Wisconsin mosque leader ruled removable as free-speech and torture claims continue

The ruling establishes removability, not immediate deportation

Chicago Immigration Court Judge Jayme Salinardi found Salah Sarsour removable on September 29 under the Immigration and Nationality Act's foreign-policy provision. Sarsour is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States since 1993 and leads the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, described by AP, Reuters and Wisconsin Public Radio as Wisconsin's largest mosque. He has no U.S. criminal record. [1][2][3][8]

The statute says a noncitizen is deportable when the secretary of state has reasonable ground to believe the person's presence or activities would have potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences. Salinardi relied on a 2025 memorandum from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to the reporting and Sarsour's lawyers. The reviewed sources did not include the full immigration-court decision or Rubio memorandum, so their complete reasoning and evidentiary record remain unavailable for independent review. [8][1][3][4]

The government did not prevail on every allegation

AP, Reuters and Al Jazeera reported that Salinardi rejected the government's allegation that Sarsour lied on his green-card application. AP and Al Jazeera also reported, through attorney Patrick Taurel's account of the decision, that the judge rejected an allegation that Sarsour falsely claimed U.S. citizenship to vote. Reuters said DHS responded that the judge sustained multiple grounds of removability; the publicly reviewed accounts identify the foreign-policy ground but do not reproduce the complete ruling. [1][2][4]

DHS points to decades-old Israeli military-court convictions and alleges terrorist activity or support. Sarsour denies committing the alleged acts and says confessions were obtained through torture. His former lawyer testified that Sarsour was coerced and was not convicted of an offense tying him to a terrorist organization; DHS challenged how that witness could establish the torture allegation. The reviewed reporting does not resolve that factual dispute, and the immigration ruling itself was not public in the material examined. [1][2][5]

Protection proceedings and an appeal come next

The ruling does not authorize an immediate transfer. AP reported that Sarsour has 60 days to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture and 30 days to file a notice of appeal. His lawyers say they will pursue both routes and that he cannot be removed while available legal proceedings remain pending. Wisconsin Public Radio reported that a protection hearing is likely in early 2027, but no date had been set when the report was reviewed. [1][3][2]

The possible destination is also contested. AP reported that the order lists Jordan even though Taurel says Sarsour has no right to reside there; Sarsour fears transfer to the occupied West Bank and renewed mistreatment. Salinardi declined to narrow the destination at the September 30 status hearing, saying the issue could be raised on appeal. Those feared outcomes are arguments in a future protection case, not findings that torture or a particular transfer will occur. [1][4]

A separate federal case concerns detention and speech

A federal district court ordered Sarsour released from ICE custody on June 18 after more than 80 days in detention. The order said he raised a substantial First Amendment retaliation claim that could make the detention unlawful. Arabic-language Al Jazeera coverage summarized the release and the court's concern that the government had not explained why a longtime lawful resident suddenly presented a threat after more than three decades. [7][6][1]

That release order did not decide whether the government actually retaliated, whether Sarsour is removable or whether the immigration charges are valid. The federal docket expressly limits the ruling to release while the habeas petition proceeds. The immigration-court ruling and the federal habeas case are therefore distinct legal tracks, and neither can accurately be described as resolving the other. [7][3]

The case reaches beyond one removal proceeding

The immediate consequences fall on Sarsour, his family and the mosque community he leads. The case also tests how a rarely used foreign-policy ground applies when the government links removability to Palestinian-rights advocacy and disputed foreign convictions. Sarsour and his lawyers argue that the action punishes protected speech; DHS says foreign-policy and security concerns justify removal. Those are opposing legal positions, not settled conclusions about motive. [1][2][5][3]

The next verifiable milestones are the filing of protection and appeal papers, release of any written immigration decision, the next immigration hearing under a new judge and further orders in the federal habeas case. Until then, it is accurate to say Sarsour has been found removable—not that he has been deported, that his constitutional claim has prevailed or that the torture allegations have been adjudicated. [1][7][3]

How the sources compare