Listen to the article
Judge Extends Order Blocking Deportation of Salvadoran Migrant Amid Documentation Confusion
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis extended a temporary restraining order Monday preventing the Trump administration from re-detaining Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, citing the government’s continued failure to produce a final removal order necessary for his deportation.
The ruling maintains the earlier judicial order that secured Abrego Garcia’s release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody earlier this month. Judge Xinis expressed growing frustration during the proceedings as government attorneys were again unable to provide the court with basic documentation or clarify their plans for the migrant’s case.
“I don’t know what the government’s position is,” Xinis said in an exasperated tone during Monday’s hearing. Later adding, “I am trying to get to the bottom of whether there are going to be any removal proceedings. You haven’t told me what you’re going to do next.”
The case has generated significant national attention since March when Abrego Garcia was erroneously deported to El Salvador in what Trump officials acknowledged was an “administrative error” that violated a 2019 court order. His situation has since evolved into what Judge Xinis characterized as a pattern of government misrepresentations regarding his immigration status.
In extending the restraining order, the judge expressed concern that without court protection, the administration might attempt to illegally detain Abrego Garcia “in the middle of the night” without due process. She set a deadline of December 26—one day after Christmas—for the Justice Department to submit additional information on its removal plans, including documentation and details about potential third-country destinations.
The hearing revealed continued confusion over where the government intends to send Abrego Garcia. His attorneys reiterated that Costa Rica is his preferred destination, noting the country had agreed to accept him in August. The government previously claimed Costa Rica had rescinded this offer—a claim later contradicted by Costa Rican officials.
Judge Xinis highlighted this discrepancy in her earlier ruling, criticizing what she called 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.”
The judge has spent five months attempting to obtain clear information from the Trump administration about ICE’s plans to potentially deport Abrego Garcia to four African nations—Uganda, Ghana, Eswatini, and Liberia—with little success. At one point during Monday’s hearing, Xinis stated, “I’m again making a finding that these representations, which are misrepresentations—are in bad faith.”
Unlike previous hearings, Abrego Garcia attended Monday’s proceedings in person following his recent release from ICE custody. After the hearing, he addressed supporters gathered outside the courthouse.
The case continues to highlight tensions between the judicial system and immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. The judge ordered Abrego Garcia’s legal team to submit additional information by the end of December as the court works toward a final resolution.
Xinis concluded the hearing with a promise to work “as quickly as possible” to issue a ruling on the complex case that has now stretched across multiple seasons and generated significant political controversy.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
The government’s apparent lack of organization and clarity in this case is concerning. Careful management of deportation proceedings is essential to avoid mistakes and uphold the rule of law.
Agreed. The judge’s swift action to maintain the migrant’s release is a positive step in ensuring due process is followed.
This case highlights the complexities and challenges in the US immigration system. Careful consideration of each individual’s circumstances is important to ensure fair and humane outcomes.
Definitely. The judge’s swift action to maintain the migrant’s release from custody is a positive sign that the courts are taking these issues seriously.
The government’s inability to provide basic documentation and clarify their plans is concerning. Transparency and accountability should be priorities when dealing with such high-stakes issues.
Agreed. The judge’s frustration is understandable, and the administration needs to do better at managing these cases properly.
The government’s apparent administrative errors and lack of clarity are troubling. Proper procedures and documentation must be in place to avoid such mistakes, especially when dealing with high-stakes deportation cases.
I agree. The judge’s frustration is understandable, and the administration needs to address these issues to ensure the integrity of the immigration system.
This case highlights the complex and often murky legal issues surrounding deportation proceedings. It’s good to see the judge taking a measured and thoughtful approach to ensure due process is followed.
Absolutely. Maintaining the rule of law and protecting individual rights is crucial, even in contentious immigration cases.
This case underscores the importance of judicial oversight and the need for the government to uphold due process and transparency in immigration proceedings. The judge’s actions seem appropriate given the circumstances.
Absolutely. Protecting individual rights and ensuring fair treatment are crucial, even in the face of complex immigration issues.