The statement came after reports that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump was discussing the possible relocation of around 1,100 Afghans, including former U.S. war helpers and relatives of American service members, to the Democratic Republic of Congo as part of efforts to resolve their prolonged displacement.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Abdul Qahar Balkhi said Afghanistan remained the “shared homeland of all Afghans” and invited those concerned to return with “full confidence and peace of mind,” rejecting concerns that they faced security threats under Taliban rule.

He said those wishing to migrate to other countries could do so later through “legal and dignified channels” and added that Kabul was ready to engage with all countries on the matter.

The remarks followed disclosures by advocacy group #AfghanEvac, which supports Afghan resettlement efforts, that U.S. officials had informed the group of talks between Washington and Congo regarding refugees housed at Camp As-Sayliyah, a U.S. base in Doha, where many have remained in limbo for more than a year.

The U.S. State Department said it was working to identify options for “voluntary” resettlement in a third country, but did not confirm which countries were under discussion.

For many of the Afghans at the camp, returning to Afghanistan is not considered safe. Many had worked directly with U.S. military forces, diplomatic missions, or affiliated programs during the war and fear retaliation from the Taliban, who returned to power in 2021 following the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

In a joint statement shared by #AfghanEvac, refugees at the camp said they had not been formally informed by U.S. officials about the possible transfer to Congo and learned of the discussions through media reports.

They said the prolonged uncertainty had severely affected their mental health.“Many of us are not well. The uncertainty has been more than some of us can carry. There is deep depression,” the group said, describing worsening psychological distress among families who have spent months waiting for relocation.

The refugees also firmly rejected the idea of being moved to Congo, citing ongoing violence there.“We do not want to go to the Democratic Republic of Congo,” the statement said. “It is a country in its own war. We have been in enough war.

We cannot take our children into another one.”The Democratic Republic of Congo has faced decades of instability, particularly in its eastern region, where fighting between government forces and Rwanda-backed rebel groups has intensified.

Camp residents also said returning to Afghanistan was not an option.“The Taliban will kill many of us for what we did for the United States,” the statement said. “This is not a fear. This is a fact.”The relocation discussions come more than a year after President Trump suspended his predecessor’s Afghan refugee resettlement program as part of broader immigration restrictions, leaving thousands of vetted Afghan applicants stranded in transit hubs across the world, including Qatar.

Many had already completed years of security screening and documentation for U.S. resettlement before the process was halted.

The uncertainty over their future continues to underscore the unresolved humanitarian fallout of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and the fate of those who supported its mission there.

The controversy followed a series of events during and after a tournament in Australia, where seven members of the squad initially accepted asylum offers, but five later reversed their decisions and rejoined the team, leaving two players remaining in Australia.

Refugee advocates said the outcome raised concerns about whether the players had been given adequate time and independent legal advice before making decisions. Graham Thom described the result as “far from ideal,” expressing concern both for the two players who stayed and those who returned.

The episode drew scrutiny after Australia’s Immigration Minister Tony Burke publicly released images of five women who had accepted humanitarian visas, a move that critics said may have exposed them to additional pressure.

Analysts noted that Australia has traditionally handled asylum cases discreetly, partly to reduce risks for applicants and their families. Critics argued that the high-profile approach in this case may have complicated the situation.

The situation escalated after Donald Trump publicly called for the players to be granted asylum and raised the issue with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The involvement of political leaders, analysts said, contributed to turning the case into a broader geopolitical dispute.

Shahram Akbarzadeh said the players’ initial actions, including declining to sing the national anthem at a match, became politicized and amplified beyond their original context.

“It quickly turned into a political dispute and political theater,” he said, adding that multiple actors sought to use the situation to advance competing narratives.

Iranian officials rejected claims that the players were pressured to return. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said those who reversed their asylum decisions had been “coerced” into applying and denied that Tehran influenced their return.

Australian officials denied exerting pressure on the players, with Assistant Immigration Minister Matt Thistlethwaite describing the situation as “very complex” and emphasizing that the decisions were personal.

Some former athletes and advocates expressed concern that external pressure may have affected the players’ choices. Shiva Amini said she feared potential repercussions for those who returned, citing risks to family members, although she declined to provide details.

The majority of the team regrouped and traveled through Kuala Lumpur and Oman before returning to Iran via Turkiye, where state media reported they were welcomed upon arrival. Midfielder Fatemeh Shaban said the players were “happy to be in Iran,” describing it as their homeland.The reasons behind the decision by five players to abandon their asylum bids have not been publicly disclosed.

The episode has prompted wider debate over how asylum claims intersect with diplomacy, media exposure and the welfare of individuals involved in politically sensitive cases.