On Thursday, senior officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) testified that Kilmar Abrego Garcia has not yet made a decision regarding where he might be deported if he is released from criminal custody next week.
“There are no instances where Docket officials are not taking preemptive custody, as they are concerned about the current situation,” stated Thomas Giles, who oversees 25 field offices nationwide, during his testimony to federal judges. Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March and was brought back to the U.S. last month. He has since been held on human smuggling charges but might be released on Wednesday before his trial.
Frustrated, U.S. District Judge Paula Sinis directed the government to produce witnesses to clarify what steps they intend to take next. This is necessary to push for an order that would prevent the government from deporting clients again. Sinis was appointed by former President Obama.
After several hours of testimony, Giles completed his remarks, but the judge has yet to hear the legal arguments from the attorneys before making her ruling. The hearing is set to continue Friday morning, as court officials informed reporters.
Giles indicated that ICE has already identified immigrant detainees who require custody if they are released, which could result in relocations to “safe environments” within prisons in Tennessee. However, he stated that no decisions regarding personal immigration cases would be made until a location for Abrego Garcia is determined.
“No decisions have been made,” he emphasized.
The administration has offered two potential options for Abrego Garcia’s deportation. One is to uphold a 2019 immigration ruling that protects him from being sent back to El Salvador due to gang threats against his family’s Pupusa business. Alternatively, they could consider deportation to a third country without a bond. “It could take days to weeks,” Giles mentioned, before an appropriate country is identified.
A lawyer from the government, present several hours before the hearing, agreed to comply with certain procedures prior to deporting Abrego Garcia to a third country. However, his attorneys expressed that such assurances do little to ease their concerns.
“I need clarity on whether my client will receive proper notifications and if he will have a chance to present his case in court before being sent to an unspecified third country,” said Attorney Jonathan Cooper.
The process consists of two pathways. If a foreign government accepts responsibility for an immigrant and ensures that they won’t face persecution, provided it is deemed reliable by the State Department, deportation can occur without further procedures. Giles testified that this is the case for Mexico and appears to apply to South Sudan, where several immigrants with serious criminal records were recently deported on Independence Day.
For other nations, immigrants who claim persecution are entitled to interviews with immigration officials that assess credibility and fear.
Garcia’s lawyers have also raised issues regarding where he was held prior to his deportation. After his arrest in Maryland in March, he was swiftly moved to a facility in Louisiana before being sent back to El Salvador. They hope that if he is placed in ICE custody again, he will return to Maryland this time.
Giles explained that decisions are based on available bed space, which can change daily, making it unclear where Abrego Garcia might go. On cross-examination, he admitted that he hadn’t consulted the relevant field office to prepare for the situation’s well-known nature.
In response to questioning from the judge, Giles suggested that ICE has some discretion, especially since Abrego Garcia still has a pending criminal case in Tennessee. “It could be anywhere in the U.S.,” he concluded.
