A bombshell accusation has rocked the US legal landscape: attorneys for Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student facing deportation, claim the Trump administration secretly "engineered" his case. They aren't just alleging bias; they're pointing to new evidence, some of it unearthed by major media outlets, suggesting a deliberate manipulation of the system.
Khalil, a US permanent resident married to a US citizen, has been a vocal pro-Palestine advocate. His lawyers now demand an immigration appeals court reopen and terminate his case, arguing the entire process was rigged.
He was first detained in March 2025. One of many students caught up in a dragnet targeting campus activists.
The Board of Immigration Appeals recently issued a final order for Khalil's removal. But his legal team, on Friday, wasn't having it. They cited "apparent procedural abnormalities" as proof of foul play.
"It’s clear that the revelations of DOJ misconduct corroborate what we have known since Mahmoud was arrested–that the administration has reverse-engineered its desired outcome by weaponising a farcical proceeding littered with abnormalities."
That quote comes from Johnny Sinodis, one of Khalil's lawyers. Strong words. But are they backed up?
The New York Times reported some disturbing findings. Khalil’s case was flagged as “high priority” even before it hit the Board of Immigration Appeals. Fast-tracked, his lawyers call it. And the court was told to treat him as if he were still in detention, a move that typically speeds things up even more. Khalil was actually released from detention months earlier, in June 2025, by a federal judge. That judge's jurisdiction was later challenged, but the instructions to the court remained.
Then there's the truly unusual. Three judges on the Board of Immigration Appeals recused themselves. The reasons? Kept quiet. Experts familiar with the board? They call such a high rate of recusals "extremely rare."
Questions of Independence
The Board of Immigration Appeals is supposed to be independent. Key word: supposed to. Like other immigration courts, it falls under the Department of Justice, a branch of the executive. Critics have long warned this setup makes these courts vulnerable. Vulnerable to political pressure. Vulnerable to interference.
Federal courts, by contrast, enjoy the independence of the judicial branch. A critical distinction.
The Trump administration, for its part, pitched Khalil’s deportation as part of a grander crackdown on anti-Semitism. Yet, they offered zero evidence. No charges were ever filed against Khalil.
Adding another layer of intrigue: The Intercept recently revealed that the FBI had actually closed an investigation into Khalil. A tip alleged he called for "violence on behalf of Hamas." The FBI's conclusion? It didn’t warrant further investigation. Case closed. Before his detention.
The US Secretary of State invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and National Act against Khalil. This clause allows deportation for "past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful" deemed a national security threat. Think about that for a second. Lawful beliefs. Lawful statements. Is this what free speech looks like for permanent residents?
Officials still insist Khalil got "proper due process." They added a claim later: Khalil allegedly failed to disclose past work for UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, on his application.
Khalil, defiant, issued his own statement on Friday. "No lies, corruption, or ideological persecution will stop me from advocating for Palestine and for everyone’s right to free speech," he declared. Strong stuff. But the question remains: When a government allegedly twists the very mechanisms of justice to make an example, what does that mean for the rights of us all?
hi