Immigration Officers Arrest 2nd Person Who Took Part in Pro-Palestinian Protests at Columbia

Authorities said they took into custody a Palestinian who overstayed her student visa.

Students participate in a pro-Palestinian protest near the Columbia University campus in New York City on Nov. 15, 2023. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Federal immigration officers arrested a second person who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on March 14.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested Leqaa Kordia, who hails from the West Bank, for overstaying an expired student visa, DHS said.

Kordia’s visa was terminated in 2022 for lack of attendance, the agency said. Officials said Kordia took part in protests against Israel that took place in 2024 at Columbia University in New York City.

Kordia could not be reached. It is not clear whether she has retained a lawyer.

ICE officers earlier in the month took into custody Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian native who holds a green card, after he helped lead the protests. Authorities said the protests were “aligned to Hamas,” a terrorist group that attacked Israel in October 2023.

Khalil filed a petition, and a federal judge blocked officials from deporting him as the legal case proceeds.

Also on Friday, DHS said that a third Columbia University student, Ranjani Srinivasan, left the United States on March 11.

Srinivasan is an Indian national who was on a student visa when the State Department revoked the visa earlier in March, according to DHS. Officials alleged that she was involved in activities supporting Hamas.

“It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America. When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country. I am glad to see one of the Columbia University terrorist sympathizers ... self-deport,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement.

After Khalil’s arrest, Trump had said that more arrests would come.

“We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country—never to return again,” Trump wrote recently on his social media website Truth Social. “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here.”

Authorities have cited the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states in part that “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on the social media platform X that “we will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”

Lawyers for Khalil said in a filing on Thursday that Rubio’s determination “was exclusively motivated by Mr. Khalil’s lawful, constitutionally-protected past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations.”

The law says that authorities cannot remove an immigrant because of the alien’s “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States,” unless the secretary of state “personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”

Khalil’s lawyers said Rubio has not certified to Congress that he has made such a determination, which is required by another law.

They’re asking a federal judge in New York to declare that the government has been targeting noncitizens for removal based on speech that is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and order Khalil’s immediate release.

Federal lawyers have asked the New York court to dismiss the case, noting that Khalil was transferred first to New Jersey, then to Louisiana.

“Because this Court lacks jurisdiction and is not the proper forum for this habeas action, the Court should either dismiss this action without prejudice or transfer the petition forthwith,” they said in a filing. “Should the Court consider transferring the petition, the proper venue is the Western District of Louisiana.”