An immigration judge in Louisiana has just dropped a bombshell ruling that could send a former Columbia University student packing to Algeria or Syria.
Just The News reported that Judge Jamee Comans ordered the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil on September 12, 2025, citing discrepancies in his green card application, following his arrest during campus protests last year.
This story begins in March 2024, when Khalil, then a student at Columbia, was detained by federal immigration agents in New York for joining pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus.
After his arrest, Khalil found himself in hot water, released from detention in June 2024, only to face a written court decision that same month denying his asylum bid and ordering his removal.
The crux of the issue? The court determined that Khalil had deliberately withheld key details on his application for lawful permanent resident status, a move seen as an attempt to skirt the system.
Judge Comans didn’t mince words in her ruling, stating that such actions couldn’t be overlooked by granting a discretionary waiver, a stance that underscores the importance of integrity in immigration processes.
According to court filings on September 17, 2025, the judge’s final order last week denied Khalil’s request to avoid deportation, sealing his fate unless an appeal changes the course.
Khalil’s legal team now has a tight 30-day window from September 12, 2025, to challenge this ruling before the Board of Immigration Appeals, a deadline that looms large over this contentious case.
While some may argue this is harsh, the principle here is clear: immigration laws aren’t a suggestion, and playing fast and loose with applications has consequences, no matter the backstory.
At the time of Khalil’s arrest, the President took to Truth Social, declaring he “will not tolerate” what he described as disruptive campus activities, a sentiment that resonates with many who value law and order.
His follow-up post labeled Khalil as supportive of controversial causes, promising to root out and deport those deemed a threat to national values—a bold stance, though critics might call it overreach.
Yet, in a nation built on rules, isn’t it reasonable to expect accountability, even if it stings for some? This isn’t about silencing dissent; it’s about ensuring the system isn’t gamed.
Khalil himself fired back in a statement obtained by NBC News, claiming, “It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech.”
While his frustration is palpable, one might wonder if free speech extends to bending the truth on official documents—surely, there’s a line between protest and deception that even the most progressive minds can acknowledge.
Ultimately, this case isn’t just about one student; it’s a litmus test for how America balances compassion with the rule of law, especially when campus activism collides with immigration policy. Let’s hope the appeal process brings clarity, not more chaos, to a debate that’s already fraught with tension.