The latest effort by an anti-Israel student activist, Mahmoud Khalil, to stave off his deportation is being chided by legal scholars and foreign policy experts as totally off base. 

Mr. Khalil, whose involvement in disruptive anti-Israel protests at Columbia University cost him his visa and green card, asked a Louisiana immigration judge last week to grant him asylum on the basis that deporting him back to the Middle East would place him in arm’s reach of the Israeli government. 

“It could range from assassination, kidnapping, torture,” Mr. Khalil said in court last Thursday, referring to the various ways in which he believes Israeli officials might come after him. “His life is at stake, your honor,” Mr. Khalil’s lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, pleaded with the Louisiana immigration judge overseeing the case, Judge Jaime Comans. 

Mr. Khalil, who was born in Syria but holds citizenship in Algeria, was arrested by immigration officers in March after the Department of State revoked his visa and green card over his alleged support for Hamas. The 30-year-old graduated in December with a master’s degree from Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs and served as one of the ringleaders of the anti-Israel student encampment movement that has roiled Columbia since October 7, 2023. 

Secretary Rubio justifies the administration’s deportation of Mr. Khalil by calling up a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows the government to deport non-citizens who pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

The government has also argued that Mr. Khalil committed immigration fraud by lying on his green card application about his employment history, namely his involvement in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, a UN group accused of aiding Hamas and employing people who participated in the October 7 massacre. 

Last month Judge Comans gave the government the green light to proceed with its deportation case against Mr. Khalil on the basis of the foreign policy law. She is now tasked with weighing the merits of his latest legal claim.  

A famed Harvard legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz, for one, isn’t convinced. Rather, he chides Mr. Khalil’s asylum claim as “so frivolous” and “unprofessional” that Mr. Khalil’s lawyers “should be subject to discipline,” he tells the Sun.  

“Israel has never, and would never, go after a student for protesting,” Mr. Dershowitz adds. “It’s an argument that has no basis in fact or law.” 

Mr. Dershowitz explains that lawyers are incentivized to submit asylum claims, even if they’re without merit, “to keep their clients in the country as long as possible.” He tells the Sun that 90 percent of asylum cases are denied, adding, “ Lawyers specialize in making frivolous arguments in order to buy time.” 

The director of the Middle East Forum, Gregg Roman, offers a similar assessment. Mr. Khalil’s prediction of Israeli retribution, he tells the Sun, “sounds like a red herring.” 

“He’s using anti-Israel propaganda to make Israel into a little Satan, if you will, when in fact it’s been him going after Israel, not the other way around,” Mr. Roman, who previously served as the political advisor to the deputy foreign minister of Israel in addition to working for the Israeli defense ministry, says. 

Mr. Roman estimates that Israel would not try to enter Syria in search of Mr. Khalil unless he is determined to pose “a national security threat.” Even then, Mr. Roman adds, “I’m sure al-Jolani and his regime in Syria will do everything possible to protect him.” 

While Judge Comans deliberates on that issue, Mr. Khalil’s case will also proceed in a District Court in New Jersey. That court is tasked with assessing the broader constitutionality of the government’s case against Mr. Khalil. 

On Wednesday, Judge Michael Farbiarz declined to grant a preliminary injunction from Mr. Khalil’s lawyers to order Mr. Khalil’s immediate release and to block the administration from using the foreign policy law to deport other non-citizens who advocate against Israel. 

While Judge Farbiarz branded the federal government’s use of the foreign policy statute in Mr. Khalil’s deportation case as “unconstitutionally vague,” he noted that Mr. Khalil had failed to make a “substantial argument” regarding the allegations that he filed a fraudulent green card application. 

On that front, Judge Farbiarz reckoned that Mr. Khalil was “not likely to succeed” in challenging the government’s efforts to deport him.