Mahmoud Khalil case: Ordered to show evidence, government asserts Rubio's authority
Lawyers for Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil argued on Thursday that the government did not present evidence to prove that his presence in the U.S. poses an adverse foreign policy consequence, which the Trump administration has argued is the ground for his deportation from the U.S.
Khalil is scheduled to appear before an immigration judge in Louisiana on Friday, a hearing that comes after the judge gave the government a deadline earlier this week to present evidence to back up several allegations made against Khalil, including that he misrepresented information on his green card application.
Khalil was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at his Columbia housing last month. He is a green card holder and legal permanent resident married to an American citizen, who is nine months pregnant.
The government entered into evidence a two-page memo signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that he found that Khalil's presence in the U.S. "would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest."
The memo makes no mention of previous allegations that he misrepresented information on his green card application and instead doubles down on an obscure section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that deems migrants deportable "if the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien's presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States."
The two-page memo also makes the case for why another person, whose name is redacted, should be deportable under the same arguments.
In the memo, Rubio asserts he has the power to determine a person is deportable even if their actions are "otherwise lawful."
Rubio wrote that Khalil should be deported because of his alleged role in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States."
Marc Van Der Hout, one of Khalil's attorneys, sharply criticized the memo during a Zoom press conference on Thursday.
Rubio "talks about First Amendment activity in the United States and the effect on people in the U.S. His 'determination' has absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy."
Van Der Hout also described as "bogus" the earlier allegations about alleged misrepresentations on Khalil's visa application and regarding negotiations he was involved in with Columbia over the student encampment.
"But it is zero to do with the foreign policy charge, and there is zero support for the government's allegations about any misrepresentation," Van Der Hout said. "We're not concerned with that at all."
Khalil's attorneys said they don't believe the government has presented any evidence to suggest he should be removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The case could set the precedent that the government can silence its critics and remove them, in what can become "a dangerous slope," Van Der Hout said.
"What the Rubio letter talks about is they're trying to protect -- they say -- Jewish people in the United States, from antisemitism. But what is the antisemitism? It is criticizing Israel and the United States for the slaughtering that is going on in Gaza and Palestine," Van Der Hout said.
"That's what this case is about, and that's what this case is really centered on, the rights of people in this country, citizens and immigrants alike -- who are all protected by the Constitution, by the First Amendment -- to be able to speak out whatever their views may be, popular or not," Van Der Hout said.
Khalil's lawyers plan to request to depose Rubio in court to understand what grounds he had to make the determination that Khalil's presence in the US poses a risk to U.S. foreign policy interests.
The immigration judge has said she will make a finding on whether Khalil is removable on Friday, according to Khalil's attorneys.
"But we are far from the end of the road if that happens," Johnny Sinodis, a lawyer and partner at Van Der Hout who is representing Khalil, said Thursday. If the immigration judge determines that Khalil is, in fact, removable, the case will move into a next phase but Khalil can still litigate his right to remain in the U.S.
"This process plays out in immigration court, and it will most certainly require several more hearings before a final decision can be made in the immigration case," Sinodis said.
