World
India
A Columbia University student is battling a deportation order in court, arguing that the U.S. government is targeting her for her pro-Palestinian activism. Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old lawful permanent resident, claims immigration officials are using deportation as a tool to suppress free speech on college campuses. Her case highlights a broader trend of international students facing legal action for their involvement in protests.
Arrest Sparks Deportation Effort
Chung was arrested on March 5 during a sit-in protest at a Columbia University library. She and other demonstrators were protesting disciplinary actions against student activists.
Just days later, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) signed an administrative arrest warrant and even visited her parents’ home in an attempt to detain her.
On March 10, officials informed her lawyer that her green card status was being revoked. Shortly after, law enforcement conducted searches at two Columbia-owned residences, including Chung’s dorm, seeking travel and immigration records.
Having lived in the U.S. since she was seven after emigrating from South Korea, Chung is now seeking a court order to prevent her removal.
Her lawsuit argues that the Trump administration is using immigration enforcement to silence noncitizens who support Palestinian rights. “ICE’s shocking actions against Ms. Chung form part of a larger pattern of attempted U.S. government repression of constitutionally protected protest activity and other forms of speech,” the lawsuit states.
Broader Pattern of Deportation Efforts
Chung is not alone in her legal fight. Her lawsuit references other international students, including Momodou Taal, a Cornell University Ph.D. student, and Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate student, who have also faced deportation efforts.
Taal, a citizen of the U.K. and Gambia, has been asked to surrender to immigration authorities after filing his own lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive orders that led to crackdowns on student protesters. His lawyers argue that his visa was revoked without due process, and he was suspended from Cornell after attending a protest at a campus career fair.
Meanwhile, Khalil’s case has drawn significant attention. The Justice Department initially justified his deportation on the basis of his participation in protests but later introduced claims that he failed to disclose past work with the United Nations and British embassy.
His lawyer, Ramzi Kassem, dismissed these allegations as weak, asserting that the government’s actions are an effort to punish Khalil for his political views. “It’s very obviously a rearguard action to shore up their immigration case,” Kassem said. “This doesn’t change the fact that this is still a case about Mr. Khalil’s pro-Palestinian speech and the fact that the government doesn’t like it.”
Legal Battle Over Free Speech
The lawsuits underscore growing concerns that the Trump administration is weaponizing immigration laws to suppress dissent. Attorneys for the students argue that these actions violate First Amendment protections.
In Taal’s case, his lawyer, Eric Lee, questioned the government’s rationale for revoking visas over protest participation. “If the First Amendment does not protect the right to attend a demonstration, what’s left?” Lee asked. “Not much.”
As Chung, Taal, and Khalil continue their legal battles, their cases raise pressing questions about the intersection of immigration policy and free speech. With universities historically serving as hubs for political activism, the outcomes of these cases could set a precedent for how noncitizen students are treated in the future.
ALSO READ: Nazis Received Better Treatment Than Venezuelans Deported By Trump Administration, Judge Rules
