Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world
A US immigration judge has ruled Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil is eligible for deportation over his pro-Palestinian activism, in a case at the centre of freedom of speech on American college campuses.
An immigration court in Louisiana, where Khalil was transferred after his arrest in New York last month, on Friday ruled the Syrian-born green card holder may be removed from the US.
Judge Jamee Comans said the government had “established by clear and convincing evidence that he is removable”, according to media reports.
Although Friday’s ruling does not mean Khalil will be deported immediately, the order deals a blow to the student, who has the permanent right of US residence and was taken into custody by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement for his involvement in Columbia University’s pro-Palestine protests last year.
Columbia became a flashpoint in US protests against Israel’s offensive in Gaza. The Trump administration has used this as a pretext to cut grants and demand sweeping changes to the institution’s governance for what it says was a failure to address harassment of Jewish students on campus.
Khalil’s supporters argue the case violates constitutional protections of free speech and due process.
His lawyers are expected to appeal against the decision and may seek a waiver ahead of an April 23 deadline set by Comans.
“Today, we saw our worst fears play out: Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing, and a weaponisation of immigration law to suppress dissent,” said Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer representing Khalil in the Louisiana proceedings. “This is not over, and our fight continues.”
The ruling came less than 48 hours after the Trump administration presented a letter from secretary of state Marco Rubio as evidence against Khalil, saying the graduate student’s presence in the country would have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”, because his involvement in the pro-Palestine protests allegedly undermined efforts to combat anti-Semitism.
But his lawyers have rejected these claims and said the letter “made clear Mr Khalil had not committed a crime and was being targeted solely based on his speech”.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The ruling “sets a really dangerous precedent”, said Johnny Sinodis, a lawyer representing Khalil in immigration proceedings. “If this is allowed to stand, anyone could be next. This line of thinking and this type of policy from the government is steps away from going after US citizens.”
At the end of Friday’s hearing, Khalil quoted previous statements by Comans stressing the importance of due process and fundamental fairness of the court, and said: “clearly . . . neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process”.
“This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family,” he added.
There are parallel proceedings involving Khalil in a New Jersey federal court. His lawyers are seeking bail as well as a preliminary injunction to release him from custody and return him to his wife in New York while the immigration case goes ahead. They have also asked the court to find the government’s use of US immigration law to deport him unconstitutional.
