A Louisiana Immigration Judge has ordered Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and Palestinian activist, removed to Algeria or Syria, but a federal court order currently shields him from deportation while his appeal and habeas case move forward.
On September 12, 2025, Immigration Judge Jamee Comans issued the removal order, citing alleged misrepresentations on Khalil’s green card application. The order alleges he failed to disclose: work with UNRWA, work with the Syria Office in the British Embassy in Beirut, and ties to a pro-Palestine student group at Columbia University. Days later, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey barred the government from detaining or deporting Khalil while his federal petition is pending, preserving the status quo as the legal fight unfolds.
Khalil’s lawyers have appealed the immigration judge’s decision and say they will amend the habeas petition to address the accelerated removal push. They argue Judge Comans denied him a fair process by refusing to hold a hearing on a waiver of removability and by accepting late government charges. Khalil calls the case retaliatory, saying it aims to silence his speech on Palestinian rights.
Latest Ruling and Federal Court Shield
According to case filings, the immigration judge based the deportation order on alleged omissions and associations rather than any criminal conduct. Khalil is a longtime lawful permanent resident with a U.S. citizen spouse and child. His legal team says those equities should have supported a waiver, yet the request was denied without testimony or cross-examination.
Judge Farbiarz’s protective order means Khalil remains in the United States 🇺🇸 while the Third Circuit appeal and the habeas action proceed. While temporary, the shield is critical: if lifted, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could carry out deportation to Algeria or Syria, where advocates warn about safety and human rights concerns for returnees.
Khalil’s lawyers also claim procedural missteps in immigration court, including what they describe as post hoc charges adopted after a federal judge earlier rejected the government’s original detention theory. In June 2025, the district court ruled that detaining Khalil as a supposed foreign policy threat was unconstitutional and ordered his release. Soon afterward, the government shifted focus to paperwork claims tied to his residency application.
Key takeaway: The federal protective order prevents deportation for now, but the case’s outcome hinges on appellate review and the habeas proceedings.
Broader Policy Climate and What Comes Next
Khalil’s case unfolds amid broader changes in immigration enforcement. The Trump administration has expanded executive authority over immigration and narrowed certain avenues for relief. Legal groups, including the ACLU and the New York City Bar Association, report significant increases in:
- Fast-tracked removals
- Contested bond practices
- Alleged due process gaps in immigration courts
Advocates say there’s a rising use of immigration proceedings against outspoken activists, creating a chilling effect on speech. VisaVerge.com reports similar concerns from advocacy networks.
The government counters that alleged misrepresentations on benefits applications can lawfully support removal. Officials argue national security interests and statutory standards require strict review of disclosures made during the immigration process. In Khalil’s case, that position rests on claims he failed to list UNRWA employment, past embassy-related work, and political associations the immigration judge regarded as material.
Khalil and his advocates reject that framing and emphasize timing: only after the federal court blocked deportation on foreign policy grounds did the case pivot to paperwork accusations. They call this retaliatory enforcement. Supporters also stress:
- His ties to the United States 🇺🇸
- His clean record
- The hardship deportation would impose on his U.S. family
Legal issues to be resolved
- Appeal of the immigration judge’s order
- Will the record support findings that any omissions were willful and material?
- Habeas petition in federal court
- Could it establish broader constitutional claims, including denial of due process and possible retaliation?
- Potential appellate remedies
- Appellate judges might vacate the deportation order, remand the case for new hearings, or uphold the removal decision.
Procedural Guide: What Happens Next
Government process terms can be confusing. Here’s a plain guide to the immediate procedural steps:
- Appeal filed: A higher court (Third Circuit) will review whether the immigration judge correctly applied the law.
- Habeas petition: The federal district court will consider claims about detention, due process, and possible retaliation.
- Protective order: Judge Farbiarz’s order stays in place to block removal unless a court modifies it.
- Possible outcomes:
- Deportation order vacated
- Case remanded for new hearings
- Deportation order upheld
Policy Context and Wider Stakes
Outside the courtroom, policy debates continue. Proposals associated with Project 2025 and various executive actions seek to:
- Expand removal authority
- Require cities to share data with federal authorities
- Limit humanitarian pathways
Supporters argue these steps protect national security. Critics warn they erode due process, especially in a system where many people lack legal counsel and face swift consequences. The New York City Bar plans to review fast-changing rules at its October 30, 2025 conference, where cases like Khalil’s are expected to feature in discussion.
For families watching this case, the near-term reality is clear: the federal protection stands, so no deportation can occur while the courts weigh the claims. If the protective order is lifted, removal to Algeria or Syria could be scheduled quickly. Meanwhile, Khalil’s daily life involves court deadlines, legal briefs, and the strain of uncertainty; for his spouse and child, every hearing date feels personal.
Where to Follow Policy Updates
Readers following the case can find official policy announcements on the USCIS site:
– USCIS Newsroom
Those notices help explain broader shifts affecting lawful permanent residents and others, even though Khalil’s matter is primarily in immigration and federal courts.
Final note: The case highlights competing perspectives—supporters view it as an example of how a single immigration hearing can alter a family’s future, while the government sees it as a test of policies requiring full disclosure on immigration applications.
This Article in a Nutshell
Immigration Judge Jamee Comans ordered lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil removed to Algeria or Syria on September 12, 2025, alleging he omitted employment with UNRWA, work at the Syria Office of the British Embassy in Beirut, and ties to a pro-Palestine student group on his green card application. Khalil’s lawyers appealed and plan to amend a habeas petition, arguing denial of a waiver without testimony and acceptance of late government charges amounted to unfair process. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz issued a protective order barring detention and deportation while the Third Circuit appeal and federal habeas case proceed. Advocates warn deportation risks safety concerns in Algeria or Syria; the government maintains misrepresentations can justify removal. The case raises broader questions about due process, potential retaliation against activists, and the administration’s expanded enforcement policies, with appellate review and constitutional litigation likely determining the outcome.
