Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who has made national headlines over the past few months, was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials Monday morning at their Baltimore, Maryland field office. Officials have indicated that they plan to begin removal proceedings that could see him deported to a third country—potentially Uganda—despite years of legal battles and ongoing federal court challenges.
The arrest drew a crowd of supporters and advocates outside the ICE office at sunrise. Immigration advocacy groups, joined by faith leaders and community members, held a vigil to show solidarity with Abrego Garcia, emphasizing the human impact of deportation policies. The scene, marked by quiet chants and the waving of signs, underscored the broader debate around U.S. immigration enforcement and the rights of migrants who have been caught in complex legal limbos.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, spoke to reporters after the arrest, painting a stark picture of what he described as a lack of transparency from ICE. “As of the last five minutes,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, “Mr. Abrego Garcia has filed a new lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Maryland, challenging his confinement and any deportation to Uganda—or any other country—until he’s had a fair trial. That includes an immigration court hearing and full appeal rights.”
The legal move comes in the form of a habeas petition filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. Judge Paula Xinis, who has been presiding over Abrego Garcia’s civil case since March, was assigned to review the petition. The filing is the latest in a long series of legal challenges stemming from Abrego Garcia’s prior deportation and continued attempts to navigate the U.S. immigration system.
Abrego Garcia’s legal saga began in dramatic fashion. Under the Trump administration, he was deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 federal court order meant to prevent that removal. The violation sparked widespread media coverage and drew attention to the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies. After his return to the U.S., he faced the possibility of deportation yet again—this time to Uganda, following a newly brokered deal between the East African nation and the U.S. to accept certain migrants.
His recent arrest is connected to human smuggling charges dating back to a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. After being returned to U.S. custody, Abrego Garcia remained detained until Friday, when he was released under strict conditions. A federal judge in Maryland allowed him to remain under electronic monitoring and ICE supervision while awaiting trial, a decision aimed at balancing public safety concerns with his legal rights.
Shortly after his release, ICE informed Abrego Garcia’s attorneys that the agency intended to deport him to Uganda. The notice, issued by ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Adviser, stated that the removal could occur no earlier than 72 hours from the notice, excluding weekends. The announcement marked a startling escalation in his case, given that he had only recently regained limited freedom under the supervision of U.S. authorities.
Trump-era immigration officials, including former border czar Tom Homan, have been outspoken about the intended deportation. In a Sunday interview on “The Big Weekend Show,” Homan confirmed that Abrego Garcia would be deported and indicated that Uganda was “absolutely” being considered as a third country of removal. “We have an agreement with them. It’s on the table, absolutely,” Homan said, emphasizing the administration’s commitment to enforcing the deportation.
Homan also addressed the human side of the story, acknowledging Abrego Garcia’s family. “He is absolutely going to be deported,” Homan reiterated, adding that his family could accompany him if they wished, framing it as a counter to criticism about family separation. “For now, he can enjoy the little time he has with his family,” Homan said.
The situation raises complex questions about U.S. immigration law, judicial oversight, and international agreements on deportation. While ICE has broad authority to remove non-citizens from the country, federal courts have the power to review whether those actions comply with existing legal protections, including due process rights and prior court orders. Abrego Garcia’s case, in particular, highlights the tensions between executive enforcement policies and judicial intervention.
Outside the courthouse and ICE office, advocates stress that the story is about more than legal technicalities. “This isn’t just paperwork or procedure,” said one community organizer. “This is a person who has been through repeated deportations, court orders, and detention. His life—and his family’s life—is being disrupted in ways that are hard to put into words.”
The vigil Monday morning, held by local faith leaders and immigration groups, underscored the human dimension of the debate. Attendees carried signs reading “Justice for Kilmar” and “No Deportation Without Due Process,” reflecting a growing grassroots movement pushing back against what they see as overreach by immigration authorities. Some speakers invoked the broader history of Salvadoran migration to the U.S., reminding the crowd that Abrego Garcia’s experience is far from unique.
For months, Abrego Garcia’s story has captured national attention not just because of its legal implications, but also due to its emotional resonance. Being deported in violation of a federal court order, facing repeated detentions, and now the threat of removal to a distant African nation—these events collectively paint a portrait of the unpredictable and often harsh realities of the U.S. immigration system.
The case also sheds light on new developments in international immigration agreements. Uganda’s willingness to accept certain deported migrants represents a shift in how the U.S. can manage third-country removals. While such arrangements are legal under U.S. law, they have sparked debate over whether they adequately protect the rights and well-being of affected migrants, particularly those like Abrego Garcia, who have long-standing ties to the United States.
Legal experts note that the habeas petition is an important step, as it formally challenges both the detention conditions and the planned removal. If successful, the case could delay or even prevent deportation while courts review whether ICE has acted within its legal boundaries. Sandoval-Moshenberg and his team are expected to argue vigorously that Abrego Garcia’s removal without a full immigration hearing would violate his constitutional and statutory rights.
As the legal and human dramas unfold, Abrego Garcia remains at the center of an increasingly high-profile battle that touches on law, policy, and community advocacy. His case is a potent reminder that immigration enforcement is not just an administrative process; it is a deeply personal and often contentious issue that affects real people, families, and communities across the country.
In the coming days, all eyes will be on the federal court in Maryland and ICE’s next moves. Will Abrego Garcia be deported to Uganda as planned, or will the court intervene to uphold his rights and halt the removal? The answer will have implications not just for him, but for future cases involving deportations to third countries, the enforcement authority of ICE, and the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch on immigration matters.
One thing is clear: the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is far from over. From a Salvadoran migrant facing legal limbo to a symbol of broader immigration policy debates, his journey underscores the complexities, controversies, and very real human stakes of the U.S. immigration system.
Login