Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian rights advocate and U.S. lawful permanent resident, is contesting a recent deportation order, claiming the decision is rooted in political retaliation and flawed legal proceedings.
On Thursday, Khalil’s attorneys submitted a letter to U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey, urging him to review a September 12 ruling by an immigration judge in Louisiana. The judge ordered Khalil’s removal to Syria or Algeria, citing alleged omissions on his green card application — charges his legal team argues are baseless and politically motivated.
Khalil, who has no criminal record and is married to a U.S. citizen with children who are American citizens, said in a statement that the ruling is part of a broader pattern of government retaliation against his activism. “It’s no surprise the Trump administration is once again targeting me for speaking out,” Khalil said. “This latest effort, through a biased immigration court, reveals their true intentions.”
His lawyers argue the immigration judge rushed the decision, bypassed a hearing on key evidence, and committed several procedural violations. They emphasized that lawful permanent residents with strong family ties and no criminal history are rarely denied relief from deportation.
The deportation order comes despite ongoing federal court protections that bar Khalil’s removal while his civil rights lawsuit is active. His legal team says the immigration court’s decision only reinforces their claim that Khalil is being targeted for his public stance on Palestinian human rights.
Johnny Sinodis, a partner at Van Der Hout LLP and one of Khalil’s attorneys, criticized the ruling, calling it a stark example of a system that fails to ensure impartial justice. “This decision underscores what happens when the immigration system lacks neutrality,” he said.
Earlier this year, Judge Farbiarz had already questioned the legality of Khalil’s detention, ruling that the government’s initial justification — based solely on an authorization from Secretary of State Marco Rubio — was likely unconstitutional. In the aftermath of that ruling, federal officials introduced new accusations of misrepresentation, which Khalil’s lawyers describe as retaliatory and unfounded.
