reentry.
The IRGC was designated as a terrorist organization by the Trump administration in 2019. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has referred to the U.S. as the 'Great Satan' in numerous public statements.
The Bottom Line
The arrests of Soleimani's relatives represent one of the most visible applications of the Trump administration's broader effort to scrutinize the legal status of immigrants with connections to U.S.-designated terrorist regimes. The State Department has indicated this will be an ongoing priority.
The legal questions surrounding these revocations are likely to be tested in court. Immigration attorneys note that while the government has broad authority to exclude or remove non-citizens, using political speech as a primary basis for revoking already-granted green cards raises significant due process issues that may be challenged.
What to watch: Future court proceedings will determine whether the administration's legal rationale withstands judicial scrutiny. Immigration advocates are already preparing potential litigation, while the administration has signaled additional actions may follow against others with similar profiles.