Mahmoud Khalil says government using immigration court to ‘control process’ and remove him

Mahmoud Khalil accused the Trump administration of trying to detain him again by using immigration court as a so-called “kangaroo court … because they know they can control the process.”

The pro-Palestinian activist’s comments to reporters on Tuesday came after his attorneys appeared before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals over his habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his detention. A lower court ruling has blocked the government from removing him from the United States.

Khalil, a green card holder married to an American citizen, was arrested by ICE agents in New York City in March. At the time of his arrest, ICE agents told Khalil that he was being detained because his student visa had been revoked. He told officers he was a lawful permanent resident not on a student visa, but he was detained anyway.

He was held in a Louisiana detention facility until a federal judge ordered his release in June. He has vowed to continue advocating for Palestinian rights.

Khalil told reporters he is feeling “confident” that he will be vindicated in federal court.

“The government lawyers were defending the indefensible … being literally detained for over 100 days for literally protesting a genocide. They don’t have anything other than that. That’s why they’re choosing a kangaroo court, which is the immigration court, because they know they can control that process,” Khalil said.

He added, “The Trump administration is still trying to re-detain me. They’re trying to stop the federal court from looking at my case because they know they don’t have a case against me. So we’ll keep fighting the legal fight until the end.”

A New Jersey District Court judge previously blocked the government from removing Khalil based on a determination made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Khalil’s presence in the U.S. harms its foreign policy interests. The Trump administration has claimed this determination makes him removable.

Last month, a federal judge in Boston found that the government violated the constitutional rights of protesters, including Khalil, in its effort to deport international students and scholars expressing pro-Palestinian views. This was part of a separate lawsuit filed by an association of hundreds of professors and students.

The Columbia University graduate is currently out on bail, pending both civil proceedings in New Jersey Federal District Court and immigration removal proceedings in Louisiana.

Hearing before appeals court

On Tuesday, lawyers for the government focused on whether the lower court has proper jurisdiction to hear Khalil’s case. Despite being arrested in New York, Khalil was rapidly transferred to New Jersey and then to Louisiana.

The government argued that New Jersey was not the correct venue because Khalil ultimately ended up in Louisiana. 

The Third Circuit appeals judges in Philadelphia were skeptical, saying that it wasn’t Khalil’s lawyers’ fault that the system tracking detainee locations was not updated and that they did their best with the information that was available to them. 

“If our rule says, ‘wait until the system is updated Monday morning,’ the executive might spirit the person out of the country over the weekend. Are you asking us to adopt a rule that says when there is a lag in the data base that’s all on their lawyers and then Monday morning ‘sayonara, sorry he’s gone?’” one judge asked the government.

Khalil’s “lawyers didn’t know. They had to prepare for the worst.  They did their best. What else do they do unless we are creating a black hole of no jurisdiction,” the judge said.

The judges also questioned if Louisiana would have been the proper venue for this case, arguing that habeas petitions filed in a proper location cannot just move around the country wherever the petitioner is moved. 

Khalil’s attorneys were also questioned by the judges on whether or not the issues of the case should be argued with his immigration proceedings before an immigration judge in Louisiana. 

His attorneys argued that his First Amendment case was an “extreme case” and “exceptional in many ways.” But the judges said they worried that this could open the door for others facing immigration proceedings to try and relitigate their case a second time in federal courts. 

Khalil’s lawyers countered that immigration courts are not designed to litigate constitutional claims, such as issues regarding freedom of speech. 

Government attorneys told the judge that in their view immigration judges have been given guidance by the Executive Office for Immigration Review that they are able to hear constitutional claims.

“The Trump Administration is using every tool available to get terrorist-supporting aliens out of our country,” a State Department official told ABC News on Tuesday. “A visa is a privilege, not a right. We abide by all applicable laws to ensure the United States does not harbor aliens who pose a threat to our national security.”