- Thread starter
- #41
ProgressiveHunter,
furthernotes regarding Kilimar Abrego Garcia:
TheTrump administration made an agreement with ElSalvador toimprison deportees in the TerrorismConfinement Center (CECOT),a Salvadoran prison notorious for harsh conditions, for US$6 millionper year.
I have No doubt, if president Trump gave the Salvadorian ambassador reason to believe he prefers Kilimar not be returned to theUSA,President Nayib Bukele would consider pleasing the president ofthe USA to be of advantage to both him and Trump. I speculate that's what actually happen.
The lawyer on Abrego Garcia's behalf, applied for his "withholding of removal" status.[38] This request was granted by immigration judge David M. Jones, who issued a removal order but barred deportation to El Salvador, saying he faced a "clear probability of future persecution" in the country,and he "demonstrated that [El Salvador's][d] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him."[18][26] The judge wrote that Abrego Garcia provided "substantial documentation" in favor of his claims and that his testimony was"internally consistent, externally consistent", and"appeared free of embellishment".[25]
Withholding of removal status is "similar to asylum" but requires a higher burden of proof, and does not preclude potential deportationto a thirdcountry notcovered by the status.[41]
Thus, if government should prevail and may legally deport Garcia, they cannot deport him to El Salvador unless the basis of his withholding of removal" status is proven to the courts satisfaction as no longer being the case. Lacking the rescinding of that status, the administration is legally prohibited from deporting him to the nation of El Salvador.
[42] Those granted the status are allowed to remain and work lawfully in theU.S. indefinitely,[43] thoughthey do not become eligible for a greencard and permanentresidency after a period of time[41][43] orgain a path to citizenship.[42] After Abrego Garcia won the status, he was released from custody and the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement's lawyers didn't appeal the court's ruling.[25][38]
Onthe April 4 hearing before Judge Xinis, JusticeDepartment lawyer Erez Reuveni frequently refused to answer the judge's questions, and stated that the justice department had failed to give him the information he needed to respond to the Judge's inquiries. Reuveni admitted the deportation was a mistake, saying "the facts are conceded, plaintiff Abrego Garcia should not have been removed,"and when questioned on why the government was not able to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S., Reuveni stated that he had asked the same question to government officials and had not received an answer.[76]
furthernotes regarding Kilimar Abrego Garcia:
TheTrump administration made an agreement with ElSalvador toimprison deportees in the TerrorismConfinement Center (CECOT),a Salvadoran prison notorious for harsh conditions, for US$6 millionper year.
I have No doubt, if president Trump gave the Salvadorian ambassador reason to believe he prefers Kilimar not be returned to theUSA,President Nayib Bukele would consider pleasing the president ofthe USA to be of advantage to both him and Trump. I speculate that's what actually happen.
The lawyer on Abrego Garcia's behalf, applied for his "withholding of removal" status.[38] This request was granted by immigration judge David M. Jones, who issued a removal order but barred deportation to El Salvador, saying he faced a "clear probability of future persecution" in the country,and he "demonstrated that [El Salvador's][d] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him."[18][26] The judge wrote that Abrego Garcia provided "substantial documentation" in favor of his claims and that his testimony was"internally consistent, externally consistent", and"appeared free of embellishment".[25]
Withholding of removal status is "similar to asylum" but requires a higher burden of proof, and does not preclude potential deportationto a thirdcountry notcovered by the status.[41]
Thus, if government should prevail and may legally deport Garcia, they cannot deport him to El Salvador unless the basis of his withholding of removal" status is proven to the courts satisfaction as no longer being the case. Lacking the rescinding of that status, the administration is legally prohibited from deporting him to the nation of El Salvador.
[42] Those granted the status are allowed to remain and work lawfully in theU.S. indefinitely,[43] thoughthey do not become eligible for a greencard and permanentresidency after a period of time[41][43] orgain a path to citizenship.[42] After Abrego Garcia won the status, he was released from custody and the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement's lawyers didn't appeal the court's ruling.[25][38]
Onthe April 4 hearing before Judge Xinis, JusticeDepartment lawyer Erez Reuveni frequently refused to answer the judge's questions, and stated that the justice department had failed to give him the information he needed to respond to the Judge's inquiries. Reuveni admitted the deportation was a mistake, saying "the facts are conceded, plaintiff Abrego Garcia should not have been removed,"and when questioned on why the government was not able to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S., Reuveni stated that he had asked the same question to government officials and had not received an answer.[76]
Last edited: