US judge okays deportation of Palestinian student despite legal residency

In a move that exemplifies the Trump administration’s increasing use of immigration policy as a tool of political suppression, a US immigration judge ruled on Friday that Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is eligible for deportation — despite his legal residency and absence of any criminal charges.

The decision, handed down by Judge Jamee Comans of the LaSalle Immigration Court in Louisiana, is not the final word on Khalil’s future in the US. However, it marks a disturbing advancement in President Donald Trump's agenda to remove foreign pro-Palestinian students from the country. These individuals, like Khalil, have been targeted despite their legal status and clean records.

Citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio — appointed by Trump — argued last month that Khalil’s activism and speech, though lawful, were grounds for deportation due to alleged risks to American foreign policy. The absurdity of this rationale underscores a worrying precedent: deporting individuals based on constitutionally protected expression.

Judge Comans stated she lacked the authority to challenge a secretary of state's decree. She dismissed a request by Khalil’s legal team to subpoena Rubio and scrutinise the so-called "reasonable grounds" behind his determination.

The hearing itself, conducted in a courtroom buried within a jail facility run by private contractors and encased in razor wire in rural Louisiana, was adversarial in tone. It lasted 90 minutes, during which the gravity of the proceedings — and the isolation of the venue — spoke volumes about the government's handling of the case.

Khalil, an Algerian citizen born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and a lawful US permanent resident since last year, has been an outspoken member of Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian student movement. He remains incarcerated more than 1,200 miles from his home, following his arrest on 8 March at his apartment near campus. His wife is a US citizen.

Judge Comans granted Khalil’s defence until 23 April to apply for immigration relief — one of the few remaining paths to halt his deportation, should he be able to demonstrate potential persecution or other qualifying risks upon removal.

Meanwhile, in a separate legal development, US district judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey has temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation, pending review of his constitutional claims under the First Amendment. His team asserts that his arrest was a blatant violation of his rights to free speech.

At the close of Friday's session, Khalil requested to address the court. After a brief pause, Judge Comans permitted it.

Recalling her earlier assertion that “due process rights and fundamental fairness” were paramount to the court, Khalil replied: "Clearly what we witnessed today, 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, a thousand miles away from my family."

The foundation of Comans’ ruling rested on a two-page, undated letter signed by Rubio. Despite its central role, Khalil’s attorneys were granted less than 48 hours to review this document and accompanying evidence. Appearing via video link, lead attorney Marc Van Der Hout repeatedly sought a delay. Comans instead chastised him, accusing him of deviating from the hearing’s focus and asserting he had "an agenda" — an accusation that starkly contrasts with her purported commitment to fairness.

According to Comans, the 1952 law grants the secretary of state "unilateral judgment" to issue such declarations. In Rubio’s letter, Khalil’s deportation was demanded on the basis of his participation in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the US.” Notably, the letter stopped short of alleging any criminal conduct by Khalil.

Instead, the letter relies on the nebulous notion that an immigrant’s lawful views and actions may still warrant deportation if perceived as contrary to US foreign policy — effectively using immigration authority to silence political opposition.

After the hearing adjourned, a visibly emotional group of Khalil’s supporters wept. Khalil acknowledged them with a heart-shaped gesture formed by his hands — a moment of defiant humanity in a courtroom that had denied him the benefit of the doubt.

Khalil has repeatedly stated that criticism of the US government’s unwavering support for Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is being mis-characterised as antisemitism. His legal team submitted interviews he gave to CNN and other outlets in which he condemns antisemitism and all forms of bigotry.

“This is a case of the Trump administration weaponising immigration law to punish political dissent,” said Van Der Hout following the hearing. “Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing.”

Unlike the independent federal judiciary, US immigration courts operate under the purview of the Department of Justice — an agency still tethered to political influence. This case, chilling in its implications, may well become a harbinger of a new era where immigration policy is twisted into a tool to crush inconvenient voices.

With agency inputs