On Monday, a federal judge in Greenbelt, Maryland, is set to deliberate on the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, focusing on whether he should return to immigration detention after enjoying a brief period of freedom. Abrego Garcia’s contentious case has recently turned into a focal point in the broader immigration debate.
Abrego Garcia’s journey has been fraught with bureaucratic missteps. Since August, he has been held in immigration detention with plans for his deportation to various destinations, including Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and most recently, Liberia. Notably, these countries have never agreed to accept him. Despite this, U.S. authorities have yet to consider Costa Rica, the only nation he is willing to relocate to. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has expressed frustration, accusing the government of deceiving the court with claims that Costa Rica was unwilling to accept him.
The judge’s remarks were pointed: “The government’s continued refusal to recognize Costa Rica as a removal option, coupled with threats to deport Abrego Garcia to African countries that have not agreed to take him, and false claims about Liberia, all suggest that his detention was not aligned with the ‘basic purpose’ of ensuring a timely third-country removal,” she stated.
Judge Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia’s release on December 11, pointing out that the immigration judge handling his case in 2019 failed to issue a necessary removal order. Without such an order, deportation is not legally permissible.
Abrego Garcia, who has been residing in Maryland for several years, has an American wife and child. He arrived in the U.S. illegally from El Salvador as a teenager. In 2019, he was granted protection from deportation back to El Salvador due to credible threats from a gang targeting his family. Nevertheless, in March, he was mistakenly deported back to his homeland, a move that prompted legal battles and only reversed after the Supreme Court’s intervention. U.S. officials have insisted that he cannot remain in the U.S. and are determined to send him to a third country.
In recent legal filings, government attorneys have maintained that regardless of a final removal order, their ongoing efforts to deport Abrego Garcia justify his detention during the process.
“If there is no final order of removal, immigration proceedings are ongoing, and Petitioner is subject to pre-final order detention,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “because immigration proceedings ‘are civil, not criminal’ detention must be ‘nonpunitive.’” They argued that in Abrego Garcia’s case, detention is punitive because the government wants to be allowed to hold him indefinitely without a viable plan to deport him.
“If immigration detention does not serve the legitimate purpose of effectuating reasonably foreseeable removal, it is punitive, potentially indefinite, and unconstitutional,” they wrote.
