Mahmoud Khalil, detained Columbia grad, set for critical immigration hearing

Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate student and lawful permanent resident who has been detained by immigration authorities since March, is scheduled to appear at a pivotal immigration hearing Thursday that could determine his future in the United States. Khalil, who had been involved in negotiations on behalf of pro-Palestinian student protesters on the campus of Columbia last year, hasn’t been charged with a crime but is one of several foreign national the Trump administration has accused of posing a natural security threat due to alleged ties to terrorist organizations - a claim his attorneys strongly dispute. His attorneys are expected to renew their motion to terminate the deportation proceedings on Thursday, arguing the government has engaged in egregious misconduct. The attorneys have challenged the legality of Khalil’s warrantless arrest and say he was targeted for his pro-Palestinian views. In the 75 days since Khalil’s arrest, at least three other international college students have been detained and later released from detention after weeks of legal action by their attorneys Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi and Badar Khan Suri – who were all targeted for deportation by the Trump administration - challenged the legality of their detentions by filing a flurry of motions and legal briefs with federal district courts. In every case, a judge heard their cases and agreed to release them while the immigration cases play out in immigration court. Khalil’s case, in contrast, has dragged on for months as two separate venues – a federal district court in New Jersey and an administrative immigration court in Jena, Louisiana –consider next steps. “This court has exhibited a worrying lack of independence and fairness towards the important questions regarding the unlawful detention and removal of Mr. Khalil,” Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and one of Khalil’s attorneys, told CNN Wednesday. Khalil’s legal team said Wednesday the government’s strategy seems focused on delaying Khalil’s habeas proceedings – a basic legal process meant to play out in federal court in which a judge has the power to order his release. At the same time, Khalil’s attorneys say the government is working to speed up the immigration proceedings being handled by an immigration court within the Department of Justice where judges have limited independence. “There has been no reason that they’re rushing so fast except to try to get this case over before the federal court judge can do anything. It’s been truly obvious,” Marc Van Der Hout, an immigration attorney for Khalil told reporters Wednesday. Decisive immigration hearing During Thursday’s immigration hearing, Khalil’s attorneys will renew their motion to terminate the deportation proceedings arguing there has been “egregious government misconduct,” - including with Khalil’s unlawful arrest without a warrant, his attorneys said Wednesday. The renewed motion to terminate the case will include new video evidence his lawyers say contradicts the government’s claim that officers did not need to obtain a warrant for Khalil’s arrest because they believed he was a flight risk. CNN exclusively reported on the never-before-seen video of the arrest this week. The footage shows Khalil made no apparent attempt to flee and that he did not refuse to cooperate with immigration officers who arrested him in the lobby of his building – a claim attorneys for the Department of Justice have previously made in court. “We have now caught the government in three direct lies, some of them to the court,” Van Der Hout said. CNN has reached out to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for comment. The Trump administration is relying on a rarely used portion of US immigration law to argue that Khalil should be deported because his presence in the United States threatens the administration’s foreign policy goal of combatting antisemitism. So far, his legal team has filed an application for asylum to prevent Khalil’s removal, but attorneys for the Department of Justice have already signaled their intention to block the application, citing concerns that Khalil is a national security threat. Ahead of Thursday’s immigration hearing, Khalil’s legal team also filed hundreds of pages of new evidence against his removal. The filings, which were obtained and reviewed by CNN, include declarations from Khalil’s professors and classmates – including Jewish students and academics all attesting to his character. The filings also include expert declarations telling the court that Khalil is likely to be a target of foreign government or be subject to dangerous persecution if he is deported from the US. “We’re going to get through as much testimony as we can in the morning and we’re feeling quite confident that the evidence shows there is a likelihood that Mahmoud would be subjected to egregious harm,” Johnny Sinodis, an immigration attorney for Khalil told reporters Wednesday. Regardless of Thursday’s outcome, Khalil’s attorneys say they will appeal any decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Separately, a restraining order issued by a federal judge in New Jersey remains in effect and would prevent his removal from the country until the federal case is resolved. Immigration officials deny contact visit with wife and newborn son Khalil, the first person to be arrested as part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and executive order to target student activism on college campuses has been detained since March despite not being charged with a crime. As the legal process plays out, Khalil has missed his graduation from Columbia University and the birth of his first son. During Wednesday’s commencement ceremony, Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, mentioned Khalil in a speech that followed a wave of boos from the graduates as she walked onto the stage. “I know many in our community today, are mourning the absence of our graduate Mahmoud Khalil,” Shipman said. Earlier this week, Khalil’s legal team and his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla requested permission from ICE officials in Jena, Louisiana, for a contact visit with Khalil, Abdalla and his newborn son ahead of the hearing. The request was denied by facility officials who cited a blanket policy against contact visits, his attorneys said. Abdalla – who has not seen Khalil since his arrest in March – gave birth to their son, Deen, last month. “After flying over a thousand miles to Louisiana with our newborn son, his very first flight, all so his father could finally hold him in his arms, ICE has denied us even this most basic human right,” Abdalla said in a statement. “This is not just heartless. It is deliberate violence, the calculated cruelty of a government that tears families apart without remorse.” New Jersey Federal District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered immigration authorities to allow an in-person meeting between Khalil, his lawyers and his wife on Thursday. The order, which does not specifically mention Khalil’s visit with his son, says the meeting is to happen before 10:30 a.m., and instructs immigration officials to “take reasonably necessary security measures.” “The meeting shall take place in-person, and under conditions (including as to length of time and confidentiality) that are appropriate for a substantial attorney-client meeting,” Farbiarz wrote. Abdalla and their son are expected to attend Thursday’s hearing. Khalil’s detention has sparked protests across the country from supporters who believe his detention is a flagrant violation of core American values – including the protection of free speech. At a prior hearing in April, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jamee Comans ruled that Khalil could be deported, after the United States government argued his presence posed “potentially serious foreign policy consequences.” Khalil’s attorneys argue that the government’s evidence is insufficient and based solely on a letter from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which does not allege any criminal activity. They contend that Khalil is being targeted for his political speech in violation of his First Amendment rights.