777 F.Supp.3d 501
D. Md.2025Background
- Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador by an immigration judge in 2019 due to a credible risk of persecution by the Barrio 18 gang if returned.
- The decision granting withholding became final after the government did not appeal, prohibiting Garcia's removal to El Salvador as a matter of law.
- For six years, Garcia lived in Maryland with his family, complied with immigration authorities, and was not charged with any crime.
- In March 2025, ICE unlawfully arrested Garcia without a warrant or process and transported him—without legal basis—to CECOT, a notorious prison in El Salvador, under a U.S.-El Salvador agreement for detainee placements.
- Neither the DHS nor El Salvador has provided any justification or explanation for Garcia’s removal or detention, and the U.S. government conceded it had no lawful authority for his removal.
- Garcia, his wife, and son filed suit, seeking an injunction ordering his return, alleging violations of the INA, Due Process, and the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | District court has jurisdiction over wrongful removal | Only habeas in El Salvador proper; court lacks jurisdiction | Court has jurisdiction; removal, not confinement, is at issue |
| Redressability/Standing | Court can order the return; remedy is available | Can’t redress injury; no power to return after transfer | Remedy is available; refusal to act doesn't defeat standing |
| INA § 1231(b)(3)(A) Violation | Removal to El Salvador was statutorily prohibited | Claim about removal order execution; INA bars court review | Defendants violated INA; court review is available |
| Due Process & APA Violations | No notice, process, or explanation for removal | No substantive dispute but suggest process not required | Clear constitutional and APA violations; relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (habeas is the appropriate remedy to question confinement)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (Section 1252(g) is to be construed narrowly)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (courts can facilitate return of unlawfully removed aliens)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunction)
- Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (agency actions must comply with law and procedure)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531 (balance of equities in injunctive relief)