An immigration judge ruled that Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, is removable from the United States after the government argued his continued presence poses national security and foreign-policy concerns, though the judge rejected a separate allegation that he lied to immigration authorities.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal immigration judge ruled Wednesday that Salah Sarsour, president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, can be deported from the United States on foreign-policy grounds, handing the Trump administration a victory in a case involving decades-old Israeli convictions, Palestinian political advocacy and allegations that the government retaliated against protected speech.
Chicago Immigration Court Judge Jayme Salinardi determined that Sarsour is removable after Secretary of State Marco Rubio identified him as a foreign-policy concern, according to an Associated Press report.
Salinardi rejected a separate government claim that Sarsour had lied to U.S. immigration authorities.
Sarsour, who has lived in the United States since 1993 and is a lawful permanent resident, said he would appeal the ruling.
He described the decision as “deeply disappointing.”
“I will continue fighting to defend the right to free speech and to stay in the country I have called home for more than three decades,” Sarsour said.
The ruling does not mean Sarsour can be immediately deported. His attorneys have 30 days to file a notice of appeal and 60 days to seek additional relief, and the government cannot remove him while his available legal challenges remain pending.
Sarsour was born in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and has served as president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. He has no criminal record in the United States.
His immigration case centers in significant part on criminal proceedings in Israel dating to the 1980s and 1990s.
Sarsour was imprisoned in Israel in 1988 after being convicted of throwing stones at Israeli military personnel. The Department of Homeland Security has also said he was convicted of throwing a Molotov cocktail, while his attorneys maintain he was accused of that conduct but was not convicted on that particular charge.
In 1995, he was convicted of attempting to possess weapons.
Sarsour denies committing the underlying acts and maintains that Israeli authorities tortured him and coerced his confessions.
His attorneys have also emphasized that U.S. authorities have known about the Israeli cases for decades, raising questions about why the government did not seek his removal until this year.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained Sarsour in Milwaukee in March.
His detention quickly became the subject of separate federal litigation after Sarsour argued that the government had targeted him because of his public advocacy for Palestinian rights and criticism of Israel.
In June, U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon ordered Sarsour released from ICE custody after finding that he had raised a “substantial” claim that his arrest may have been retaliation for constitutionally protected speech.
Hanlon also questioned why the government suddenly considered Sarsour dangerous after allowing him to remain in the country as a lawful permanent resident for more than three decades.
The Trump administration has appealed that ruling.
The immigration proceedings continued independently of the federal court dispute over Sarsour’s detention.
Government attorneys argued that Sarsour’s Israeli convictions and other circumstances made his presence contrary to U.S. national security and foreign-policy interests.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a memorandum in June 2025 invoking a rarely used provision of federal immigration law allowing the government to seek removal when the secretary determines that a noncitizen’s presence or activities could have potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences for the United States.
The administration has relied on similar authority in other immigration cases involving pro-Palestinian activists.
Salinardi concluded that Rubio’s determination concerning Sarsour constituted sufficient evidence to support removal on foreign-policy grounds.
Sarsour’s attorney Patrick Taurel said the judge gave what he characterized as “extreme deference” to Rubio’s assessment and to information involving Israel.
The ruling did not sustain every allegation brought by the government.
Salinardi dismissed the government’s contention that Sarsour had misrepresented information to immigration officials in connection with his lawful permanent residency.
The government had alleged that he lied on his green card application. The judge rejected that basis for removal while allowing the foreign-policy charge to proceed.
Sarsour’s legal team is also preparing to argue that removing him to the West Bank could expose him to torture or other mistreatment.
Sarsour has said deportation to the region would place his life in danger because of his previous treatment by Israeli authorities.
His former Israeli attorney, Jawad Boulos, testified during the immigration proceedings that Sarsour was coerced into confessing and tortured by Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service.
Boulos also testified that Sarsour was not convicted of an offense linking him to a terrorist organization.
The Department of Homeland Security challenged those assertions during the proceedings and questioned the basis for Boulos’ claims about torture.
Sarsour’s attorneys face a separate complication involving the destination listed on his removal order.
Jordan appears as a potential country of removal even though his legal team says he has no right to live there and has no meaningful connection to the country.
Taurel told the court that Sarsour had been instructed by immigration officials to list Jordan on immigration paperwork because his preferred designation, Palestine, is not recognized by the United States as a fully independent state for those purposes.
Sarsour’s attorneys asked Salinardi to specify that he could only be removed to Israel or the Palestinian territories.
The judge declined to resolve that question and said it could be addressed during the appeals process.
The case comes amid a broader Trump administration effort to use immigration law against some foreign nationals whose political activities or associations officials argue conflict with U.S. foreign-policy interests.
Those cases have generated disputes over the balance between the executive branch’s broad authority over immigration and the constitutional protections available to noncitizens living in the United States.
Sarsour’s attorneys contend his case is fundamentally connected to his political speech.
The administration maintains that the removal proceeding rests on national security and foreign-policy considerations rather than punishment for his views.
Wednesday’s decision addressed whether Sarsour is removable under immigration law; it did not resolve the separate constitutional lawsuit concerning whether his initial detention was retaliatory.
The ruling also does not end the immigration case.
Salinardi announced that she is retiring, and Immigration Judge Craig Defoe is expected to oversee subsequent proceedings.
Sarsour now plans to appeal while separately seeking protection from removal based on his contention that he could face torture if returned to the region.
Until those legal avenues are exhausted, he remains in the United States.
Original article
Comments