Mahmoud Khalil's attorneys are escalating accusations that the Trump administration orchestrated his immigration case from the start, after internal Justice Department documents revealed his appeal was flagged for expedited handling and processed in a fraction of the time typical cases require.
The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final removal order for Khalil in April, completing its review within nine days of the last brief. Immigration appeals normally take years. The speed raised immediate red flags about whether the independent board truly acted independently, as federal law requires.
Marc Van Der Hout, part of Khalil's legal team, said the fast-track designation exposed manipulation at the highest levels. "These revelations make clear that this case has been controlled from day one by higher-ups in the administration," Van Der Hout said. "The immigration judge was hand-picked and the Board of Immigration Appeals decision was predetermined. We will continue to fight for Mahmoud in every court we can."
Khalil himself responded sharply to the New York Times report revealing the expedited handling. "This story proves that the Trump administration's treatment of my case has always been corrupt and retaliatory," he posted on X. "They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance."
The Palestinian activist's troubles stem from his student activism at Columbia University. Federal authorities arrested him in March 2025 on grounds that his pro-Palestinian advocacy posed a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him for 104 days in Louisiana, where his wife gave birth to their first child. A federal judge freed him in June after ruling the detention unconstitutional, finding no evidence he was a flight risk or community danger.
But the legal fight is far from over. A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that release decision in January, ruling that the district court lacked jurisdiction rather than weighing constitutional claims. Khalil's team has asked the full appellate court to reconsider, and a ruling is pending.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen, faces the possibility of expulsion regardless of how the appellate battle concludes. If the court rules against him, he could be deported even if his attorneys seek Supreme Court intervention.
The political dimension of his case has been unmistakable. Trump labeled Khalil a "Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student" and "terrorist sympathizer." Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed his presence would have "adverse foreign policy consequences." The administration has also disputed the legitimacy of his green card application and at one point indicated he would be deported to Algeria.
Khalil is not alone in facing what critics describe as retaliation for speech. A federal judge last year accused the government of "an unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people" in a separate lawsuit examining the administration's policy of deporting pro-Palestinian scholars.
Author James Rodriguez: "When an appeals board supposedly independent by law operates on a priority track set by the administration, and completes a case in nine days instead of years, the word 'sham' stops being hyperbole and starts describing procedure."
Comments