The Trump administration has moved to dissolve a standing court order preventing the removal of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, clearing the way for his deportation to Liberia, according to filings made overnight by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Government attorneys argued that the ban on Abrego Garcia’s removal is no longer warranted, asserting that his claims of fear of persecution or torture in Liberia were denied following a recent interview conducted by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The DOJ stated that the decision followed due process and was based on findings that the Salvadoran national failed to meet the legal threshold required to prevent deportation under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
“The Constitution does not entitle Petitioner to process beyond what the political branches have chosen to afford,” government lawyers wrote in their motion, arguing that Abrego Garcia’s petition to halt his deportation was procedurally improper and should be dismissed. The government further revealed that it had obtained formal assurances from the Government of Liberia guaranteeing that Abrego Garcia will not face persecution, torture, or inhumane treatment upon his arrival. These diplomatic assurances, they argued, satisfy international human rights obligations and eliminate the basis for maintaining the injunction.
In its filing, the DOJ also noted that Abrego Garcia’s ongoing lawsuit to prevent his removal was duplicative, as he is already a participant in a separate class-action case in Massachusetts concerning the legality of third-country deportations. That case was previously addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the administration’s authority to carry out such removals under executive discretion. Abrego Garcia’s legal troubles have drawn significant attention due to the complex and unusual trajectory of his immigration case.
The Salvadoran-born man, who had been living in Maryland with his wife and children, was deported to El Salvador in March 2025, despite a 2019 federal court order barring his removal to that country due to fears of persecution. Upon arrival in El Salvador, he was transferred to the CECOT mega-prison, a high-security facility reserved for alleged gang members. He was later brought back to the United States in June 2025 to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee, to which he has pleaded not guilty. The DOJ has described Abrego Garcia as a member of the MS-13 gang, stating that his deportation aligns with the “public interest and national security priorities” of the administration.
In response to the government’s latest move, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed an emergency motion before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, seeking to block his deportation to Liberia until an immigration judge reviews the USCIS’s denial of his reasonable fear claim. “The Government insists that the unreasoned determination of a single immigration officer who concluded that Abrego Garcia failed to establish that it is ‘more likely than not’ that he will be persecuted or tortured in Liberia satisfies due process,” his legal team stated. “It does not.” His attorneys further argued that the government has repeatedly “cycled through” potential third-country destinations, including Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and now Liberia, without providing Abrego Garcia the legally required notice, opportunity to be heard, or individualized assessment.
They accused the administration of bypassing established procedures and ignoring Costa Rica, the country Abrego Garcia previously designated as his preferred destination and which had reportedly expressed willingness to accept him under refugee or residency status. As of this week, Abrego Garcia remains in federal detention in Pennsylvania, awaiting Judge Xinis’s ruling on his emergency request. The case continues to highlight growing tensions surrounding the Trump administration’s approach to third-country removals and its broader immigration enforcement policies, particularly in cases involving allegations of human rights risks. Legal experts predict that the outcome of this case could set a precedent for future third-country deportations and the limits of judicial intervention in executive immigration actions.
