A federal judge is set to decide Monday whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who has been free for less than two weeks, should be returned to immigration custody. The case centers on a mistaken deportation that has drawn sharp criticism from both sides of the immigration debate. Abrego Garcia’s ordeal began in March, when he was sent back to El Salvador despite protections granted in 2019. The upcoming hearing will determine whether his continued detention is lawful.
Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March, despite an earlier 2019 ruling that protected him from being sent back to his home country. The 2019 immigration judge had found that a gang in El Salvador had targeted his family, creating a legitimate fear of harm. That decision granted him a temporary stay in the United States to avoid returning to danger. However, the government’s error in March overturned that protection.
Since August, the government has held Abrego Garcia in immigration detention. During that period, officials have announced plans to deport him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and most recently Liberia. These announced destinations are African countries that have never agreed to accept him. The government has also made no effort to arrange his removal to Costa Rica, the country he has agreed to accept.
Abrego Garcia has repeatedly stated that he would accept removal to Costa Rica, yet the government has made no effort to arrange that transfer. The judge has accused the administration of misleading her by claiming Costa Rica was unwilling to take him. The court’s records show the government has not pursued any viable removal option to Costa Rica. This lack of action has fueled accusations of deceptive conduct.
Judge Paula Xinis, who sits in Maryland, has taken a hard line against the government’s conduct. She said the agency had “persistent refusal to acknowledge Costa Rica as a viable removal option, their threats to send Abrego Garcia to African countries that never agreed to take him, and their misrepresentation to the Court that Liberia is now the only country available to Abrego Garcia, all reflect that whatever purpose was behind his detention, it was not for the ‘basic purpose’ of timely third-country removal.” Xinis’s criticism highlights the government’s repeated failure to present a realistic removal plan. The judge’s remarks underscore the legal requirement that detention serve a legitimate removal purpose.
Xinis’s statement reflects a broader concern about the legality of indefinite detention. She emphasized that detention must be tied to a foreseeable removal. The judge’s comments suggest that the government’s strategy lacks a credible removal timeline. This raises questions about whether the detention is punitive rather than procedural.
In a December 11 order, Xinis also ruled that the immigration judge who heard Abrego Garcia’s case in 2019 failed to issue a removal order. The order concluded that without such an order, he cannot be deported anywhere. The court noted that the absence of a removal order undermines the basis for continued detention. This decision adds a procedural hurdle to the government’s deportation efforts.
Abrego Garcia is married to an American woman and has a child, both of whom have lived in Maryland for years. He entered the United States illegally from El Salvador as a teenager. The family’s residence in Maryland has been stable for many years. Their ties to the community add another dimension to the case.
The 2019 ruling granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, citing the threat posed by a gang that had targeted his family. That protection was based on the assessment that returning him would expose him to serious danger. The judge’s decision was grounded in humanitarian considerations. The protection was intended to keep him safe from gang violence.
Despite the protection, officials mistakenly sent him back to El Salvador in March. The error prompted criticism from both advocacy groups and policymakers. The mistake highlighted procedural failures within the immigration system. It also intensified scrutiny of the government’s handling of his case.
U.S. officials resisted calls to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States until the Supreme Court weighed in on the matter. They have maintained that he cannot remain in the country and have pledged to deport him to a third nation. The officials’ stance reflects a broader policy of non-return to the home country. Their position has been a point of contention in the debate.
In recent filings, government attorneys argued that, with or without a final order of removal, they are still working to deport Abrego Garcia, so they can legally detain him during the process. They wrote, ‘If there is no final order of removal, immigration proceedings are ongoing, and Petitioner is subject to pre-final order detention.’ The attorneys emphasize that the absence of a final order does not preclude detention. Their argument relies on procedural rules governing immigration proceedings.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ‘because immigration proceedings ‘are civil, not criminal’ detention must be ‘nonpunitive.’ The reference was used to challenge the government’s detention strategy. The Supreme Court decision clarifies the nature of immigration detention. The attorneys argue that the current detention exceeds the permissible scope.
The attorneys contended that in this case, detention is punitive because the government seeks to hold him indefinitely without a viable plan to deport him. They wrote, ‘If immigration detention does not serve the legitimate purpose of effectuating reasonably foreseeable removal, it is punitive, potentially indefinite, and unconstitutional.’ The argument focuses on the lack of a realistic removal timeline. It questions the constitutionality of his continued detention.
The judge will hear arguments Monday, with both sides expected to present their legal positions on the necessity and legality of Abrego Garcia’s detention. The hearing will address whether the detention satisfies legal standards for removal. The outcome could set a precedent for similar cases. The parties will argue over procedural and substantive issues.
Key Takeaways
- The case centers on whether detention is lawful without a removal order.
- The government has threatened to send Abrego Garcia to African countries that have not agreed to accept him.
- The judge’s December 11 order highlights the absence of a removal order as a procedural hurdle.
The outcome of the hearing could clarify the limits of immigration detention when removal options are limited. It may influence how future cases involving mistaken deportations are handled. The decision will be closely watched by advocates and policymakers alike. The case underscores the tension between immigration policy and individual rights.
