Federal Judge Paula Xinis pressed the Justice Department to produce a formal notice of removal for Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying many government arguments depend on that document. Without a final order, Xinis indicated Abrego Garcia could be released under the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas v. Davis precedent. The judge also criticized the DOJ for not showing evidence that Costa Rica rescinded prior assurances and for failing to present a witness with direct knowledge. She closed the habeas record and said a ruling is expected soon.
Judge Presses DOJ for Final Removal Order as Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Fate Remains Unclear
GREENBELT, Md. — Federal defenders for Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia urged U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis on Thursday to bar the Justice Department from deporting their client to Liberia, the latest development in a nine-month legal dispute that has attracted international attention.
At a contentious hearing, Judge Xinis focused on a foundational question: does the government possess a formal, final notice of removal for Abrego Garcia? She warned prosecutors that many of their arguments hinge on the existence of such a document and said that absent it, Abrego Garcia may be entitled to protections under Supreme Court precedent.
"You’ve raised all these arguments, and they all depend on me having a withholding of removal order," Xinis told Justice Department lawyers. "You can't ‘fake it ’til you make it." She said she would issue a ruling soon but lamented that the hearing produced few definitive answers.
Disputed removal destinations and missing evidence
The government has previously attempted to remove Abrego Garcia to Eswatini, Uganda and briefly to Ghana, without success. Xinis pressed prosecutors to explain why Costa Rica — which had earlier provided assurances that it would grant Abrego Garcia legal status and not return him to El Salvador — now appears to have rescinded that offer. She faulted the department for relying on an affidavit she described as potentially incoherent and for failing to produce corroborating documentation or a witness with direct knowledge.
Why the notice of removal matters
Xinis repeatedly sought a formal notice of removal, telling both sides, "I want us to be clear. I am just interested in finding the notice of removal." If no final order exists, she indicated she would likely order Abrego Garcia's release under the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, which limits prolonged detention after a removal order has been entered.
A release would likely allow Abrego Garcia to remain in the United States with his brother while he faces a separate criminal proceeding in Nashville and to participate in a two-day evidentiary hearing next month on his motion to dismiss the criminal case as vindictive and selectively prosecuted — a motion the Justice Department opposes.
During the hearing, Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign suggested a 2019 immigration judge's ruling — which found Abrego Garcia could not be returned to El Salvador — implied a final order of removal. Xinis rejected that characterization: "This doesn’t look anything like a final order of removal," she said.
Before adjourning, Xinis declared the habeas record closed and said this would be the final hearing in the matter; she expects to issue a written decision in the coming days. She emphasized that if she finds no final removal order exists, many evidentiary shortcomings raised at the hearing may be moot.
Help us improve.
