Right… I didn’t see their filing, but imagine they argued his wife could give birth any day (if she hasn’t already). Just nuts.

Mahmoud Khalil sought temporary release from confinement during the pendency of his habeas case. The NJ federal court denied this. The only reason provided: Khalil didn’t show there would be “irreparable injury” from his confinement during the habeas case.

Mahmoud Khalil sought temporary release from confinement during the pendency of his habeas case. The NJ federal court denied this. The only reason provided: Khalil didn’t show there would be “irreparable injury” from his confinement during the habeas case.

Saw this and honked :)

Skedaddle, Oops, Skate, Meager & Flop

Got it, thanks for clarifying! I was just wondering about inclusion criteria. I completely agree with you that it’s First Amendment retaliation. As you point out, this is not only inferable from the circumstances — we also have a confession from the Sec of State.

Just confirming I understand - do you consider her disappeared because the evidence suggests that the visa was revoked in retaliation for her First Amendment exercise, as opposed to there being some lawful basis for revocation?

Thanks for the coverage of the deportation cases!

Purchased!

When is Judge Furman expected to rule on jurisdiction?

People have only been deported under that ground when they have recruited other people to actually perform violent terrorist acts. e.g. Sor v AG, 152 Fed Appx 232.

For example, agreeing to produce and distribute flyers on behalf of a known terrorist organization is not “soliciting membership.” Daneshvar v Ashcroft, 355 F.3D 615.

So, DHS is invoking the grounds of deportability related to terrorism defined at 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(B). None makes someone deportable based on speech alone. Even “soliciting membership in a terrorist organization,” effectively requires criminal intent.

Lawyer answer: all detainees are entitled to 1) speak to an attorney, but the ACLU is suing the Trump admin over this; 2) a bond hearing unless they have committed certain crimes

Practical answer: public pressure is the best way to ensure his rights aren’t violated. Keep the spotlight on his case

As an attorney who practices immigration law, I agree. The government can detain him and place him in removal proceedings for months. Even if an immigration judge ultimately rules he is not deportable, the damage is done. If that happens, he should file a Bivens suit for First Amendment retaliation

That’s correct. He must be placed in removal proceedings and there must be a final order of deportation for an LPR (green card holder) to be removed. 8 USC 1227(a) lists the grounds of deportability. The most common are the criminal grounds under 1227(a)(2)(A). We don’t know the grounds claimed here

Yes, generally noncitizens may be detained pending removal proceedings. 8 USC 1226(a). Whether or not he is entitled to a bond hearing depends on the basis for detaining him, i.e. whether they’re invoking a criminal ground for removal. We don’t know that info yet

The person must be placed in removal proceedings, 8 USC 1227(a) lists the grounds of deportability, and the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Woodby v INS.