Mahmoud Khalil: What happens after the US court's decision to deport him?

A Louisiana court on Friday gave the US government the green light to deport permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil for his political views.

An Algerian citizen and son of Palestinian refugees, Khalil's arrest has made him a symbol of the Trump administration's draconian crackdown on criticism of Israel in American universities. 

A graduate student of international affairs at Columbia University, Khalil took a lead role in the pro-Palestine demonstrations that swept the university last year.

He acted as a spokesperson for the protesters and negotiated with the university administration after students occupied areas of the campus.

Officials in the Trump administration accused him of being “pro-Hamas”, and in a widely condemned move, federal immigration agents arrested him on 8 March and transferred him to a detention facility in Louisiana.

Detained without charge

The Trump administration hasn’t formally accused him of breaking any laws and hasn’t submitted any evidence of criminal behaviour.

Rather, the memo provided to the court by Secretary of State Marco Rubio argues that his political positions constituted a threat to the US government’s foreign policy.

Citing an obscure provision in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Rubio said he has the power to remove Khalil from the country because of “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”.

The government says the legislation allows it to deport non-US citizens who participate in pro-Palestine protests or express opinions it considers to be “antisemitic”.

Khalil’s legal team says the move is unconstitutional. The government, it says, is trying to remove a permanent resident from the country for behaviour protected by free speech provisions in the US constitution.

'A charade of due process'

In her ruling on Friday, immigration judge Jamee Comans sided with the Trump administration and agreed that it had “established by clear and convincing evidence that [Khalil] is removable” under the 1952 law.

Comans said she did not have legal authority to rule on the defence’s free speech argument.

“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 weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent,” his attorney, Marc Van Der Hout, said following the ruling.

What happens now?

Khalil’s defence team has vowed to appeal the decision at the Board of Immigration Appeal.

The judge has given Khalil’s attorneys until 23 April to seek a waiver.

His lawyers are also appealing to the court to release him on bail so he can spend time with his wife, who is expecting to give birth to their first child this month.

His attorneys have filed a separate case at a federal court in New Jersey arguing his detention violates his free speech rights under the US constitution.

“Nothing is going to happen quickly in the immigration proceeding even though she’s found him removable on the foreign policy grounds,” said Van der Hout.