A Louisiana immigration judge found on Friday that Trump’s administration could displace Mahmoud Khalil, providing the government an early victory in its efforts to break pre-Palestinian demonstrations in the US universities.
The decision is far from the final word on whether Mr Khalil, a graduate of the University of Columbia and the legal permanent resident, will be deported. His lawyers will continue their fight in Louisiana and New Jersey, claiming that he has aimed for a constitutionally protected speech.
Constitutional issues at the center of the case will probably receive a fuller hearing at the Federal Court in New Jersey than in Louisiana on Friday. At present, the judge’s ruling there, Jamee E. Comans, confirmed the extraordinary authority that the state minister, Marco Rubio, claimed that he was aiming for every non -spiritual expulsion.
“The department has fulfilled its burden to establish the removal with clear and convincing proof,” Judge Comans said towards the end of a hearing in Jena, La.
Mr Khalil led the pre-Palestinian demonstrations last year on Columbia campus and Mr Rubio was based on a rare law, stating that his presence in the United States is harming the American interest in foreign policy.
Judge Comans found that the government had fulfilled the burden of evidence required by law, which was equivalent to a note by Mr Rubio, stating that Mr Khalil’s presence in the country allowed anti -Semitism. The Department of Internal Security seems to have not submitted any other specific evidence to substantiate the claim, although it has not publicly released the documents it has submitted to its case.
After Judge Comans made his ruling, Mr Khalil, who was otherwise silent throughout the hearing, criticized her hard.
“I would like to quote what you last said, that there is nothing that is more important to this court than for the rights to the trial and fundamental justice,” he said. “Clearly, what we saw today, none of these principles existed today or in the whole process. That is why Trump’s administration sent me to court, 1,000 miles away from my family.”
Immigration judges are officials in the executive, not the judiciary, and often approve the efforts of the Department of Internal Security. It would be unusual for such a judge that he is serving the US Attorney General to address the constitutional questions raised by Mr Khalil’s case. It will also be at risk of being fired by a administration that has targeted disagreement.
“This court has no jurisdiction to entertain the challenges for the validity of this law according to the Constitution,” Judge Comans said, apparently reading a written statement.
He refused the requests of Mr Khalil’s lawyers to allow them to cross -check or abolish Mr Rubio so that he could elaborate on his claims. “This court is neither inclined nor authorized” to force such a testimony, he said.
Judge Comans’s ruling came to the end of a remarkable, almost two hours of listening to Lasalle Migration Court in Jena, La. Mr. Khalil was there in person, wearing a nautical suit and holding a series of prayer beads.
Most of the time they were taken by Mr Khalil’s lawyers, who gave arguments, both broad and technically, against the note by Mr Rubio and other allegations made by Trump’s administration about Mr Khalil associated with his immigration.
Mr Khalil’s lawyers noted that he has said in observations on CNN that “anti -Semitism and any form of racism has no place in campus and in this movement” and that Jewish protesters were “integral part of this movement”.
Judge Comans was mostly calm during the hearing. He focused mainly on maintaining the parties to discontinue each other, while claiming that he was interested in examining only one issue: whether Mr Khalil could be removed from the United States by law.
“I’ll hear from the parties about removing and that’s it,” he said.
He refused to allow Mr Khalil’s lawyers to face their other demands, including the delay in hearing, so that he could review the evidence. It would also not allow the Department of Internal Security to introduce new charges against Mr Khalil during the hearing.
Internal security officials accused Mr Khalil of making bureaucratic mistakes that say they were reinforcing the case for his expulsion. They say he failed to reveal the extent or duration of his involvement in various organizations, including an UN organization that helps Palestinian refugees when he applied to become a permanent US resident last March.
Mr Khalil’s lawyers spent much of their time on Friday to push holes in these arguments, and Judge Comans refused to rule on additional allegations.
When Judge Comans issued her ruling, Mr Khalil’s supporters in the room, including members of New York’s Jewish voice, began to cry. Mr Khalil turned the beads of his prayer in his hands.
“Don’t worry,” he told his supporters, thanking them for being there.
Marc Van der Hout, a lawyer of Mr Khalil, said in a statement after the hearing that “this is not over and our struggle continues.
Mr Khalil’s immigration case is now moving to what is known as a “relief stage”, in which his lawyers can support his right to remain in the country. If they lose, they can appeal, first in an immigration council and then to a federal court.
However, the issues of freedom of speech and the fair procedure that the loom of the case can first be examined in a federal court in New Jersey, where Mr Khalil’s lawyers are also fighting for his release. The judge who oversees this case to Newark Michael Farbiarz ordered the government not to remove Mr Khalil from the country.
On Friday, Judge Farbiarz asked lawyers for the government and Mr Khalil to inform him as soon as possible about the results of Louisiana’s hearing.
Alena alek References are contributed by Jena, La.
