An immigration court decision that could hasten the deportation of Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil was marked by irregularities, including unusual speed and the recusals of several judges, The New York Times reported Friday.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is housed in the Department of Justice (DOJ) but is legally enjoined to make independent decisions, ruled on April 9 that Khalil could be deported from the U.S. However, documents obtained by the Times show that the case was fast-tracked in a manner that experts say is unusual.

“This is the due process the administration is offering me, corrupt and unprecedented,” Khalil posted on social media Friday in response to the Times’ reporting.

Khalil, a student leader of Columbia University protests against the Gaza genocide, was an early target of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech when he was abducted by Department of Homeland Security agents while returning to his New York home in March 2025. Despite being a permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen, Khalil was detained in Louisiana for over three months, where he missed the birth of his son.

Despite the BIA’s ruling, Khalil cannot be deported while his separate habeas corpus case proceeds through federal courts. However, the Times’ reporting raises questions about how fairly he is being treated by the Trump administration and how quickly he could face removal if the federal case falls through.

“This story proves that the Trump administration’s treatment of my case has always been corrupt and retaliatory. They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance,” Khalil wrote.

According to the Times:

The case was considered high priority even before the board officially received it. A note from an internal case-tracking file from June said that, even though Mr. Khalil had been released several days earlier, the case was to be handled as if he were still in detention, which would speed it along.

“Please process as quickly as possible,” said another note, from October. Another document shows that the court’s chair — its highest ranking member — oversaw the case from early on.

The decision was made nine days after all the paperwork was submitted, a timeline that Biden BIA appointee Homero López called “unprecedented,” as the board often takes years to decide similar cases.

“It’s an insane turnaround, particularly for such a high-profile case on a novel legal issue,” López, who was fired under President Donald Trump, told the Times.

At the same time, people familiar with the situation told the Times that at least three judges had recused themselves from the case, one before it was decided and the others once it became clear it would be published, meaning it would be considered precedent setting.

Former board judge Andrea Sáenz, also fired by Trump, told the Times that judges often recuse themselves because they have somehow been involved with the case before it is appealed.

“How many people touched this case when the immigration judge was handling it the first time?” Sáenz asked.

Former DOJ official David McConnell, who has experience with the immigration appeals process, said that both the quick processing and the recusals were “very unusual.” However, he added this did not mean the board necessarily did anything wrong.

However, the BIA’s decision was heavily criticized by Khalil’s legal team in April, as it upholds Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s determination that Khalil could be deported because his activism posed a threat to U.S. foreign policy, which a federal judge in New Jersey said was “likely” unconstitutional and could not be the basis for his detention or deportation. It also justified removal on the grounds that Khalil omitted certain details on green card paperwork, but the government only added those charges after Rubio’s foreign policy gambit was challenged.

“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The BIA’s decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end,” Khalil’s lead lawyer Marc Van Der Hout said in a statement when the decision was first issued. “Federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech, and there is likely much more evidence of the government’s unlawful retaliation that has yet to come to light. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mahmoud for exercising his First Amendment rights.”

Responding to the new reporting on Friday, Van Der Hout told the Times that the case’s handling suggests it “has been controlled from Day 1 by higher-ups in the administration.”