(FARMVILLE, VIRGINIA) Senator Mark Warner is urging federal officials to halt any deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man now held at the Farmville Detention Center, after a federal judge blocked his removal until at least an evidentiary hearing on October 6, 2025. The court order, issued on August 28 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, bars deportation while Garcia’s attorneys pursue an emergency habeas corpus challenge.

The case has drawn national attention because Garcia was previously deported to El Salvador earlier this year despite a court order that prohibited removal to that country, and because U.S. authorities later warned he could be removed to Uganda, a country where he has no ties.

Senator Warner visited Garcia at Farmville on August 29, delivering letters from his family and repeating his call for due process to be respected. “No deportation should proceed until the courts finish their review,” Warner told staff, according to people familiar with the visit.

Garcia remains detained at the Farmville Detention Center in Prince Edward County pending the October hearing, after he turned himself in to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Baltimore on August 25.

Court order and congressional pressure

The federal judge’s order stops any deportation until the October 6, 2025 evidentiary hearing. The ruling followed a filing by Garcia’s legal team, who said urgent court action was needed after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notified counsel that Garcia could be moved to Uganda “no earlier than 72 hours from now (absent weekends).”

According to his attorneys, the threat referenced a recent U.S.–Uganda arrangement to accept certain deported migrants. Lawmakers and advocates in Uganda have publicly questioned the agreement, saying it lacks parliamentary approval and transparency.

Senator Warner is not alone in pressing federal agencies. Other members of Congress — including Senators Chris Van Hollen, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse — have urged DHS and ICE to follow court orders and ensure Garcia’s rights. Their letters argue that Garcia’s earlier removal to El Salvador violated both U.S. law and binding protections.

• Congressional offices have requested detailed briefings from DHS about how the Uganda arrangement is being used and whether it meets legal standards.
• VisaVerge.com reports these congressional inquiries are ongoing.

Garcia’s legal team contends the Uganda notice was retaliatory because he declined to plead guilty to human smuggling charges in Tennessee. They say prosecutors brought those charges after a 2022 traffic stop, and that the criminal case has been used to justify past custody decisions.

Sequence of recent events:
1. August 22, 2025: Garcia is released from a Tennessee jail.
2. August 25, 2025: He turns himself in to ICE in Baltimore and is transferred to the Farmville Detention Center.
3. August 28, 2025: A federal judge blocks deportation until the October 6 evidentiary hearing.
4. August 29, 2025: Sen. Warner visits Farmville and delivers family letters.

Background and legal context

Garcia’s immigration history is complex. In 2019, he was denied asylum on a technical issue but granted withholding of removal. This protection is a narrow legal status: it does not grant a green card, but it bars deportation to a specific country — in Garcia’s case, El Salvador — because a judge found a well‑founded risk of harm from gangs if he returned.

Despite that protection, U.S. officials deported him to El Salvador in March 2025. Once there, he was held at CECOT, the country’s maximum‑security facility known for mass detentions. After public outcry and legal action, Garcia was allowed back into the United States in June 2025 to face criminal charges, and later came under ICE custody again.

The use of third‑country “receiving” arrangements sits at the heart of this fight. Immigration policy analysts say removing a person to a country where they have no connections raises serious legal and ethical concerns, especially when:

• Courts have already found a risk of harm in the person’s home country.
• Courts have active jurisdiction over the case.

In Garcia’s situation, these concerns include both the prior protection against deportation to El Salvador and the live federal court order that bars any removal before the October hearing.

Legal arguments, due process, and potential outcomes

Garcia’s attorneys say the core issue is due process — that fair legal steps must be taken before the government can act. They argue DHS and ICE must fully honor court protections, including:

• The earlier order that barred deportation to El Salvador.
• The current order prohibiting any removal before the October hearing.

Legal scholars and human rights advocates have condemned the March removal as a breach of U.S. obligations and basic legal safeguards.

The October hearing will examine:
– The facts behind the removal threats.
– The March deportation to El Salvador.
– Claims by Garcia’s counsel that criminal charges were used to pressure him into a plea.

Possible judicial outcomes:
– If the judge rules agencies overstepped, additional court orders could follow.
– If the government meets its burden, detention could continue while immigration proceedings advance.

Either way, the decision could shape how agencies handle individuals with withholding of removal and whether third‑country transfers proceed in similar cases.

Important: Garcia’s attorneys maintain that no deportation should proceed before the October 6 hearing. That is the current court order.

Local impact, family concerns, and detention site

For Garcia’s family, these are immediate, personal stakes. They sent letters that Warner hand‑delivered at Farmville describing months of fear and confusion after his removal to El Salvador and detention at CECOT. They worry the same could happen if he’s moved again.

Advocacy groups echo those concerns, calling for:
– Clear rules.
– Public transparency about third‑country arrangements.
– Steady court oversight.

The Farmville Detention Center, a longstanding ICE facility in Virginia, has faced repeated scrutiny from lawyers and community groups over detention conditions and fast‑moving removal efforts. In this case, it serves as the staging point while courts review whether the government followed the law.

International and policy questions about U.S.–Uganda arrangement

The disputed U.S.–Uganda arrangement has faced pushback abroad. Critics in Uganda say the government can’t accept deported migrants under an opaque deal that lacks parliamentary approval.

Those concerns have fed U.S. questions about whether removals to Uganda under such terms are lawful or workable, particularly for people like Garcia who have no ties there. Lawmakers and analysts are seeking clarity on:

• The legal basis for the arrangement.
• How it is being implemented.
• Whether it respects domestic and international safeguards.

Government statements and where to find official information

DHS and ICE have not released full details about the Uganda arrangement. They have indicated only that removal would not occur before the court‑set date.

For official policy statements and procedural updates, see ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations page:
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations

Current status and wider implications

As of September 1, 2025, two facts are not in dispute:
– Garcia remains at the Farmville Detention Center.
– No deportation can proceed until after the October 6 hearing.

Potential broader effects of the case include:
– Closer review of third‑country removals.
– Tighter legal guardrails for people with withholding of removal.
– Increased congressional demands for transparent agreements before transfers abroad.

Senator Warner’s office says it is tracking the case closely and expects full compliance from federal agencies. Other senators have echoed that message, warning any attempt at deportation before the hearing would violate the judge’s order.

What follows will influence immigration enforcement, court oversight, and whether third‑country transfers become a regular part of U.S. removals.