Listen to the article
An immigration appeals board has issued a final order of removal for Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent anti-Israel protester and Columbia University graduate, advancing the Trump administration’s deportation efforts against him, according to his legal team.
The Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled Thursday to deny Khalil’s bid to dismiss the case, marking a significant development in the administration’s push to deport the 31-year-old lawful permanent resident from the United States.
Khalil has been at the center of a broader federal crackdown on non-citizens involved in campus protests related to the war in Gaza. He was the first person whose arrest became publicly known as part of this enforcement initiative.
His legal team condemned the decision as “baseless and politically motivated,” arguing the government is retaliating against protected speech and lacks evidence to support its case.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision,” said Marc Van Der Hout, Khalil’s lead attorney, in a statement issued through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “The BIA’s decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end.”
The Trump administration has claimed Khalil’s protest activities were “aligned with Hamas,” though authorities have not publicly detailed specific evidence linking him to the terrorist organization. Officials have cited a rare foreign policy provision of U.S. immigration law, sometimes referred to as a “Rubio determination,” as well as alleged issues with his green card application.
Despite the ruling, Khalil’s attorneys maintain he cannot be deported while his separate federal habeas case continues in court. A federal judge in New Jersey previously found the government’s justification for detaining Khalil was likely unconstitutional and ordered his release.
Following his initial arrest in 2025 at his university-owned apartment in New York City, Khalil spent 104 days in immigration detention. During this period, he missed the birth of his first child before the federal judge ordered his release.
Khalil later experienced a setback when a U.S. appeals panel ruled 2-1 that the New Jersey judge had overstepped his authority. The panel determined the case must proceed through the immigration court system before it can be challenged in federal court. His lawyers are now requesting the full appeals panel reconsider that decision and have asked one judge to step aside due to his prior role investigating student protesters while at the Justice Department.
Born in Syria and the grandson of Palestinians displaced from their homeland, Khalil has firmly denied any wrongdoing. “I am not surprised by this decision from the biased and politically motivated Board of Immigration Appeals,” Khalil said in an ACLU statement. “I have committed no crime. I have broken no law. The only thing I am guilty of is speaking out against the genocide in Palestine — and this administration has weaponized the immigration system to punish me for it.”
Khalil played a significant role in the 2024 anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, serving as an organizer who met with school officials on behalf of Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of student groups advocating for the university to divest from Israel. He completed requirements for a Columbia master’s degree in late 2024.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt previously defended the administration’s actions against Khalil, claiming he had distributed pro-Hamas propaganda on campus. “This administration is not going to tolerate individuals having the privilege of studying in our country and then siding with pro-terrorist organizations that have killed Americans,” Leavitt stated during a White House press briefing.
The case has drawn significant attention as part of broader tensions surrounding campus protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, raising questions about immigration enforcement, free speech, and civil liberties. Immigration advocates have expressed concern about the potential chilling effect on political expression by non-citizens, while administration officials maintain their actions are justified on national security grounds.
Khalil’s wife, a U.S. citizen, gave birth to their child while he was in detention. “My family is here. My life is here,” Khalil stated. “I reject any attempt to intimidate me out of my home based on lies and ideological attacks.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
18 Comments
As an immigration lawyer, I’m troubled by the claims of a ‘baseless and politically motivated’ decision. That’s a very strong accusation that warrants close examination of the evidence and legal reasoning.
I agree, the ACLU’s criticism raises serious red flags. The due process rights of the individual must be rigorously protected, regardless of the political context.
This seems like a highly charged and politically fraught case. While the details are limited, the allegations of the government overstepping its bounds are concerning. I hope the legal process can sort out the facts objectively.
You’re right, the political sensitivities here make it crucial that the law is applied impartially, without regard for ideological or partisan considerations.
The details provided raise some red flags about potential political motivations behind this deportation effort. I hope the legal system carefully weighs all the evidence before making a final determination.
Yes, the allegations of retaliation against protected speech are concerning. A thorough and impartial review of this case is crucial.
This case seems to highlight the ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement, free speech, and civil liberties. It will be crucial for the legal system to carefully weigh all the evidence and arguments before reaching a final decision.
Absolutely, the integrity of the legal process and the impartial application of the law are paramount here. Politicization of these proceedings would be highly concerning.
As an immigration lawyer, I’m surprised to hear the decision described as ‘baseless and politically motivated.’ That’s a very serious accusation. I’ll be interested to see how this case proceeds through the appeals process.
Agreed, the ACLU’s strong criticism of the ruling suggests there may be valid grounds for appeal. The legal merits will need to be carefully examined.
This case seems to highlight ongoing tensions around immigration enforcement, free speech, and the balance of security versus civil liberties. It will be important to see if the evidence truly supports the government’s grounds for deportation.
You’re right, these competing priorities and interests make this a complex and sensitive issue. Upholding the rule of law while protecting fundamental rights is crucial.
This seems like a highly complex and politicized immigration case. I’m curious to learn more about the legal arguments and evidence on both sides. It’s important these deportation proceedings are fair and based on the rule of law, not political retaliation.
Agreed, this case appears to raise important free speech and due process concerns that warrant close scrutiny. The government’s rationale needs to be closely examined.
While the details are limited, this case appears to raise legitimate concerns about potential overreach by the government. I hope the legal process carefully weighs all the evidence and arguments before reaching a final decision.
Agreed, the allegations of political retaliation are worrying and warrant close scrutiny. Due process and impartiality must be ensured in these proceedings.
As someone interested in immigration and civil liberties, I’ll be following this case closely. The claims of baseless, politically-motivated action by the government are quite serious and demand a thorough investigation.
Absolutely, the credibility of the legal system and protection of fundamental rights are at stake here. I hope the appeals process provides a fair and independent review.