U.S. immigration officials have set Eswatini as the new destination for the potential deportation of Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, shifting from an earlier plan to send him to Uganda after a federal judge in Maryland blocked that move on protection grounds. As of September 6, 2025, Abrego Garcia remains in ICE custody in Virginia while his legal team fights both his criminal charges and the removal order in multiple courts.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE notified Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in late August that Eswatini has replaced Uganda as the designated country of removal, according to case filings and defense attorneys. The change followed arguments that he faces persecution or torture in Uganda, El Salvador, and more than 20 other countries. A federal judge then issued an order stating removal to Uganda is “absolutely forbidden” until further proceedings conclude, prompting DHS to designate Eswatini.
DHS officials have publicly dismissed his fear claims, with some comments drawing criticism from advocates. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has urged swift deportation, calling him a “monster” and alleging ties to MS-13, human trafficking, and domestic abuse. Abrego Garcia and his lawyers deny those claims, and several judges have noted a lack of evidence of gang affiliation or a verified criminal record.
A case that spans years and continents
Abrego Garcia’s path through the U.S. immigration system spans years. He received withholding of removal in 2019, a form of protection granted after a finding of likely persecution in El Salvador. That status allowed him to live and work in the United States. He lived in Maryland with his U.S. citizen wife and children and complied with ICE check-ins, according to court records.
In March 2025, ICE mistakenly deported him to El Salvador despite a judge’s order barring removal to his home country. He was then imprisoned without trial at CECOT, a high-security facility. After legal intervention, he was returned to the United States in June 2025, only to face renewed federal smuggling charges and continued immigration detention.
Government lawyers now argue he is ineligible for asylum due to alleged criminal ties; his defense contends those allegations remain unproven and retaliatory. The current dispute centers on where the government can lawfully send him if it cannot send him to El Salvador or Uganda.
The administration has cycled through options — including El Salvador, Costa Rica, Uganda, and now Eswatini — testing the outer edges of “third-country” removals for a person with no ties to those nations. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, these choices have triggered broad questions about the legal and moral limits of sending migrants to faraway countries solely to carry out deportation orders.
Court orders, public pressure, and the “third-country” strategy
The judge’s temporary block on removal to Uganda rests on findings that Abrego Garcia met the credible fear standard regarding persecution or torture. That order does not yet address Eswatini, where there is no public indication of consent to accept him in 2025. The Eswatini government has not issued a statement on U.S. policy or whether it has formal agreements to receive non-nationals as deportees.
International reaction has grown. The African Union and other rights groups have questioned the practice of transferring migrants to countries with which they have no connection. Their concern is the risk of refoulement — sending someone to a place where they face harm — through indirect routes.
Government officials argue they are acting within U.S. law to protect the public and enforce removal orders, while defense lawyers say the shifting list of destinations shows a drive to deport at any cost.
For families, the stakes are concrete. Abrego Garcia’s U.S. citizen children and spouse face separation again if removal goes forward. His lawyers say he has roots in Maryland and a legal right to seek protection given his 2019 withholding order and current fear-based claims. DHS counters that public safety and the integrity of the system require his removal.
“The shifting list of destinations shows a drive to deport at any cost,” say defense lawyers, who emphasize the human and legal consequences of third-country removals.
How the process works now
Current steps in cases like this tend to follow a set pattern:
- ICE Notification: ICE sends formal notice naming the country of removal and any change to that destination.
- Emergency Filings: Attorneys file urgent motions in federal court, arguing credible fear, asylum eligibility, or procedural errors.
- Judicial Review: Judges issue temporary restraining orders and set further hearings to weigh evidence and law.
- Removal Flight: If all challenges fail, ICE arranges a flight and coordinates with foreign authorities.
- Diplomatic Contacts: When there’s no tie to the destination country, diplomatic outreach can trigger controversy.
Abrego Garcia’s case tracks that sequence closely, with the Maryland court’s Uganda ban shaping DHS’s pivot to Eswatini. His legal team now aims to reopen his immigration case, arguing he should be allowed to seek asylum or other relief. The government maintains deportation remains the proper outcome.
Key agencies and figures involved:
– DHS Secretary Kristi Noem
– ICE, which manages detention and removals
– Federal courts in Maryland and Tennessee, which issue time-sensitive orders
– Abrego Garcia’s defense counsel coordinating filings
– The Eswatini government, whose position is not yet public
What to watch next
- Next hearing: A federal judge has paused removal at least until next month while reviewing protection claims.
- Destination clarity: Whether DHS can lawfully remove him to Eswatini without ties or consent on record.
- Policy ripple effects: Ongoing litigation may shape how far U.S. officials can go with third-country removals for noncitizens who fear harm in multiple places.
For people with family members in ICE custody, official tools can help track status. The ICE Detainee Locator provides real-time information for individuals held by ICE:
– https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index
Legal advocates note that quick court filings can pause removal, but timing is critical, and outcomes depend on credible fear standards and court calendars.
Political and human context
The broader political context is unmistakable. During the presidency of President Trump, officials weighed multiple removal destinations in complex cases, including Eswatini and Uganda. Today’s debate echoes that period: enforcement-first policies versus court-ordered protections for those who establish a risk of harm.
Advocates say the law requires careful screening before any deportation; officials respond that shifting claims of fear across many countries can stall enforcement.
At the human level, the uncertainty wears people down. Abrego Garcia’s supporters say his time in CECOT left lasting trauma. He fears being sent again to a place where he has neither family nor safety. His children in Maryland face the same question every night: Will their father be here tomorrow?
For now, the Maryland court’s order holds the line on Uganda, and DHS has turned to Eswatini. If his lawyers succeed in reopening his case, he could gain access to asylum or other protection. If not, deportation to Eswatini remains the stated goal, with flights arranged once legal barriers fall. VisaVerge.com reports that international reactions — and any signal from Eswatini — could influence how quickly that happens.
Officials, lawyers, and judges will keep arguing the law. Families, meanwhile, live with the clock.
This Article in a Nutshell
U.S. immigration authorities designated Eswatini as the new destination for Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia after a Maryland federal judge barred removal to Uganda on protection grounds. Abrego Garcia, detained in Virginia as of September 6, 2025, previously obtained withholding of removal in 2019 and was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025 before being returned to the U.S. in June 2025. The government alleges criminal ties that would make him ineligible for asylum; his defense disputes those claims. Courts have found credible fear of persecution, prompting emergency filings that stopped removal to Uganda and raised questions about the legality and ethics of third-country removals. Key issues now include whether Eswatini has consented to receive him, ongoing judicial review, and potential policy implications for future third-country deportations.
