For over three weeks, Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been absent from his family after being mistakenly deported to a perilous prison in El Salvador. His young son, in his father’s absence, takes solace in the familiar scent of his dad’s clothes. “This shows how much he misses Kilmar,” said Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, in legal documents. Their son has been seeking out his father’s work shirts, searching for comfort in the scent of his dad.
Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old sheet metal apprentice on his way to achieving his journeyman license, was apprehended in an Ikea parking lot on March 12, with his 5-year-old son in the car. Despite having been granted protection from deportation by an immigration judge in 2019 due to the danger he faced from gangs in El Salvador, he was nonetheless sent back to his country of birth. His deportation has been acknowledged as an “administrative error” by the Trump administration.
In spite of this admission, White House officials have resisted efforts to bring him back, citing unsupported claims of his alleged association with the MS-13 gang. Officials argue they lack the authority to demand his return from the Salvadoran government, suggesting a U.S. court might only succeed in asking the White House to merely negotiate with a close ally.
The confusion surrounding Abrego Garcia’s deportation has sparked anger and unease regarding the deportation of noncitizens who have been authorized to stay in the United States. His family and legal representatives strongly refute any gang ties and assert the U.S. government has insufficient evidence for its allegations. In court documents, the legal team stressed the necessity to rectify the governmental error and advocated for his return to the U.S. Attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg warned against undermining the validity of immigration court orders, arguing such mistakes suggest the government could deport anyone without regard.
Sandoval-Moshenberg also highlighted the financial aspect, stating the U.S. has been compensating El Salvador’s government for detaining Abrego Garcia and others like him. He posited that a simple request to return Abrego Garcia would probably suffice: “Just ask them nicely to return him.” He criticized the administration’s lack of attempts in securing his return, given that they recently facilitated another high-profile negotiation involving a senior DHS official.
Experts agree that although it is reasonable to request Abrego Garcia’s return, legal recourse through the courts remains limited should the White House decline. As Abrego Garcia is neither a U.S. citizen nor present in the U.S., the executive branch together with Congress holds the power to decide immigration policies. There has not been a documented instance where a federal court has compelled a presidential administration to admit a non-citizen under these circumstances. The situation raises concerns about the potential for similar deportations of individuals legally permitted to reside in the U.S.
Abrego Garcia’s departure from El Salvador was primarily prompted by threats from the Barrio 18 gang, which extorted his family’s business. The family owned Pupuseria Cecilia, a home-run establishment selling pupusas, a traditional Salvadoran dish. His brother had already relocated to the U.S. by the time Kilmar also sought refuge, following failed recruitment attempts by the gang. Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. around 2011 and settled in Maryland with his brother.
His immigration status drew attention in an October 2019 hearing after an arrest linked him to alleged gang involvement. Immigration authorities pressed for his detention based on local police corroboration of his alleged gang membership. Abrego Garcia applied for asylum, presenting substantial evidence of the risks posed by returning to El Salvador. An immigration judge, despite denying asylum, ruled against deportation, a decision ICE did not contest.
Abrego Garcia subsequently married Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, with whom he shares a son and helps raise her two children from a previous relationship. The case highlights systemic issues in immigration enforcement, especially concerning procedural errors and the potential impact on families.