Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s asylum bid: a smart but risky legal strategy

(BALTIMORE) A Salvadoran man at the center of a tangled deportation saga is pressing an asylum claim that could reshape both his future and parts of immigration practice across the 4th U.S. Circuit. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose March removal to El Salvador the U.S. government later called an “administrative error,” is back in federal custody in Maryland while a temporary restraining order blocks any flight to Uganda and shields him from removal at least into early October 2025.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis extended that injunction while his attorneys seek to reopen his immigration case and present new claims for protection. This is the latest turn in a case that blends wrongful deportation, detention in a notorious Salvadoran prison, and fresh criminal charges in Tennessee.

Central legal choice: asylum vs. withholding

At the core is a simple but high-stakes choice: file a new asylum claim to gain broader legal protection than withholding of removal, or rely only on the existing order that bars return to El Salvador.

• Asylum can lead to stronger long-term protection, work authorization, and a path to permanent residence if granted.
• Withholding of removal is a narrower shield: it prevents removal to a specific country but does not provide permanent status or family-petition rights.

Immigration lawyers say the asylum route can open doors to stronger status if granted, but it also risks a fresh denial that could narrow his options. Analysis by VisaVerge.com notes the move can strengthen a defense against removal and expand access to appeals, though it demands consistent evidence and credible testimony under tight court timelines.

Case history and recent events

• In 2019, Abrego Garcia won withholding of removal from Immigration Judge David Jones, who found that gangs in El Salvador posed a real risk to him.
• Despite that order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) flew him to El Salvador on March 15, 2025. The government later acknowledged the removal violated the court’s order and described it as an administrative mistake.
• Once in El Salvador, he was held without trial in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a prison reported to house suspected gang members and deportees under strict security.
• He was brought back to the United States on June 6, 2025.
• Shortly after his return, he was arrested in Tennessee on human smuggling charges unrelated to his immigration case, released on bond in late July, and later transferred to ICE custody in Baltimore.
• His legal team moved quickly to reopen immigration proceedings and filed a new asylum claim.

These filings created parallel timelines: criminal court in Tennessee, immigration court in Baltimore, and ongoing federal litigation over the March removal.

Why the asylum claim now

His attorneys say the asylum claim is necessary to block any plan to send him to a third country—most recently Uganda—rather than back to El Salvador.

• Asylum law protects people with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
• A grant of asylum can also unlock work permission and eventually lead to permanent residence.
• For someone who already demonstrated danger in El Salvador, asylum could offer the stability that withholding does not.

However, the strategy carries risks:

• If an immigration judge denies asylum, he could be left with only the older withholding order.
• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE argue he poses security concerns, citing uncharged allegations including gang membership and other serious conduct. He denies those claims and has not been convicted of related crimes.
• Those allegations may still affect detention decisions and how government lawyers pursue removal—even when not charged in criminal court.

One structural factor potentially in his favor is the appellate venue. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Maryland) has a record that some experts view as more receptive to asylum arguments than other circuits. That could shape legal strategy and may make any ruling influential for other asylum seekers in the circuit.

Court actions and litigation posture

Judge Xinis’s temporary restraining order (TRO) is the most immediate protection: it prevents ICE from removing him to Uganda while federal litigation proceeds. The injunction, extended through at least early October 2025, followed a lawsuit filed by his wife and family in the District of Maryland seeking his return and remedies for the March deportation.

Key points in the litigation and administrative tracks:

• The family’s complaint alleges the government violated his due process rights and ignored a lawful immigration court order. The government has acknowledged the March flight breached that order.
• In immigration court, the motion to reopen aims to get the asylum claim heard despite an earlier denial. The hearing will test the details of his fear claim and responses to government allegations.
• If he wins asylum, the government can appeal. If he loses, appeals can proceed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and then to the 4th Circuit.
• The criminal case in Tennessee continues on a separate track, with a trial date pending.

Public attention has focused on routing removal through a third country with no tie to his nationality. ICE has not publicly explained why Uganda was chosen, and immigrant advocates criticized the plan as potentially leaving deportees without support, exposing them to new risks, and making contact with lawyers or family harder.

“Third-country removals can leave people without support, expose them to new dangers, and make it harder to contact lawyers or family,” say immigrant advocates who have criticized the Uganda plan.

Practical takeaways for others in similar situations

• Court orders matter. Even with a prior grant of withholding, removal attempts can clash with earlier rulings. Federal court oversight can halt a deportation, but families need counsel ready to file quickly.
• Asylum is a stronger shield than withholding but invites renewed scrutiny. Applicants should be prepared with:
  • Detailed personal statements
  • Supporting letters
  • Medical or police records (when available)
  • Clear timelines of threats and harm
• Parallel criminal cases can complicate immigration strategy. Even unrelated charges may influence detention or removal planning.

Government stance and judicial emphasis

• DHS defends its actions on public safety grounds, though it has not filed criminal charges corresponding to the most serious allegations raised in detention records.
• ICE’s Baltimore office has not publicly detailed the Uganda plan while the court order remains in place.
• Judge Xinis has stressed due process, ordered clear timelines, and required that Abrego Garcia remain available to immigration counsel and courts. Her orders reflect an increasing role for federal judges when administrative errors trigger cascading harms.

Legal observers say her approach seeks to balance immediate safety with restoring access to the regular immigration system so the asylum claim can be heard on the merits.

Resources and local context

For background on asylum standards and evidence, see the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official Asylum page: USCIS Asylum.

In Baltimore, the immigration court must schedule time-sensitive hearings amid a crowded docket. Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, has pushed for steady access to client files and witnesses. Advocacy groups, including We Are CASA, have filed briefs and organized courthouse support.

The case carries local resonance across the 4th Circuit—Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Carolinas—where asylum seekers often rely on local legal aid and rapid filings to stop removals. Lawyers in these states say forthcoming rulings could clarify how quickly ICE can switch removal destinations and the level of evidence required when new allegations surface late in a case.

Timeline and what’s next

• The current TRO is in place through at least early October 2025.
• The federal lawsuit in Maryland will continue into the fall.
• The immigration court process will likely take longer, with briefing and potential appeals.
• The Tennessee criminal case proceeds on its own timetable; its progress will affect detention and strategic decisions in other proceedings.

At stake is whether Abrego Garcia’s asylum claim can overcome government opposition and the shadow of uncharged allegations, and whether courts will set clearer rules for third-country removals after a conceded error. For now, he remains in ICE custody in Baltimore, protected by Judge Xinis’s order, while his lawyers prepare to present to an immigration judge why a return—direct or indirect—would put his life at risk.