GREENBELT, Md. (AP) — A federal judge in Maryland is set to consider whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia should be returned to immigration custody just over a week after his release. The hearing shines a light on a controversial case marked by errors and disputes within the U.S. immigration system.
Garcia has been in and out of detention following what is described as a mistaken deportation to El Salvador. Initially detained since August, his case has since become a focal point in the immigration debate, eliciting strong reactions from all sides. The U.S. government proposed multiple potential deportation destinations including Uganda, Eswatini, and Liberia, despite Garcia's willingness to go to Costa Rica, which immigration officials have yet to acknowledge as a viable option.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has critiqued the government for their handling of the situation, suggesting they have misrepresented facts before the court, specifically regarding Costa Rica’s willingness to accept Garcia. She emphasized that the current detention does not seem to serve the intended purpose of timely removal to a third country.
The immigration judge who oversaw Garcia's case back in 2019 failed to issue a necessary removal order, complicating any efforts to deport him at this moment.
Garcia has been a resident of Maryland for several years, with an American wife and child. He arrived in the U.S. illegally from El Salvador when he was a teenager and had successfully sought legal protection from deportation due to fears of gang violence targeting his family. A Supreme Court decision intervened to allow his return after his erroneous deportation.
Government lawyers argue that they can continue the deportation process even without a conclusive removal order, emphasizing the legality of detaining him during proceedings. They maintain that the absence of a final order does not exempt them from pursuing the deportation of Garcia.
On the other hand, Garcia's legal representatives assert that his detention is punitive and unconstitutional, indicating that such indefinite detention cannot be justified unless it serves a legitimate purpose for his removal.
The upcoming case is expected to garner significant attention, reflecting ongoing discussions surrounding immigration law and what is considered the appropriate treatment of non-citizen detainees.
