A federal judge in the District of Maryland has ordered the immediate release of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, concluding that his detention was entirely without lawful authority. The extraordinary ruling stems from a protracted legal battle against federal officials, culminating in the Court finding that, despite years of litigation and multiple attempts at deportation, the government never actually issued a formal order of removal for Mr. Abrego Garcia.
The Memorandum Opinion, issued by Judge Paula Xinis, details a history so complex and contentious that the Court noted it was “as well known as it is extraordinary.” Mr. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who first entered the U.S. in 2012 to flee gang persecution, had previously secured withholding of removal from an Immigration Judge (IJ) in 2019, but crucially, the IJ never issued the final order of removal required to finalize deportation proceedings.
The Core Issue: No Final Order of Removal
The entire premise of Mr. Abrego Garcia’s current detention, according to the Court, hinged on a foundational legal document that was missing: a final order of removal.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Executive Branch requires an explicit removal order—one that concludes a noncitizen is deportable or explicitly orders deportation to a specified country—to execute removal proceedings, including third-country removals.
The Court meticulously reviewed the administrative record, including prior hearings in related cases (*Abrego I*), where government counsel repeatedly conceded that no such order existed in the record. This lack of documentation was reinforced by testimony from ICE officials tasked with carrying out removals. Deputy Assistant Director John Schultz admitted he had never seen a final order for Abrego Garcia. Similarly, another ICE official, Thomas Giles, confirmed under oath that he had not seen the necessary document.
The government attempted to persuade Judge Xinis to imply a removal order from the 2019 decision where the IJ granted statutory withholding of removal but denied asylum. However, the Court rejected this, citing binding Supreme Court precedent from cases like *Nasrallah v. Barr* and *Riley v. Bondi*. These rulings confirm that a withholding order is legally distinct from a removal order; one shields a person from deportation to a specific country, but it does not function as the underlying authorization to deport them in the first place.
“Because the October 10 withholding decision does not order Abrego Garcia removed to any country, it is simply not an order of removal,” the Court stated, concluding that the government lacked the necessary statutory basis to hold him.
A History of Wrongful Detention and Shifting Targets
The opinion traces Mr. Abrego Garcia’s journey since 2019, which included being wrongfully expelled to El Salvador in March 2025, where he was allegedly beaten and tortured in the CECOT mega-prison. After this Court intervened and ordered his return to the U.S., he was paroled back into the country in June 2025.
Once released from a subsequent, separate criminal custody in Tennessee, the Respondents—including the Secretary of Homeland Security, ICE Director, and Attorney General—immediately sought to deport him again, this time under third-country removal provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1231.
The government’s attempts to execute this third-country removal were chaotic and, in the Court’s view, demonstrated that the detention was not serving its purported purpose. The Respondents notified Mr. Abrego Garcia they intended to send him to Uganda, then Eswatini, and then Ghana. In each instance, the receiving country either denied having any agreement or publicly rejected the transfer.
Crucially, during this period, Costa Rica had extended a firm, unconditional offer to grant Mr. Abrego Garcia refugee status or residency upon his transfer. Mr. Abrego Garcia himself repeatedly affirmed his desire to go to Costa Rica.
However, the Respondents actively resisted this option. They later claimed to the Court that Costa Rica had rescinded its offer, even submitting sealed testimony (the Cantú Declaration) meant to support this claim. When the Court compelled the witness, Johnathan Cantú, to testify, he admitted he knew nothing about the details of the declaration regarding Costa Rica’s alleged withdrawal.
Within 24 hours of that hearing, Costa Rican officials publicly and firmly reiterated that their offer remained “firm, unwavering, and unconditional.”
The Court found this behavior highly suspect: “Respondents’ persistent refusal to acknowledge Costa Rica as a viable removal option… all reflect that whatever purpose was behind his detention, it was not for the ‘basic purpose’ of timely third-country removal.”
Due Process and *Zadvydas* Concerns
Beyond the lack of a removal order, the Court also analyzed the situation under the Supreme Court’s framework in *Zadvydas v. Davis*, which limits how long the government can detain an individual past their removal period. *Zadvydas* requires detention to be reasonably necessary to effectuate removal, holding that indefinite detention raises serious constitutional concerns.
Given the government’s inability to secure removal to any country other than the one willing to accept him immediately (Costa Rica), the Court found that continued detention failed this standard. Furthermore, the serial targeting of countries that never agreed to accept him—Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana—suggested the detention was punitive or arbitrary, rather than serving the legitimate immigration purpose of removal.
In conclusion, Judge Xinis determined that the detention could not continue because: 1) there was no statutory authority (no removal order) to detain him for third-country removal under Section 1231; and 2) the detention failed the constitutional test of *Zadvydas* because it was not reasonably necessary to effectuate removal, evidenced by the government’s refusal to utilize the viable Costa Rican option.
The order commands that Mr. Abrego Garcia be released immediately from ICE custody and report to the U.S. Pretrial Services Office to resume the restrictive supervision conditions previously imposed in his related criminal case in Tennessee.