An immigration judge in Chicago ruled on September 30 that Imam Salah El-Din Hassan, leader of Wisconsin’s largest mosque and a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights, can be removed from the United States on national-security grounds. The Department of Homeland Security alleged that the Egyptian-born cleric had provided ‘material support’ to a banned group in the early 2000s, an accusation the imam denies. The decision follows a seven-year legal battle that drew attention from civil-liberties groups and members of Congress. Judge Matthew Hatcher found that—even absent a criminal conviction—the government had met the low evidentiary threshold required in immigration court to establish security concerns. Because immigration proceedings are civil, many constitutional protections that apply in criminal trials, such as discovery rules and the exclusionary rule, do not apply, giving DHS broad latitude. For global mobility professionals, the case illustrates how past political activity—especially involvement in Middle-East conflicts—can threaten even long-time residents’ ability to remain in the U.S. Religious organizations that employ foreign clergy under R-1 visas or green cards should reassess due-diligence processes and be prepared for intensified background vetting. Community advocates warn the ruling could chill free speech among immigrant leaders who fear retroactive scrutiny. DHS officials counter that the decision shows the system is working to protect national security. Hassan’s attorneys say they will appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but removal could proceed if the imam’s request for a stay is denied. If executed, the deportation would separate Hassan from his U.S.-citizen wife and three children and leave the Islamic Center of Milwaukee scrambling to replace a spiritual leader weeks before Ramadan. The episode is a reminder that immigration status—even that of prominent community figures—can be precarious when national-security allegations are raised.
Source: Associated Press
