An immigration court has terminated the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student and activist who has publicly criticized Israel, her lawyers announced Monday.
Court Decision
The court terminated removal proceedings on January 29, determining that the government did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for deportation, according to her legal team. The decision was noted in a filing with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, where Öztürk is currently challenging her arrest, and detention.
Öztürk, who was detained in March and released in May, stated, “Today, I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that despite the justice system’s flaws, my case may give hope to those who have also been wronged by the U.S. Government.” She also acknowledged the pain experienced by others wrongfully imprisoned by ICE.
Government Response
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson characterized the court’s decision as “judicial activism” and referred to Öztürk as a “terrorist sympathizer.” The spokesperson asserted that student visas are a privilege that can be revoked if an individual “advocate[s] for violence, glorify[ies] and support[s] terrorists…and harass[es] Jews.”
The immigration court’s decision reportedly rejected a key argument previously used by the Trump administration to challenge the immigration status of students and activists critical of Israel. The administration had cited a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, allowing deportation if a noncitizen’s presence could result in “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Öztürk’s lawyers argue that the government’s interpretation of this act could allow for the punitive detention of non-citizens based solely on their speech. They also noted that the court’s decision does not affect Öztürk’s ongoing challenge to her initial arrest.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the Trump administration to attempt to deport Rümeysa Öztürk?
The Trump administration cited a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, arguing her presence in the U.S. Could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
Was the court’s decision made public?
No, the decision was filed under seal, though Öztürk’s lawyers offered to provide a copy to the appeals court under seal.
What was Öztürk doing before her detention?
Öztürk co-authored an opinion piece in the Tufts University student newspaper criticizing the university’s response to the war in Gaza and calling for divestment from ties to Israel.
As Öztürk’s case moves forward, will other immigration judges follow this precedent in similar cases?