The case of Mahmoud Khalil has now moved into its decisive phase. On September 12, federal immigration judge Jamee Comans ordered the Syrian-born activist deported to either Algeria or Syria, citing deliberate misrepresentations on his U.S. green card application.
At the heart of the ruling were Khalil’s omissions. Judge Comans found that Khalil had intentionally concealed both his internship with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and his involvement with Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), an anti-Israel coalition active in campus protests. These weren’t minor details overlooked in paperwork—they were, in the court’s view, significant political affiliations with potential national security implications.
Comans’ order was blunt. Khalil’s omissions were “deliberate” and constituted grounds for removal. The government had argued from the outset that these affiliations were not only relevant but central to assessing Khalil’s eligibility for permanent residency. By withholding them, he undermined the integrity of the process itself.
Khalil, however, is not going quietly. His legal team immediately announced plans to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, framing the case as a test of free speech rights.
In a statement released Wednesday, Khalil painted himself as a victim of political persecution: “It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech. Their latest attempt, through a kangaroo immigration court, exposes their true colors once again.”
That claim dovetails with arguments raised earlier this year, when U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz temporarily blocked Khalil’s removal while weighing whether the government’s actions were retaliatory. Farbiarz also released Khalil from detention in June, after more than three months in ICE custody, ruling he was not a flight risk or a danger to the public.
But the broader record paints a more complicated picture. Khalil has been a high-profile activist, participating in anti-Israel demonstrations and defending controversial rhetoric, even appearing to justify Hamas’s October 7 attacks as a “desperate attempt” to force Palestinians back onto the world stage.
Combined with his failure to disclose affiliations that might have triggered additional scrutiny, it was enough for Judge Comans to conclude the omissions were calculated, not careless.
Now, the Trump administration has an opening to act quickly. While appeals could drag out the process, Khalil’s own attorneys have admitted their chances of success at the BIA or the 5th Circuit are slim. His best hope remains sympathetic rulings from federal judges willing to see his case as a First Amendment fight.
