Columbia U Pro-Hamas Agitator Mahmoud Khalil Faces Deportation Battle Amid Allegations of Misrepresentation

By: Tzirel Rosenblatt

The long-running immigration case of pro-Hamas activist Mahmoud Khalil has entered a critical new stage after an immigration judge in Louisiana ordered his deportation to either Syria or Algeria, citing alleged omissions in his permanent residency application. Court filings released Wednesday, reviewed by NY1.com, reveal that the ruling was issued on Sept. 12 and denied Khalil’s request for a waiver of removability—potentially paving the way for a final order of removal.

According to a report that appeared on Thursday on NY1.com, the judge determined that Khalil failed to disclose his involvement with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) as well as with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a student group advocating for Palestinian rights. Immigration authorities alleged that these omissions amounted to material misrepresentations on his green card application.

Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia University, has long been a visible figure in anti-Israel activism, regularly participating in rallies and serving as a vocal critic of Israel’s policies in Gaza. Notably, he has not been accused of criminal activity. Nonetheless, the immigration court deemed his omissions significant enough to deny his waiver request.

His legal team immediately announced that they would challenge the ruling, calling it part of a broader campaign to silence Palestinian voices in the United States.

In a statement reported by NY1.com, Khalil described the ruling as politically motivated. “It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech,” he said.

He went further, casting the decision as part of what he called “fascist tactics” designed to punish dissent. “When their first effort to deport me was set to fail, they resorted to fabricating baseless and ridiculous allegations in a bid to silence me for speaking out and standing firmly with Palestine, demanding an end to the ongoing genocide,” Khalil declared.

The activist vowed to continue his advocacy regardless of the outcome: “Such fascist tactics will never deter me from continuing to advocate for my people’s liberation.”

Khalil’s attorneys have consistently argued that the case is built on shifting and arbitrary grounds. According to the information provided in the NY1.com report, they contend that the government added new allegations of “misrepresentation” only after earlier attempts to justify his removal faltered.

Johnny Sinodis, one of Khalil’s lawyers, issued a scathing statement: “We have witnessed a constant lack of humanity and allegiance to the law throughout proceedings in this farcical Louisiana immigration court. The immigration judge’s September 12 decision is just the most recent example of what occurs when the system requires an arbiter that is anything but neutral to do the administration’s bidding.”

His team further alleged that the court “rushed to a decision without providing a hearing on the evidence,” arguing that Khalil was denied basic due process protections.

Despite the immigration judge’s order, Khalil is not yet facing immediate deportation. Federal court orders blocking both his detention and removal remain in effect as his civil rights case proceeds in New Jersey.

As the NY1.com report recalled, a federal judge in Newark ruled in June that the government’s original justification for his detention—that his activism could harm U.S. foreign policy interests—was likely unconstitutional. That finding led to Khalil’s release after 104 days in detention at a Louisiana federal facility.

In the wake of that ruling, the government recalibrated its case, shifting its focus to the alleged omissions on Khalil’s green card application. His lawyers argue that this pivot demonstrates a political agenda rather than a neutral application of immigration law.

Khalil was first detained on March 8 in Manhattan as part of a broader Trump administration crackdown on campus protests tied to Israel’s war in Gaza. According to the report at NY1.com, his detention sent shockwaves through pro-Hamas, pro-terror activist networks, where he was viewed as a symbol of the risks faced by Palestinian advocates in the United States.

He was transported to Louisiana, where he spent more than three months in federal custody. During this time, his wife—an American citizen—gave birth to their son, whom Khalil met only after his release in June. His family life has since become a central part of his defense, with his attorneys emphasizing the harm his deportation would cause to his wife and child.

The case has raised broader questions about the intersection of immigration law, political speech, and national security. As the NY1.com report noted, Khalil’s situation illustrates how activist affiliations—particularly those tied to contentious issues such as Israel-Palestine—can become grounds for immigration enforcement.

Civil liberties advocates argue that punishing individuals for political expression sets a dangerous precedent. They contend that the use of immigration law to suppress activism is a form of political retaliation inconsistent with First Amendment protections.

The government, however, maintains that omissions on official applications constitute grounds for removal regardless of the applicant’s political activity. By focusing on misrepresentations, federal officials are framing the case as a matter of immigration compliance rather than political speech.

A particularly contentious point has been Khalil’s involvement with Columbia University Apartheid Divest. According to the information contained in the NY1.com report, the immigration court cited Khalil’s failure to list his role in the group as an example of misrepresentation.

Critics view this as a selective and punitive interpretation of disclosure requirements. “If participation in a student protest group is enough to warrant deportation, then the line between immigration law and political repression has been obliterated,” one campus activist told NY1.com.

The invocation of UNRWA, the UN agency that provides services to Palestinian refugees, adds another layer of controversy. While the agency has faced criticism in U.S. political circles, its work has also been recognized by numerous governments and NGOs as essential humanitarian relief. Khalil’s failure to disclose prior association with UNRWA was framed by the judge as material, but his defenders argue it was not relevant to his application.

Beyond the legal arguments, Khalil’s case has become a deeply personal struggle for his family and community. His wife has spoken publicly about the toll of his detention, particularly the emotional burden of raising a newborn while her husband was held in Louisiana.

Supporters, many of whom have rallied on his behalf in New York, argue that deportation would uproot a family and silence a voice central to Palestinian advocacy. As NY1.com has reported, Khalil’s release in June was greeted with relief by activists and family members alike, underscoring the human cost of protracted immigration battles.

The immediate next steps remain uncertain. Khalil’s legal team plans to appeal the immigration judge’s ruling, likely prolonging the case for months if not years. Federal courts in New Jersey will continue to oversee his civil rights lawsuit, which challenges the constitutionality of the government’s efforts to deport him.

For now, Khalil remains in the United States, free under court order but living with the looming threat of deportation to either Syria or Algeria—countries he insists would not be safe for him.

As the NY1.com report emphasized, the case encapsulates the tensions between immigration enforcement, constitutional freedoms, and political activism. Whether Khalil ultimately secures permanent protection in the United States or faces removal abroad, the proceedings are certain to resonate far beyond one man’s fate.

As reported extensively by NY1.com, Khalil insists he will not be silenced. “Such fascist tactics will never deter me from continuing to advocate for my people’s liberation,” he declared. Whether the courts will allow him to continue that advocacy from within the United States remains to be seen.