Lead

The United States Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled that the deportation case against Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent pro-Palestinian activist, can continue, rejecting his lawyers' attempt to have the case thrown out on free speech grounds. The decision, reported by the Jerusalem Post, comes amid a parallel development in which two immigration judges who had ruled against the Trump administration in similar cases were fired by the Department of Justice.

Coverage Comparison

The Jerusalem Post focused its report on the appeals board's decision, quoting Khalil's reaction and his attorney's criticism of the ruling. The Guardian, meanwhile, concentrated on the firing of immigration judges Roopal Patel and Nina Froes, providing details from an interview with Patel and context about the administration's broader actions.

Both outlets reported that Patel and Froes were appointed by the Biden administration in May 2024 and had previously worked in immigration defense. They oversaw deportation proceedings against two international students: Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University PhD student, and Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student.

Key Claims

  • The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that Mahmoud Khalil's deportation case can proceed, without deciding on the merits of deportation.
  • Khalil's attorneys argued the case violates the First Amendment and is retaliation for his pro-Palestinian activism, but the board disagreed.
  • Khalil, in a statement, said he has "committed no crime" and accused the administration of weaponizing the immigration system.
  • The Department of Justice fired two immigration judges, Roopal Patel and Nina Froes, who had ruled against the administration in deportation cases involving pro-Palestinian students.
  • Patel rejected the government's effort to deport Öztürk, finding no legal grounds, while Froes blocked the removal of Mahdawi, ruling that evidence was inadmissible.
  • A recent NPR analysis suggests the administration has been targeting immigration judges who previously represented immigrants, with around 100 judges reportedly fired since 2025.

Perspectives

Patel, in an interview with the Guardian, said she did not view her dismissal as directly retaliatory for any single case but saw it as part of a broader effort to reshape the immigration bench to align with the administration's political agenda. She noted that the administration appears to be targeting judges with experience in immigration defense.

Khalil's attorney, Marc Van Der Hout, called the appeals board's decision "baseless and politically motivated," adding that federal courts have already acknowledged that Khalil was targeted for his speech.

The Department of Homeland Security has described Khalil and Mahdawi in statements, though the specific language was not detailed in the available reports. The administration has argued that Khalil's activism could harm US foreign policy.

Background

The firings come as the Trump administration has pursued a crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses. Since 2025, the administration has fired approximately 100 immigration judges, according to a single-source report. Additionally, the number of deportation orders has risen sharply, while judges have approved asylum claims in fewer than 10 percent of cases this year, according to the same source.

The developments highlight the tension between the administration's immigration enforcement priorities and judicial independence. Patel's comments suggest that the firings are part of a deliberate strategy to ensure that immigration courts reflect the administration's political views.