The U.S. government does have the authority to revoke green card status under specific conditions set forth in immigration law, particularly when national security or foreign policy interests are involved. However, this power is not unlimited. The process must adhere to constitutional due process protections that ensure fairness and legal accountability.
Legal Basis for Revocation
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the government may initiate removal proceedings against a lawful permanent resident if there are grounds to believe that their presence or activities could adversely affect U.S. foreign policy or national security. One such provision is INA § 237 (a)(4)(C)(i), which authorizes deportation if the Secretary of State determines that a noncitizen’s presence in the United States could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
This provision, rarely used, gained prominence in the years following 9/11. It was further strengthened by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which expanded the government’s powers to detain and remove noncitizens based on national security concerns. The Patriot Act revised and broadened sections of the INA, allowing immigration authorities to target individuals not only for direct involvement in terrorism, but also for actions or associations believed to pose a potential threat to foreign policy objectives. These changes created a more flexible, though controversial, framework for immigration enforcement.
Due Process Requirements
Although the government has wide discretion in national security-related cases, it cannot unilaterally revoke a green card without due process. Lawful permanent residents are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, where the government must present “clear and convincing” evidence to support its claims. Individuals have the right to contest the allegations, present evidence, and be represented by legal counsel.
To trigger removal under INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i), the Secretary of State must submit a formal statement with “facially reasonable and bona fide” reasons supporting the foreign policy concern. Importantly, the INA also incorporates safeguards for First Amendment rights. A related provision, INA § 212 (a)(3)(C), ensures that no noncitizen may be removed solely because of their beliefs, lawful speech, or associations. To overcome this protection, the Secretary of State must personally certify that the individual’s presence would compromise a “compelling” U.S. foreign policy interest—not merely pose a potential concern.
The Case of Mahmoud Khalil
Mahmoud Khalil’s case illustrates how these rarely used provisions can intersect with constitutional rights. A lawful permanent resident and student activist, Khalil was arrested by federal agents following allegations that his protest activity at Columbia University signaled support for Hamas, which is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. While ICE initially claimed to be revoking his student visa, Khalil is not on a student visa but holds a green card. The government later cited INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i) as the legal basis for his potential removal.
Khalil has not been charged with any criminal activity or with providing material support to a terrorist organization. His legal team argues that his political speech and protest activity fall squarely within the protections of the First Amendment. A federal judge has temporarily blocked his deportation while the matter undergoes further legal review.
Critics of the government’s actions suggest this may be an attempt to punish dissent rather than enforce national security law. If the government seeks to remove Khalil solely based on his speech, it must meet the high burden of proving that his presence would actually compromise a compelling foreign policy interest—something far more demanding than citing mere associations or rhetoric.
Why This Matters
While the government can revoke a green card under specific legal grounds, especially when national security is at stake, it must do so within the bounds of the law. Due process rights apply to lawful permanent residents, and actions based on political expression or speech demand the highest scrutiny.
The Khalil case has drawn national attention to an obscure but powerful provision of the INA, one shaped by the post-9/11 era and expanded under the Patriot Act. It highlights the complex balance between immigration enforcement, national security, and constitutional freedoms. For those facing similar scrutiny or threats to their status, it is critical to seek legal guidance to understand your rights and defend your residency.
Concerned About Your Green Card Status?
If you have questions about your immigration status or believe your rights may be at risk, contact our office today for knowledgeable, confidential support.
Ready to have Berardi on your side?
Whether you’re a business looking to hire or a professional hoping to relocate, immigration law can be complicated. But you don’t have to do it alone. Put our experience to work for you.