DHS Denies Reentry for Brown U. Professor Due to Attending Terrorist Funeral in Lebanon
Rasha Alawieh attended the “funeral of Hassan Nasrallah— a brutal terrorist who led Hezbollah, responsible for killing hundreds of Americans over a four-decade terror spree.”
The Department of Homeland Security confirmed it denied reentry for Brown University professor Rasha Alawieh due to her attending a funeral of a designated terrorist in Lebanon.
Last month, Rasha Alawieh traveled to Beirut, Lebanon, to attend the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah— a brutal terrorist who led Hezbollah, responsible for killing hundreds of Americans over a four-decade terror spree. Alawieh openly admitted to this to CBP officers, as well as her…
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) March 17, 2025
Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese doctor and Brown University professor here on a visa, just got DEPORTED after feds found out she attended a funeral for HEZBOLLAH TERROR CHIEF Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. pic.twitter.com/XGo6HOqwTO
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 17, 2025
Alawieh landed in Boston over the weekend where Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detained her for around 36 hours.
The Department of Justice discovered “sympathetic photos and videos” of Hezbollah people on her phone. She also attended the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon.
Alawieh claimed she is apolitical and had images on her phone “because those leaders are revered by many Shia Muslims.”
From Politico:
“CBP questioned Dr. Alawieh and determined that her true intentions in the United States could not be determined,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Sady wrote in a court filing Monday.
—
“So I have a lot of Whatsapp groups with families and friends who send them. So I am a Shia Muslim and he is a religious figure. He has a lot of teachings and he is highly regarded in the Shia community,” Alawieh said, according to the transcript filed in court Monday.
“I think if you listen to one of his sermons you would know what I mean. He is a religious, spiritual person, as I said, he has very high value. His teachings are about spirituality and morality,” she added about the sheikh, who was killed last September in an Israeli airstrike on his bunker in the Beirut suburbs.
Asked if she supported Nasrallah “in any way,” Alawieh initially denied doing so but later appeared to acknowledge that she supported and admired him “from a religious perspective.”
When questioned about photos of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Alawieh said that was typical of Shia Muslims. “It has nothing to do with politics,” the physician added. “It’s a purely religious thing. He’s a very big figure in our community.”
Asked why she appeared to have deleted some photos a day or two before arriving in the U.S., Alawieh replied, “Because I don’t want the perception. But I can’t delete everything. But I know I’m not doing anything wrong. I’m not related to anything politically or militarily.”
Alawieh also said she probably did know about the U.S. terrorism designation for Hezbollah. “I’m not much into politics, but yes,” she said.
DHS did not deport Alawieh. They denied her reentry, canceled her visa, and could be barred from reentering America for five years.
Outlets brought up the reentry denial happened before a hearing on Monday discussing if the “government defied an order he issued Friday requiring that she not be deported without advance notice to the court.”
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin postponed the hearing, partly because Alawieh changed counsel.
The government has one week “to submit further information about what happened with Alawieh.”
Okay, so CBP detained Alawieh on Thursday for around 36 hours.
On Friday, Alawieh’s cousin filed a habeas corpus petition, which got on the docket at 6:43 PM.
Sorokin’s order to not move Alawieh outside the Massachusetts district at 7:18 PM.
CBP officers escorted Alawieh to a gate around 7:20 PM for a flight to Paris. It departed at 7:43 PM and took off at 7:59 PM.
Clare Saunders, a member of Alawieh’s legal team, said she was at the Boston airport when Sorokin filed the order. She insisted she told a CBP officer about the order.
Once the order went through, Saunders claimed she couldn’t reach a CBP officer to tell them about it and tried calling the number at the CBP office eight times.
When that didn’t work she went to a police kiosk and slammed the emergency button at 7:55 PM.
But by then, as stated above, Alawieh was already on the plane.
CBP offered Sorokin an explanation:
CBP official John Wallace said in a sworn declaration filed with the court that CBP officials at Boston’s Logan Airport hadn’t received formal notification of the court order through official channels before Alawieh was put on an Air France flight bound for Paris Friday night.
“At no time, would CBP not take a court order seriously or fail to abide by a court’s order,” Wallace wrote, while adding that the agency only acts on orders it gets from its legal counsel or is able to verify with that counsel.
“Due to the extremely close timing between the issuance of the court order in this case and the boarding time of [the Air France flight] CBP did not receive the court’s orders until after the flight departed the United States,” Wallace added.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Good. We need sensible policies like this.
Lol
Turn AI loose on social media platforms to gather basic info about these Aliens from public sources. Use their own social media posts to provide a basis for removal, exclusion, denial and/or the starting point to dig deeper.
Just do not let our side do the “warning, not a how-to” thing like the Left does. I do NOT want “Born In East LA” being played out for real.
Agreed, but like DEI and other “woke” programs, this would not be a problem in the first place if Democrats didn’t promote rampant, systemic racism and unrestricted borders.
Domestic terrorist supporters should all be “invited” to go to the countries they support so passionately.
This is a wonderful idea! Or not! Depending on who is in power.
I don’t see how full knowledge of the viewpoints expressed in public on social media by Aliens seeking entry, reentry or extension of their (very much revocable) permission to remain in the USA as our guest is at all troublesome. Once someone puts it online into public then just like waking down the public street there isn’t any expectation of privacy. Anyone worried about what the Govt may find out about them from online posts is well advised not to
post it online, especially when they post it where it is viewable by public.
Apolitical her fat ass. Put her on a Minuteman III and fire her back to Lebanon. Send the cousin her lawyer and the judge too.
Ok. Use a peacekeeper missle
It’s an entirely Executive function to deny or revoke visas. Judicial branch can go pound sand. Period.
It is a judicial function to decide whether the visa has been denied or revoked unlawfully. The executive has no inherent power over visas at all; it has only that power that the legislature has delegated to it. And it’s the judiciary’s function to decide whether a given case falls within that delegated power or outside it.
In addition, it is absolutely a judicial function to issue writs of habeas corpus, which the executive must obey. It is also the judicial function to hear applications for such writs, and to make whatever orders are necessary to protect its jurisdiction while such applications are pending.
Are you arguing that general proposition always applicable, in all circumstances and that there are not circumstances where the issue isn’t justiciable particularly those involving Executive powers re National Security and Foreign Policy? IMO Habeas is broad but not infinite. The Executive is fully within his power to ignore the Judiciary when the Judiciary seeks to unconstitutionally intrude or interfere with plenary Executive powers, just as the Judiciary would be correct to ignore the Executive if the Executive sought to unconstitutionally intrude or interfere into the Judiciary.
The proposition was that “It’s an entirely Executive function to deny or revoke visas”, and therefore the judicial branch has no role.
I am arguing two things: (1) any time there is a question of law, it is the judicial branch and only the judicial branch that must answer it. The legislature has plenary power over immigration, and it has delegated to the executive broad power to revoke or deny visas. But in any given case the person involved may raise the question of whether the denial or revocation is lawful, and if he does raise that question then it is very much a judicial function to answer it. And thus courts have a very large role to play in the process. You can’t just say the courts have no say here; that itself is a legal question that only the courts can answer.
I am also arguing that whether or not a given person is entitled to habeas, from the moment he applies for it the court has jurisdiction until it decides whether to issue the writ or not. If it issues the writ it must of course be obeyed unconditionally. But until it decides whether to issue it, it has the absolute right to protect its jurisdiction by keeping the applicant from being removed.
As for whether habeas is “infinite”, it depends what you mean by that. Everyone who is being held by the civilian authorities on criminal charges is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus, without exception. On application to a judge the judge will issue the writ, and the government must obey it. It must produce the applicant and justify to the judge why it is holding him.
But there are people who are not entitled to the writ. Specifically prisoners of war. So once it’s established that the applicant is indeed a POW, and is thus not being held by the civilian authorities on criminal charges, but is being held by the military, the inquiry stops. The military does not have to justify to the judge why it is holding the applicant.
But first it must establish that he is indeed a POW. If the applicant denies this, then he is entitled to a hearing to determine that question. The government can’t just assert it and be believed.
You fail to make the distinction between Citizens and Aliens. You also run right past the question of jurisdiction of a District CT at this stage or of the powers of the Executive.
Under the circumstances here, a person seeking entry into the USA, there are really only a few questions.
1. Is the person seeking entry a US Citizen? If so they can’t be refused as a general proposition.
2. Is the person an Alien? If so then the Executive may refuse entry for all.sorts of reasons and that decision is final.
3. If refused they can work within the Immigration system to appeal but while outside the USA.
4. Unfortunately there ain’t an appeal of Executive decisions on entry for Aliens at the border (20 miles) or ports of entry, the Executive has been delegated plenary authority and SCOTUS has repeatedly confirmed this power to exclude.
I agree in part with your last paragraph but would add to it. Aliens are much like members of the US Military subject to UCMJ. Aliens don’t have immediate access to Art III Courts when the case/controversy is about an immigration issue. Entry into the USA is definitely an immigration issue. Once it is determined that this person is an Alien that’s it, the clear power of the Executive delegated by Congress and confirmed by Judicial precedent to deny reentry is the end of the line.
Habeas and Hubris are supposed to be different things but many seem unable to make the distinction. A Judge isn’t a ‘philosopher king’ able to impose his will on any and all matters. SCOTUS can make nationwide decisions, a Circuit CT can make Circuit wide decisions but the reach of a District Judge is limited to the specific plaintiffs before him and they gotta be in his District. There are some issues, particularly in Nat Security and Foreign Policy that are not Justiciable.
The Hubris by some of these members of the Judiciary and their surrogates or supporters of the doctrine of Judicial overreach (aka Judicial Supremacy) should probably take time to study not just literature but history b/c Nemesis almost always follows Hubris.
She found out that Nasrallah is detested by Americans. She should be permanently banned from America. Now start tracking down her known associates so that she can have a lot of company.
Nasrallah was such a moral man.
I have always had a problem with those who believe an omnipotent being needs the murdering dregs of society to fulfill it’s ends. Some how that just doesn’t seem very omnipotent.
I was led to believe he was an “austere scholar.”
It’s good except that the guy shares the opinion with a large number of Americans. This comes from arguing “Who’s more oppressed,” on which the two sides are about equal, instead of “Who’s moral and who’s immoral,” which would be easy to win. So it looks mostly like a free speech issue instead of a security issue.
Is Morality a hard science? I thought one culture’s definition of what is moral is not necessarily the same as another culture’s. I need to learn more about this Hassan Nasrallah person and his opinion so that I can understand what he had in common with that large number of Americans.
What Hardin is trying to say is he hates Jews, just like Nasralla did.
“ When that didn’t work she went to a police kiosk and slammed the emergency button at 7:55 PM.”
She should have been arrested for humbuggery! 😂 Improper use of the emergency button…then put the lawyers fat ads in the next seat in the plane 😂
The lawyer should be put on the no-fly list for screwing with airport security.
Preventing a kidnapping is a legitimate emergency. The fact is that the order had been made, and was being violated.
Sorta like the January 6 captives.
For four years, conservatives had to walk softly for fear of their government, yet she is free to go to worship and mourn the death of a terrorist.
Would I love to see equal application of laws.
I’m old enough to remember when that was SOP.
No, we didn’t. We spoke against the government openly and without fear.
Anyone is always free to do that, and must remain so. What she’s not entitled to is automatic admission to the USA. She was applying to enter the USA and the USA is entitled to say no, this is not a person we want in here.
However the court is entitled to have its orders obeyed. If she was being removed contrary to a court order, which she was, then that was a kidnapping, and it is a legitimate use of the emergency system to push the button in an attempt to prevent it.
Kidnapping? More like two agencies miscommunicating. This is the essence of government.
The judge overstepped their bounds on this.
The CBP was informed of the court order. It had an immediate duty to obey it.
And no, the judge did not overstep his bounds. He had an application for habeas in front of him, and had every right to order the applicant kept within the jurisdiction until he could hear the parties and decide whether she was entitled to habeas or not. (Answer: She was not. But it was for the judge to decide that, after a hearing on the question.)
“He is a religious, spiritual person, as I said, he has very high value. His teachings are about spirituality and morality,”
.. I was told the same thing about Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye.
I am sorta fond of Jim Jones myself.
/s
Jim Jones was HUGE among Democrats.
Yes, he was. He was a big fundraiser for them and all the high officials of the party flocked to be seen with him.
But he wasn’t particularly religious or spiritual. He openly taught Marxism, not Christianity.
These intellectual Pygmies are very slow on understanding that there is a new sheriff in town and the rules have changed.
She could have got away with it under the previous regime but times have changed, for the better!!
It doesn’t sound like her responses were very honest. But even if they were, saying a terrorist, “has high value” should be a disqualifier for entry into the U.S. all by itself.
More like a high value target.
omar is still a “better” terrrrorist
Everyone on her contact list should be deported too.
What a terrible loss for America.
Not.
I’m sure it was fun showing up to class and hearing that the professor got banned from the US but the type of people in her classes would likely take that as proof that she was a great professor.
Repeat ad infinitum, please.
Islamofascist/terrorist-supporting Muslims in the U.S. have become entirely too brazen, comfortable and complacent, under decades of the vile Dhimmi-crats’ kowtowing, enabling, deference and kid gloves treatment.
Should have put her on the “no fly” list as well.
The idea of a kind of firewall between the religious and political spheres is a Western product of the Enlightenment. It has no parallel in the culture of Hezbollah.
How does some rando professor get a judge to react to anything in 30 minutes?
No one had a right to enter the US. If you support a terrorist and a terrorist group then stay the hell out. Bye
Milhouse will tell you that this isn’t the definition of support.
It’s not material support. It’s speech, of which all human beings everywhere have the freedom, but the constitution only protects it when it’s exercised either by a US citizen or resident anywhere in the world, or by an alien in the USA. She was an alien exercising it abroad, so the constitution doesn’t protect her speech, and she may be denied admission to the USA.
However, like anyone who is arrested, she was entitled to a hearing on whether the writ of habeas corpus was available to her. And to have that hearing, the judge was entitled to order her kept in the jurisdiction.
Oh? The terrorist supporter wasn’t allowed in? Good, we don’t need more people than here supporting terrorists.
It occurs to me they should have give her a commemorative pager before sending her on her way.
Bang!
As M. Rubio has stated before, a visa is an invitation to visit. It’s not citizenship with all the rights therein. Islam is a political faction masquerading as religion. Support a terrorist, get your visa revoked. It’s an executive thing, per the US Constitution.
No, it is not an executive thing per the constitution. The constitution is entirely silent on the topic. SCOTUS held over a century ago that Congress has plenary power over it. The executive has power in this area only as delegated by Congress.
But that isn’t the issue. The issue is the court order to keep her in the jurisdiction until the hearing on whether she was entitled to habeas.