Page 33 - The Indian EYE 042525
P. 33
IMMIGRATION APRIL 25, 2025 | The Indian Eye 33
Is Secretary Rubio’s Bare Bone’s
Letter Deserving of Deference in
Khalil’s Deportation Case?
BY CYRUS D. MEHTA AND tution”. Khalil can now ap- cal, and convincing evidence not appear to have been made ly threatening or antisemitic
peal his case to the Board of that the Secretary of State has available to the public. It does activities. The letter of Sec-
KAITLYN BOX*
Immigration Appeals, and ul- made a facially reasonable not appear that Secretary Ru- retary Christopher Warren in
timately to a court of appeals. and bona fide determination bio’s determination has been the Ruiz-Massieu case was
n April 11, 2025, Im- Our previous blog ad- that an alien’s presence or provided to the chairmen of far more detailed that Rubio’s
migration Judge Ja-
Omee Comans in Lou- dressed Khalil’s case and con- activities in the United States the Judiciary and Foreign Af- bare boned letter. As such,
fairs Committees of the House it is hoped that a court of ap-
sidered how much deference would have potentially se-
isiana ruled that Mahmoud should be afforded to the rious adverse foreign policy and to the Judiciary and For- peals will not give deference
Khalil, a Columbia Univer- Secretary of State’s determi- consequences for the United eign Relations Committee to the determination as proof
sity graduate and pro-Pales- nation in the post-Chevron States” in order to establish of the Senate as required by that Khalil’s presence in the
tine activist, can be deported. era. The immigration enforce- that a noncitizen is deportable INA 212(a)(3)(C)(iv) as yet. US is contrary to US foreign
Judge Comans stated that ment against Khalil is based under this provision. As discussed at length in policy interests.
“the department has met INA 237(a)(4)(C)(i), which A two-page memoran- our previous blog, the 2024 In a future case, an IJ
its burden to establish re- provides for the deportation dum from Secretary of State Supreme Court decision ought not rubber stamp such a
movability by clear and con- of a noncitizen if the Secre- Marco Rubio outlining that Loper Bright Enterprises v. bare bones letter as it does not
vincing evidence”, referring tary of State has determined Khalil’s presence in the U.S. Raimondo, which abolished meet the facially reasonable
to Rubio’s letter. She also that their presence or activi- would have seriously ad- Chevron deference, could and bona fide determination
declined to address Khalil’s ties would have adverse pol- verse consequences on U.S. provide a means of challeng- that the person’s presence or
constitutional claims, stating icy consequences. Pursuant foreign policy has now been ing the level of deference activities in the United States
that the immigration court “is to 212(a)(3)(C)(iii), the gov- made publicly available. The given to the Secretary’s de- would have potentially serious
without jurisdiction to enter- ernment bears the burden of analysis provided in Rubio’s termination. Although a adverse foreign policy. If an
tain challenges to the validity proving “by clear, unequivo- memorandum is thin, and 1999 Board of Immigration IJ is not courageous enough
of this law under the Consti-
stately merely that the de- Appeals (BIA) case, Matter to do this, and the Board of
termination is based on of Ruiz-Massieu, held that a Immigration Appeals rubber
Khalil’s participation in determination letter from the stamps the IJ, the courts of
“antisemitic protests and Secretary of State “conveying appeals would certainly have
disruptive activities” and the Secretary’s determination the authority under Loper
“citations for unlawful that an alien’s presence in this Bright to cast aside deference
activity during these pro- country would have poten- after being presented with
tests” which “undermine tially serious adverse foreign such a meagre letter from the
U.S. policy to combat policy consequences for the Secretary of State. This is in
anti-Semitism around the United States, and stating addition to also arguing that
world and in the Unit- facially reasonable and bona INA 237(a)(4)(C)(i) violates
ed States, in addition to fide reasons for that determi- a person’s First Amendment
efforts to protect Jewish nation” is sufficient to satisfy rights, is void for vagueness
students from harassment INA 212(a)(3)(C)(iii), this and represents an impermis-
and violence in the Unit- case was decided pre-Lop- sible delegation of legislative
ed States”. The determi- er Bright. Secretary Rubio’s power to the executive
nation references five at- letter provided no thorough *Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus
tached exhibits, which do discussion of Khalil’s alleged- D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing
Partner of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Ad-
ministrative Litigation Task Force; AILA’s EB-5 Committee; former chair of AILA’s Ethics Committee;
m of special counsel on immigration matters to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Appellate Divi-
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC sion, First Department, New York; member of the ABA Commission on Immigration; board member
of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member of New York Immigration Coalition. Mr. Mehta
is the former chair of the Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council and former chair
of the Committee on Immigration and Nationality Law of the New York City Bar Association. He is
a frequent speaker and writer on various immigration-related issues, including on ethics, and is also
an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches a course entitled Immigration
and Work. Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for advancing the
practice of immigration law and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding
efforts in providing pro bono representation in the immigration field. He has also received two AILA
Presidential Commendations in 2010 and 2016. Mr. Mehta is ranked among the most highly regarded
2 6th Floor lawyers in North America by Who’s Who Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked
in Chambers USA and Chambers Global 2019 in immigration law, among other rankings.
www.TheIndianEYE.com
