deport

BALTIMORE — The U.S. government plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia and could do so as early as Oct. 31, according to a Friday court filing.

The Salvadoran national’s case has become a magnet for opposition to President Trump’s immigration crackdown since he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, in violation of a settlement agreement.

He was returned to the U.S. in June after the U.S. Supreme Court said the administration had to work to bring him back. Since he cannot be re-deported to El Salvador, the U.S. government has been seeking to deport him to various African countries.

A federal judge in Maryland had previously barred his immediate deportation. Abrego Garcia’s lawsuit there claims the Trump administration is illegally using the deportation process to punish him for its embarrassment over his mistaken deportation.

A Friday court filing from the Department of Homeland Security says that “Liberia is a thriving democracy and one of the United States’s closest partners on the African continent.” Its national language is English, its constitution “provides robust protections for human rights,” and Liberia is “committed to the humane treatment of refugees,” the filing asserts. It concludes that Abrego Garcia could be deported as soon as Friday.

The court filing assessment is in contrast to a U.S. State Department report last year that detailed a human rights record in Liberia including extrajudicial killings, torture and serious restrictions on press freedom.

“After failed attempts with Uganda, Eswatini, and Ghana, ICE now seeks to deport our client, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to Liberia, a country with which he has no connection, thousands of miles from his family and home in Maryland,” a statement from attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg reads. “Costa Rica stands ready to accept him as a refugee, a viable and lawful option. Yet the government has chosen a course calculated to inflict maximum hardship. These actions are punitive, cruel, and unconstitutional.”

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and child and has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager, but in 2019 an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where he faces a “well-founded fear” of violence from a gang that targeted his family, according to court filings. In a separate action in immigration court, Abrego Garcia has applied for asylum in the United States.

Additionally, Abrego Garcia is facing criminal charges in federal court in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the prosecution is vindictive.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — The Department of Justice filed a motion Friday to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, a country to which he has no ties.

The Department of Homeland Security has received “diplomatic assurances regarding the treatment of third-country individuals removed to Liberia from the United States and are making the final necessary arrangements for [Abrego Garcia’s] removal,” the filing said.

DHS expects “to be able to effectuate removal as soon as Oct. 31.”

Abrego Garcia, a Baltimore resident, is a native of El Salvador. He was accidentally deported to a Salvadoran prison in March against a court order. In recent months, DHS has been looking for a new place to send him. It’s tried Uganda, Eswatini and Ghana, but those countries refused.

But an immigration judge ordered that Abrego Garcia not be removed from the United States.

Abrego Garcia’s attorney said the government “has chosen yet another path that feels designed to inflict maximum hardship.”

“Having struck out with Uganda, Eswatini and Ghana, ICE now seeks to deport our client Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia — a country with which he has no connection, thousands of miles from his family and home in Maryland,” Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg told ABC News. “Costa Rica has agreed to accept him as a refugee, and remains a viable and lawful option.”

The DOJ said Liberia is “a thriving democracy” and is “committed to the humane treatment of refugees.”

Abrego Garcia has been accused of being a gang member and of human trafficking, stemming from a 2002 traffic stop in Tennessee. Police stopped the vehicle in Tennessee and found several Latino men with no identification. Charges for that case were filed this year. He still awaits trial.

On Oct. 4, a federal judge in Tennessee granted a motion by Abrego Garcia’s defense team that seeks a hearing for vindictive prosecution.

“The timing of Abrego’s indictment suggests a realistic likelihood that senior DOJ and [Homeland Security] officials may have induced Acting U.S. Attorney [Robert] McGuire (albeit unknowingly) to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit,” U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. wrote.

The Maryland lawsuit was Garcia’s successful legal challenge in a federal court in which he showed DHS made a mistake when it deported him to El Salvador.

Federal officials also contend Abrego Garcia was a member of the Salvadoran MS-13 gang, though he and his family deny it. They argue that Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador because of gang violence.

TORIES will promise to introduce a US-style immigration force to deport up to 150,000 people a year.

Leader Kemi Badenoch will unveil the Conservatives’ toughest border policies yet at her first party conference.

3

3

The plan is part of a policy blitz as the Tories try to stop haemorrhaging support to Reform UK.

Ms Badenoch will pledge to create a £1.6billion removals force like the hardline US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Since President Donald Trump’s second term started in January, it has seen more than two million illegal immigrants either leave the US voluntarily or be removed.

As the party faithful gathered in Manchester, Ms Badenoch — who turned up hand-in-hand with husband Hamish — said: “We must tackle the scourge of illegal immigration to Britain and secure our borders.

“That is why the Conservatives are setting out a serious and comprehensive new plan to end this crisis.

“Labour offer failed gimmicks like ‘one thousand in, one out’.

“Reform have nothing but announcements that fall apart on arrival.”

The plan — if the Conservatives win the next election — would see all new illegal migrants deported within a week of arrival.

The “Removals Force” would be handed sweeping powers like facial recognition to spot them.

Police will have to conduct immigration checks on everyone they stop.

Illegal migrants would be banned from claiming asylum and refugee status will be for only those whose government is trying to kill them.

Immigration tribunals would be abolished and legal aid denied.

Ms Badenoch has committed to taking the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights — used to argue against deportations.

But she has been accused of mimicking Nigel Farage’s Reform policies with tougher stances on borders and net zero.

Insiders claim Tory MPs are holding on to letters calling for Ms Badenoch to quit so they can use them when she can be challenged after a year in office — on November 3.

But others expect a move would be more likely after May’s local elections.

Asked if they will topple Ms Badenoch after another bad performance at the ballot box, Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho told The Sun on Sunday: “Kemi’s had one of the toughest jobs in politics.

“If you’re someone who takes over a party after it’s lost an election, it’s a pretty rough ride.

“We’re now taking on energy and you’ll see even more from us on immigration.

“Those are the things that I think the public care about.”

But on the eve of the Conference, London Assembly member Keith Prince became the latest Tory to jump ship to Reform.

A Labour Party spokesperson insisted: “The Conservatives’ message on immigration is; we got everything wrong, we won’t apologise, now trust us.

“It won’t wash.”

3

When my father was crossing the U.S.-Mexico border like an undocumented Road Runner back in the 1970s, la migra caught him more than a few times.

They chased him and his friends through factories in Los Angeles and across the hills that separate Tijuana and San Diego. He was tackled and handcuffed and hauled off in cars, trucks and vans. Sometimes, Papi and his pals were dropped off at the border checkpoint in San Ysidro and ordered to walk back into Mexico. Other times, he was packed into grimy cells with other men.

But there was no anger or terror in his voice when I asked him recently how la migra treated him whenever they’d catch him.

“Like humans,” he said. “They had a job to do, and they knew why we mojados were coming here, so they knew they would see us again. So why make it difficult for both of us?”

His most vivid memory was the time a guard in El Centro gave him extra food because he thought my dad was a bit too skinny.

There’s never a pretty way to deport someone. But there’s always a less indecent, a less callous, a less ugly way.

The Trump presidency has amply proven he has no interest in skirting meanness and cruelty.

“The way they treat immigrants now is a disgrace,” Papi said. “Like animals. It’s sad. It’s ugly. It needs to stop.”

I talked to him a few days after a gunman fired on a Dallas ICE facility, killing a detainee and striking two others before killing himself. One of the other wounded detainees, an immigrant from Mexico, died days later. Instead of expressing sympathy for the deceased, the Trump administration initially offered one giant shrug. What passed for empathy was Vice President JD Vance telling reporters, “Look, just because we don’t support illegal aliens, we don’t want them to be executed by violent assassins engaged in political violence” while blaming the attack on Democrats.

It was up to Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem to try and show that the federal government has a heart. Her statement on the Dallas attack offered “prayers” to the victims and their families but quickly pivoted to what she felt was the real tragedy.

How ungrateful critics are of la migra.

“For months, we’ve been warning politicians and the media to tone down their rhetoric about ICE law enforcement before someone was killed,” Noem said. “This shooting must serve as a wake-up call to the far-left that their rhetoric about ICE has consequences…The violence and dehumanization of these men and women who are simply enforcing the law must stop.”

You might have been forgiven for not realizing from such a statement that the three people punctured by a gunman’s bullets were immigrants.

This administration is never going to roll out the welcome mat for illegal immigrants. But the least they can do it deal with them as if … well, as if they are human.

Under Noem’s leadership, DHS’ social media campaign has instead produced videos that call undocumented immigrants “the worst of the worst” and depict immigration agents as heroes called by God to confront invading hordes. A recent one even used the theme song to the cartoon version of the Pokémon trading card game — tagline “Gotta catch them all” — to imply going after the mango guy and tamale lady is no different than capturing fictional monsters.

That’s one step away from “The Eternal Jew,” the infamous Nazi propaganda movie that compared Jews to rats and argued they needed to be eradicated.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem speaks during a tour of the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) as prisoners stand, looking out from a cell, in Tecoluca, El Salvador, in March.

(Alex Brandon/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Noem is correct when she said that words have consequences — but the “violence and dehumanization” she decries against ICE workers is nothing compared to the cascade of hate spewing from Trump and his goons against immigrants. That rot in the top has infested all parts of American government, leading to officials trying to outdo themselves over who can show the most fealty to Trump by being nastiest to people.

If there were a Cruelty Olympics, Trump’s sycophants would all be elbowing each other for the gold.

Politicians in red states propose repulsive names for their immigration detention facility — “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida, for instance, or “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana. U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, Trump’s top prosecutor in Southern California, has trumpeted the arrests of activists he claimed attacked federal agents even as video uploaded by civilians offers a different story. In a recent case, a federal jury acquitted Brayan Ramos-Brito of misdemeanor assault charges after evidence shown in court contradicted what Border Patrol agents had reported to justify his prosecution.

La migra regularly harass U.S. citizens even after they’ve offered proof of residency and have ignored court-ordered restraining orders banning them from targeting people because of their ethnicity. Border Patrol sector chief Gregory Bovino continually squanders taxpayer dollars on photo ops, like the Border Patrol’s July occupation of a nearly empty MacArthur Park or a recent deployment of boats on the Chicago River complete with agents bearing rifles as if they were safari hunters cruising the Congo.

Our nation’s deportation Leviathan is so imperious that an ICE agent, face contorted with anger, outside a New York immigration court recently shoved an Ecuadorian woman pleading for her husband down to the ground, stood over her and wagged his finger in front of her bawling children even as cameras recorded the terrible scene. The move was so egregious that Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughin quickly put out a statement claiming the incident was “unacceptable and beneath the men and women of ICE.”

The act was so outrageous and it was all caught on camera, so what choice did she have? Nevertheless, CBS News reported that the agent is back on duty.

Noem and her crew are so high on their holy war that they don’t realize they’re their own worst enemy. La migra didn’t face the same public acrimony during Barack Obama’s first term, when deportation rates were so high immigration activists dubbed him the “deporter-in-chief.” They didn’t need local law enforcement to fend off angry crowds every time they conducted a raid in Trump’s first term.

The difference now is that cruelty seems like an absolute mandate, so forgive those of us who aren’t throwing roses at ICE when they march into our neighborhoods and haul off our loved ones. And it seems more folks are souring on Trump’s deportation plans. A June Gallup poll found that 79% of Americans said immigration was “a good thing” — a 15% increase since last year and the highest mark recorded by Gallup since it started asking the question in 2001. Meanwhile, a Washington Post/Ipsos September poll showed 44% of adults surveyed approved of Trump’s performance on immigration — a six-point drop since February.

I asked my dad how he thought the government should treat deportees. Our family has personally known Border Patrol agents.

“Well, most of them shouldn’t be deported in the first place,” he said. “If they want to work or already have families here, let them stay but say they need to behave well or they have to leave.”

That’s probably not going to happen, so what should the government do?

“Don’t yell at people,” my dad said. “Talk with patience. Feed immigrants well, give them clean clothes and give them privacy when they have to use the bathroom. Say, ‘sorry we have to do all this, but it’s what Trump wants.’

“And then they should apologize,” Papi concluded. “ They should tell everyone, ’We’re sorry we’ve been so mean. We can do better.’”

Well, that ain’t happening, dad.

Attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a Friday letter that they intend to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the African nation of Eswatini after he expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda.

The letter from ICE to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys was earlier reported by Fox News. It states that his fear of persecution or torture in Uganda is “hard to take seriously, especially given that you have claimed (through your attorneys) that you fear persecution or torture in at least 22 different countries. … Nonetheless, we hereby notify you that your new country of removal is Eswatini.”

Human rights groups have documented violations and abuses in Uganda — as well as in Eswatini, a tiny African kingdom formerly known as Swaziland.

Eswatini’s government spokesperson told the Associated Press on Saturday that it had received no communication regarding Abrego Garcia’s transfer there.

The Salvadoran man lived in Maryland for more than a decade before he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. That set off a series of contentious court battles that have turned his case into a test of the limits of President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies.

Although Abrego Garcia immigrated to the U.S. illegally around 2011 as a teenager, he has an American wife and child. A 2019 immigration court order barred his deportation to his native El Salvador, finding he had a credible fear of threats from gangs there. He was deported anyway in March — in what a government attorney said was an administrative error — and held in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT.

Facing a court order, the Trump administration returned him to the U.S. in June only to charge him with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Though that court case is ongoing, ICE now seeks to deport him again. Abrego Garcia, who denies the charges, is requesting asylum in the United States.

He was denied asylum in 2019 because his request came more than a year after he arrived in the U.S., his attorney Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg has said. Since he was deported and has now reentered the U.S., the attorney said, he is now eligible for asylum.

“If Mr. Abrego Garcia is allowed a fair trial in immigration court, there’s no way he’s not going to prevail on his claim,” he said in an emailed statement.

As part of his asylum claim, Abrego Garcia expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda and “nearly two dozen” other countries, according to an ICE court filing in opposition to reopening his asylum case. That Thursday filing also states that if the case is reopened, the 2019 order barring his deportation to El Salvador would become void and the government would pursue his removal to that country.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel has ruled that President Trump cannot use an 18th century wartime law to speed the deportations of people his administration accuses of being in a Venezuelan gang. The decision blocking an administration priority is destined for a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two judges on a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the ruling Tuesday, agreed with immigrant rights lawyers and lower court judges who argued the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was not intended to be used against gangs such as Tren de Aragua, which the Republican president had targeted in March.

Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the administration’s use of “a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court. This is a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the majority erred in second-guessing the president.

“The authority to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States and to remove terrorists from the United States rests solely with the President,” Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated on the merits in this case.”

The administration deported people designated as Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador and argued that American courts could not order them freed.

In a deal announced in July, more than 250 of the deported migrants returned to Venezuela.

The Alien Enemies Act was only used three times before in U.S. history, all during declared wars — in the War of 1812 and the two world wars.

The administration unsuccessfully argued that courts cannot second-guess the president’s determination that Tren de Aragua was connected to Venezuela’s government and represented a danger to the United States, meriting use of the act.

In a 2-1 ruling, the judges said they granted the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs because they “found no invasion or predatory incursion” in this case.

The decision bars deportations from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In the majority were U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden. Andrew Oldham, a Trump nominee, dissented.

The majority opinion said Trump’s allegations about Tren de Aragua did not meet the historical levels of national conflict that Congress intended for the act.

“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” the judges wrote.

In a lengthy dissent, Oldham complained his two colleagues were second-guessing Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, realms where courts usually give the president great deference.

“The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented — it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent,” Oldham wrote.

The panel did grant the Trump administration one legal victory, finding the procedures it uses to advise detainees under the Alien Enemies Act of their legal rights were appropriate.

The ruling can be appealed to the full 5th Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court, which is likely to make the ultimate decision on the issue.

The Supreme Court has already gotten involved twice before in the tangled history of the Trump administration’s use of the act. In the initial weeks after Trump’s March declaration, the court ruled that the administration could deport people under the act, but unanimously found that those targeted needed to be given a reasonable chance to argue their case before judges in the areas where they were held.

Then, as the administration moved to rapidly deport more Venezuelans from Texas, the high court stepped in again with an unusual, post-midnight ruling that they couldn’t do so until the 5th Circuit decided whether the administration was providing adequate notice to the immigrants and could weigh in on the broader legal issues of the case. The high court has yet to address whether a gang can be cited as an alien enemy under the act.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed to this report.

NIGEL Farage today appeared to row back on his pledge to include women and children in illegal migrant deportations.

The Reform leader said the two groups would be “exempt” from being sent packing for five years – but not “forever”.

2

2

On Tuesday Mr Farage declared that under his mass deportation plan, 600,000 illegal migrants, including females of all ages, would have no right to stay in Britain.

But pushed on the issue again at a press conference in Edinburgh today, he clarified:  “I was very, very clear yesterday in what I said, that deportation of illegal immigrants – we are not even discussing women and children at this stage.

“I didn’t say exempt forever, but at this stage it’s not part of our plan for the next five years.”

It comes as the Taliban confirmed it is “ready and willing” to strike an illegal migrant returns deal with Mr Farage.

A senior official suggested the extremist group would ask for aid to support deported Afghans instead of money.

The official told The Telegraph: “We are ready and willing to receive and embrace whoever he [Nigel Farage] sends us.

“We are prepared to work with anyone who can help end the struggles of Afghan refugees, as we know many of them do not have a good life abroad.

“We will not take money to accept our own people, but we welcome aid to support newcomers, since there are challenges in accommodating and feeding those returning from Iran and Pakistan.

“Afghanistan is home to all Afghans, and the Islamic Emirate is determined to make this country a place where everyone – those already here, those returning, or those being sent back from the West by Mr Farage or anyone else – can live with dignity.”

The Taliban official also suggested it will be easier for Afghanistan to “deal” with Reform than Labour.

He said: “We will have to see what Mr Farage does when or if he becomes prime minister of Britain, but since his views are different, it may be easier to deal with him than with the current ones.

 “We will accept anyone he sends, whether they are legal or illegal refugees in Britain.”

The Taliban are hardline Islamist militants who seized back control of Afghanistan in 2021 after two decades of war.

They enforce brutal Sharia law, with strict rules on women, media and daily life, backed by violence and fear.

Branded terrorists by the West, they’re accused of harbouring extremists and crushing human rights while clinging to power.

Mr Farage yesterday vowed to deport 600,000 illegal migrants in his first term in office – in a crackdown he claims will save taxpayers billions.

The Reform UK boss said the public mood over Channel crossings was “a mix between total despair and rising anger”, warning of a “genuine threat to public order” unless Britain acts fast.

This morning Tory Chairman Kevin Hollinrake confirmed his party would also “potentially” look to strike a returns agreement with the Taliban.

He added that his party’s deportation plan, which was published in May, is “far more comprehensive than the one we’ve seen from Reform, in that it dealt with both legal migration and illegal migration”.

Unveiling a five-year emergency programme, dubbed Operation Restoring Justice, Mr Farage yesterday tore into what he called an “invasion” on Britain’s borders and pledged the boldest deportation plan ever put forward by a UK party.

Speaking at an aircraft hangar in Oxfordshire, Mr Farage declared: “If you come to the UK illegally, you will be detained and deported and never, ever allowed to stay, period. 

“That is our big message from today, and we are the first party to put out plans that could actually make that work.”

Reform’s plan centres on a new Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill, which would make it the Home Secretary’s legal duty to remove anyone who arrives unlawfully, and strip courts and judges of the power to block flights. 

Britain would quit the European Convention on Human Rights, scrap the Human Rights Act and suspend the Refugee Convention for five years.

Reform would also make re-entry after deportation a crime carrying up to five years in jail, enforce a lifetime ban on returning, and make tearing up ID papers punishable by the same penalty.

Mr Farage said women and children would be detained and removed under the plans, with “phase one” focusing on men and women and unaccompanied minors deported “towards the latter half of that five years”.

He even raised the prospect that children born in Britain to parents who arrived illegally could also be deported, but admitted it would be “complex”. 

He said: “How far back you go with this is the difficulty, and I accept that… I’m not standing here telling you all of this is easy, all of this is straightforward.”

There would also be a six-month “Assisted Voluntary Return Window” with cash incentives to leave before Border Force begins US-style raids. Mr Farage said: “Will Border Force be seeking out people who are here illegally, possibly many of them working in the criminal economy? 

“Yes, it’s what normal countries do all over the world. 

“What sane country would allow undocumented young males to break into its country, to put them up in hotels, they even get dental care? How about that?

“Most people can’t get an NHS dentist. This is not what normal countries do.”

The scheme would also see prefab detention camps built on surplus RAF and MoD land, holding up to 24,000 people within 18 months. 

Inmates would be housed in two-man blocks with food halls and medical suites – and would not be allowed out.

Five deportation flights would take off every day, with RAF planes on standby if charter jets were blocked. 

Immigration officials in the United States say they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, according to a court filing, in what the man’s legal team describes as an act of “vindictiveness” by US President Donald Trump’s administration.

The court filing on Saturday said the idea of sending Abrego Garcia to Uganda came after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges.

He has pleaded not guilty and asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation from the US to El Salvador earlier this year.

Abrego Garcia’s case has become a flashpoint in Trump’s hardline, anti-immigration agenda after the Salvadoran national was mistakenly deported in March.

Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the US in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.

The Costa Rica offer came late on Thursday, after it was clear that Abrego Garcia would likely be released from a Tennessee jail the following day.

Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released on Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family.

Later that day, the US Department of Homeland Security notified his lawyers that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities on Monday.

“The government immediately responded to Mr Abrego’s release with outrage,” Saturday’s filing by Abrego Garcia’s lawyers reads.

“Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”

The filing also accuses US officials of “using their collective powers to force Mr Abrego to choose between a guilty plea followed by relative safety, or rendition to Uganda, where his safety and liberty would be under threat”.

“It is difficult to imagine a path the government could have taken that would have better emphasized its vindictiveness,” it says.

Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his lawyers, who feared the Trump administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed.

Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defence.

But Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington, DC, on Saturday evening, said the latest developments have raised new fears that Abrego Garcia will be quickly deported once he reports to ICE officials on Monday.

“He and his lawyers argue there’s a very real fear that the US will once again ignore a judge’s order to basically leave him alone and put him on a plane and take him to another country – in this case, Uganda,” she said.

Questions on due process

Abrego Garcia had been living in the US under protected legal status since 2019, when a judge ruled he should not be deported because he could be harmed in his home country.

He then became one of more than 200 people sent to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison as part of Trump’s crackdown on migrants and asylum seekers in the US.

But Department of Justice lawyers admitted that the Salvadoran citizen had been wrongly deported due to an “administrative error”.

Abrego Garcia – who denies any wrongdoing – now stands accused of involvement in smuggling undocumented migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and other countries into the US between 2016 and earlier this year.

His trial in his human smuggling case is set to begin in January 2027.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said in a social media post on Saturday that “no matter what you think about Mr Abrego Garcia, if you believe in due process, you should be infuriated” by the effort to send him to Uganda.

“The Trump admin is threatening to dump him in Africa as punishment for not pleading guilty to criminal charges they brought to avoid complying with a court order,” Reichlin-Melnick wrote on X.

The Trump administration has defended its policies, saying the US president was elected on a promise to carry out the “largest deportation operation” in the country’s history.

But Washington’s push to deport people has drawn widespread criticism, with removals to third countries, in particular, fuelling fears that those being sent abroad could face human rights abuses and other dangers.

Last month, the Trump administration sent eight men to South Sudan, a country gripped by political instability and violence.

NASHVILLE — U.S. immigration officials said they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, according to a Saturday court filing.

The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday, after it was clear that the Salvadoran national would probably be released from a Tennessee jail the next day. Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family. Later that day, the Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities Monday.

Abrego Garcia’s case became a high-profile story in President Trump’s immigration crackdown after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.

He has pleaded not guilty and has asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation to El Salvador. The Saturday filing came as a supplement to that motion to dismiss, stating that the threat to deport him to Uganda is more proof that the prosecution is vindictive.

“The government immediately responded to Mr. Abrego’s release with outrage,” the filing reads. “Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”

Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defense.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Federal immigration authorities are attempting to quickly deport an Arizona woman who has lived in the U.S. for nearly 30 years, in what her lawyers are calling the first test of a federal law holding that longtime immigrants cannot be removed until they’ve had a chance to plead their case before a judge.

Lawyers for Mirta Amarilis Co Tupul filed a lawsuit Saturday night in U.S. district court in Arizona and are seeking an emergency stop to Co Tupul’s imminent deportation to Guatemala while the case plays out in court.

“Only this administration would go this far,” said Co Tupul’s lead attorney, Chris Godshall-Bennet, “because at the core of it is an underlying complete disrespect for the rule of law.”

Godshall-Bennet said the government’s move against Co Tupul is just the latest of many illegal actions being attempted by the Trump administration in its effort to remove as many immigrants as possible. If Co Tupul’s deportation is allowed to proceed, her defenders said, it could have wide implications for millions of other immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for many years and are at risk of deportation.

The lawsuit was filed against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons and Phoenix ICE Field Office Director John Cantu. The Department of Homeland Security didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Federal law since 1996 allows the government to place immigrants in expedited removal proceedings if they have lived in the U.S. for under two years. The Trump administration appears to be using that law beyond its limits.

“They are going to start going around, grabbing people who have been here for decades and throwing them out without immigration court hearings,” said Eric Lee, another of Co Tupul’s attorneys.

Co Tupul’s lawyers don’t deny that she lacks legal status. At issue, they say, is how much due process she should receive.

Co Tupul, 38, entered the U.S. around 1996. She is a single mother of three U.S. citizens, ages 8, 16 and 18, and lives in Phoenix.

She was driving to work at a laundromat on July 22 when an officer wearing a green uniform — believed to be a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent — pulled her over and quickly asked about her immigration status. When Co Tupul declined to answer, the agent held her while he called ICE, who transported her to the Eloy Detention Center about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix.

Three days later, her attorney Mindy Butler-Christensen called Co Tupul’s deportation officer, who explained that her client had been placed in expedited removal proceedings and would be removed within one to three weeks.

“I asked the Deportation Officer to share with me why she would be placed in Expedited Removal,” Butler-Christensen wrote in a sworn declaration. “He told me that this was a ‘new policy’ that ICE would be implementing with immigrants who have just had ‘their first contact with ICE.’”

He refused to provide documentation of the policy, she said.

Under regular deportation proceedings, immigrants are entitled to plead their case before an immigration judge, with rights to appeal. Because of significant court backlogs, that process can be drawn out for years.

Under expedited removal, the immigration court process is bypassed and immigrants cannot appeal, though they are entitled to an asylum screening.

Initially, the faster process was only applied to immigrants who arrived at ports of entry, such as airports. By the mid-2000s, it had expanded to those who entered illegally by sea or land and were caught by border agents within two weeks of arrival.

Use of expedited removal was expanded again in June 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, to those present in the U.S. for under two years.

In January, the Trump administration announced that the government would now seek expedited deportation for those arrested not just within 100 miles of the border, but to those arrested anywhere in the U.S. The policy still applied only to those in the U.S. for under two years.

In the Federal Register notice announcing the change, then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman wrote that it “restores the scope of expedited removal to the fullest extent authorized by Congress.”

“First they expanded the geographical area, and now they seem to be challenging the two years,” said Godshall-Bennet.

Co Tupul’s brother assembled a large collection of documents, including 16 signed affidavits of close friends and family and vaccine records dating back to July 1996, proving that she has lived in the U.S. for decades, that she has no criminal history and that she is an upstanding member of her community.

According to emails reviewed by The Times, Butler-Christensen sent the evidence to Eloy Detention Center staff and to Cantu, the ICE regional field office director, saying that Co Tupul should be placed in regular deportation proceedings immediately.

The response came July 29 in an email from a deportation officer who said “the case was reviewed and she will remain in Expedited Removal proceedings.”

On a call the next day, a supervisory detention and deportation officer asked Butler-Christensen why she was so insistent that Co Tupul be placed in regular proceedings, telling her, “What is the difference?” according to her declaration.

“He told me that during the arrest, she refused to disclose to the officers how long she had lived here,” Butler-Christensen wrote.

She added: “I responded that according to the law, she doesn’t have to share that information, and that I, as her lawyer, had supplied plenty of evidence to [ICE] regarding how long she had resided in Arizona.”

The officer didn’t budge.

Another ICE official confirmed what that officer had suggested — that Co Tupul was being placed in expedited removal proceedings because she had declined to share her immigration status with the officer who arrested her.

“Upon the administrative arrest of your client, she invoked her right to not make a statement,” the official wrote in an email to Butler-Christensen. “Based on this, officers processed her as an Expedited Removal.”

Co Tupul’s eldest son, Ricardo Ruiz, said his mother had prepared him for the possibility of her being detained. She frequently watched the news and was afraid the reported ICE raids would eventually reach her doorstep.

In short calls from the detention center, Ruiz said she told him to look out for his brothers and to stay focused on his own school work as a freshman in college.

Ruiz works at Walmart and split the bills with his mother. Without her help, he said he’s quickly feeling the pressure to keep their family afloat. Ruiz described Co Tupul as a dedicated and hardworking woman who raised her kids to be good citizens who respect the law.

He said it’s unfair that immigration officials aren’t respecting the law themselves.

“I just don’t think she deserves this,” he said. “No one does.”

On Monday, Co Tupul’s youngest sons started their first day of the new school year. For the first time, it was Ruiz dropping them off instead of their mother.

July 22 (UPI) — The Trump administration has said it will deport Haitian nationals with permanent resident status in the United States who are accused of supporting or collaborating with gangs the White House has labeled foreign terrorist organizations.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the announcement in a statement Monday, saying the actions of these Haitian individuals and their presence in the United States have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

Neither the identities of the Haitian nationals to be deported nor the number to be expelled from the country were made public, though U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Monday announced the arrest of Haitian national Pierre Reginald Boulos. The Miami Herald reported that Boulos, 69, is an American-born entrepreneur, physician and influential political powerbroker in Haiti.

ICE said Boulos was arrested Thursday for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act for contributing to the destabilization of Haiti.

“Specifically, officials determined that he engaged in a campaign of violence and gang support that contributed to Haiti’s destabilization,” ICE said in the statement.

“Additionally, in his application to become a lawful permanent resident, he failed to disclose his involvement in the formation of a political party in Haiti, Mouvement pour la Transformation et la Valorisation d’Haiti, and that he was referred for prosecution by the Haitian government’s unit for the Fight Against Corruption for misusing loans, supporting an additional ground of removability based on this fraud.”

Rubio’s statement, which was made public following the announcement of Boulos’ arrest, says they have determined some Haitians with permanent resident status have supported or worked with Haitian gang leaders connected to Viv Ansanm, an organization that the State Department declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization in May, calling it “a primary source of instability and violence in Haiti.”

“The United States will not allow individuals to enjoy the benefits of legal status in our country while they are facilitating the actions of violent organizations or supporting criminal terrorist organizations,” Rubio said Monday.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration seeks to conduct mass deportations. As part of its efforts to fulfill the Trump administration’s goal, the State Department has used the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose visa restrictions on foreign nationals and deport others.

Move comes after Trump administration labeled Haiti’s Viv Ansanm gang a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’.

The administration of President Donald Trump has said it will deport Haitians living in the United States as legal permanent residents if they are deemed to have “supported and collaborated” with a Haitian gang.

The announcement on Monday is the latest move against Haitians living in the US amid the president’s mass deportation drive, and comes as the Trump administration has sought to end two other legal statuses for Haitians.

The update also comes as rights groups are questioning how the Trump administration determines connections to organisations it deems “terrorist organisations”.

In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not reveal how many people were being targeted or any names, saying only that “certain individuals with US lawful permanent resident status have supported and collaborated with Haitian gang leaders connected to Viv Ansanm”.

Following the determination, the Department of Homeland Security can pursue the deportation of the lawful permanent residents, also known as green-card holders, Rubio added.

As the Trump administration has sought to ramp up deportations, the State Department has been invoking broad powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act to attempt to deport people living in the US on various visas, including as permanent legal residents or students.

Under the law, the state secretary can expel anyone whose presence in the US is deemed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

The administration has sought to deport four people under the law for their pro-Palestine advocacy, which the State Department repeatedly equated, without evidence, to anti-Semitism and support for the “terrorist”-designated group Hamas.

All four people are challenging their deportations and arrests in immigration and federal courts.

In the statement regarding Haitians on Monday, Rubio said the US “will not allow individuals to enjoy the benefits of legal status in our country while they are facilitating the actions of violent organisations or supporting criminal terrorist organisations”.

In May, the State Department labelled the Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif gangs “foreign terrorist organisations”, calling them a “direct threat to US national security interests in our region”.

That followed the February designation of eight Latin American criminal groups as “terrorist organisations”, including the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua.

The administration has used alleged affiliation with the gang to justify swiftly deporting Venezuelans living in the US without documentation under an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act.

Critics have said the removal flouted due process, with court documents indicating that some of the affected men were targeted for nothing more than tattoos or clothing said to be associated with the group.

Haitians singled out

The Haitian community living in the US has been prominently targeted by Trump, first during his campaign, when he falsely accused Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, of “eating” pets.

Since taking office, the administration has sought to end several legal statuses for Haitians, including a special humanitarian parole programme under former President Joe Biden, under which more than 200,000 Haitians legally entered the US.

In May, the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end the special status.

The Trump administration has also sought to end temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians, a legal status granted to those already living in the US whose home countries are deemed unsafe to return to.

In late June, despite the violent crime crisis gripping Haiti, US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem declared that the Caribbean nation no longer met the conditions for TPS.

However, earlier this month, a federal judge blocked the administration from prematurely halting the programme before its currently scheduled end in February 2026.

GREENBELT, Md. — The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he’s released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday.

The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House, who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him.

Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia’s American wife is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him being expelled again.

Guynn said that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he’s released from jail and send him to a “third country” that isn’t his native El Salvador. Guynn said he didn’t know which country that would be.

Abrego Garcia became a flash point over President Trump’s immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador. The Trump administration violated a U.S. immigration judge’s 2019 order that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs that terrorized his family.

Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia last month to face federal human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have characterized the case as “preposterous” and an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation.

A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial. But she agreed last week to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys. They had raised concerns that the U.S. would try to immediately deport him, while citing what they say were “contradictory statements” by the Trump administration.

For example, Guynn had told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland on June 26 that the U.S. government planned to deport Abrego Garcia to a “third country” that isn’t El Salvador. But he said there was no timeline for the deportation plans.

Later that day, Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told the Associated Press that the department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia “will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he’s committed.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have asked Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland upon release from jail in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for more than a decade, working in construction and raising a family with his wife.

Xinis is still considering Abrego Garcia’s lawyers’ request to send him to Maryland if he’s released. Meanwhile, Xinis ruled Monday that the lawsuit against the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation can continue.

Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va.

Lawyers for the Salvadoran immigrant asked he be returned to Maryland to prevent his quick deportation from Tennessee.

Federal prosecutors have told a judge in Maryland that the United States government plans to initiate a new round of removal proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man whose mistaken deportation in March drew outcry.

On Thursday, Department of Justice lawyer, Jonathan Guynn, said the removal proceedings would be to a “third country”, not El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia was previously deported.

But the prosecutor also said the government’s plans are not “imminent”. Guynn added that the US government would comply with all court orders.

The government’s plan came to light as part of an emergency request presented to US District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Abrego Garcia is currently being held in Tennessee, where he faces criminal charges. But judges in Tennessee have indicated they plan to release Abrego Garcia – leaving him vulnerable to re-arrest by immigration agents.

His lawyers petitioned Judge Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland when he is released in Tennessee, to prevent his deportation before he stands trial.

“We have concerns that the government may try to remove Mr Abrego Garcia quickly over the weekend,” Jonathan Cooper, one of Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, said.

Judge Xinis, however, said she could not move as quickly as Abrego Garcia’s lawyers requested.

Abrego Garcia is one of the most prominent immigrants swept up in President Donald Trump’s recent push for “mass deportation”.

Though he was subject to a 2019 protection order allowing him to remain in the country, Abrego Garcia was arrested and deported around March 15, setting off a high-profile legal battle for his return.

Initially, he was held with hundreds of other deported men in El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, a maximum-security prison accused of housing abusive conditions. But by April, amid intense media scrutiny, it was revealed he had been transferred to another facility in the city of Santa Ana.

Prior to his removal, Abrego Garcia had not been charged with a crime. But when the US government announced his abrupt return on June 6, it revealed that it had sought an indictment against Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges.

That case is ongoing in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers there have argued that the charges are an attempt by the Trump administration to save face.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang and a danger to society. It has relied on a 2022 video of a traffic stop involving Abrego Garcia as evidence: He is seen driving a large vehicle with nine passengers, while a police officer speculates why they do not have luggage.

Officials have previously described Abrego Garcia’s initial March deportation as an “administrative error”.

Separately from the Tennessee case, Judge Xinis has weighed whether the March deportation was unlawful – and whether the Trump administration’s actions constitute contempt of court.

In April, Xinis, and later the US Supreme Court, ruled that the US government had an obligation to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador after his mistaken deportation.

But lawyers for Abrego Garcia have argued that the US government delayed and failed to provide court-mandated information about his return. All the while, they say, the Trump administration was preparing criminal charges against their client.

On Thursday, Judge Xinis said she had to consider the Trump administration’s pending motions to dismiss the case before she could rule on the emergency request to bring Abrego Garcia to Maryland.

She scheduled a July 7 court hearing in Maryland to discuss the emergency request and other matters.

Abrego Garcia currently remains in temporary custody in Tennessee to prevent a second deportation.

President Trump’s administration plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a country that’s not his native El Salvador after he’s released from jail in Tennessee, a federal prosecutor told a federal judge in Maryland on Thursday.

Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn said the removal proceedings would be to a “third country.” But the prosecutor also said there are “no imminent plans” to deport Abrego Garcia and the U.S. government would comply with all court orders.

Guynn acknowledged the government’s plans during a hastily planned conference call with Abrego Garcia’s attorneys and U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Md. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers had filed an emergency request for Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland when he is released in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before he stands trial.

“We have concerns that the government may try to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia quickly over the weekend, something like that,” one of his attorneys, Jonathan Cooper, told Xinis on the call.

Prosecutor says ‘there’s no timeline’

Xinis, however, said she could not move as quickly as Abrego Garcia’s attorneys would like. She said she had to consider the Trump administration’s pending motions to dismiss the case before she could rule on the emergency request. The judge scheduled a July 7 court hearing in Maryland to discuss the emergency request and other matters.

It was unclear whether the government would seek to deport Abrego Garcia before he stands trial in the U.S. on criminal charges unsealed earlier this month.

Guynn told the judge during Thursday’s call that “there’s no timeline.”

“We do plan to comply with the orders we’ve received from this court and other courts,” he said. “But there’s no timeline for these specific proceedings.”

Deporting Abrego Garcia before his trial would be a reversal for an administration that brought him back from El Salvador just weeks ago to face human smuggling charges, with Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi saying: “This is what American justice looks like.”

Abrego Garcia, a Maryland construction worker, became a flash point over Trump’s immigration policies after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March. He’s been in jail in Tennessee since he was returned to the U.S. on June 7 to face human smuggling charges.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville has ruled that Abrego Garcia has a right to be released while awaiting trial. But she decided Wednesday to keep him in custody for at least a few more days over concerns that U.S. immigration officials would swiftly try to deport him again.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in Maryland, where his wife is suing the Trump administration over his March deportation, offered up a solution when they asked Xinis to direct the government to take him to Maryland while he awaits trial. Xinis has been overseeing the lawsuit in her Greenbelt court.

“If this Court does not act swiftly, then the Government is likely to whisk Abrego Garcia away to some place far from Maryland,” Abrego Garcia’s attorneys wrote in their request to Xinis.

Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland, just outside Washington, with his American wife and children for more than a decade. His deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that barred his expulsion to his native country. The judge had found that Abrego Garcia faced a credible threat from gangs who had terrorized him and his family.

The Trump administration described its violation of the immigration judge’s 2019 order as an administrative error. Trump and other officials doubled down on claims Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, an accusation that Abrego Garcia denies.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken expulsion to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Those charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers without luggage.

Holmes, the magistrate judge in Tennessee, wrote in a ruling on Sunday that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community.

During a court hearing on Wednesday, Holmes set specific conditions for Abrego Garcia’s release that included him living with his brother, a U.S. citizen, in Maryland. But she held off on releasing him over concerns that prosecutors can’t prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting him.

Holmes ordered Abrego Garcia’s lawyers and prosecutors to file briefs on the matter on Thursday and Friday respectively.

U.S. has to pull diplomatic levers

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, an Ohio State University law professor, said the Trump administration would be “fully within its legal power to attempt to remove him to some other country.”

“The Trump administration would have to pull its diplomatic levers,” the professor added. “It’s unusual. But it’s not unheard of.”

Abrego Garcia also could contest the criminal allegations and attempts to remove him in immigration court while demonstrating his ties to the U.S., García Hernández said.

Whatever decision an immigration judge would make, it can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, García Hernández said. And the board’s ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court.

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

While the ruling does not order Khalil’s immediate release, it does undermine the US government’s case against Khalil.

A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled the administration of United States President Donald Trump cannot use an obscure law to detain Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil for his pro-Palestine advocacy.

The ruling from US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday cut to the core of the Trump administration’s justification for deporting Khalil, a permanent US resident. But it came short of ordering Khalil’s immediate release from detention.

Instead, Judge Farbiarz gave the administration until 9:30am local (13:30 GMT) on Friday to appeal. After that point, Khalil would be eligible for release on a $1 bail.

Nevertheless, the judge wrote that the administration was violating Khalil’s right to free speech by detaining and trying to deport him under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That provision allows the secretary of state to remove foreign nationals who bear “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

Judge Farbiarz has previously signalled he believes that provision to be unconstitutional, contradicting the right to free speech.

“The petitioner’s career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled,” Farbiarz wrote on Wednesday. “This adds up to irreparable harm.”

Khalil was arrested on March 8 after immigration agents showed up at his student apartment building at Columbia University in New York City. After his arrest, the State Department revoked his green card. He has since been held at an immigration detention centre in Louisiana.

The administration has accused Khalil, a student protest leader, of anti-Semitism and supporting Hamas, but officials have offered no evidence to support their claims, either publicly or in court files.

Critics have instead argued that the administration is using such claims to silence all forms of pro-Palestine advocacy.

Like other student protesters targeted for deportation, Khalil is challenging his deportation in immigration court, while simultaneously challenging his arrest and detention in federal proceedings.

The latter is called a habeas corpus petition, and it asserts that the Trump administration has violated his civil liberties by unlawfully keeping him behind bars.

While students in the other high-profile cases — including Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk and Badar Khan Suri — have all been released from detention as their legal proceedings move forward, a ruling in Khalil’s case has been slower coming.

In April, an immigration judge had ruled that Khalil was deportable based on the State Department’s interpretation of the 1952 law, despite a written letter from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio providing no further evidence for the allegations made against him.

Immigration judges fall under the executive branch of the US government and are generally considered less independent than judges in the judicial branch.

Also that month, immigration authorities denied Khalil’s request for temporary release for his son’s birth.

In the case before the New Jersey federal court, meanwhile, the Trump administration has argued that Khalil was not fully transparent in his green card application, something his lawyers deny. But Judge Farbiarz indicated on Wednesday that it was unusual and “overwhelmingly unlikely” for permanent residents to be detained on such grounds.

A United States federal judge has said that an effort by the administration of President Donald Trump to deport pro-Palestine student activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional.

District Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey wrote on Wednesday that the government’s claim that Khalil constituted a threat to US national security and foreign policy was not likely to succeed.

“Would an ordinary person have a sense that he could be removed from the United States because he ‘compromise[d]’ American ‘foreign policy interests’ — that is, because he compromised US relations with other countries — when the Secretary has not determined that his actions impacted US relations with a foreign country?” Farbiarz wrote. “Probably not.”

Farbiarz did not immediately rule on the question of whether Khalil’s First Amendment rights to free speech were violated. He also did not order Khalil’s immediate release, citing unanswered questions about his permanent residency application.

The judge is expected to order further steps in the coming days.

A ruling against the government would be the latest legal setback for the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to crack down on pro-Palestine activism across the US in the name of national security and combating anti-Semitism.

But critics have accused the Trump administration of violating basic constitutional rights in its efforts to do so.

Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the US, was the first high-profile arrest made in the Trump administration’s push to expel student protesters involved in demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza.

A former graduate student, Khalil had served as a spokesperson for the antiwar protests at Columbia University. But on March 8, the 30-year-old was arrested in the hall of his student housing building in New York City, while his wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, filmed the incident.

He was then transferred from a detention centre in New Jersey to one in Jena, Louisiana, while his lawyers struggled to ascertain his location. He remains imprisoned in the Jena facility while the US government seeks his deportation.

In public statements, Khalil has said that his detention is part of an effort to chill dissent over US support for Israel’s war, which has been described as a genocide by human rights groups and United Nations experts.

Civil liberties organisations have also expressed alarm that Khalil’s detention appears premised on his political views, rather than any criminal acts. Khalil has not been charged with any crime.

In Louisiana, Khalil continues to face an immigration court weighing his deportation. But in a separate case before the US federal court in Newark, New Jersey, Khalil’s lawyers are arguing a habeas corpus petition: in other words, a case that argues their client has been unlawfully detained.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, acting on behalf of the Trump administration, has cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as the legal basis for Khalil’s detention.

That Cold War-era law stipulates that the secretary of state can deport a foreign national if that person is deemed to pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”.

But that law has been rarely used and raises concerns about conflicts with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech regardless of citizenship.

Judge Farbiarz appeared to echo that concern, warning that the Trump administration’s rationale appeared to meet the standards for “constitutional vagueness”.

That, in turn, means Khalil’s petition is “likely to succeed on the merits of his claim” that the government’s actions were unconstitutional, the judge wrote on Wednesday.

Khalil’s legal team applauded the judge’s order, writing in a statement afterwards, “The district court held what we already knew: Secretary Rubio’s weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional.”

Khalil is one of several high-profile students whose cases have tested the constitutional bounds of the Trump administration’s actions.

Other international students detained for their involvement in pro-Palestine politics, such as Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk and Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, have been released from detention after legal challenges.

But Khalil remains in detention. The government denied a request for Khalil’s temporary release that would have allowed him to witness the birth of his son in April.

It also sought to prevent him from holding his newborn son during visitation sessions at a Louisiana detention centre.

“I am furious at the cruelty and inhumanity of this system that dares to call itself just,” Abdalla, Khalil’s wife, said in a statement.

She noted that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had denied the family “this most basic human right” after she flew more than 1,000 miles to visit him in Louisiana with their newborn son.

A judge blocked those efforts by ICE last week, allowing Khalil to hold his son for the first time more than one month after he was born.