US seeks to deport kilmar abrego garcia to Eswatini

Latest on Kilmar Abrego Garcia: US seeks to deport kilmar abrego garcia to Eswatini after a wrongful March deportation that resulted in lawsuits, human-rights concerns and political fallout over asylum denial and alleged gang-related affiliations.

The news about Kilmar Abrego Garcia is here:

1. The Trump Administration has declared Abrego ineligible in Asylum.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia case Garcia could simply not technically get asylum, according to the argument (as of a year 2025, with the Trump administration remaining in power), presented by the Department of Homeland Security, since he was not and would not be as of then a member of MS-13. This statement is through documents of immigration court. It is claimed by those who support him that he could get a fair hearing and therefore win asylum, since he was previously denied only because he had filed late.

2. U.S. to Deport Him to Eswatini

The U.S. has told Abrego Garcia that it intends to deport him to the small absolute monarchy of Eswatini in southern Africa. This comes after he turned down a plea bargain, and said he was afraid of persecution in various countries, including Uganda. The DHS email is said to have mocked his fears and referred to him as afraid of the whole western Hemisphere, calling him Homie on social media, which is also being popularly criticized.

3. Lawful and political retaliation.

• Federal judge has stayed his deportation to Uganda based on credible fears of persecution or torture. His lawyers have also challenged the current deportation plan to Eswatini in court.
• Much to his dismay, Senator Mark Warner paid a visit to Abrego at the Farmville, Virginia prison, where he showed concern that he might be pressured to accept a plea bargain.
• His defense team remains skeptical about the intrusive strategy employed by the U.S. government and believes its MS-13 charges are politically motivated and evidence-free. None of the various immigration judges have seen evidence of crime or gang activity.

In depth: background, legal considerations and the procedure that led to the choice of Eswatini.

I will unpack (1) what occurred in March and his return to the U.S., (2) the essence of the litigation on both sides to date, and (3) what Eswatini is like and why lawyers and rights organizations are concerned, below. I use primary coverage and court documents to reference the most important claims.

 

1) Past–the March deportation and send back.

• What occurred in March: On March 15, 2025, an immigration judge ordered the U.S. authorities to protect Kilmar Abrego Garccia from deportation but he was deported the same day to El Salvador. The government subsequently conceded that the removal was an administrative mistake.
• How he returned: Following legal action in federal court and a Supreme Court order that the government assist in his repatriation, Abrego García was returned to the U.S. and eventually surfaced to face federal criminal charges. Timelines of news dates and timelines of court filing dates record the expedited litigation and the federal litigation successive to it.

2) The legal battle in the court – the Abrego Garccia against the state.

Abrego Garccia / defense attorneys (largely arguments):

• He had initially applied to have his status as a victim of gang violence (asylum/withholding claim, as early as 2011), and his attorneys allege that the prior refusal was merely formal (late filing) and that, on the facts, a reopened case could likely win.
• His attorneys argue that the March removal was unlawful under court orders and that the actions of the government (including the erroneous deportation) have been illegal and in bad faith – they invoked emergency motions, appeals and discovery motions to drive that point home. Those arguments are outlined in the filing in opposition to emergency stays, as well as the history of the fourth-circuit/district court.
• They accuse the government of threats of removal (including the provision of plea/relocation bargains) to cause him to plead guilty to criminal smuggling charges, to which his then-counsel and certain members of Congress have publicly objected.

Main points, Government / DHS / DOJ:

• DHS has argued that Abrego García is ineligible to receive asylum because he allegedly has ties to MS-13; in its submissions, the administration has provided evidence of investigation (such as a police gang interview sheet dated 2019) and criminal charges. DHS argument is that purported gang affiliation is a bar to asylum and that government has expansive powers to deport noncitizens.
• In addition, the government has sought criminal prosecution (indictments in Tennessee accusing him of conspiracy to smuggle migrants), and officials have packaged it as a test case of deporting dangerous noncitizens. Those criminal and immigration tracks are moving concurrently and are strategic pressure points.
• Important procedural posture to be aware of: Judges have blocked or stayed specific removals (such as one judge blocked removal to Uganda after showing credible fear), and government appealed and sought stays in other courts – therefore the litigation is proceeding on many tracks (immigration court, federal district court, circuit appeals, and criminal court).

 

3) Why Eswatini, some facts about the country, and why human-rights groups are concerned.

What Eswatini is:

• Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) is a very small landlocked monarchy in southern Africa (administrative capital Mbabane; legislative/royal capital Lobamba) with a population of approximately 1.2 million. It is a complete monarchy under King Mswati III.

Human-rights context:

• Significant international and U.S. reports indicate trouble: plausible accounts of arbitrary arrests, accounts of pain and suffering, suppression of political opposition, and other governance and rights issues. It is these human-rights findings at the country level that makes sending a person with a credible fear of persecution to a third country a legal issue (non-refoulement concerns).

The reason as to why Eswatini was chosen (as per reporting):

• Reporting says that Eswatini was chosen by DHS/ICE after he (Abrego García) gave a long list of countries that he fears (allegedly 22); Eswatini was chosen because he has no connection there and because the agency has in recent months sent some people to Eswatini as an alternative to detention, a practice that is controversial. Opponents characterize the decision as arbitrary and one which undermines asylum and non-refoulement protection.

Practical/legal issues relating to deporting a person to Eswatini:

• Abrego is not connected to Eswatini (speaking their language, living in their family and neighborhood), and this brings up the humanitarian/logistical issues (where would he be accepted? could he have protection there?).
• Even judges are afraid that removals to third countries, especially to countries where rights-abuse has been noted, will expose deportees to ill-treatment or to subsequent removal to countries of fear. At least, that is why judges have occasionally stayed some removals pending review.

Short summary / takeaways

• The March removal to El Salvador was subsequently recognized as an administrative error and prompted emergency litigation and a Supreme Court order to assist in his return.
• DHS is now arguing that he cannot seek asylum due to his purported MS-13 affiliations; attorneys representing Abrego argue that these claims have not been established and reopening his asylum case would safeguard him.
• The proposal to deport him to Eswatini is odd, politicized, and legally questionable — and the human-rights history of Eswatini is one of the main reasons proponents and judges are concerned about deporting someone who claims to fear persecution.

 

Conclusion

The dilemma between immigration law enforcement and upholding human rights can be seen in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Since the U.S. government incorrectly deported him in March, and the government has faced legal challenges, it is now attempting to deport him to the territory of Eswatini, a country with no personal relationships to him and a troubled history of human rights.

Despite the claimed MS-13 connections and DHS efforts to deny him an opportunity to gain asylum, his lawyers and supporters indicate that these claims are baseless and that deportation will put the nation at risk of violating international non-refoulement obligations.

His fate remains unclear and reflects the greater controversy about U.S. immigration policy during the Trump administration as federal judges enter the fray, more politics and human morality issues become involved.

Also read- Donna Adelson found guilty