Kilmar Abrego Garcia, previously deported in error and later allowed back into the United States, has filed a federal habeas petition in Maryland to stop the government from deporting him again—this time to Uganda, a country with which he has no connection.

At a Glance

• Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported once before and later returned to the U.S.
• On Monday, ICE detained him at a scheduled check-in in Baltimore.
• The government is attempting to deport him to Uganda, a country he has no ties to.
• Abrego Garcia has filed a habeas petition in federal court in Maryland.
• The petition seeks to halt his immediate deportation.

Legal Challenge in Maryland

The habeas petition filed in federal court in Maryland centers on the legality of removing Abrego Garcia to a third country with no relationship to him. Habeas corpus petitions are used to challenge unlawful detention, and in this case, his legal team argues that deportation to Uganda is without precedent and violates immigration law. The filing came shortly after Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him at a routine check-in, underscoring the immediacy of the removal attempt.

The unusual element of this case is the proposed destination. Typically, deportation proceedings target an individual’s country of origin or a state with which the person has established legal or familial ties. Uganda does not fit either category for Abrego Garcia, raising significant legal questions about the Department of Homeland Security’s authority in designating alternative removal destinations.

Watch now: [Kilmar Garcia to be deported to Uganda? ICE summons …] · YouTube

A Pattern of Missteps

Abrego Garcia’s immigration history already involves one mistaken deportation. That earlier action, later acknowledged as an error, allowed him to return to the United States legally. The new attempt by ICE to deport him to a third country raises questions about procedural safeguards and accountability within the system. Legal experts note that while the United States has agreements with some countries to accept third-party deportees, the practice remains rare and often controversial, particularly where no direct connection exists.

For Abrego Garcia, the timing of this renewed deportation effort suggests that immigration enforcement authorities are pushing aggressive strategies to comply with directives prioritizing removals. However, the lack of clarity regarding why Uganda was chosen makes the case particularly complex. His attorneys are expected to argue that such action lacks statutory basis and could constitute arbitrary government overreach.

Judicial Path Ahead

The Maryland federal court now faces a decision that could reverberate beyond this individual case. A ruling against the deportation would reinforce limits on executive discretion in removal proceedings, particularly concerning third-country deportations. On the other hand, if the court permits the transfer to Uganda, it could set a precedent for broader use of third-country removals, even in cases without clear ties.

Observers note that habeas petitions in immigration matters often move swiftly due to the urgent nature of removal. This means that Abrego Garcia’s case could see preliminary rulings within days. The outcome could also influence how other courts address similar petitions, especially as immigration enforcement remains a politically charged and legally contested field.

Sources

Reuters
Associated Press
Bloomberg