Lawyers representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen wrongly deported to a notorious terrorist prison in El Salvador, have accused the Trump administration of misleading a federal judge. Abrego Garcia, who was entitled to remain in the U.S. under protected status, was unjustly sent to El Salvador earlier this year. The legal team contends that the administration lied regarding Abrego’s recent attempts to self-deport to Costa Rica.

In Tennessee, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw received a filing that highlights “recent developments” related to the deportation case against Abrego Garcia in Maryland. This filing asserts that the government has misled the courts and defied court orders to punish Abrego. According to the document, President Donald Trump’s administration is allegedly retaliating against him for successfully challenging his deportation, as Abrego Garcia was charged with human smuggling upon his return to the U.S. He is now seeking to dismiss these charges, citing vindictive and selective prosecution.

The filing argues that the government’s actions underscore a need to investigate the motivations behind the prosecution, particularly those of high-level officials involved. “This provides further proof — if any were needed — of the government’s vindictiveness toward Mr. Abrego,” the document states, emphasizing the necessity for discovery into the officials’ intentions.

The motion filed on Sunday also aims to update Judge Crenshaw on the details of Abrego Garcia’s habeas case in Maryland, overseen by Judge Paula Xinis. Abrego’s attorneys point out that the government is now attempting to deport him to a far-off African country where he faces numerous hardships, including language barriers and lack of connections, raising concerns about his freedom and safety.

Despite repeated attempts by the Trump administration to relocate Abrego Garcia to countries such as Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and now Liberia, his legal team argues that these efforts demonstrate a persistent and unjust pursuit by the government. The lawyers maintain that these actions reveal a pattern of vindictiveness and misrepresentation by the administration.

Abrego Garcia, meanwhile, says that the Central American country of Costa Rica has indicated an unequivocal willingness to take him in.

“That country had previously offered written assurances, as of August 21, 2025, that it would accept Mr. Abrego as a refugee, grant him legal status, and prevent his refoulement to El Salvador,” the filing says.

Trump immigration officials, however, allegedly told Xinis this was not the case.

“On November 14, 2025, the government claimed in a sealed filing in the habeas proceeding that ‘Costa Rica has represented that it would not simply accept Petitioner if asked’ and that ‘[t]he government can hardly be at fault for not removing Petitioner to a country that refuses to accept him,’” the filing says, adding that Acting ICE Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations John E. Cantu stated in a declaration that, essentially, “it was the Department of State’s position that Costa Rica would not accept Mr. Abrego without further negotiations.”

These representations, however, were “revealed to be flatly false,” according to Abrego Garcia’s filing.

“In a statement to the Washington Post, Costa Rican Minister of Public Security Mario Zamora Cordero reiterated that his country would receive Mr. Abrego ‘under humanitarian conditions that guarantee the full respect for his rights and liberties’ and ‘[t]hat position that we have expressed in the past remains valid and unchanged to this day,’” the filing says. “Mr. Zamora Cordero confirmed that ‘Costa Rica’s offer to receive Mr. Abrego Garcia for humanitarian reasons stands’ and would not require additional negotiations.”

The government’s decision to file its assertion — that Costa Rica signaled it wouldn’t accept Abrego Garcia if asked — under seal is further proof of its duplicity, the filing says.

“It appears the government did so to prevent the government of Costa Rica from catching wind of its misrepresentations,” the filing says. “Indeed, on November 20, Judge Xinis ordered the government to remove unnecessary redactions from its submission, including that portion concerning Costa Rica’s representations. Only after the government filed a revised version of its submission on November 21 did the government of Costa Rica issue its statement to the Washington Post to correct the record.”

The filing also noted Xinis’ displeasure with Cantu’s own in-court testimony on the matter.

“At the evidentiary hearing on Thursday in Maryland, Mr. Cantu testified, in substance, that a State Department attorney told him what to put in his declaration on a five-minute Teams call and email on November 7, and that he did not know whether the Department of State had even been in contact with Costa Rica,” the filing says. “Judge Xinis again excoriated the government for putting on a witness who had ‘zero information’ for the court — Mr. Cantu was ‘the worst’ of the witnesses the government had put on the stand thus far — and he ‘knew nothing’ and ‘didn’t know the meaning of the words in his own affidavit.’”

This “shocking (yet, sadly, now predictable) conduct” by the government is relevant to Abrego Garcia’s motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution, the Maryland man’s lawyers argue.

Despite Abrego Garcia’s willingness to self-deport to Costa Rica — a country that has signaled its willingness to accept him — “the only reason the government will not send him there is because that is where Mr. Abrego is willing to go,” the filing says. This targeting of Abrego Garcia, his lawyers say, “goes up to the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security” and warrants expanded discovery.

Moreover, the Trump administration’s “recent conduct with respect to Costa Rica confirms that retaliatory animus toward Mr. Abrego originates at levels above the individual prosecutors in this case, making discovery into the motivations of high-ranking officials who have driven this sustained campaign of retribution all the more essential.”

The government’s action in the Maryland case bears directly on the criminal proceedings in Tennessee, Abrego Garcia’s team says.

“[T]he government’s brazen and misleading conduct regarding Costa Rica further proves the government’s actual vindictiveness,” the filing says.