What we know about the visa obtained by Egyptian man who injured a dozen people in Colorado
The Egyptian man charged with injuring a dozen people in Boulder Colorado, in an attack on demonstrators seeking the release of Israeli hostages is among hundreds of thousands of people known to overstay their visas each year in the United States.
Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, was born in Egypt and moved three years ago to Colorado Springs, where he lived with his wife and five children, according to state court documents. He lived for 17 years in Kuwait.
Soliman entered the country in August 2022 on a tourist visa that expired in February 2023, according to Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security. She said Soliman filed for asylum in September 2022 and was granted a work authorization in March 2023, but that also expired. The department did not respond to requests for additional information.
Federal immigration authorities took Soliman's wife and children into custody Tuesday. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said authorities were investigating whether his family knew about his plan.
What is known about visa overstays?
There were 565,155 visa overstays from October 2022 through September 2023 among visitors who arrived by plane or ship — more than the population of the metro areas of Reno, Nevada, or Chattanooga, Tennessee, according to Homeland Security's most recent annual report.
The total number of overstays is much larger but has not been quantified because it does not include how many people arrive and leave by land. The cost and technological hurdles to develop a checkout system at congested land crossings are enormous.
The overstay rate for Egyptians on business or tourist visas was 4% in 2023, well below some of the biggest offenders such as Chad (49%), Laos (34%) and Sudan (26%).
Historically, academics have estimated that roughly 40% of people in the United States illegally stayed past their visas, but reliable numbers are difficult to come by. In 2016, Homeland Security published the number of overstays for the first time in at least two decades.
How did Soliman obtain a work permit?
Homeland Security did not say.
But asylum seekers become eligible for work authorization 180 days after arrival. That correlates with him arriving in the country in August 2022 and obtaining the work permit in March 2023.
Some critics say work permits create a huge magnet for asylum applications from people with weak cases. Immigration courts are backlogged with about 3.6 million cases, which can take years to resolve.
The relative ease with which asylum seekers gain work permits has also fueled some tensions with people who have been in the country illegally for years or decades.
Immigration court records are not public, and the status of Soliman's asylum case is unclear.
Egyptians had an asylum grant rate of 72% during the 12-month period through September 2024, compared with 45% for all nationalities, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Rachel Reeves gives Home Office incentive to slash migrant hotel costs quicker
HOME Secretary Yvette Cooper has been offered a cash incentive to slash the eye-watering costs of migrant hotels. The Sun understands that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will let her Cabinet colleague keep a higher proportion of the savings on asylum spend the quicker she cuts it. 2 2 A staggering £4billion a year is currently being splurged on accommodating migrants who have arrived on small boats or lorries. Insiders close to the negotiations said Ms Reeves wants Ms Cooper to save around £500million next year, and £1billion the year after. While ordinarily the Chancellor would claw back money saved, she will reward the Home Secretary with keeping some of the recouped cash for other projects if she excels the targets. Ms Cooper has been lobbying furiously for a more generous settlement from the Treasury in next Wednesday's Spending Review, where Whitehall budgets are set. She has insisted she needs more money for frontline policing - who have their work cut out as fewer criminals go to jail - and the security services trying to thwart rising threats. Labour is under intense pressure to cut the ballooning cost of housing illegal migrants, with Channel crossings at a record high. The National Audit Office now estimates taxpayer spending on migrant hotels to be £15.3billion over 10 years - three times higher than originally estimated. The number of migrants in hotels has risen on Sir Keir Starmer's watch, having risen from 29,585 before the election to 38,079 in December, before falling back to 32,345 in March. Ms Reeves has faced bitter battles with Cabinet ministers over their funding, including Housing Secretary Angela Rayner who last night had still not settled with the Treasury. The Chancellor is refusing to break her fiscal rules by increasing borrowing, leaving very little money to increase day-to-day departmental spending.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Steve Bannon says Trump should ‘deport Musk immediately' and take control of SpaceX
Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon has called for Elon Musk 's deportation, referring to him as an "illegal alien" and urging President Trump to seize SpaceX. Bannon made these remarks on his War Room podcast, reacting to Musk's threat to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump considered canceling government subsidies to Musk's companies. Bannon suggested Trump invoke the Defense Production Act to seize SpaceX, claiming Musk is in the country illegally despite becoming a U.S. citizen in 2002. Speaking with the New York Times, Bannon doubled down on his deportation call and urged the Trump administration to investigate Musk's immigration status. Musk, who previously vowed to root out more than $1 trillion in federal waste, was only able to cut $170 billion despite over 270,000 people losing their jobs due to sweeping layoffs.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
In 1973, I reported freely on Israel at war. Now its censorship has made that impossible
Watching the TV coverage of the conflict in Gaza with increasing dismay this week, my mind went back to the banks of the Suez canal in October 1973. I was filming the surrender of the entire Egyptian third army with a team from the BBC, without significant censorship or hindrance. The Israeli commander, Gen Avraham Adan, paused in whatever he was doing to give us an update. Crossing the canal on the Israeli pontoon bridge in a bright yellow Hertz car (not a wise choice of colour) we were even helped when we had to repair a tyre that had been punctured by the shrapnel that littered the battlefield. Censorship? Yes, the report was censored by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) back at the satellite feed point in Herzliya. But the censorship was limited only to matters of operational security. This was obviously helpful to the journalists, but also to the Israelis themselves. They had independent verification, with video to back it, of their remarkable achievement in turning around their initial setbacks in Sinai. And they could show, through scenes with a biblical resonance, that the Egyptians' surrender was conducted humanely and in accordance with the Geneva conventions, the laws of war. As the great columns of the third army mounted a sand dune, they exchanged their weapons for bottles of water abundantly provided. Was it always this easy? Of course not. On another occasion, I rose early and reached a road block beyond Gaza only to be turned back, as all the press were that day, on the orders of southern command. But that was exceptional. The IDF operated a policy of relatively open access based on mutual advantage. Sometimes it would herd everyone into press buses, which was far from satisfactory. But it would regularly provide the major TV networks with an escort officer, armed and in uniform, to enable and supervise the coverage. One of my escorts in the Yom Kippur war was Topol, the actor from Fiddler on the Roof. He was something of a hero in Israel, and all roadblocks opened to him. On another occasion I was on my way to the Golan Heights, accompanied and with documents in order, when the great conductor and Israeli sympathiser Zubin Mehta asked for a lift. To my lasting regret I turned him down on the grounds that I had a press pass and he did not – I thought this may harm my chances of being allowed in. Nowhere that the IDF operated was off limits to us. We could film what we wanted and freely interview soldiers of all ranks. In the trenches of the Golan Heights, because of language difficulties, the other ranks tended to be South African immigrants. I was also free to make mistakes. In 1968, the year after the six-day war, I returned to Israel and interviewed the chief of staff, Gen Haim Bar-Lev, who was busy building the defensive line that bore his name. I travelled to Jerusalem and was stopped at a roadblock outside the biblical village of Emmaus. It stood at the centre of the Latrun salient, a Jordanian outpost in the previous war of 1948. The Israelis were busy dismantling it brick by brick. I was not allowed to film it and could only have reported it by leaving the country, not to return. Such compromises are commonplace, but I regret this one. The village disappeared, to be replaced by a Canadian peace park. I was also allowed, after 1967, to visit and stay in Gaza, and show the day-to-day reprisals by the IDF against Palestinians whom it held responsible for previous attacks. The same applied to the destruction of homes in the West Bank city of Qalqilya, and the sowing of landmines round the churches of St John the Baptist in the Jordan valley. All of this passed the IDF's censorship without difficulty. Fast forward to today, and the coverage – or rather, the non-coverage – of the conflict between the Israelis and Hamas in Gaza. The broadcasts regularly start with the mantra that the IDF does not allow foreign media access into the Gaza Strip, and proceed with the most vivid coverage, shot by brave freelances and other civilians posting on social media from inside Gaza, of scenes of death and destruction with the commentary voiced remotely in Jerusalem, Ashkelon or London. Often, both print and broadcast media preface the numbers of the dead and injured with a reminder that they were provided by the Hamas-run health ministry – sometimes the only source available. My former colleague Jeremy Bowen said on the Today programme on Wednesday: 'Israel doesn't let us in because it's doing things there … that they don't want us to see, otherwise they would allow free reporting.' I'm inclined to agree with him. My sympathies are with Bowen, Fergal Keane and others at the BBC, especially when Donald Trump flings around baseless accusations of bias. The BBC and other responsible news outlets have a difficult line to tread. I cannot speak for the American networks, but the British channels all have excellent reporters standing by in the region, not exactly there but thereabouts, sometimes on the high ground overlooking Gaza, which some reporters call the 'hill of shame'. What is missing is the first-hand experience of the war, shared by reporters on the ground who can properly interpret what is happening. This gives free rein to rumour and falsehood. What Bowen and I know from our shared experience is that it is not enough to win the war of weapons without also winning the war of words and images. And the IDF must see that it is losing. It has historically had its ups and downs with the foreign press, but nothing like the present entrenched hostility. It is doing itself great damage, which it is beginning to feel diplomatically. I would urge the following: that the foreign press, especially the TV networks, continue to stand their ground, and that the Israeli press machine does itself a favour and relaxes the rules to allow some independent access to Gaza. This will not only limit the tides of propaganda (on both sides, it must be said) but perhaps hold the frontline troops to higher standards of behaviour, just as it did beside the Suez canal in 1973. It is important to both sides to reestablish at least the limited level of trust that used to exist between them. Here is an example. In the 1973 war, we were able transmit the news by satellite on the day that it happened. Our office was a chair beneath a palm tree near the feed point. In the 1967 war, the exposed news film was bundled into onion bags – blue for the BBC, red for NBC – and taken to the censor who stamped his approval on the masking tape around the neck, before it was air-freighted to London. But he had to take our word for what the film actually showed. The public had a more accurate account back then of events on the battlefield than it does today through the fog of war in Gaza. When access is denied, everyone loses. And, Israel, that includes you. Martin Bell is a Unicef UK ambassador. He is a former broadcast war reporter, and was the independent MP for Tatton from 1997 to 2001 Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
