The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Mahmoud Khalil's bid to dismiss his deportation case and issued a final order of removal on Thursday, exhausting the 31-year-old Columbia University protest leader's options inside the immigration court system. His lawyers confirmed the ruling, which brings the Syrian-born legal permanent resident one step closer to re-arrest and possible expulsion from the United States, the New York Post reported.
Khalil called the board's decision "biased and politically motivated." He was the first publicly known arrest in the federal government's crackdown on noncitizens who participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests, and his case has become a flashpoint in the broader fight over how far immigration enforcement can reach into political activism on American soil.
The ruling does not, by itself, put Khalil on a plane. A separate federal court case in New Jersey still temporarily blocks the government from detaining or deporting him while that challenge plays out. But the board's order strips away one layer of legal protection and hands the administration a procedural win it has pursued for more than a year.
Khalil, who holds Algerian citizenship through a distant relative, was arrested last March after helping lead high-profile pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University. The government alleged his protest efforts were "aligned to Hamas," though AP News reported the government has not presented evidence of a direct connection to the designated terrorist organization.
He spent 104 days in an immigration jail before a federal judge in New Jersey ordered his release. That judge found grounds to intervene, but a U.S. appeals panel later ruled, in a 2-1 decision, that the judge had overstepped his authority. The panel held that the law requires Khalil's case to move fully through the immigration courts before he can challenge the decision in federal court.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the principle that immigration judges deserve deference in removal proceedings. In a recent unanimous decision, the high court backed immigration judges and rebuked activist appeals courts that attempted to second-guess their rulings, a legal backdrop that makes Khalil's path through federal courts steeper.
Khalil's lawyers are now requesting that the full appeals panel reconsider the 2-1 decision. Earlier this month, they also asked one of the appellate panel's judges to step aside, citing his previous role as a top Justice Department official involved in investigating student protesters. The outcome of that recusal request has not been disclosed.
In a statement provided through the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil framed the entire proceeding as retaliation for speech, the Washington Examiner reported:
"The only thing I am guilty of is speaking out against the genocide in Palestine, and this administration has weaponized the immigration system to punish me for it."
That framing deserves scrutiny. Khalil is not a U.S. citizen. He is a legal permanent resident, a status that carries significant privileges but also conditions. Among those conditions: the government retains the authority to initiate removal proceedings when it determines a green-card holder's conduct meets the statutory threshold. Khalil's lawyers have not disputed the government's standing to bring the case; they have disputed its motives.
The immigration court system falls under the U.S. Department of Justice, not the independent judiciary. The board's rulings are not public, so the specific legal reasoning behind Thursday's order remains unknown. An inquiry to the Department of Justice was not immediately returned.
Khalil has also said he could be targeted, and even killed, if deported, a claim that adds a humanitarian dimension to his legal fight but does not change the procedural reality. The board weighed his appeal and denied it. His options within the immigration system are now spent.
Khalil's arrest last March marked the beginning of what became a visible federal effort to use immigration tools against noncitizens involved in campus activism critical of Israel and its military operations in Gaza. Breitbart noted that Khalil's case remains the most prominent example of that effort, with his legal fight stretching across both the immigration court system and the federal judiciary.
The government's claim that Khalil's activism was "aligned to Hamas" carries weight in a legal system that grants the executive branch wide latitude on national security determinations, but the absence of publicly presented evidence linking Khalil to the terrorist group leaves a gap that his supporters have exploited in the court of public opinion.
That gap matters less inside the immigration system than it might in a criminal courtroom. Immigration proceedings operate under different evidentiary standards, and the government has broad discretion in removal cases. The Supreme Court has rebuked appeals courts for substituting their judgment for that of immigration judges, a pattern that cuts against Khalil's hopes of finding relief in federal court.
The final removal order does not immediately change Khalil's day-to-day circumstances. He remains free while his separate federal habeas case proceeds. His lawyers argue he cannot lawfully be detained or deported while that challenge continues, a position the government has contested at every turn.
Khalil became a father during the course of his legal battle, welcoming his first child. He is 31 years old, was born in Syria, and built his life in the United States as a graduate student at Columbia. None of those personal facts alter the legal question at the center of his case: whether the government acted within its authority when it moved to deport him.
The administration has shown no sign of backing down. In other high-profile cases, officials have revoked green cards and placed individuals in ICE custody when national security concerns were invoked, a pattern that suggests Khalil's case fits within a broader enforcement posture rather than standing as an isolated action.
If the full appeals panel declines to reconsider the earlier 2-1 ruling, Khalil's federal court protections could erode further. And with the immigration board's final order now on the books, the procedural clock is ticking. The question is no longer whether the government wants to deport Mahmoud Khalil. It is whether any court will stop it.
The broader legal landscape continues to tilt toward enforcement. Courts at every level, including unanimous Supreme Court rulings, have reinforced the principle that immigration judges and the executive branch, not activist courts, hold the reins in removal cases.
Legal permanent residency is a privilege extended by the American people through their laws. It is not a blank check to act against the nation's interests and then claim the First Amendment as a shield against consequences that apply to every other noncitizen in the country.
