Washington – The recent arrest of Palestinian activist and U.S. legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil has sparked a debate about the limits of a green card. Khalil, who played a prominent role in last year’s Columbia University protests over the war in Gaza, has been a green card holder since 2024. However, his status is now in jeopardy as he faces deportation for allegedly violating immigration laws.
Khalil’s case has raised questions about the rights and privileges of green card holders and the consequences of violating immigration laws. As a green card holder, Khalil was granted lawful permanent residency status in the U.S. But this status is not guaranteed and can be revoked if the individual engages in conduct that goes against the conditions of their residency.
According to New York-based immigration lawyer Linda Dakin-Grimm, while it is not common for green card holders to lose their status, it is not rare either. The most common reason for revocation is when a green card holder is convicted of a crime. This is because a green card is not equivalent to citizenship, but rather a privilege that must be earned and maintained by following the rules and regulations set by the U.S. government.
Examples of crimes that can result in the revocation of a green card include aggravated felonies, drug offenses, fraud, and national security concerns such as ties to a terrorist group. Additionally, green card holders can also lose their status if they are deemed a threat to national security.
In Khalil’s case, he has not been charged with any crime, but he remains in detention in Louisiana. A federal judge has extended efforts to halt his deportation, but the Department of Homeland Security has initiated the process to revoke his green card.
It is important to note that it is not a criminal offense to openly disagree with the U.S. government’s policies or actions. The Bill of Rights protects the right to free speech and assembly. However, if a green card holder is accused of violating immigration laws, their case will go through the justice system, while the process to revoke their permanent status takes place in immigration court.
The process of revoking a green card starts when the U.S. government determines that an individual has violated immigration laws. This can happen through routine immigration checks, law enforcement investigations, or whistleblowers. The Department of Homeland Security usually initiates the process and the green card holder will receive a Notice to Appear in immigration court or may be arrested and detained in serious cases.
White House officials have stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has the authority to revoke a green card or any visa if an individual’s activities in the United States “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” to the country. However, Rubio has clarified that Khalil’s case is not about free speech, but rather about violating the conditions of his green card.
According to Khalil’s Notice to Appear, Rubio has made the determination that his presence and activities in the U.S. are a threat to national security. Khalil has been ordered to appear in front of an immigration judge on March 27 at the Lasalle Detention Facility in Louisiana.
In immigration court, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the individual violated immigration laws. In Khalil’s case, ICE attorneys will ask for deportation, but they will have to prove that he is a threat to national security. The green card holder also has the right to present a defense, but unlike the criminal justice system, they are not entitled to a public defender. If they cannot afford an attorney or find one to represent them pro bono, they will not have access to legal representation.
The decision to revoke a green card is an administrative procedure conducted by the Department of Justice, under the Executive Office for Immigration Review. This means that the government is essentially prosecuting the case, and the judge is also a government official. While the process can move quickly, it is also complex.
If the immigration judge rules against the green card holder, they can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). If the BIA also rules against them, they can appeal to a Federal Court of Appeals. However, it is rare for a case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, as the court has complete discretion over the cases it chooses to hear. This process can be expensive, but in significant cases like Khalil’s, there are nonprofit agencies and law school clinics that may offer pro bono representation.
If all appeals fail and the green
