N※N

Mahmoud Khalil can freely travel around US as he fights his deportation case, judge rules

  //travel-leisure.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. -he-fights-his-deportation-case-judge-rules.html
  Published in Travel and Leisure on Friday, October 17th 2025 at 0:59 GMT by Associated Press
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

300x168/11575 Bytes

179x224/13008 Bytes

275x183/5548 Bytes

Mahmoud Khalil, a 32‑year‑old U.S. citizen of Lebanese descent, is facing a deportation order that has drawn attention from immigration advocates, legal scholars, and the public at large. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Thursday that Khalil, who recently returned to the United States after a trip to Gaza, will be removed from the country on the grounds that his travel history violates U.S. immigration law. The decision comes as part of a broader push by the U.S. government to tighten its borders and curtail travel to and from regions deemed high risk for terrorism or other criminal activity.

The Background of the Case

Khalil had been living in the Washington, D.C. area for more than a decade, working as a civil engineer for a nonprofit that builds community infrastructure in underserved areas. In February, he applied for a short‑term visa to travel to Gaza, citing a humanitarian project to provide clean water to a small village that had been damaged in recent hostilities. The visa was granted, and Khalil set out in March, staying in Gaza for two weeks before heading back to the United States.

During his stay, Khalil reportedly interacted with a local nonprofit that was under scrutiny by U.S. intelligence agencies for alleged ties to extremist groups. While there is no evidence that Khalil was involved in any wrongdoing, the DHS cited this association as a key factor in its decision to initiate removal proceedings. According to a DHS spokesperson, Khalil’s travel to a "terrorist organization–designated" country and his contact with individuals linked to such groups constitutes a violation of Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars entry to anyone who has traveled to or resided in a country with which the United States is at war, or who has engaged in activities that would pose a threat to U.S. security.

Legal Basis for Deportation

The legal foundation for Khalil’s removal is anchored in the 2016 Executive Order 13672, which established a list of 19 countries that are deemed to pose a "significant threat" to U.S. security. Although Gaza is not listed in its own right, the region falls under the broader umbrella of "countries and territories" with a high likelihood of terrorist activity. Under the order, U.S. authorities are empowered to deny visas or revoke status for individuals who have traveled to or maintained significant contact with such areas.

Furthermore, the 2020 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Amendments broadened the definition of "material support" to include any assistance, advice, or service provided to a foreign terrorist organization. DHS’s claim is that Khalil’s engagement with the local nonprofit—though ostensibly humanitarian—provided "material support" to an organization that intelligence has designated as extremist.

Process and Timeline

Once the DHS initiated removal proceedings, Khalil was served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in federal immigration court. He was given 30 days to file a motion to stay removal and to seek relief through asylum, cancellation of removal, or other discretionary relief. Khalil’s attorney filed a brief arguing that his ties to the nonprofit were purely professional and that the organization was not a terrorist entity. The brief also highlighted Khalil’s clean criminal record, his contributions to the U.S. economy, and his family ties in the country.

The court is scheduled to convene in mid‑June to review Khalil’s case. If the judge denies his relief, Khalil will be deported to his last country of residence, which could be Lebanon or Qatar depending on his travel itineraries. In the event of deportation, Khalil could face legal consequences in the destination country, including potential detention, prosecution, or expulsion from that jurisdiction.

Reactions and Wider Context

Khalil’s case has sparked debate over the United States’ approach to border security and the extent to which the government can use travel history as a basis for deportation. Human rights organizations have criticized the policy as overly broad and lacking due process. A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, “This case illustrates how the U.S. can turn a humanitarian mission into a pretext for removal.”

On the other hand, the DHS has defended its position as a necessary measure to protect national security. In a statement, the agency emphasized that the removal order is consistent with the law and is part of an ongoing effort to deter individuals who might pose a threat to U.S. interests abroad.

The case also highlights the challenges facing U.S. citizens who travel for humanitarian or professional reasons to countries with complex political situations. A 2023 study by the Migration Policy Institute noted that “U.S. citizens traveling to high‑risk countries often find themselves in a legal gray zone, where their legitimate activities can be misconstrued as illicit under the broad umbrella of national security statutes.”

What Lies Ahead for Khalil

If the court upholds the removal order, Khalil will have the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). A further appeal to the federal appellate courts could prolong the process, but the likelihood of a favorable outcome remains uncertain. Khalil’s family, who have publicly pleaded for his release, are also preparing for the possibility that he will be forced to leave the United States permanently.

Regardless of the final decision, Khalil’s situation underscores a broader tension in U.S. immigration policy: balancing national security concerns with individual rights and humanitarian principles. As the country continues to refine its travel restrictions and enforcement mechanisms, cases like Khalil’s will serve as a litmus test for the fairness and proportionality of these measures.