WASHINGTON: A U.S. judge has ordered the return of a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador last month.
Federal Judge Paula Xinis issued the directive on Friday in a Maryland district court.
The man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, must be returned to the U.S. by April 7, 11:59 p.m.
Xinis emphasized the urgency, saying she could not wait any longer to issue her decision.
She stressed the ruling was essential for Abrego Garcia and his family.
Deportation Error
The Trump administration admitted the deportation happened because of an administrative mistake.
However, officials claimed they couldn’t bring him back since he’s now held in Salvadoran custody.
This case marks the first time the administration admitted a deportation error involving El Salvador flights.
These flights have become legally and politically controversial in recent weeks.
The mistake has brought wider scrutiny of recent immigration policies.
No Legal Basis
Judge Xinis revealed that Abrego Garcia had already received “withholding of removal” from an immigration judge.
That means he couldn’t be deported to El Salvador due to the risk of persecution.
He was still considered removable, just not to that specific country.
Despite this, he was detained and removed “without justification of legal basis,” Xinis said.
The judge declared this deportation a direct violation of congressional law.
Lack of Answers
The Justice Department conceded the removal should not have happened.
Government lawyer Erez Reuveni said their only legal defense was jurisdictional.
He admitted Abrego Garcia “should not have been sent to El Salvador.”
Judge Xinis asked why the government hadn’t already arranged to return him.
She noted the U.S. has a $6 million contract with the Salvadoran prison involved.
Government Control
Xinis questioned why the U.S. couldn’t reverse an error it had full control over.
She emphasized the U.S. had “functional control” over Abrego Garcia’s wrongful placement.
If that control exists, she argued, then so does the ability to undo the mistake.
Reuveni expressed frustration over not having clear answers from the government.
He added the U.S. couldn’t simply call El Salvador and demand his return.
Urgent Appeal
The DOJ lawyer said he had urged the government to bring Abrego Garcia back.
He asked the judge for another 24 hours to speak again with DOJ leadership.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg pressed for a firm court order.
He warned the government wasn’t taking the matter seriously enough.
Court Skepticism
Judge Xinis doubted claims about Abrego Garcia’s alleged gang connections.
Trump officials tied him to the MS-13 gang, but offered no hard evidence.
Xinis said serious allegations require formal legal proceedings, not vague assertions.
There was no indictment or criminal complaint filed against Abrego Garcia.
The DOJ didn’t present any new proof to support their accusation.
Policy Fallout
Later on Friday, the Trump administration appealed Judge Xinis’ ruling.
The appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
This case adds to controversies from Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown.
Trump’s team invoked old wartime powers like the Alien Enemies Act to justify deportations.
These moves triggered opposition from courts and human rights groups alike.
Administration Missteps
The mistaken deportation of Abrego Garcia is one of several recent immigration blunders.
Federal agents said they were carefully vetting deportees, but mistakes continue.
These deportations often involve sending people to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT prison.
The U.S. has a financial contract with this facility, raising ethical questions.
Critics argue the administration is sacrificing accuracy for speed.
Political Reactions
Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, lashed out at Judge Xinis.
He called her a “Marxist judge” who thinks she’s “president of El Salvador.”
Miller’s comment came in a post on social platform X.
His remark sparked backlash from legal experts and immigrant rights advocates.
They say Miller’s words reflect the administration’s disregard for court authority.
