Federal Judge Orders Deportation of Pro-Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil Over Green Card Allegations

A Louisiana immigration judge ordered the deportation of prominent pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil to Syria or Algeria on September 12, ruling that the former Columbia University graduate student deliberately withheld information on his green card application to circumvent immigration processes. The decision by Immigration Judge Jamee Comans represents a significant escalation in the Trump administration's campaign against foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestinian activism, despite ongoing federal court protections that currently block Khalil's removal.

Khalil's legal team announced plans to appeal the deportation order within the required 30-day window, while emphasizing that a separate federal district court ruling in New Jersey continues to prevent his actual removal during ongoing habeas corpus proceedings challenging his detention as unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. The Palestinian activist, who gained national prominence as a negotiator during Columbia's campus protests against Israel's military actions in Gaza, faces the prospect of losing his permanent resident status if appeals prove unsuccessful.

Judge Cites 'Willful Misrepresentation' in Immigration Application

Immigration Judge Jamee Comans concluded that Khalil "willfully misrepresented material fact(s) for the sole purpose of circumventing the immigration process and reducing the likelihood his application would be denied," according to court documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union. The judge specifically cited Khalil's failure to disclose his affiliations with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) and the Columbia University Apartheid Divestment movement. This campus group promotes economic boycotting of Israel.

In her September 12 ruling, Comans rejected Khalil's motion for a discretionary waiver that would have allowed him to correct alleged inaccuracies in his Form I-485 adjustment of status application. "This Court cannot and will not condone such an action by granting a discretionary waiver. To do so would encourage future applicants to take the gamble of materially misrepresenting facts and then seeking a waiver if the U.S. government somehow discovers it," the judge wrote.

"This Court finds that Respondent's lack of candor on his I-485 was not simply an oversight by an uninformed or uneducated applicant," Comans stated in her ruling, emphasizing what she characterized as deliberate concealment.

The judge noted that "the evidence indicates the Respondent was aware of the possible immigration ramifications stemming from his participation in protests organized by various campus groups, including CUAD". Despite considering factors including Khalil's marriage to a U.S. citizen and the birth of their American-born child in April while he was in federal custody, Comans determined these circumstances did not warrant a waiver.

Khalil Denounces Ruling as Political Retaliation

Khalil responded forcefully to the deportation order, characterizing it as continued government persecution for his protected political speech. "It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech. This latest attempt through a kangaroo immigration court exposes their true colors once again," Khalil stated in response to the ruling.

The activist's defiant response reflects his broader legal strategy of framing the case as unconstitutional retaliation rather than legitimate immigration enforcement. His attorneys have consistently argued that the government added the green card fraud allegations only after failing to justify his deportation on foreign policy grounds under a rarely used 1950s-era law.

The timing of the charges supports this characterization, according to legal experts. The Trump administration initially sought Khalil's deportation under Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the Secretary of State to deport individuals whose presence might have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences". Only after a federal judge questioned this justification did the government shift its focus to alleging green card fraud.

Federal Court Protection Remains in Effect

Despite the immigration court's deportation order, Khalil benefits from ongoing protection under a separate federal court ruling that prevents his removal while his constitutional challenge proceeds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey previously ordered Khalil's release from immigration detention in June, finding that his continued detention was unconstitutional and that he posed neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.

Farbiarz's ruling came after the judge sharply criticized the government's case, stating: "What all that evidence adds up to is a lack of violence, a lack of property destruction, a lack of anything that might be characterized as incitement to violence". The federal judge found "clear and convincing evidence" that the government was using immigration law punitively, writing: "There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner—and of course, that would be unconstitutional".

The dual-track legal proceedings create a complex situation in which the immigration court has ordered deportation, while the federal court has blocked removal, highlighting the jurisdictional conflicts inherent in immigration cases involving constitutional claims.

Appeals Process Faces Uncertain Prospects

Khalil's legal team must navigate a challenging appeals process within tight deadlines. They have 30 days from the September 12 ruling to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative body within the Department of Justice that reviews decisions made in immigration court. If that appeal fails, subsequent challenges to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals face significant obstacles given that court's conservative orientation.

"The only meaningful impediment to Petitioner's physical removal from the United States would be this Court's important order prohibiting removal during the pendency of his federal habeas case," Khalil's attorneys wrote in a letter to Judge Farbiarz, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining federal court protection.

The ACLU, which represents Khalil in the federal case, characterized the immigration judge's ruling as based on "baseless, pretextual 'misrepresentation' charges" that the administration added after his detention. ACLU attorney Noor Zafar emphasized the broader constitutional implications, stating: "This is not just about Mahmoud—it's about whether the government can weaponize immigration law to suppress undesirable speech".

Part of Broader Crackdown on Pro-Palestinian Activism

The deportation order represents the latest development in the Trump administration's systematic targeting of foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestinian activism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has personally signed off on hundreds of visa revocations, primarily affecting students, as part of what officials describe as a national security initiative.

Government documents revealed in federal court show that Immigration and Customs Enforcement created a specialized "tiger team" in March 2025 dedicated to expelling pro-Palestinian university students, systematically reviewing nearly 5,000 profiles compiled by the controversial Canary Mission website. The website, described by critics as a "doxxing platform," publishes personal information of students and faculty critical of Israel.

The targeting has extended beyond campus activists to include family members and individuals with tenuous connections to pro-Palestinian causes. Georgetown University graduate student Badar Khan Suri was arrested based on a Canary Mission profile of his wife, while having no criminal record himself. His detention was justified by his father-in-law's documented role as a former adviser to a Hamas leader.

Marco Rubio's Personal Role in Deportation Campaign

Documents and testimony reveal Secretary of State Marco Rubio's direct involvement in orchestrating the deportation campaign. Multiple sources within the Department of Homeland Security and State Department confirmed that Rubio personally signed off on Khalil's arrest using the narrow authority granted under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Rubio publicly celebrated the arrest on social media, writing: "We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported". The Secretary has defended his approach by arguing: "My criterion is: If we had known this information about them beforehand, would we have issued them a visa? If the answer is no, then we revoke the visa.”

The Secretary's March directive to U.S. diplomats worldwide mandated social media screening of student visa applicants suspected of criticizing the United States or Israel, particularly targeting those who held visas during the period following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. This 1,700-word cable instructed consular officers to refer suspected pro-Palestinian activists to "fraud prevention units" for thorough examination of their online activity.

Constitutional Challenges Mount Against Deportation Authority

Civil liberties organizations have filed multiple federal lawsuits challenging the constitutional basis for the Trump administration's deportation campaign. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed suit in August, arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act provisions being used by Rubio are unconstitutional when applied to protected speech.

The lawsuit challenges two specific provisions: one that allows the Secretary of State to initiate deportation proceedings against any noncitizen if the Secretary "personally determines" their speech "compromises a compelling foreign policy interest," and another that enables visa revocation "at any time" for any reason. FIRE argues these provisions violate First Amendment protections when used to target lawfully present noncitizens for political expression.

The Trump administration has defended its approach by claiming that noncitizen status justifies different treatment regarding free speech protections. However, legal experts note that Supreme Court precedent establishes that noncitizens within U.S. borders generally enjoy the same First Amendment rights as citizens. The constitutional question centers on whether immigration law can be used to circumvent these protections based on the speaker's citizenship status.

Impact on Academic Freedom and Campus Activism

The systematic targeting of pro-Palestinian activists has created what campus free speech advocates describe as a chilling effect on university discourse. Students and faculty report self-censoring to avoid being placed on watchlists, such as Canary Mission, which government agencies are reportedly using.

The case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University, illustrates the breadth of the targeting. Rubio revoked her visa after she co-authored a single opinion piece in the student newspaper criticizing the administration's handling of Palestinian issues. Her Canary Mission profile was created shortly after this sole known act of pro-Palestinian expression, demonstrating the website's rapid response to campus activism.

The employment consequences extend beyond immigration status, as Canary Mission profiles are optimized for search engines to appear prominently in background checks. Professor W.J.T. Mitchell, who has a profile on Canary Mission, noted that prospective employers see these profiles appear at the top of Google search results, creating a system of economic punishment for political expression.

Personal Impact on Khalil's Family

The prolonged legal battle has taken a severe personal toll on Khalil's family. His wife, Noor Abdalla, a Michigan-born dentist and U.S. citizen, gave birth to their first child in April while Khalil remained in immigration detention. The newborn son, also a U.S. citizen, was unable to meet his father for the first three months of his life due to the detention.

Following Khalil's release from detention in June, the family has lived under the constant threat of separation as deportation proceedings continue. The immigration court's ruling adds new urgency to their situation, as successful deportation would separate the American-born child from his father and force Abdalla to choose between her career and her family.

The emotional impact extends beyond immediate family members to the broader Palestinian-American community, which views Khalil's case as representative of the challenges facing their community during the current political climate. His visibility during campus protests and his willingness to serve as a spokesperson made him a recognizable figure whose treatment is seen as indicative of the government's broader approach to Palestinian rights advocacy.

Legal Precedent and Future Implications

The outcome of Khalil's case will establish essential precedents for how immigration law intersects with constitutional protections for political speech. If the deportation order is ultimately upheld, it could embolden similar targeting of other legal permanent residents based on their political activism.

The case also tests the limits of the Secretary of State's authority to make deportation decisions based on foreign policy considerations. Legal experts note that allowing cabinet officials to deport legal residents based on personal determinations about speech content would represent a significant expansion of executive power over immigration.

Civil rights organizations are closely monitoring the case as a bellwether for broader attacks on immigrant rights and free speech protections. The systematic nature of the targeting, combined with the use of anonymous blacklists and foreign intelligence sources, raises concerns about the emergence of a surveillance state targeting political dissidents.