Every year, thousands of asylum seekers arrive in the United States, often fleeing war, persecution and violence — only to face a legal system they cannot navigate. To address this, the Department of Justice created an accreditation program that allows nonprofits to provide legal services through the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
These organizations often serve as the only legal lifeline for vulnerable immigrants.
But what if those charged with defending the vulnerable are abusing that responsibility? That is what is happening with the Council on American-Islamic Relations-California, which has potentially misused taxpayer dollars and is led by people who publicly cheer on Hamas.
Documents obtained through a California Public Records Act request by my organization, the Intelligent Advocacy Network, show that CAIR-CA’s federal immigration-related funding, administered by the California Department of Social Services, is contingent on maintaining EOIR accreditation.
CAIR-CA has received millions in taxpayer dollars, including $7.2 million for the Afghan Legal Services Project. CAIR-LA, a regional office of CAIR-CA, received the entire $7.2 million, even though under the terms of the grant agreement, $5 million of the $7.2 million was specifically designated for subgrants. CAIR-LA, rather than subgranting the $5 million to qualified nonprofits, awarded $3.6 million to itself. This raises serious concerns about financial oversight and mismanagement.
Additionally, our review of CAIR-CA’s 2022 and 2023 IRS 990 filings show possible financial discrepancies, such as a failure to properly report major government grants and a lack of transparency around how subgrants were distributed to CAIR-LA and other CAIR-CA regional offices.
Given these possible financial irregularities and CAIR-CA’s pattern of Hamas-aligned rhetoric, the Intelligent Advocacy Network submitted on March 13 a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a forensic audit and investigation into CAIR-CA’s EOIR accreditation, which is currently up for renewal.
On March 20, the DoJ formally notified us that it will consider our complaint in the review process for CAIR-CA’s accreditation renewal. This initiates an official process, one that could carry serious consequences for CAIR-CA’s ability to provide immigration legal services and receive federal funding.
CAIR has a long record of extremist associations and rhetoric. In 2007 and 2008, its national organization was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation trial — the largest terror financing case in U.S. history.
Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national founder and current executive director, has stated: “I am in support of the Hamas movement” and expressed that he was “happy to see” the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.
This rhetoric is echoed by CAIR-CA leadership. On Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas launched the deadliest attack on Israeli civilians in history, CAIR’s Bay Area executive director, Zahra Billoo, described it as “decolonization.” On July 30, 2024, following the reported assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh — a U.S.-designated terrorist — Billoo referenced his “martyrdom,” quoting the Quran on X: “Never say that those martyred in the cause of Allah are dead — in fact, they are alive!”
CAIR-CA CEO Hussam Ayloush on Oct. 7, 2023, offered prayers not for the victims but for Hamas’ “victory” over “Zionist aggressors.” Weeks later, on Nov. 12, 2023, Ayloush declared that “Israel should be attacked” and has no right to defend itself.
If CAIR-CA’s leaders openly support Hamas, should they be entrusted with handling asylum claims, deportation defense and other legal matters?
The public has every right to question whether an organization with possible financial irregularities and Hamas-aligned rhetoric should continue receiving taxpayer-funded grants and EOIR accreditation.
Both the DoJ and the State of California must take these concerns seriously. A forensic audit and DoJ investigation are critical steps to ensuring taxpayer dollars are not misused and that funding decisions uphold the highest ethical and legal standards.