Abrego Garcia v. Noem: U.S. District Court Grants Habeas Relief for Unlawful Detention Absent Final Removal Order

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 2012 to flee persecution by the MS-13 gang, which had targeted his family. He settled in Maryland, where he lived openly for nearly seven years, working in construction, marrying a U.S. citizen, and raising three children, including a son with disabilities. In 2019, following a minor encounter with local police, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him and initiated removal proceedings. Abrego Garcia conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

On October 10, 2019, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum and CAT relief but granted statutory withholding of removal, finding a clear probability that Abrego Garcia would face persecution in El Salvador based on his credible testimony and evidence of gang threats. The IJ's decision, however, contained significant errors: it erroneously referenced removal to Guatemala (a country never at issue) and failed to include any explicit order of removal to a specific country, as required under immigration regulations. No appeal was taken, and Abrego Garcia was released under ICE supervision, living compliantly in the community for over five years without incident.

The case escalated in March 2025 amid heightened immigration enforcement under the incoming Trump administration. On March 12, 2025, ICE agents arrested Abrego Garcia without warning while he was driving with his five-year-old son near a Baltimore IKEA. Despite the 2019 withholding order barring removal to El Salvador, ICE summarily deported him there within days, citing an "administrative error." Upon arrival, Salvadoran authorities—acting on U.S. intelligence labeling him an MS-13 member (a claim Abrego Garcia has consistently denied, with no criminal charges ever filed)—detained him in the notorious Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), a maximum-security prison where he endured severe abuse, including beatings, starvation, and threats of death.

Abrego Garcia's wife promptly filed an emergency habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Abrego I, No. 8:25-cv-00987-PX), seeking his return. Judge Paula Xinis granted the petition on April 4, 2025, ordering the US Government to facilitate his return by April 7. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied the US Government's emergency application to vacate the order on April 10, 2025, in a unanimous decision noting the removal's "lawlessness." Abrego Garcia was paroled back to the U.S. in June 2025 but faced immediate complications: federal prosecutors in Tennessee indicted him on unrelated drug conspiracy charges (later dismissed for lack of evidence), leading to brief criminal detention. Upon release from criminal custody in August 2025, ICE re-detained him without notice, claiming intent to pursue removal to third countries.

Throughout this period, alternative solutions emerged. On August 21, 2025, Costa Rica formally offered Abrego Garcia refugee status and permanent residency, explicitly assuring no detention or further removal. Despite this, ICE ignored the offer and notified counsel of plans to remove him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, or Liberia—countries that either declined acceptance or were not consulted. ICE officials later admitted under oath having no knowledge of any final removal order or concrete steps toward Costa Rica implementation. This prompted the instant renewed habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed in August 2025, challenging the lawfulness of ongoing detention.

Issues

The petition presented two primary issues:

(1) Whether the district court retained jurisdiction under § 2241 to review Abrego Garcia's challenge to prolonged detention absent a final removal order, notwithstanding jurisdictional bars in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) such as 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) (precluding review of removal decisions), 1252(a)(5) (limiting judicial review of removal orders), and 1252(b)(9) (channelling all immigration claims into the administrative process).

(2) Assuming the district court has jurisdiction, whether Abrego Garcia's detention violated the INA's statutory limits under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, given the absence of a valid removal order and the US Government's refusal to pursue foreseeable repatriation options like Costa Rica, rendering removal impossible under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

(2) (a) A subsidiary issue was whether the US Government's "third-country removal" policy—bypassing withholding protections—denied procedural due process in any hypothetical removal proceedings.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Power to grant writ of habeas corpus)

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A) (Definition of order of removal/deportation)

8 U.S.C. § 1231 (Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed)

Subsection (a) of § 1231 - Removal period and detention authority

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) - Specific detention provision pending removal decision

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (Statutory withholding of removal)

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (Limitation on judicial review of removal orders)

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (Consolidation of immigration claims/judicial review channeling)

• Same as above for § 1252 (scroll to subsection (b)(9))

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (Exclusive jurisdiction bar for certain removal actions)

• Same as above for § 1252 (scroll to subsection (g))

18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) (Conditions of release in criminal supervision; part of release/detention pending trial)

Decision/Holding

The court granted the habeas petition in full, ordering Abrego Garcia's "immediate release from ICE custody" by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 11, 2025. It held that no final order of removal exists, as the IJ's 2019 decision granted withholding without explicitly directing deportation to any country, per 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(d). Absent such an order, ICE's detention lacks statutory authorization under § 1231(a)(1)(A), which permits post-order detention only "pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States." The court further ruled that continued detention violated due process, as it was indefinite and not reasonably related to any foreseeable removal. The US Government was enjoined from re-detaining Abrego Garcia pending a merits hearing on related claims, with release conditioned on compliance with prior criminal supervision terms under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The court declined to address the due process challenge to third-country removal policies, deeming it moot in light of the absent removal order.

Analysis/Reasoning

Judge Xinis's 31-page opinion methodically dismantled the US Government's defenses, emphasizing the distinction between withholding of removal and a final deportation order. On jurisdiction, the court rejected the INA bars, reasoning that §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) apply only to challenges involving existing final orders or their execution—not to detention claims where no order exists at all. Drawing on circuit precedents like Madu v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 470 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir. 2006), and Kumarasamy v. Att'y Gen., 453 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2006), the court affirmed that § 2241 habeas remains available for "pure questions of law" like the existence of statutory detention authority, preserving Zadvydas review for prolonged, unjustified holds.

Turning to the merits, the court applied a de novo standard to interpret the IJ's 2019 decision, citing Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259 (2025), which clarified that a removal order must "conclude that the noncitizen is deportable or order deportation" to a designated country. The IJ's order failed this test: it lacked mandatory language (e.g., no "shall be removed to" clause), referenced the wrong country (Guatemala), and treated withholding as dispositive without a separate removal directive. Recent Supreme Court cases reinforced this separation—Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (2020), held that withholding grants stand alone without implying removal; Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021), confirmed removal finality's independence; and Riley (2025) rejected "implied" orders. ICE witnesses' testimony—that no order was in their records and no removal steps had been taken—corroborated this, undermining the US Government's post-hoc rationalizations.

Without a removal order, § 1231 detention was unauthorized, as it applies solely post-finality. Even assuming arguendo an order existed, Zadvydas mandated release after six months absent a "significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Here, over five months of re-detention yielded no progress: the US Government ignored Costa Rica's binding offer, pursued unviable third countries, and misled the court about rejections. The court deemed this "arbitrary and capricious," quoting Zadvydas: "Once the alien enters the actual, physical custody of ICE following the 90-day removal period, detention is no longer statutorily required" and cannot become "effectively permanent." Due process compounded the violation, as indefinite detention without removal prospects serves no non-punitive purpose, per Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), and Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018).

The opinion critiqued the US Government's litigation tactics—unprepared witnesses, sealed erroneous filings, and bad-faith delays—as evidencing a "pattern of obfuscation" unfit for due process. Ultimately, release was not punitive but restorative, aligning with the INA's humanitarian aims and Abrego Garcia's clean record. The decision underscores broader tensions in immigration enforcement, prioritizing statutory fidelity over administrative expediency in an era of aggressive removals.

Citation

Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-cv-02780-PX, slip op. at 1 (D. Md. Dec. 11, 2025)

Direct link to access the decision https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189.110.0_2.pdf