Legal representatives for Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent Palestinian rights activist and former Columbia University student, announced Friday they have submitted an emergency motion to the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) requesting the full reopening and immediate termination of his deportation case, building on newly uncovered evidence of widespread procedural irregularities that they argue denied their client due process under U.S. law.
The motion was formally lodged with the BIA on Thursday, coming roughly one month after the agency issued a final removal order that brought Khalil one step closer to forced expulsion from the United States, where he resides with his U.S. citizen wife and child.
A core pillar of the legal team’s argument centers on a longstanding structural flaw in the U.S. immigration adjudication system: unlike independent federal judiciary bodies, the BIA and all U.S. immigration courts fall under the oversight of the Department of Justice (DOJ), an agency within the executive branch of government — putting them under the direct control of the sitting presidential administration, in this case the second Trump administration. While immigration courts are nominally required to rule in line with federal law rather than policy priorities, recent reporting has exposed how this structural arrangement can enable political interference in individual cases.
Last week, The New York Times published an investigation revealing that the BIA’s final removal order against Khalil was marked by multiple extraordinary irregularities that diverge sharply from standard immigration case practice. Internal government documents reviewed by the outlet showed Khalil’s case file was flagged for high-priority processing despite the fact that post-detention immigration appeals routinely take years to resolve. By contrast, the BIA issued its ruling in just nine days. Additionally, three separate BIA judges recused themselves from reviewing the case, a highly unusual move that the outlet noted may stem from prior conflicts related to earlier involvement in Khalil’s proceedings.
The new motion filed by Khalil’s legal team includes sworn testimony from a former U.S. immigration judge who corroborates the assessment that the procedural shortcuts and multiple recusals are inconsistent with standard adjudication.
Khalil was first taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during an arrest outside his New York City home in March 2025. Three months after his arrest, he was released from detention, but his legal battle has remained ongoing. At the time of his arrest, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked Khalil’s permanent resident green card, claiming the activist posed a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. The Trump administration later added a second claim, alleging Khalil falsified his employment history on his green card application — an accusation Khalil has repeatedly and vehemently denied.
Khalil’s legal team has long maintained that the push to deport him is outright retaliation for his protected pro-Palestinian speech, a charge the administration has not directly addressed. In a public statement released Friday, Johnny Sinodis, an attorney with Van Der Hout LLP representing Khalil, said the recent revelations of DOJ misconduct confirm what the legal team has argued since Khalil’s arrest: the administration manipulated the entire process to reach a preordained political outcome, weaponizing a broken immigration system riddled with unfair procedural abnormalities.
Sinodis called on the BIA to throw out the entire government case against Khalil, and demanded increased transparency around the handling of the case. “Transparency also dictates that the government produce any records regarding the handling and adjudication of Mahmoud’s case,” he said. “The apparent interference with the Immigration Judge’s decision making is not only unconstitutional but also violates the government’s own rules and procedures.”
For the time being, Khalil remains protected from arrest and deportation: he has a separate active federal lawsuit alleging constitutional rights violations related to his arrest and removal proceedings, and a court order bars ICE from deporting him until that separate civil case reaches a conclusion.









