Attorneys representing Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and graduate of Columbia University, sharply criticized his deportation proceedings on Tuesday, describing the case as a “sham” and pledging to challenge the Trump administration’s attempt to remove him from the United States through the federal appeals process.
Khalil, who served as a spokesperson for pro-Gaza demonstrations at Columbia and holds lawful permanent resident status, was taken into custody by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2025.
He remained detained for 104 days before a federal judge determined that his detention violated constitutional protections.
Earlier this month, however, the Trump administration successfully appealed that ruling, allowing the matter to move forward in immigration court.
Speaking at a virtual press briefing, lead counsel Marc Van Der Hout, an immigration attorney with nearly five decades of experience, argued that the proceedings lacked fundamental fairness.
“This was not a real trial. This was not a real hearing,” he said, adding that he has “never seen such a sham proceeding” in his career.
Van Der Hout asserted that the immigration judge rejected all preliminary motions submitted by the defense and set a merits hearing just three days after Khalil’s arraignment.
He further alleged that the outcome appeared predetermined.
“From the time she walked in at the quote-unquote trial, the hearing, she never left the bench. About an hour into the hearing, she said, ‘I’ve heard enough,’ and then she read her prepared statement…that she’d written before the hearing even started.”
Co-counsel Johnny Sinodis contended that the government failed to substantiate the central allegation underlying the deportation effort.
“The government charged a specific allegation. They failed to prove it, and the case should have been dismissed,” he said.
Sinodis also addressed claims that Khalil omitted affiliations with UNRWA and a Columbia student organization from his green card application, arguing that the accusation was undermined by the court’s own findings. He noted that “the immigration judge never found he was a member of either group.”
Describing the case as “meritless,” “pretextual” and “retaliatory,” Sinodis said the broader issue at stake is whether “the government can erode the protections of the First Amendment to enforce its anti-immigrant policy.”
Khalil’s legal team has since appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, seeking to overturn the immigration judge’s decision. A separate federal court order blocking his deportation remains in place as the appeals process unfolds.
