re: Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil will remain in ICE detention in Louisiana

quote:

---

I believe this is what he violated and why they should be able to revoke his visa and send him packing. It’s part of Admission Qualifications for Aliens; Travel Control of Citizens and Aliens

---

The statutory provision you cited certainly can be read to have made the student inadmissible for his visa had he engaged in the activity before he arrived in the United States:

quote:

---

8 U.S.C. § 1182 Inadmissible aliens
(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
***
(3) Security and related grounds
***
(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general
Any alien who--
***
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

---

But it isn't clear that that can be invoked as a ground to forfeit his permanent residency and support removal.

I'm sure we will hear more about the legal specifics when he has his hearing.

quote:

---

He has the right to sit in front of an immigration judge, prior to deportation.

---

Why not have him Zoom with one, instead of this NY judge stumbling all around the case, prolonging the inevitable as long as possible.

Link to Notice to Appear

Here is a link to his charging document (Notice to Appear).

The relevant case law on the matter is Matter Ruiz-Massieu which says:

quote:

---

(1) In order to establish deportability under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4)(C)(i) (1994), the Immigration and Naturalization Service has the burden of proving by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the Secretary of State has made a facially reasonable and bona fide determination that an alien’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.

(2) A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability.

(3) The Government is not required to permit an alien who is deemed to be deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act to depart the United States voluntarily prior to the initiation of deportation proceedings where the alien’s presence is pursuant to his voluntary decision to enter or seek admission to this country. Matter of Badalamenti, 19 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 1988); Matter of Yam, 16 I&N Dec. 535 (BIA 1978); and Matter of C-C-, 3 I&N Dec. 221 (BIA 1948), distinguished.

---

Link to Matter of Ruiz-Massieu

With that said there is an exception that says:

quote:

---

(iii) Exception for other aliens
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

---

As an LPR he has a protected right to free speech under the 1st. That is a statement of law, not opinion. The determination will be if ICE can convince an Immigration Judge his protected speech was so bad that it would compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest.

I would think that is a long shot, but I don't really know fully what he was publishing/saying at Columbia nor if he has done things like met with Hamas leaders. IJ's do give DHS tons of defernce though. I also don't see any IJ in Jena taking a stand here and telling them they failed to carry their burdern. I expect this to go to the BIA, 5th Circuit, and SCOTUS.

quote:

---

Why not have him Zoom with one, instead of this NY judge stumbling all around the case, prolonging the inevitable as long as possible.

---

I don't know, zoom away.

And what makes his deportation inevitable? Since all this started, I've actively looked for something, anything that says this guy committed a crime or openly supported a terrorist organization. I'll take any link anybody can cough up, reputable, disreputable, obscure, left, right or whatever else.

So far, i can't find anything that rises above general disturber of the peace and frickin' loud mouth. I'm pro-deportation all the way, but personally I would like to see something first that meets that threshold.

quote:

---

openly supported a terrorist organization.

---

Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

quote:

---

One would think there would be video, audio or some link somewhere telling or showing us that he incited violence against Jews, abused them, violated their rights or openly supported Hamas

---

The interesting part of this is even assuming he publically said "I stand with Hamas" does that meet this:

quote:

---

Secretary of State has made a facially reasonable and bona fide determination that an alien’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.

---

How does a random college student supporting a terrorist group have a "serious adverse foreign policy consequence for the US?"

I've said from the beginning they jumped the gun on this. Should have arrested him for a crime that makes him deportable and use that ground as the basis to revoke his LPR status after they got a conviction/plea.

quote:

---

Yes, it’s been recognized as one for a long time. It’s not arguable, it is a legal designation

---

That’s what I thought. It’s why I was confused by the poster saying he could find no evidence of him vocalizing support for a terrorist organization.

A student/former student who helped organize protests that took over buildings, sections of campus, blocked students from attending class, harassed students on the basis of ethnicity and religion can have serious foreign policy consequences.

And the bar is not high. It requires that the Sec. of State has a facially reasonable and bona fide determination. That is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even more likely than not. It is more on the level of probable cause.

It’s not being mentioned enough that this mother fricker is 30 years old. What is he doing going into undergrad classes he does not attend, disrupting the education people are spending close to 100k a year on. Barnard is also a women’s college - why was he there?