Listen to the article
A federal judge will hear arguments Monday to determine whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia should return to immigration custody after a brief period of freedom lasting just over a week. The case, unfolding in Greenbelt, Maryland, has become a focal point in the national immigration debate.
Abrego Garcia has been at the center of a complex legal battle since his mistaken deportation to El Salvador earlier this year. Despite living in Maryland for years with his American wife and child, his unauthorized entry into the United States as a teenager has placed him in a precarious legal position.
The government’s handling of his case has drawn sharp criticism from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered his release from immigration detention on December 11. In her ruling, Judge Xinis accused government officials of misleading the court by falsely claiming that Costa Rica was unwilling to accept Abrego Garcia, despite it being the one country he has agreed to go to.
“The government’s 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,” wrote Judge Xinis in her decision.
Since Abrego Garcia was placed in immigration detention in August, authorities have proposed deportation to multiple African nations, including Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and most recently Liberia. None of these countries had formally agreed to accept him, raising questions about the legitimacy of the government’s deportation plans.
Judge Xinis also highlighted a critical legal issue: the immigration judge who heard Abrego Garcia’s case in 2019 failed to issue a formal order of removal from the United States. Without such an order, Abrego Garcia legally cannot be deported to any country, according to the court.
The 2019 immigration proceeding had actually granted Abrego Garcia protection from deportation to El Salvador after determining he faced genuine danger there from gang violence targeting his family. Despite this ruling, he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March, sparking legal challenges that eventually reached the Supreme Court before U.S. officials agreed to bring him back.
Government attorneys filed arguments last week maintaining that they can legally detain Abrego Garcia while working to deport him, regardless of whether a final removal order exists. “If there is no final order of removal, immigration proceedings are ongoing, and Petitioner is subject to pre-final order detention,” they stated in court filings.
Abrego Garcia’s legal team has countered by citing Supreme Court precedent that immigration proceedings are civil rather than criminal in nature, meaning detention must be “nonpunitive.” They argue that his detention has become punitive because the government seeks to hold him indefinitely without a viable deportation plan.
“If immigration detention does not serve the legitimate purpose of effectuating reasonably foreseeable removal, it is punitive, potentially indefinite, and unconstitutional,” his attorneys wrote in their filing.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in U.S. immigration policy, particularly regarding detention practices and deportation procedures. Immigration advocates have pointed to Abrego Garcia’s situation as an example of systemic problems within the detention and removal process, while enforcement proponents emphasize the importance of maintaining deportation options for individuals without legal status.
Monday’s hearing will determine whether Abrego Garcia remains free while his complex immigration case continues to work its way through the legal system, or if he will return to immigration custody with an uncertain future regarding which country might ultimately become his destination.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
Immigration is a sensitive and often politicized issue. While I don’t have strong opinions on this specific case, I hope the judge is able to make a fair and impartial decision based on the facts presented.
While immigration is a hot-button issue, I hope the judge can make a fair and impartial decision based on the facts of this specific case. The government’s credibility in this matter seems questionable.
I agree, the government’s handling of this case is concerning and raises questions about transparency and accountability.
Regardless of one’s views on immigration, it’s important that the legal process is followed properly and that individuals’ rights are respected. This case highlights the complexities involved.
This is a complex case with lots of nuance around immigration policies and enforcement. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules and whether the government’s actions are found to be misleading or not.
This is an interesting case that touches on the challenges of the immigration system. I’m curious to see the judge’s ruling and whether it provides any clarity or precedent for similar situations.
Yes, this case could have broader implications for how the government approaches deportation cases going forward. The judge’s decision will be important to follow.