US Immigration Judge Rules Milwaukee Mosque Leader Salah Sarsour Deportable Under Foreign Policy Provision

A United States immigration judge has determined that Salah Sarsour, the president of Wisconsin's largest mosque, can be deported, relying in part on a State Department memorandum that asserts his continued presence would harm American foreign policy. The ruling, issued on Wednesday by Judge Jayme Salinardi, marks the latest development in a case that has drawn national attention as part of the Trump administration's broader push against non-citizens who advocate for Palestinian rights.

Sarsour, who was born in Palestine and has resided in the United States for more than three decades, serves as president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. In a statement to The Associated Press, he described the decision as "deeply disappointing" and vowed to keep fighting. "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," he said.

The ruling hinges significantly on a memorandum issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in June 2025. That memo invoked a seldom-used provision of US immigration law that permits the Secretary of State to seek the removal of a non-citizen whose presence could carry "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Rubio's memo concluded that Sarsour's actions undermine US foreign policy efforts to combat antisemitism globally. His lawyers indicated the judge treated that determination as effectively binding.

Patrick Taurel, Sarsour's attorney, expressed strong disagreement with the outcome. "I wish the world could see the evidence that we presented and hear the testimony that the court heard because the case we presented compels only one conclusion, which is that Salah is not deportable," Taurel told reporters on Wednesday. He added that his client "has done nothing wrong" and should have his green card restored, along with an apology for how he has been treated.

The judge's reliance on Rubio's memo reflects what Taurel characterized as "extreme deference" to the executive branch. According to Taurel, Salinardi felt constrained by an earlier ruling in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist, which found that a letter from the Secretary of State alone could suffice to establish deportability on foreign policy grounds. That precedent, Taurel explained, meant the judge could not examine the evidence underpinning Rubio's decision. "If the Secretary of State says the person is deportable, it is game over," he told reporters.

The government did not prevail on every argument it advanced. Salinardi rejected allegations that Sarsour had lied on his green card application and that he had falsely claimed US citizenship in order to vote. Those dismissals represent a partial setback for the administration's case, even as the central deportation finding went in its favor. The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment from Al Jazeera before publication.

The immediate practical effect of the ruling is limited. Sarsour will not be removed from the country right away. His legal team has 60 days to argue that deportation would expose him to torture, a claim that could shield him under the Convention Against Torture. Should that effort fail, his lawyers intend to appeal. Taurel stated that Sarsour cannot be deported while an appeal is pending and will remain in the US for the foreseeable future.

The case has been unfolding against a contentious backdrop. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Sarsour in Milwaukee in March, nine months after Rubio issued the memo declaring him deportable. The administration has deployed the same foreign policy provision against other pro-Palestinian activists, including Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, signaling a pattern rather than an isolated action.

Separately, Sarsour is challenging the Trump administration in federal court over his detention. A federal judge ordered his release from ICE custody in June after 81 days behind bars, questioning why decades-old convictions that US authorities had long known about suddenly justified holding him. That judge found a "substantial" case that the government was retaliating against Sarsour for speaking out about Palestinian rights. The administration has appealed the release, contending that his convictions in Israel make him a security threat.

Sarsour's criminal history is central to the government's position but fiercely contested by his defense. He was imprisoned in 1988 after confessing to throwing stones and a Molotov cocktail at Israeli military personnel, and was convicted again in 1995 over an attempt to hold weapons. Sarsour denies the offenses, and his lawyers maintain that the confessions were coerced through torture. His former attorney, Jawad Boulos, testified in August that Sarsour was forced into signing the confessions and was never convicted of any offense linking him to a "terrorist" organization.

The case raises pressing questions about the scope of executive power over immigration and the limits of free speech protections for non-citizens. Legal observers note that the foreign policy provision at issue grants the Secretary of State substantial authority, leaving immigration judges with narrow room to second-guess determinations made at the highest levels of government. For advocates, that dynamic threatens to chill political expression by immigrants, particularly those speaking on sensitive international issues.

For Sarsour's supporters, the ruling compounds concerns that immigration enforcement is being used as a tool of retaliation. The earlier federal court finding of a substantial retaliation case lent weight to that argument, even as the deportation proceeding moved forward on separate legal grounds. The interplay between the two tracks — the immigration case and the federal challenge to his detention — is likely to continue shaping the dispute.

With the 60-day window now open, Sarsour's legal team is preparing arguments under the Convention Against Torture while laying groundwork for an appeal. The outcome could determine not only whether Sarsour remains in the country he has called home for over thirty years, but also how broadly the government may wield the foreign policy provision against others in similar positions. For now, Sarsour remains in the United States, his fate unsettled and his case poised to test the boundaries of immigration law and constitutional protection.