Khalil said: “These are the due legal procedures that the administration is offering me, and they are corrupt and unprecedented.” to publish on social media on Friday in response to the Times’ reporting.
Khalil, a student leader of the Columbia University protests against the Gaza genocide, was an early target of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech when he was kidnapped by Homeland Security agents as he returned home to New York in March 2025. Despite being a permanent resident and married to a US citizen, Khalil was detained in Louisiana for more than three months, where he missed the birth of his son.
“In all my decades as an immigration attorney, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision.”
Despite the BIA ruling, Khalil cannot be deported while his habeas corpus case continues before the federal courts. However, the Times’ reporting raises questions about how fairly he has been treated by the Trump administration and how quickly he could face impeachment if the federal case fails.
“This story proves that the Trump administration’s handling of my case has always been corrupt and vindictive. They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance,” Khalil wrote.
According to the Times:
This issue was considered a high priority even before the Board officially took over. A memo from an internal case tracking file dating back to June said that although Mr. Khalil had been released several days earlier, the case was to be handled as if he were still in custody, which would speed things up.
Another note from October said: “Please process as soon as possible.” Another document shows that the president of the court – its highest-ranking member – supervised the case from an early stage.
The decision was made nine days after all the paperwork was filed, a timeline that Homero Lopez, a Biden appointee to the BIA, called “unprecedented,” as the board often takes years to make a decision in similar cases.
“It’s a crazy turnaround, especially for such a high-profile case on a new legal issue,” Lopez, who was fired under President Donald Trump, told the Times.
At the same time, people familiar with the situation told The Times that at least three justices recused themselves from the case, one before it was decided and the others once it became clear it would be made public, meaning it would be considered a precedent.
Former board judge Andrea Saenz, who was also fired by Trump, told the Times that judges often recuse themselves because they were involved in some way in the case before it appealed.
“How many people took up this case when the immigration judge was handling it the first time?” Saenz asked.
David McConnell, a former Justice Department official with experience in the immigration appeals process, said the speedy processing and denials were “highly unusual.” But he added that this does not necessarily mean that the board did anything wrong.
However, the BIA’s decision was strongly criticized by Khalil’s legal team in April, which upheld Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s decision that Khalil could be deported because his activity poses a threat to US foreign policy, which a federal judge in New Jersey said was “likely” unconstitutional and could not be a basis for his detention or deportation. It also justified the removal on the grounds that Khalil had omitted certain details on the green card paperwork, but the government only added these accusations after Rubio’s foreign policy maneuver was challenged.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never witnessed such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The ICA’s decision has absolutely no support, violates a federal court order, and we will fight it to the end,” said Mark van der Hout, Khalil’s lead attorney. He said In a statement when the decision was first issued. “Federal courts have already approved targeting Mohamud for his rhetoric, and there is likely more evidence of unlawful government retaliation yet to emerge. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mohamud for exercising his First Amendment rights.”
In response to the new reports on Friday, Van der Hout told The Times that the handling of the case suggested it had been “controlled from day one by senior officials in the administration.”
Source link
