In a significant legal development, a federal judge in Maryland has mandated the “immediate release from ICE custody” of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen wrongfully deported. This decision comes amid stark criticism of the Trump administration for holding Garcia “without lawful authority” and misrepresenting Costa Rica’s readiness to accept him as a refugee. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, overseeing the case, also noted the absence of a legitimate order for his removal from the United States.

Judge Xinis, appointed by former President Barack Obama, granted the petition for Garcia’s release while highlighting that he remains accountable for conditions related to an ongoing criminal human smuggling case in Tennessee. Garcia contends that the prosecution is retaliatory, aiming to tarnish his civil case that has spotlighted the government’s mishandlings.

In an elaborately detailed 31-page opinion, Xinis dissected the “basic fact” at the heart of the case: whether a valid removal order under the Immigration and Nationality Act justified Garcia’s deportation to a “third country” — a nation where he does not hold citizenship. Her findings were clear; the government failed to produce such an order. Consequently, the claims of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi were discredited as they could not substantiate the existence of a removal order, which was central to Garcia’s legal arguments.

Amidst these proceedings, the government had suggested deporting Garcia to several African countries, including Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, or Liberia. This proposal persisted despite Garcia’s earlier wrongful expulsion to a notorious Salvadoran prison and subsequent return to the U.S. to face charges. Garcia had expressed his willingness to voluntarily relocate to Costa Rica, further complicating the narrative of his unwarranted deportation.

In this case, the government floated its intentions to deport Abrego Garcia to African countries, whether Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, or Liberia, even as the plaintiff — wrongfully removed to a notorious prison in El Salvador earlier this year and then returned to the U.S. to face criminal charges — expressed a willingness to self-deport to Costa Rica.

A significant portion of Xinis’ ruling focused on the Trump administration’s refusal to send Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, despite Costa Rica’s own stated willingness to accept him as a refugee.

The judge began by pointing out that, during an Oct. 10 evidentiary hearing, Deputy Assistant Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations John Schultz — “[c]ontrary to the Court’s order” — was “not prepared at all to discuss Costa Rica’s offer to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee.”

And yet, in November, the Trump administration “[o]ddly” filed court documents under seal claiming that Costa Rica had reversed course on this stance, in a declaration from ICE Acting Assistant Director for the Removal Division Johnathan Cantú.

Once Cantú was put on the witness stand on Nov. 20, the judge said, “it became evident that once again, Respondents defied this Court’s orders.”

“They simply refused to prepare and produce a witness with knowledge to testify in any meaningful way,” the judge said. “Cantú candidly admitted, for example, that he had no prior involvement in Abrego Garcia’s case and spent approximately five minutes preparing to testify.”

“Then at the hearing, Respondents showcased Cantú’s ignorance about the content of his Declaration pertaining to Costa Rica. As the pointed questions of Respondents’ counsel made clear, Cantú’s lack of knowledge was planned and purposeful,” Xinis added.

Just one day after Cantú’s testimony, Costa Rica’s Minister of Public Security Mario Zamora Cordero confirmed to the Washington Post that there was no 180 — and the judge took note.

“Ultimately, Respondents’ calculated effort to take Costa Rica ‘off the table’ backfired,” Xinis summarized. “Within 24 hours, Costa Rica, through Minister Zamora Cordero, communicated to multiple news sources that its offer to grant Abrego Garcia residence and refugee status is, and always has been, firm, unwavering, and unconditional.”

The judge interpreted this series of events as no mere stonewall, but the government “affirmatively” misleading the court through “misrepresentation,” crediting the plaintiff’s claims that the Trump administration lied about Costa Rica as a removal option to instead try to send him to Liberia.

“This time, when the Court sought information about Liberia and Costa Rica so to fairly assess the validity of Abrego Garcia’s claims, Respondents did not just stonewall. They affirmatively misled the tribunal. They announced that Liberia is the only viable removal option because Costa Rica ‘does not wish to receive him,’ and that Costa Rica will no longer ‘accept the transfer’ of him,’” the court said.

“But Costa Rica had never wavered in its commitment to receive Abrego Garcia, just as Abrego Garcia never wavered in his commitment to resettle there,” Xinis went on.

Taken together, the judge said, the government’s conduct ran counter to the notion that ICE detention was necessary and warranted to swiftly effect Abrego Garcia’s removal to a third country.

“Respondents’ persistent refusal to acknowledge Costa Rica as a viable removal option, their threats to send Abrego Garcia to African countries that never agreed to take him, and their misrepresentation to the Court that Liberia is now the only country available to Abrego Garcia, all reflect that whatever purpose was behind his detention, it was not for the ‘basic purpose’ of timely third-country removal,” Xinis concluded, ordering Abrego Garcia’s “immediate release” from ICE custody.

Read the whole opinion here.