Appeals Court Leaves Deportation Order Against Brown University Physician in Place
A federal appeals court has kept intact the dismissal of Rasha Alawieh, MD’s lawsuit over her 2025 deportation, closing off one of the few remaining legal routes she had pursued to challenge the removal order. The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 13 that federal immigration law bars review of expedited removal orders in this setting, and the panel declined to reach the constitutional arguments raised in the case.
The dispute began at Boston Logan International Airport on March 13, 2025, when Customs and Border Protection officers stopped Dr. Alawieh as she returned from visiting family in Lebanon. Officers searched her phone and allegedly found photos and videos of Hezbollah members and of Hassan Nasrallah, the group’s late leader. Dr. Alawieh said she attended a commemoration of his death but denied supporting Hezbollah, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization.
She was issued an expedited removal order and her H-1B visa was revoked. Brown University Health had sponsored the visa. She was flown to Lebanon the next day.
The case moved quickly from border detention to federal court. Dr. Alawieh’s lawsuit argued that unappointed border agents lacked constitutional authority to issue the order and that she was entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin dismissed the case in November 2025, and the appeals panel has now upheld that dismissal.
Expedited Removal and the Narrow Reach of Judicial Review
The First Circuit’s ruling turned on the structure of federal immigration law. A three-judge panel concluded that the statute blocks courts from reviewing expedited removal orders and that Dr. Alawieh’s claims did not fit the narrow exception to that rule. Judge Sandra Lynch wrote the opinion.
The panel did not address the constitutional arguments that had been central to the lawsuit. In practical terms, that means the court did not weigh the broader question of whether the officers who issued the removal order had the authority Dr. Alawieh challenged. The decision rested instead on jurisdiction, leaving the merits untouched.
Deborah Gonzalez, director of the Immigration Law Clinic at Roger Williams University School of Law, told The Boston Globe that the result was expected because the statute is so clear. Her comment reflected the same legal barrier that shaped the panel’s decision: once the case was classified under expedited removal, the window for review narrowed sharply.
One sentence captures the case’s outcome plainly: the court closed the door on judicial review without revisiting the underlying constitutional dispute.
A Transplant Nephrologist Caught Between Immigration Law and Clinical Workforce Loss
Dr. Alawieh’s attorneys said she was one of three transplant nephrologists in Rhode Island. That detail gave the case immediate significance for the state’s clinical workforce, particularly in a subspecialty where physician availability can be limited. Transplant nephrology depends on specialized training and continuity of care, and the loss of even one physician can ripple through a regional system already built around a small number of experts.
Paul Morrissey, MD, a Rhode Island Hospital surgeon, told The Boston Globe that Dr. Alawieh is now working as a physician in Lebanon. “She has moved on with her life,” he said. The comment points to the personal and professional split created by the case: one physician’s career continued abroad while the legal and institutional consequences remained in the United States.
Brown University Health has not publicly expanded on the matter in the material provided, and Becker’s said it reached out to the organization and would update the story if more information became available. No additional institutional response was included in the report.
What the Ruling Means for Physicians Sponsored on H-1B Visas
The case sits at the intersection of immigration enforcement and physician staffing. Hospitals and health systems rely on sponsored visas to fill clinical roles that are difficult to staff, especially in highly specialized fields. When a physician’s immigration status is disrupted at the border, the effect is not limited to an individual case file; it can alter scheduling, referral access and subspecialty coverage for patients who depend on that physician’s expertise.
For physicians working under H-1B sponsorship, the decision is a reminder that immigration disputes can move beyond employment and into immediate questions of admissibility and removal. Once an expedited removal order is entered, the ability to contest it in federal court becomes sharply constrained. The First Circuit’s ruling reinforces that constraint.
The court’s refusal to reach the constitutional claims also leaves a central tension unresolved: how much process is available when border officers act first and judicial review is limited by statute. In this case, the answer was not developed in the opinion. The panel stopped at jurisdiction, leaving the broader constitutional challenge untouched.
For Brown University Health, the case has now become part of a public dispute over a physician formerly tied to its workforce. For Dr. Alawieh, the practical result is simpler and more immediate. The removal order stands, the lawsuit has been dismissed, and the path back to the United States remains blocked by the ruling.
No additional clinical or patient-care details were reported beyond her transplant nephrology role and her former sponsorship through Brown University Health. The legal record in this article ends with the appellate court’s jurisdictional ruling, not with any reinstatement, reversal or hearing on the merits.