A Times investigation found the BIA fast-tracked Mahmoud Khalil's deportation order with multiple judge recusals and signs of White House-level coordination, his attorneys allege.
The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a deportation order against Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil on April 9, and a New York Times investigation published May 9 found the ruling was produced with speed and procedural irregularities that legal experts described as unprecedented [1]. Documents obtained by the Times indicated the case was, in the words of sources familiar with the proceedings, controlled from the outset by senior officials in the Trump administration, raising direct questions about executive interference in what is formally an independent adjudicative body [1]. Multiple immigration judges recused themselves from the matter before the panel was constituted, an occurrence that legal observers said was highly unusual for a single immigration appeal [1].
The BIA order sits atop a prolonged procedural record. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and graduate student at Columbia, was detained by federal immigration authorities in March 2025 and transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana, where immigration court proceedings commenced [2]. His legal team, led by Marc Van Der Hout of Van Der Hout LLP and attorneys from the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union, filed habeas and appellate challenges arguing the government was targeting Khalil for his pro-Palestinian speech in violation of the First Amendment [2]. The ACLU filed an appeal on Khalil's behalf in March, characterizing the underlying removal charge as retaliatory [2].
The substantive significance of the Times investigation is twofold. First, it surfaces documentary evidence, rather than inference, that executive branch pressure shaped the BIA's internal process, including the pace of deliberation and the composition of the adjudicating panel [1]. Second, Khalil's attorneys contend the April 9 order was issued in violation of a federal district court injunction that had barred the government from deporting Khalil without advance notice to the court [1]. That allegation, if credited, would convert a procedural irregularity into a potential contempt issue before the supervising federal judge.
The case now proceeds on parallel tracks. Khalil's legal team has appealed the BIA ruling in federal court, and the First Amendment claims remain pending before the district court [2]. The contempt question, stemming from the alleged violation of the protective order, has not been formally resolved as of publication. The Department of Justice has not publicly responded to the Times's specific findings regarding the pace of the BIA ruling or the recusals [1].