The Department of Homeland Security is challenging the narrative surrounding the recent deportation of a 57-year-old Malian national who had lived in the United States for 25 years. While recent national media reports focused on the emotional impact his removal had on his wife and children, federal officials are pointing to documents from his asylum file that they suggest indicate a pattern of immigration fraud.
Moussa Diawara, who has lived in the United States since 1999, was deported this past summer in a move that drew significant media attention. A national broadcast segment recently featured interviews with Diawara’s tearful wife and two children, portraying him as a devoted Texas father whose removal had devastated a settled American family. However, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Counsel James Percival and other officials have since disclosed details from Diawara’s asylum application that present a vastly different picture of his life and claims.
According to the asylum application obtained through official channels, Diawara sought to remain in the United States by claiming he was a gay man who feared for his life if returned to Mali. In his own written statements within the file, Diawara described himself as having “female behaviors and feelings” since childhood and stated that he was “more comfortable being intimate with boys rather than with girls.”
In the application, which listed Diawara as single at the time of filing, he claimed that his community and tribal group in Mali had already become aware of his sexual orientation. He expressed a belief that even his own family members would pose a threat to his safety. He also noted that since arriving in the U.S., he had been able to “express my feelings to men without any embarrassment.”
These claims stand in stark contrast to the family life depicted in recent news profiles, which showed him as a married man with children. Percival, commenting on the case through social media, labeled Diawara a “poster child” for what critics call wrongful deportations, while simultaneously highlighting the discrepancies in his file. “I pulled his file. His claimed reason for fearing Mali was that he is ‘gay,’ just in case you’re wondering how bad the immigration fraud problem is,” Percival stated.
In addition to the claims regarding his sexual orientation, the documents reveal that Diawara claimed another basis for asylum: his conversion to Christianity. In a statement made eight months prior to the finalization of that specific claim, he argued that as a convert in a Muslim-majority nation currently facing an Islamist insurgency, he would be subject to religious persecution.
Diawara’s history with U.S. immigration authorities dates back to his arrival on a tourist visa at the age of 32. He overstayed that visa and subsequently sought various forms of protection, including refugee status. Despite having no criminal record, a judge eventually ordered his removal. However, the legal process was complicated by a judicial order that specifically barred his direct deportation to Mali, citing the potential for danger.
This order led to a complex deportation sequence in which U.S. officials transported Diawara to Ghana over the summer. Once in Ghana, however, the situation shifted. Diawara claims that local officials there forced him onto a flight to Mali, effectively bypassing the U.S. court’s restriction on his return to his home country. In recorded statements following his arrival in Mali, Diawara described the transfer as a “kidnapping.”
“I cannot call my wife, I can’t contact my lawyer. I can’t talk to no one,” Diawara said of his current situation. He alleged that U.S. officials were aware that sending him to Ghana would inevitably lead to his return to Mali.
Responding to questions about whether deportees are being sent back to countries they purportedly fled in fear, Percival suggested there are two likely scenarios. One possibility, he noted, is that individuals may choose to return home but later claim they did not consent. Alternatively, he suggested that third-party governments, such as Ghana in this instance, may apply their own legal procedures and international law standards to determine that a return to the home country is acceptable, independent of U.S. judicial preferences.
