A federal immigration judge in Louisiana on Sept. 12 ordered Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident, deported to Syria or Algeria after ruling he hid information on his U.S. green-card application related to affiliations with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and an anti-Israel campus coalition. Judge Jamee Comans said the omissions were deliberate and central to the decision to remove him from the United States.
The ruling comes after court filings unsealed Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union showed Comans cited Khalil’s activism ties as central to the decision, including his internship with UNRWA and ties to Columbia University Apartheid Divest, an anti-Israel campus coalition. In the filings, the ACLU underscored how the government framed those affiliations as politically sensitive and potentially bearing on national security and foreign policy concerns.
Comans denied Khalil’s motion for relief, writing that the omissions were deliberate and constituted grounds for removal. Federal authorities argued the misrepresentations involved politically sensitive affiliations, raising both national security and foreign-policy concerns.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 8 at his Manhattan apartment. He spent more than three months in detention in Louisiana before being released in June, when U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the public. Farbiarz also temporarily blocked Khalil’s removal while reviewing his claim that the government’s actions amounted to retaliation for protected political speech.
Khalil’s lawyers said they plan to appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, framing the case as a broader civil rights battle. In a statement, Khalil contended that the action reflected retaliation for his free-speech activities. “It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech,” he said, adding that the latest action exposed a “kangaroo immigration court” in his view. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The government’s position and the evidence cited in the ruling have drawn attention to how misrepresentations on green-card applications are evaluated when tied to advocacy and political activity. The case highlights ongoing debates over immigration policy, national security considerations, and how foreign affiliations are weighed in residency and removal proceedings.
The filings and the public record surrounding Khalil’s activism have been a focal point of attention since his arrest earlier this year. Khalil’s public profile includes appearances at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, including events at Columbia University in New York, which the court filings cited as part of his activism network. The mix of immigration-law formalities and political advocacy has prompted discussions about civil rights and due-process protections within the U.S. immigration system.
As the process moves forward, Khalil’s legal team has signaled its intention to challenge the ruling before the Board of Immigration Appeals, arguing that the government’s actions amount to retaliation for political speech and a broader First Amendment concern. DHS officials have repeatedly asserted that misrepresentations on immigration applications undermine national security interests, but the appeals process will determine how those concerns intersect with civil rights protections in the context of green-card applications.
The case remains a notable example of how immigration courts handle claims that a defendant’s political affiliations and advocacy work may reflect broader national-security considerations, even when the individual is a lawful permanent resident. Khalil’s supporters emphasize the civil-rights dimensions of the dispute, arguing that the government’s actions appear to target political expression.
