An immigration judge took testimony all day Wednesday in the U.S. government’s prosecution of Salah Sarsour, the leader of Wisconsin’s largest mosque who was detained by immigration officials in March. The case hinges on the admissibility and reliability of convictions Sarsour received as a teenager in Israeli military courts—raising critical questions for immigration practitioners about how to challenge foreign convictions and present evidence of coerced confessions.
What changed
Sarsour appeared in immigration court in Chicago Wednesday, alongside his lawyers, before Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jayme Salinardi. Scott Jebson represented the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which has alleged that Sarsour lied about his criminal history on his green card application after he left Ramallah, in the West Bank, and settled in Wisconsin.
Sarsour was incarcerated in Israeli prisons twice, once as a teenager in the late 1980s, and again at the age of 22 in 1994, after he had been approved for a visa and moved to the United States. Throughout Wednesday’s hearing, Sarsour’s team sought to paint that conviction as dependent on a coerced confession.
They maintain that the government has known about Sarsour’s conviction for years, and that Sarsour is being targeted for his pro-Palestinian activism.
Why it matters
This case presents a model for practitioners defending clients facing removal based on foreign convictions, particularly from jurisdictions with questionable due-process protections. The core issues:
-
Fraud in procurement of green card. DHS alleges Sarsour failed to disclose his Israeli convictions on his application. The defense must show either non-disclosure was immaterial, or that Sarsour was unaware of the charges (he claims he did not understand proceedings conducted in Hebrew).
-
Reliability of foreign courts. Practitioners can introduce evidence questioning whether Israeli military courts meet due-process standards for U.S. immigration law purposes. Israeli military courts have faced scrutiny over allegations of limited due process and high conviction rates of Palestinians.
-
Coerced confessions. If testimony establishes that a confession underlying the conviction was coerced or obtained under duress, that can undermine the conviction’s weight in removal proceedings.
-
First Amendment retaliation. A federal judge sided with Sarsour’s attorneys who charged that Sarsour’s arrest was based on his speech supporting Palestinian human rights. The judge wrote that Sarsour “has presented a substantial claim of First Amendment retaliation” that his detention is unlawful. While that ruling does not directly control the immigration court, it signals that courts may scrutinize the government’s timing and motive in bringing enforcement.
Way forward
If you represent a client facing similar removal grounds based on foreign convictions:
-
Investigate the foreign court’s procedures. Obtain records showing whether the jurisdiction offers due process, interpreter services, access to counsel, and appeal rights. Look for high conviction rates suggesting systemic bias.
-
Develop expert testimony. Consider a country-conditions expert or legal expert on the foreign jurisdiction’s courts to testify about systemic reliability issues.
-
Preserve First Amendment arguments. If there is any evidence the client was targeted for speech (activism, criticism of a government, etc.) contemporaneously with enforcement action, document it and raise it early, both in immigration court and in any parallel habeas proceedings.
-
Challenge materiality of non-disclosure. Even if non-disclosure occurred, argue it was immaterial because the convictions are unreliable or did not trigger deportability grounds under U.S. law.
-
Request discovery on motive. Ask why the government is pursuing removal now, decades after the foreign conviction occurred and after renewing the client’s green card multiple times. That timeline may support a selective-enforcement or retaliation defense.
Disclaimer
This article is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is fact-specific and procedurally complex. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney about your individual situation. The analysis reflects the current status as reported; policy can change without notice, and immigration judges retain discretion in individual cases. Verify all information against the primary source documents linked above and applicable law.