The lawyers of the University of Columbia activist, Mahmoud Khalil, argued on Thursday that the Government did not present evidence to demonstrate that its presence in the United States raises an adverse consequence of foreign policy, which the Trump administration has argued is the land of its deportation in the United States.
Khalil is expected to appear before an immigration judge in Louisiana on Friday, an hearing that occurs after the judge gave the government a deadline earlier this week to present evidence to support several accusations made against Khalil, including that he misrepresented information about his green card application.
Khalil was arrested by the application of immigration and customs in his home in Columbia last month. He is the holder of the permanent green and legal resident married to an American citizen, who is nine months pregnant.
The Government entered into a two -page memorandum signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that he discovered that Khalil’s presence in the United States “would compromise a convincing foreign policy interest.”
The memorandum does not mention the previous accusations that information about its green card application misrepresented and, on the other hand, is doubled into a dark section of the immigration and nationality law that considers deportable migrants “if the Secretary of State has reasonable land to believe that the presence or activities of foreigners in the United States would have consequences of foreign policies of adverse adverse adverse policies for the United States.”
The two -page memorandum also defends why another person, whose name is written, must be deportable under the same arguments.
In the memorandum, Rubio affirms that he has the power to determine that a person is deportable even if his actions are “other legal.”
Rubio wrote that Khalil should be deported due to his supposed role in “anti -Semitic protests and disruptive activities, which encourages a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”
Marc Van Der Hout, one of Khalil’s lawyers, abruptly criticized the memorandum during a Zoom press conference on Thursday.
Rubio “talks about the activity of the first amendment in the United States and the effect on people in the US. His” determination “has absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy.”
The student negotiator Mahmoud Khalil is on the Campus of the University of Columbia in New York in a Pro-Palestinian protest camp on April 29, 2024.
TED Shaffrey/AP
Van Der Hout also described as “false” the previous accusations about alleged misrepresentations about Khalil’s visa request and about the negotiations in which he was involved with Columbia about the student camp.
“But it is zero that with the position of foreign policy, and there is zero support for government accusations on any misrepresentation,” said Van der Hout. “We are not worried about that at all.”
Khalil’s lawyers said they do not believe that the government has presented any evidence to suggest that it should be removable under the immigration and nationality law.
The case could establish the precedent that the government can silence its critics and eliminate them, in what can become “a dangerous slope,” said Van der Hout.
“What Rubio’s letter is about is that they are trying to protect, they say, the Jews in the United States, of anti -Semitism. But what is anti -Semitism? It is to criticize Israel and the United States for the slaughter that is happening in Gaza and Palestine,” said Van Der Hout.
“That’s what this case is about, and that is what this case really focuses, the rights of people in this country, citizens and immigrants equally, all protected by the Constitution, by the first amendment, to be able to talk about any of their views, popular or not,” said Van der Hout.
Khalil’s lawyers plan to request that it deposit Rubio in the Court to understand what reasons he had to determine that Khalil’s presence in the United States represents a risk to the interests of the foreign policy of the United States.
Mahmoud Khalil talks to media members about the Rafah camp revolt at Columbia University during the continuous conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas in Gaza, in New York, on June 1, 2024.
Jeenah Moon/Reuters, file
The immigration judge has said that he will make a conclusion about whether Khalil is removable on Friday, according to Khalil’s lawyers.
“But we are far from the end of the road if that happens,” Johnny Sinodis, lawyer and partner of Van der Hout who represents Khalil on Thursday. If the immigration judge determines that Khalil is, in fact, removable, the case will move to a next phase, but Khalil can still litigate his right to remain in the United States.
“This process takes place in the Immigration Court, and will undoubtedly require several other hearings before a final decision can be made in the case of immigration,” Sinodis said.
