Deported Brown Medicine Nephrologist Appeals U.S. Entry Ban

(BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES) — Dr. Rasha Alawieh appealed on Tuesday a federal judge’s decision dismissing her lawsuit challenging a mandatory five-year bar on her return to the United States after she was deported in March 2025.

Case status and next steps

Muslim Advocates, leading Alawieh’s legal team, is taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin dismissed her amended habeas petition on October 31, 2025.

Sorokin ruled that because Alawieh was already outside the U.S., the court lacked habeas jurisdiction because she was no longer in “custody.” He also cited Supreme Court precedent DHS v. Thuraissigiam, which limits judicial review of expedited removal orders.

The appeal challenges both the legal basis for her removal and the scope of the process used at the border. Her lawyers argue that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers lacked constitutional authority under the Appointments Clause and that she was denied due process as a resident with “substantial connections” to the U.S.

Background and factual summary

• Age and status: Alawieh is a 34-year-old Lebanese citizen and a transplant nephrologist at Brown Medicine.
• Visa status: She held a valid H-1B visa when she was stopped at Boston’s Logan International Airport, barred from re-entry, and removed to Lebanon.
• Detention and removal dates: CBP detained Alawieh on March 13, 2025, and deported her on March 14, 2025.
• Removal process: Her case proceeded under expedited removal, a fast-track process that bypasses traditional immigration court hearings.

Legal statutes and consequences

• The expedited removal was carried out under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
• The resulting re-entry bar is mandatory under Section 212(a)(9)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which imposes a five-year ban after expedited removal.

Government’s public statements

Federal officials have defended the deportation as a national security matter.

“A visa is a privilege not a right—glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be denied. This is commonsense security,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement dated March 17, 2025.

Tricia McLaughlin, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said in a March 17, 2025 statement:

“Last month, Rasha Alawieh traveled to Beirut, Lebanon, to attend the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah—a brutal terrorist who led Hezbollah, responsible for killing hundreds of Americans over a four-decade terror spree. Alawieh openly admitted to this to CBP officers, as well as her support of Nasrallah.”

Hilton Beckham, CBP Assistant Commissioner of Public Affairs, added on March 17, 2025:

“[Those] who promote extremist ideologies or carry terrorist-linked materials will be denied entry. CBP officers are on the front lines to ensure the safety of the American people.”

The government’s public defense was posted on the DHS official X account: DHS Statement on Alawieh Case. CBP’s broader guidance on inadmissibility is available at General Guidance on Inadmissibility.

Evidence cited by CBP and disputed context

During her detention, CBP officers searched Alawieh’s phone and found “sympathetic photos and videos” of Hezbollah figures in her deleted items folder, according to the case summary.

Alawieh said she viewed Hassan Nasrallah as a spiritual and religious figure for the Shia community rather than a political leader. The search of her phone and the material found became central to the government’s justification for denying entry and is tied to broader debates over the border search exception—the legal principle allowing warrantless searches of electronic devices at the border.

Court action during removal

Judge Sorokin issued an emergency order on March 14, 2025 barring her removal from Massachusetts without 48 hours’ notice. CBP officials claimed they did not receive the order until after her plane had already departed for Paris (a layover en route to Beirut), according to the summary.

Impact on healthcare in Rhode Island

Alawieh practiced in a narrow specialty in a small state:

• She was one of only three transplant nephrologists in Rhode Island.
• Her deportation created a critical gap in the state’s medical system.
• Her absence forced the delay of life-saving care for hundreds of patients awaiting kidney transplants (no specific hospitals, patient names, or figures beyond “hundreds” were provided in the case summary).

Institutional responses

• Brown University and Brown Medicine issued travel advisories to international staff and students after Alawieh’s case, citing “potential changes in travel restrictions” and heightened scrutiny.
• The advisories were described as a reaction to the case’s message for international travelers who may face additional questioning at ports of entry.

Legal significance and questions on appeal

The appeal raises several contested legal issues:

1. Whether federal courts retain habeas jurisdiction to consider expedited removal challenges once the individual is outside the U.S.
2. Whether CBP officers possess constitutionally valid appointment and removal authority under the Appointments Clause when executing expedited removal.
3. Whether a visa holder with significant U.S. ties is entitled to additional procedural protections at the border.
4. The scope and constitutionality of warrantless electronic device searches under the border search exception.

Timeline (concise)

Documentation and sources

• Court decision: Alawieh v. Tweedie (Oct 31, 2025)
• Muslim Advocates overview: Amended Habeas Petition Summary

Stakes and broader implications

Even with a valid H-1B visa, admission to the U.S. is decided at inspection, and expedited removal can be used where officials assert inadmissibility or national security concerns. The government frames its actions as security-based; Alawieh’s legal team contends the process used was unlawful and violated constitutional protections.

For Brown Medicine and the patients affected, the appeal may determine whether Alawieh can return before the five-year bar expires. The dispute remains centered on the inspection-line encounter at the airport, where the stop, search, and deportation occurred.