Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian protest leader who targeted US President Donald Trump’s deportation, has sought a lawsuit against him during the resulting immigration hearing.
Khali’s lawyers were set to present evidence that they showed “significant government misconduct” over the March 8 arrest during a Thursday hearing in Louisiana.
“If there is a terrible violation, the case should be thrown away, and that’s what I asked the immigrant judge to do so,” Mark van der Hout, a lawyer representing Halil, told reporters the night before the lawsuit. The violations in question include the lack of warrants at the time of arrest, claiming that Halil has proven to be a flight risk.
In a series of cases in which US students challenged Trump administration targets for Palestinian advocacy or statements, the hearing could still be the most consequential turn. He comes after three students: Rumeysa Ozturk, Mohsen Mahdawi and Badar Khan Suri.
Ozturk, Mahdawi and Khan Suri were released on bail as parallel assignments in federal courts and immigration court deportation cases continued. Student lawyers say their rights, including free speech, have been violated by the Trump administration.
Halil also challenged his arrest in a federal case in New Jersey, but the judge has yet to rule on whether he should be released. He is in custody in Louisiana.
Halil’s lawyers accused the Trump administration of trying to delay federal challenges to his arrest and detention while quickly following immigration procedures. Immigration court judges that fall under the administrative division are generally considered less independent than lifelong federal district judges.
“The bigger situation is that the government wants to slow down the case of Mahmoud habeasists in federal court before an independent judge with a life-tenured position,” Ramji Qassem, lawyer for the New York University Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility (Clear) Project, told reporters.
“And so far they want to accelerate these immigration procedures as fast as possible in front of government officials who are subject to government pressure,” he said.
Immigration Judge Jamie Comans had argued Secretary of State Halil under the obscure provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as his presence in the US would result in “an unfavourable foreign policy outcomes.”
Rubio broadly portrays Khalil’s involvement in the pro-Palestin protest at Columbia University as “anti-Semitism,” but does not provide further evidence to courts supporting the claim.
Halil and his legal team firmly deny that his defense contains anti-Semitic sentiment and that no evidence of such conduct has emerged.
Arrested without a warrant
Thursday’s hearing does not rely on government motivations to target Halil, but instead focuses on procedural failures by immigration agents.
These agents initially claimed that they had a warrant to hold Halil as he stood up to him in the lobby of his Manhattan apartment building. They later admitted they had no warrants, but they arrested Khalil as he said his actions and statements showed him at a flight risk.
Surveillance footage of the encounter contradicts the statement, as maintained by Halil’s lawyers.
“We submitted new evidence, including video surveillance from Colombia, for perhaps 48 hours, which was subjected to video surveillance from Colombia, which clearly showed no attempt to escape,” said van der Hout.
Halil’s lawyers have individually claimed that he is eligible for asylum. They say that the unfounded claims made by the Trump administration would put him in danger if he was deported to the birthplace of Syria, or Algeria, where he holds citizenship.
Prior to the hearing, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office (ICE) officials refused to meet with their son, born in custody, Halil, his wife Abdallah and Halil.
A federal judge later ordered that Halil must be allowed to meet in person with his wife.