Judge Roasts Repeated Deportation Bids Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia

A federal judge in Maryland has sharply criticized the government’s failed efforts to remove Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying recent attempts show “none” of the good faith efforts required to keep him in immigration detention. After three botched deportation tries in September and October 2025—to Uganda, Eswatini, and Ghana—U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis signaled the government is nearing the line where continued detention would violate the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which limits how long the government can hold someone when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

Judge rebukes government’s deportation strategy

The hearing unfolded after a chaotic year. On March 12, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Abrego Garcia in Baltimore. Three days later, March 15, he was flown to El Salvador and locked inside the CECOT mega-prison, despite a standing court order from 2019 that barred his removal to El Salvador because of a well-founded fear of persecution.

ICE later called the March removal an “administrative error,” saying the protective order wasn’t listed on the flight manifest. He was returned to the United States in the spring and charged in federal court with smuggling offenses. Over government objections, he was released to his family in Maryland while the criminal case proceeds.

In late September and early October, the government attempted a series of third-country removals. None succeeded.

• Ghana: The foreign minister said his government “directly and unambiguously conveyed to US authorities” that it would not accept Abrego Garcia.
• Uganda and Eswatini: Both governments rejected U.S. requests.

On the record, Judge Xinis said she saw no evidence of the careful, realistic planning required under the law, and pressed officials on why they bypassed options that might actually be viable.

One path stood out: Costa Rica. Abrego Garcia designated Costa Rica as his preferred destination, and Costa Rican authorities agreed in writing not to send him to El Salvador. Yet the government did not pursue that option, even as it pushed removals to countries with which he has no ties. The judge’s frustration grew as witnesses struggled to explain the strategy, and as allegations of gang affiliation went unsupported.

“I saw no evidence of the careful, realistic planning required under the law,” Judge Xinis said on the record, questioning officials about their removal strategy.

Legal stakes under Zadvydas and due process

The Supreme Court’s Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) decision bars indefinite immigration detention when removal is not reasonably foreseeable. It requires the government to show steady, meaningful steps toward deportation. If officials cannot point to a realistic end point, detention becomes unlawful.

• The ruling explains how courts assess “good faith efforts” and the timeliness of post-order custody.
• The opinion is available here: Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Xinis has repeatedly relied on that framework, describing the government’s actions as falling well short of the Zadvydas standard. Her concerns, reflected in filings and courtroom exchanges, include:

• Focusing removals on countries that clearly would not accept Abrego Garcia.
• Ignoring a workable route (Costa Rica) despite documented assurances.
• Persistent mistakes and evasions, such as the wrongful March deportation to CECOT despite the protective order.
• Failure to provide witnesses who could authoritatively explain removal planning.

Another troubling point for the court is the overlap between the immigration matter and Abrego Garcia’s pending criminal charges. His defense asserts the government used the threat of deportation to distant, non-viable countries to pressure him into a guilty plea—an approach the defense says reflects a punitive motive rather than a lawful removal effort.

• Judge Xinis has not ruled on the plea-coercion argument, but her questioning indicates deep concern about due process and the potential misuse of immigration tools in criminal prosecutions.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com frames the case as a test of how far detention authority can stretch when no country will accept a person, and whether courts will force DHS to pick realistic destinations rather than hypothetical ones. The site notes growing judicial impatience with removals that rest on conjecture instead of concrete agreements.

Human impact and next steps

For Abrego Garcia, the stakes are immediate and personal. He is home with family in Maryland but remains in legal limbo—facing federal charges and the ongoing threat of removal to a third country. The months he spent inside CECOT—where conditions have drawn global condemnation—underscore what can happen when safeguards fail.

Advocates say the wrongful March removal, followed by a carousel of failed deportation attempts, shows the danger of treating detention as a default rather than a last resort.

This case also highlights a broader policy dilemma: what to do when a person has a final order of removal but no country will take them. Under Zadvydas, the solution is not endless detention. Instead, the government must:

• Make real progress toward removal, supported by evidence of concrete steps; or
• Release the person under supervision with conditions (e.g., check-ins, electronic monitoring), while pursuing lawful, realistic removal options.

Practical measures that could satisfy the requirement include:

1. Developing a robust record of “good faith efforts,” including official correspondence and receiving-country clearances.
2. Pursuing Costa Rica, which provided a written assurance it would not return him to El Salvador.
3. Accepting supervised release while preparing a lawful, realistic removal plan.

Key dates and timeline

Policy watchers warn that a finding the detention here is unlawful could have wider effects: it may force DHS and ICE to tighten removal planning earlier, secure receiving-country confirmations upfront, and avoid speculative flights that ignore protective orders. It could also limit the use of speculative destinations as leverage in criminal cases tied to immigration enforcement.

As of October 2025, Abrego Garcia remains in the United States with his family, under court oversight. The outcome will depend on whether the government can present a credible plan—one aligned with the Supreme Court’s rules and respectful of the protective order that should have prevented the March removal. For many families watching, the message is clear: the law permits detention for removal, not detention without end.