Lawyers representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia have accused the Trump administration of deceiving the judiciary regarding another nation’s readiness to accept him, asserting that this alleged dishonesty and “vindictiveness” extend to the highest levels of federal leadership.

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador in March despite having protected status in the United States, claims that another Central American country is willing to accept him as a refugee. His legal team stated in a five-page document filed on Monday that Costa Rica is prepared to offer him refuge. They argue that the Trump administration’s “misrepresentations” could jeopardize this viable solution.

“The government continues to demonstrate its willingness to mislead the courts about the feasibility of Mr. Abrego’s relocation to his chosen country, Costa Rica, to exact punishment against him,” the document states.

On Monday, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a notice regarding updates on witnesses and exhibits in preparation for an upcoming hearing in Tennessee. He faces human smuggling charges there, which his lawyers describe as a “sham,” prompting them to seek dismissal of the charges on the grounds of vindictive and selective prosecution.

This case is distinct from another lawsuit in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia has taken legal action against the Trump administration for his deportation. In that case, a Department of Justice lawyer acknowledged that his deportation was a mistake due to his protective order status.

In the recent notice, the defense primarily made two arguments: First, although they are not required to prove “actual vindictiveness,” they argue that the administration has hindered their efforts to obtain crucial documents and testimonies. Second, they contend that the administration cannot refute “the presumption of vindictiveness” without involving top officials from the administration.

“The defense has issued subpoenas to three DOJ witnesses,” including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the notice reads. “The government has moved to quash those subpoenas. That decision is, of course, the government’s to make.”

“But the status quo of continued vindictiveness, including the government misleading the court in the District of Maryland about Costa Rica’s willingness to accept Mr. Abrego as a refugee only further cements the reality that the government cannot rebut the presumption of vindictiveness with just the testimony of two supervisory DHS special agents,” Abrego Garcia’s attorneys assert, “especially when the Court has already found a realistic likelihood that this indictment was the result of the vindictiveness of ‘senior DOJ and [Department of Homeland Security] officials.’”

The attorneys wrote that “the government’s misrepresentations to Judge [Paula] Xinis about whether Costa Rica would accept Mr. Abrego confirm that the retaliatory animus toward Mr. Abrego originates at the highest levels of DOJ and DHS.”

Fewer than two weeks ago, the defendant’s lawyers argued to U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Tennessee that “the government is willing to mislead the courts and defy court orders intended to shed light on its conduct, all in service of punishing Mr. Abrego.” They expressed the “need for discovery into the motivations of the high-level officials who initiated this prosecution and are ultimately responsible for the government’s misrepresentations regarding Mr. Abrego’s third-country removal.”

That filing appeared to be an effort to bring Crenshaw up to speed on developments in Abrego Garcia’s Maryland habeas case. Instead of accepting the defendant’s claim that Costa Rica has agreed to take him, the Trump administration has sought to deport him to Africa, “where he does not speak the language, has no connections, and questions remain as to whether he would live freely.”

Abrego Garcia’s legal battle against the Trump administration has been emblematic of the second Donald Trump White House’s immigration agenda. The Maryland man has become a figurehead of sorts of the challenge to the federal government’s deportation plans, which, at times, have come under harsh scrutiny by federal judges.

The hearing on the motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution is slated for Dec. 8 and 9.