Immigration judge orders Mahmoud Khalil's deportation for alleged misrepresentation
- A federal immigration judge has ordered that Mahmoud Khalil be deported to either Algeria or Syria after determining that he concealed significant information on his green card application.
- This decision has sparked controversy, with Khalil's legal team and civil rights advocates arguing that the ruling represents a politically motivated attack on his activism.
- Khalil plans to appeal the ruling, asserting that his case raises serious questions about due process and the rights of immigrants engaged in political speech.
In September 2025, a federal immigration judge ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident connected to pro-Palestinian activism, would be deported to either Algeria, his country of citizenship, or Syria, where he was born. The ruling originated from claims that Khalil did not fully disclose his past involvement with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and his association with a campus group advocating for the divestment from Israel, which the judge considered significant misrepresentations on his green card application. Khalil's attorneys characterized the deportation order as politically motivated retaliation for his outspoken views on Palestinian rights. Khalil had previously been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for over 100 days, arrested in March 2025 under contentious circumstances relating to his activism. Following a court ruling in June 2025, he was released from detention when a judge determined he posed no flight risk or danger to the public, despite the government's assertions that his presence threatened U.S. foreign policy due to his affiliations. His legal team is mounting an appeal against the latest deportation ruling, asserting that due process was not followed during the proceedings that took place in Louisiana. Khalil's situation has drawn considerable attention from civil rights organizations and advocates, who argue that such actions by the Trump administration exemplify a broader campaign to silence dissenting voices, particularly among foreign students with pro-Palestinian sentiments. They highlight that this case represents a significant intersection of immigration, civil rights, and political expression issues in the United States. Khalil himself has asserted that the charges against him are fabricated attempts to undermine his activism in support of Palestinian freedoms, emphasizing that such tactics will not deter him from continuing his advocacy efforts. Following the ruling, Khalil's legal representatives contacted the U.S. District Court to contest the immigration judge's decisions as they prepared to file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. They argue that the charges are baseless and that Khalil was not granted a fair hearing concerning the evidence. The court also noted that Khalil's status as a legal permanent resident and the implications of deportation for his family, which includes U.S. citizen children, add layers of complexity to the case. As the legal battle unfolds, Khalil's situation remains a focal point for discussions about immigration policy and the treatment of activists critical of U.S. foreign policy.