In a recent development, a federal judge in Maryland has criticized the Trump administration for disregarding court orders related to a Venezuelan national who was mistakenly deported from the United States. The judge expressed her “grave concerns” over the government’s actions in this matter.

The case involves Venezuelan citizen Daniel Lozano-Camargo, referred to as “Cristian” in legal documents. Despite having an active asylum claim in the U.S., he was deported to El Salvador, only to end up in Venezuela again through a U.S.-brokered prisoner exchange. His return to Venezuela is particularly troubling, as this is the very country he was seeking asylum from.

Judge Stephanie Gallagher noted that “Cristian” is now missing. While it is conceivable he may have abandoned his plans to return to the United States, the judge highlighted the equally plausible scenario that he has fallen victim to the violence that originally prompted his asylum request.

This situation arose in March after then-President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, citing concerns over the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. In response, the administration detained and deported hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a notorious prison in El Salvador, including Lozano-Camargo.

Given “Cristian’s” pending asylum claim, his legal team filed an urgent motion for his return. Judge Gallagher subsequently ordered that the U.S. government must “facilitate” his return, which includes directing the Department of Homeland Security to make a “good faith request” to the Salvadoran authorities for his release.

In May, the Trump administration was ordered to file status reports on the man’s location and condition, and what steps were being taken to “facilitate” his return. The U.S. State Department and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were looped in to help.

The status reports were lacking, according to Gallagher, finding that “none of them detailed steps being taken for his return or provided evidence that either Defendants or the State Department had made a good faith request to El Salvador for Cristian’s release.” Then, in July, the court learned that Venezuela and the U.S. had agreed to a prisoner exchange, and Lozano-Camargo, who was just 20 years old when he was deported, was among the people in El Salvador heading further south.

Within the context of fulfilling the court’s order, things have only gotten worse.

“[B]eginning in late August, 2025, Class Counsel has been unable to reach Cristian to provide updates on his desire to return to the United States,” Gallagher wrote on Nov. 14. “His whereabouts are presently unknown.”

Three motions were filed to which the judge was responding, with two coming from Lozano-Camargo’s lawyers. One of them sought “prompt notice” of his return to the U.S., which Gallagher denied, finding it “moot” because he is not believed to be in any government’s custody. Their other motion was for the defendants — including Rubio, who they argued was acting as the defendants’ “agent” — to be held in contempt.

Though Gallagher expressed her “frustration” with the administration and its behavior, she would not grant this.

“While this Court shares Class Counsel’s frustration with what appears to be lack of good faith government efforts at compliance with this Court’s order, it cannot find, on the particular facts of this case, the factors needed to find probable cause for criminal contempt,” Gallagher wrote.

She went on: “Even if one assumes, as is reasonable, that the State Department focused its efforts on using Cristian as one of many pawns in its prisoner swap instead of endeavoring to comply with this Court’s order to facilitate his return, criminal contempt is unavailable because this Court’s order did not (and could not) clearly direct the State Department or Secretary Rubio to take action.”

Still, Gallagher was harsh in her critique of the president’s administration, saying that their status reports were “often woefully deficient” and at times, “also filed late.” For one report filed on July 18, “Class Counsel can establish that the violation of the filing deadline was willful” because officials did not want the prisoner swap operation to fall apart.

“This Court has grave concerns about the government’s apparent willingness to disregard this Court’s orders,” as well as “its determination that protection of the prisoner swap (apparently from prospective judicial intervention) is a valid reason to ignore (or at least delay compliance with) a valid Court order to provide a status report,” Gallagher wrote. But ultimately she found that the “immense power” of criminal contempt proceedings was a step too far.

The administration, for its part, filed a motion for the “facilitation” paragraph of her order to be thrown out, arguing Lozano-Camargo has shown an “unwillingness to return” to the U.S. This, too, she denied, “reject[ing] the premise” that he doesn’t want to come back.

Furthermore, as the administration is not currently obligated to file status reports because his whereabouts are unknown, it is not suffering any burden, the judge found. “And, should Cristian resurface and express a desire” to return, the administration “should retain their existing obligation” to bring him back.