Mahmoud Khalil’s lawyer calls immigration case a ‘sham’ after revelation it was fast-tracked by DoJ

A lawyer for Mahmoud Khalil, the first noncitizen activist arrested in the Trump administration crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech, called his client’s immigration proceedings “preordained and a complete sham” after it was revealed that the case was prioritized to be fast-tracked.

“These revelations make clear that this case has been controlled from day one by higher-ups in the administration,” said Marc Van Der Hout, an attorney on Khalil’s legal team, in a statement. “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.”

In April, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a “final” administrative removal order for Khalil in an abnormally quick decision after multiple judges reportedly recused themselves from the case. The BIA is a part of the US justice department but is required by law to consider cases independently. However, internal board documents obtained by The New York Times indicated that the case had been flagged as a high priority and expedited – leading to accusations from Khalil’s team that the Trump administration put its thumb on the scale to make an example of him.

Khalil’s removal order came within nine days of final briefing; such appeals decisions typically take years.

“This story proves that the Trump administration’s treatment of my case has always been corrupt and retaliatory,” Khalil said on X after the New York Times report. “They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance.”

On a separate legal track, in January, a split panel of the third circuit court of appeals overturned the district court ruling that freed Khalil from detention last year. That lower court decision found that Khalil’s detention and attempts to deport him, on grounds that his activism while a student at Columbia University posed a threat to US foreign policy interests, were likely unconstitutional.

The appeals court ruling did not weigh in on constitutional issues, but held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case. Khali’s attorneys asked the full appeals court to reconsider the decision, and are awaiting a ruling.