Mahmoud Khalil appeals deportation order, citing "clear factual and legal errors"

MKMahmoud Khalil is a lawful permanent resident and Palestinian activist who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University in 2024. He was detained by ICE in February 2025 and placed in immigration proceedings. His case was the first high-profile Trump administration effort to deport a lawful permanent resident based on political speech.

The government's legal theory relied on a rarely-used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act — Section 237(a)(4)(C) — which allows deportation of a non-citizen whose presence is deemed 'adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests.' The provision has almost never been used against lawful permanent residents and has not been tested against First Amendment protections in the Supreme Court.

An immigration judge issued a deportation order against Khalil. On March 4, 2026, Khalil's attorneys filed an appeal to the BOBoard of Immigration Appeals, arguing the judge made 'clear factual and legal errors on numerous accounts.' The BIA is an administrative appeals body within the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review — it is not an independent court.

The BIA appeal is the last administrative review before federal courts. If the BIA affirms the deportation order, Khalil's attorneys can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court. The federal courts — not the BIA — are where constitutional questions about First Amendment protections and the scope of the 'foreign policy' deportation provision will ultimately be resolved.

The First Amendment protects free speech for all persons in the United States, not just citizens. Courts have generally held that non-citizens retain First Amendment protections. The central legal question in Khalil's case is whether the government can invoke the 'foreign policy' deportation provision to remove someone whose speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The Khalil case is related to but distinct from the Mahdawi case. Both involve Columbia-affiliated Palestinian activists facing deportation. Mahdawi's case involved an immigration judge blocking deportation based on the government's failure to produce evidence. Khalil's case is now at the BIA level.

The McCarthy-era Internal Security Act of 1950 allowed deportation of non-citizens based on political associations. That law was largely gutted by court decisions in the 1960s-70s. The Trump administration's use of the 'foreign policy' deportation provision is analogous — using immigration enforcement as a tool to target political dissidents in a way courts have historically constrained.

Secretary of State MRMarco Rubio signed the certification that Khalil's presence was adverse to U.S. foreign policy — the specific administrative act that triggers the deportation provision. Rubio's certification is itself reviewable by courts, and Khalil's attorneys are expected to challenge both the legal standard and the factual basis for the certification.

The Khalil case attracted enormous attention in academic communities because Khalil was a graduate student at a major university. Faculty senates at multiple universities passed resolutions opposing the government's use of immigration enforcement against campus political speech. The ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and multiple civil liberties organizations have filed amicus briefs.

The broader policy implication: if the 'foreign policy' provision can be used to deport lawful permanent residents for political speech the government dislikes, any non-citizen who speaks out on U.S. foreign policy is potentially vulnerable. The chilling effect extends far beyond Khalil to the broader population of non-citizen students, activists, journalists, and academics.