(FARMVILLE, VIRGINIA) The Trump administration has moved to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Eswatini, a small kingdom in Southern Africa, after earlier plans to send him to Uganda and El Salvador stalled amid legal and humanitarian objections. On September 5, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) formally notified his legal team that “your new country of removal is Eswatini,” according to an official letter reviewed by counsel. A federal judge has blocked any removal until at least early October while motions to reopen his immigration case and seek asylum remain pending.
Abrego Garcia, a 30-year-old Salvadoran national who has lived in the United States 🇺🇸 for much of his life and has two U.S.-citizen children, is currently detained at the Farmville, Virginia detention center. ICE re-arrested him following a brief release from pre-trial custody in Maryland tied to unrelated criminal charges in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. The federal stay means he will remain in Virginia for now while the court considers whether his case should return to the immigration courts.
New removal plan targets Eswatini
ICE’s letter dismissed Abrego Garcia’s claims of fear in Uganda and noted he has raised similar fears with respect to at least 22 countries. Agency officials have voiced skepticism about the breadth of his claims, yet they are pushing forward with the plan to deport him to Eswatini, which, officials say, has agreed to accept non-citizen deportees from the United States.
- In July 2025, the U.S. reportedly deported five men with criminal histories to Eswatini and eight to South Sudan under related arrangements.
- Rwanda has also agreed to accept up to 250 migrants.
The shift to Eswatini marks the latest turn in a complicated case shaped by court rulings, detentions, and a wrongful removal. In 2019, an immigration judge barred his removal to El Salvador after finding a credible fear of gang persecution. Despite that protection, he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025, where authorities held him in the CECOT mega-prison.
- International pressure and an intervention by El Salvador’s Supreme Court led to his return to the United States in June 2025.
- After his return, prosecutors charged him in Tennessee; a judge later released him to his brother in Maryland before ICE moved to detain him again.
ICE has indicated that, if the court grants a motion to reopen, the government will seek to remove Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, arguing his prior protection would no longer apply. That position has alarmed his lawyers, who say he still faces threats there and that any move to deport him—directly or indirectly—places him at risk of persecution or torture.
Legal posture and human rights concerns
A federal judge’s order now bars deportation until at least early October, giving the court time to weigh motions for reopening and asylum. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys argue the Eswatini plan could lead to “chain deportation,” where a person is sent to a third country that then sends them onward to the place of danger.
“There is no guarantee Eswatini will not immediately deport him to El Salvador,” his lawyers say, raising concerns about indirect refoulement — the forced return of a person to a country where they face harm.
The administration’s use of third-country deportations—especially to countries with no ties to the deportee—has drawn sharp debate.
- Supporters’ arguments:
- Enforces removal orders.
- Addresses public safety concerns when individuals have criminal allegations or violations.
- Critics’ arguments:
- Risks violating international non-refoulement rules.
- Can strip people with credible fear claims of due process.
- Places burden on receiving nations’ capacity to ensure basic protections.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the growing reliance on third-country agreements is testing the limits of U.S. removal authority and the capacity of receiving nations to ensure protections.
Rights advocates report cases of incommunicado detention following arrival in Eswatini. For Abrego Garcia, his lawyers say the lack of written safeguards raises the possibility that he could land in Eswatini only to be detained and then deported to El Salvador without a meaningful chance to seek protection.
How the process is unfolding
This case highlights how administrative choices intersect with court oversight. The step-by-step sequence now in motion typically follows:
- ICE issues official notice naming a country of removal.
- Defense counsel files motions to reopen and seeks protection (e.g., asylum).
- A federal judge may issue a temporary stay.
- ICE coordinates with officials in the selected country to secure travel documents and acceptance.
- If legal barriers fall, ICE can arrange a removal flight; if they stand, the case returns to immigration court, sometimes for months.
The human stakes are immediate. Abrego Garcia, who worked in Maryland and is raising two young U.S. citizens, faces the prospect of being sent to a place where he has no ties. His family says the uncertainty is grinding: school schedules, rent, and daily care all revolve around whether he will be allowed to pursue asylum or be placed on a flight with little notice. For many families in similar positions, each court date becomes a new “cliff edge.”
Policy implications and next steps
Advocates say the move to deport Abrego Garcia to Eswatini reflects President Trump’s hard line on removals, including efforts to widen the set of available destinations when the home country is off-limits. Legal scholars point to the 2019 ruling protecting him from return to El Salvador as a core fault line, especially given the 2025 wrongful deportation and his time in CECOT.
Key possible outcomes and timelines:
- If the court denies reopening: ICE could move to deport him to Eswatini within weeks.
- If the court grants reopening: the case would likely remain in U.S. proceedings for a longer period, with further appeals possible.
- Rights groups that helped secure his return from El Salvador are watching closely; diplomatic or legal interventions could follow depending on the court’s ruling.
For now, the timeline centers on the next hearing in early October.
Where to find authoritative updates
Officials urge the public to rely on verified channels for updates. For policy statements and case procedures, readers can check the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the official ICE website; ICE posts enforcement policies and contact details for legal offices, including the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor.
One authoritative starting point is ICE’s public site at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which provides press releases and agency contacts relevant to removal operations and court stays.
Core questions at stake
- Can the government lawfully deport Abrego Garcia to Eswatini despite his lack of ties there?
- Can Eswatini offer firm assurances against onward removal to El Salvador?
- Will the federal court agree to reopen the case based on ongoing fears of persecution?
The answers will determine not only where one man wakes up in the coming weeks, but also how the United States enforces its removal powers when direct returns are blocked and third-country pathways come into play.
This Article in a Nutshell
ICE notified lawyers on September 5, 2025 that Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s country of removal will be Eswatini, shifting prior plans to Uganda and El Salvador. A federal judge has issued a temporary stay blocking removal until at least early October while motions to reopen his immigration case and an asylum claim are pending. Abrego Garcia, a 30-year-old Salvadoran with two U.S.-citizen children, was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March 2025 and returned to the U.S. in June 2025 after international and judicial intervention. Advocates warn that deportation to Eswatini risks chain deportation or indirect refoulement if he is later sent to El Salvador. The outcome depends on upcoming court rulings; if reopening is denied, ICE could move to remove him within weeks, while a granted reopening would keep the case in U.S. proceedings longer. The case spotlights legal, humanitarian, and policy questions about third-country removals and protections under non-refoulement.
