A federal appeals court has granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause a lower court order mandating the government to “facilitate” the return of a second individual (not Kilmar Abrego Garcia) who was allegedly wrongfully deported from the U.S. to El Salvador under the president’s unprecedented — and potentially unlawful — use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).

Providing a temporary legal relief to the president and his team, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Thursday issued an administrative stay on an order from U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, which directed the government to have 20-year-old Daniel Lozano-Camargo returned to the United States.

While the appeals court did not provide its reasoning, an administrative stay is a short-term pause on a lower court’s order, typically used to buy an appellate court time to deliberate issues that cannot be quickly evaluated. The order does not ordinarily reflect the court’s consideration of the case on the merits.

The stay will remain in effect until May 15, 2025, with the deadline for Lozano-Camargo’s attorneys to file their response by May 12 and the government to file their reply by May 13.

In the immediate case, plaintiffs allege that Lozano-Camargo, who came to the country as an unaccompanied minor, was “wrongfully” deported to El Salvador in violation of a settlement agreement that was meant to keep him in the country while his pending asylum claim was litigated with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Last week, Gallagher, who Trump appointed during his first term, cited contract law principles in a 19-page opinion directing the government to try and get Lozano-Camargo back stateside “so that he can receive the process he was entitled to under the parties’ binding Settlement Agreement.” She held that the case was subject to a 2024 court-approved settlement limiting how unaccompanied minors could be deported and requiring that their asylum claim be extinguished before the execution of a “final removal order.”

But the administration on Thursday pushed back on the judge’s findings, asserting in a 28-page motion for a stay pending appeal that there was “no breach of the settlement” because said agreement only deals with the processing of asylum applications “in the context of ordinary removals under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),” not removals under the AEA.

“None of that has anything to do with [AEA removals], which do not involve any ‘final removal orders’ at all, and as to which asylum is not a cognizable defense in any event,” the motion states. “Read in context (as it must be), the settlement agreement made no promises about the exercise of the Government’s powers under the AEA, and therefore the (otherwise unchallenged) exercise of that AEA power as to [Lozano-Camargo] did not violate the agreement. That alone requires a full stay of the order.”

The administration went on to assert that Lozano-Camargo’s asylum is not an issue because, following Gallagher’s initial order, USCIS issued an “Indicative Asylum Decision” which made clear that if Lozano-Camargo were brought back to the U.S., his asylum application would be denied due to his alleged membership in the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) as well as a felony conviction for cocaine possession.

“Respectfully, it is inappropriate and unwarranted to order the Government to facilitate [Lozano-Camargo’s] return for adjudication of an asylum application that the Government has already addressed through this Indicative Decision,” the government wrote. “That puts form over substance in a manner that is equally contrary to principles of contract law and propositions of equity. And it does so in a context that is constitutionally fraught because of its implications for sensitive matters of foreign affairs.”

The administration added that it would be “bizarre” to prohibit Lozano-Camargo’s removal under the AEA due to his asylum application because “denial of that application is pre-ordained and inevitable.”

“That makes the district court’s interpretation of the settlement agreement implausible,” the filing states.

Gallagher had addressed this issue, holding that despite the Indicative Decision on Lozano-Camargo’s asylum claim, the primary issue was one of “process.”

“It’s not a substitute for the process that was due,” the judge said. “Process is important. We don’t skip to the end and say, ‘We all know how this is going to end up….’ My order requires that Cristian be returned to this country to get the process.”

Should the 4th Circuit ultimately lift the stay, Gallagher indicated she would begin requiring the government to provide updates about the process of returning Lozano-Camargo to the U.S.

This, of course, tracks with the similar case of admittedly “wrongfully deported” Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old father with protected status who was taken into custody by federal agents and quickly whisked away to CECOT along with Lozano-Camargo — despite court orders that he remain in the U.S. as well.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, overseeing the Abrego Garcia case, has also directed the government to facilitate his return. Additionally, Xinis has instructed the government to provide daily updates about their progress in getting Abrego Garcia back to the country, and increasingly found efforts have been lacking.

Gallagher previously referenced the earlier case as instructive.

“[T]his Court is also guided by, and fully agrees with, the definition of ‘facilitate’; espoused by Judge Xinis and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Abrego Garcia,” the judge wrote last week. “Standing by and taking no action is not facilitation. In prior cases involving wrongfully removed individuals, courts have ordered, and the government has taken, affirmative steps toward facilitating return.”