Video: 'You would think we deported a candidate for father of the year'

[rjs330]

Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent’s clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member,”

That's the judges ruling he was a gang member.

 

[rjs330]

False. He was not.

A judge denied bail based on the accusation that he was a gang member. He was not found to be a gang member in a court of law.

Stop believing this administration's lies.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe the judge in this case.

 

[JosephZ]

That's the judges ruling he was a gang member.

There was no ruling from the judge that Garcia was a gang member. The only ruling the judge made was that he be denied bail.

If the judge did rule at that time that Garcia was a member of MS 13, then a conservative judge appointed by the Trump administration wouldn't have later released him and given him protected status.

 

[rjs330]

There was no ruling from the judge that Garcia was a gang member. The only ruling the judge made was that he be denied bail.

If the judge did rule at that time that Garcia was a member of MS 13, then a conservative judge appointed by the Trump administration wouldn't have later released him and given him protected status.

Incorrect. That's precisely why he wasn't removed. He showed he would be in danger there from a rival gang.

Things were different in 2019. It's obvious that things are being done differently now. That doesn't mean his deportation was correct. It wasn't. The administration screwed up. He should have gotten a hearing to see if circumstances had changed and his non-removal status removed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Incorrect. That's precisely why he wasn't removed. He showed he would be in danger there from a rival gang.

The reason why he was presumed to be in danger from Barrio-18 was because that gang had made threats against and extorted his family and their business, not because of any supposed membership in MS-13.

 

[JosephZ]

Incorrect. That's precisely why he wasn't removed. He showed he would be in danger there from a rival gang.

He was found to be a victim of a gang due to his family ties. MS 13 is a rival gang of Barrio 18, but Garcia never claimed that he was in a gang (MS 13) and feared returning because of a rival gang (Barrio 18).

During a full evidentiary hearing, Abrego Garcia offered his own sworn testimony, that of his wife, Vasquez Sura, and voluminous evidence showing he was not a gang member and was eligible for protection under federal law. The immigration judge ordered withholding of removal on October 10, 2019. The judge found Abrego Garcia “credible,” observing that his “testimony was internally consistent, externally consistent” with the “substantial documentation,” and “appeared free of embellishment.”

https://wearecasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia-filing.pdf

The Respondent suffered past persecution as he was threatened with death on more than one occasion. Therefore, DHS bears the burden of establishing "a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of any of the five grounds" or that "[t]he applicant could avoid a future threat to his or her life or freedom by relocating to another part of the proposed country of removal and, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so."

The "one central reason" standard that applies to asylum applications pursuant to section 208(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i) (2006), also applies to applications for withholding of removal under section 24I(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.

An applicant must demonstrate that a statutorily protected ground would be "at least one central reason" for the feared persecution. (holding that in a mixed motive asylum case, an applicant must prove that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for the claimed persecution)

The evidence in this case indicates quite clearly that at least one central reason the Respondent was subject to past persecution was due to him being his mothers' son, essentially as a member of his nuclear family. That the Respondent is his mothers' son is the reason why he, and not another person, was threatened with death. He was threatened with death because he was Cecilia's son and the Barrio 18 gang targeted the Respondent to get at the mother and her earnings from the pupusa business. Pursuant to unambiguous and repeated guidance from the Fourth Circuit, the nexus requirement is satisfied in this case.

The Court finds that the Respondent's proposed social group, "Immediate Family Members of the Abrego Family," essentially his nuclear family, is cognizable. Membership in this family group is immutable. It is also sufficiently particular, as it is clearly delineated and easy to determine who is and is not in the group, and it is socially distinct.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.1_3.pdf

 

[FreeinChrist]

Incorrect. That's precisely why he wasn't removed. He showed he would be in danger there from a rival gang.

Things were different in 2019. It's obvious that things are being done differently now. That doesn't mean his deportation was correct. It wasn't. The administration screwed up. He should have gotten a hearing to see if circumstances had changed and his non-removal status removed.

Not exactly true. Kilmar helped at his family's business, making pupusas and he and his family received death threats and were extorted by the local gang, called Barrio 18. It was not a 'rival' gang, but the local gang of that area. So at 16, Kilmar crossed the border to escape that and lived with his brother who is a US citizen.
When he was arrested in 2019, he was just hanging at the local Home Depot, looking for day work. One of the guys also there was an MS 13 member. That doesn't make all the men gang members.

At his immigration hearing in 2019, ICE could not prove he was a gang member, and Kilmar Garcia convinced the judge that he was at risk if he returned to El Salvador. He was given a protected status and ICE did not appeal.
He went on to be an apprentice sheet medal worker.

When he was arrested in March, he was told his immigration status changed and he was imprisoned and then sent to El Salvador to the prison there.
The arresting officers violated the 2019 ruling barring Kilmar from being deported. That is why the officers/the government lost in court and there is an order to get him back.
The Supreme Court backed Kilmar Garcia. The Trump Administration is playing games in not getting him released.

 

[BPPLEE]

He should be brought back, given a hearing and then properly deported

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe the judge in this case.

Curious, when a court of law--and the judge presiding over that court--found that Trump was guilty of sexual assault, did you believe the judge then?

Or do you only believe judges when you can spin what a judge says when it conforms to Trumpist propaganda?

I'm going to hazard a guess that, in spite of the fact that Mr. Garcia was not found, in a court of law, to have been a member of any gang; and in spite of the fact that Donald Trump was found, in a court of law, to be guilty of felony charges, including but not limited to, sexual assault--what you choose to believe or not believe depends entirely on what Donald Trump and his various minions say is or isn't true.

But hey, looking at the score board. Garcia has been guilty of 0 felonies. Trump has been found guilty of 34. And yet only one of them was deprived Due Process and currently is rotting in prison--and it's not the felon. Only one of them should be behind bars, and the one who should be in prison is, instead, splitting his time between destroying democracy from the Oval Office and wasting tax payer's money playing golf.

I guess America is finally great again.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rjs330]

He was found to be a victim of a gang due to his family ties. MS 13 is a rival gang of Barrio 18, but Garcia never claimed that he was in a gang (MS 13) and feared returning because of a rival gang (Barrio 18).

During a full evidentiary hearing, Abrego Garcia offered his own sworn testimony, that of his wife, Vasquez Sura, and voluminous evidence showing he was not a gang member and was eligible for protection under federal law. The immigration judge ordered withholding of removal on October 10, 2019. The judge found Abrego Garcia “credible,” observing that his “testimony was internally consistent, externally consistent” with the “substantial documentation,” and “appeared free of embellishment.”

https://wearecasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia-filing.pdf

The Respondent suffered past persecution as he was threatened with death on more than one occasion. Therefore, DHS bears the burden of establishing "a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of any of the five grounds" or that "[t]he applicant could avoid a future threat to his or her life or freedom by relocating to another part of the proposed country of removal and, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so."

The "one central reason" standard that applies to asylum applications pursuant to section 208(b)(l)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i) (2006), also applies to applications for withholding of removal under section 24I(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.

An applicant must demonstrate that a statutorily protected ground would be "at least one central reason" for the feared persecution. (holding that in a mixed motive asylum case, an applicant must prove that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for the claimed persecution)

The evidence in this case indicates quite clearly that at least one central reason the Respondent was subject to past persecution was due to him being his mothers' son, essentially as a member of his nuclear family. That the Respondent is his mothers' son is the reason why he, and not another person, was threatened with death. He was threatened with death because he was Cecilia's son and the Barrio 18 gang targeted the Respondent to get at the mother and her earnings from the pupusa business. Pursuant to unambiguous and repeated guidance from the Fourth Circuit, the nexus requirement is satisfied in this case.

The Court finds that the Respondent's proposed social group, "Immediate Family Members of the Abrego Family," essentially his nuclear family, is cognizable. Membership in this family group is immutable. It is also sufficiently particular, as it is clearly delineated and easy to determine who is and is not in the group, and it is socially distinct.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.1_3.pdf

I repeat he was found to be a gang member. No he never claimed such but he was found to be in one.

 

[rjs330]

Not exactly true. Kilmar helped at his family's business, making pupusas and he and his family received death threats and were extorted by the local gang, called Barrio 18. It was not a 'rival' gang, but the local gang of that area. So at 16, Kilmar crossed the border to escape that and lived with his brother who is a US citizen.
When he was arrested in 2019, he was just hanging at the local Home Depot, looking for day work. One of the guys also there was an MS 13 member. That doesn't make all the men gang members.

At his immigration hearing in 2019, ICE could not prove he was a gang member, and Kilmar Garcia convinced the judge that he was at risk if he returned to El Salvador. He was given a protected status and ICE did not appeal.
He went on to be an apprentice sheet medal worker.

When he was arrested in March, he was told his immigration status changed and he was imprisoned and then sent to El Salvador to the prison there.
The arresting officers violated the 2019 ruling barring Kilmar from being deported. That is why the officers/the government lost in court and there is an order to get him back.
The Supreme Court backed Kilmar Garcia. The Trump Administration is playing games in not getting him released.

He was found by the judge to be a gang member.

You can dispute the evidence if you wish, but your OPINIONS are irrelevant to the court finding.

 

[rjs330]

Curious, when a court of law--and the judge presiding over that court--found that Trump was guilty of sexual assault, did you believe the judge then?

Trump was never convicted of sexual assault.

I'm going to hazard a guess that, in spite of the fact that Mr. Garcia was not found, in a court of law, to have been a member of any gang; and in spite of the fact that Donald Trump was found, in a court of law, to be guilty of felony charges, including but not limited to, sexual assault--what you choose to believe or not believe depends entirely on what Donald Trump and his various minions say is or isn't true.

Your guess would be incorrect.

You haven't paid any attention to what I've said on the matter. Because of your own bias against me on this i will no longer respond to you.

 

[JosephZ]

I repeat he was found to be a gang member.

That's just not true. The Trump administration and right-wing media are lying to you. No judge has ever found him to be a member of a gang, and I have provided court documents and articles from real legal experts, including far-right conservative attorney Andrew McCarthy, in this thread to try and show this.

During an immigration hearing, evidence was introduced that Garcia belonged to MS-13, along with testimony from a reliable informant. The judge said the informant had identified Garcia as a gang member; that's it. Her decision was limited only to the question of whether or not to release him from custody.

 

[FreeinChrist]

He was found by the judge to be a gang member.

You can dispute the evidence if you wish, but your OPINIONS are irrelevant to the court finding.

Where is the court ruling showing he was an MS 13 member?

I can't find it - only allegations.

I did find the Supreme Court ruling that the government must facilitate his return. It includes these statements:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal. The United States represents that the removal to El Salvador was the result of an “administrative error.” The United States alleges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public. Abrego Garcia responds that he is not a member of MS–13, and that he has lived safely in the United States with his family for a decade and has never been charged with a crime.

Don't you think that if the Trump administration had proof he was an MS13 member that they would have presented that to the SCOTUS?

There was also this:

The United States Government arrested Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “terrorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” App. to Application To Vacate Injunction 13a. The Government has not challenged the validity of that order.​

IF they had such support that Garcia was a gang member and a threat, why didn't they challenge the 2019 ruling in court??? That would have been the proper legal thing to do.

I doubt they had any support regardless of what made up stuff they are coming up with now.

 

[rjs330]

That's just not true. The Trump administration and right-wing media are lying to you. No judge has ever found him to be a member of a gang, and I have provided court documents and articles from real legal experts, including far-right conservative attorney Andrew McCarthy, in this thread to try and show this.

During an immigration hearing, evidence was introduced that Garcia belonged to MS-13, along with testimony from a reliable informant. The judge said the informant had identified Garcia as a gang member; that's it. Her decision was limited only to the question of whether or not to release him from custody.

Yes it's true. I can keep this up as long as you can. I dont care what legal experts say. I care what the judge said.

 

[rjs330]

Where is the court ruling showing he was an MS 13 member?

I can't find it - only allegations.

I did find the Supreme Court ruling that the government must facilitate his return. It includes these statements:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

Don't you think that if the Trump administration had proof he was an MS13 member that they would have presented that to the SCOTUS?

There was also this:

The United States Government arrested Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “terrorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” App. to Application To Vacate Injunction 13a. The Government has not challenged the validity of that order.​

IF they had such support that Garcia was a gang member and a threat, why didn't they challenge the 2019 ruling in court??? That would have been the proper legal thing to do.

I doubt they had any support regardless of what made up stuff they are coming up with now.

I've quoted the judge in this thread in several places now.

Would you guys please stop with the whole he shouldn't have been deported thing! Good grief.

I've never said otherwise. In fact in o e of my posts I said what the ruling was and what it meant in 2019. Why do you keep hou ding on something I've said over and over again that I agree with?

Is there some sort of block people have?

 

[JosephZ]

I care what the judge said.

I've quoted the judge in this thread in several places now.

HERE is what the judge said. I have summarized it below:

The DHS asserted that the Respondent is a verified gang member. The Respondent was arrested in the company of other ranking gang members and was confirmed to be a ranking member of the MS-13 gang by a proven and reliable source.

An alien seeking a custody redetermination under section 236(a) of the Act bears the burden of demonstrating that he merits release on bond. The respondent may satisfy this burden by demonstrating that his release does not pose a danger to persons or property, a threat to national security, or a risk of flight, and that he is likely to appear for any future proceedings.

An immigration judge has broad discretion to consider any matter deemed relevant to determining whether an alien's release on bond is permissible or advisable.

After considering the information provided by both parties, the Court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter. The Court first reasoned that the Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as the evidence shows that he is a verified member ofMS-13.

The determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet.

The fact that a "past, proven, and reliable source of information" verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion.

The Court further held that no bond was appropriate in order to ensure the Respondent's appearance at future hearings, as he had not met his burden of showing that he would not be a flight risk.

In light of these findings, the Court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter.


The DHS asserted that Garcia was a verified gang member, and the judge agreed with that assertion based on the evidence that was presented and Garcia's inability at the time to provide evidence to the contrary. Assertions can be proven to be true or false and that wasn't determined during the hearing. All the judge is saying in her ruling is that the evidence supports the DHS' assertion that Garcia is a gang member. She never made a ruling on him being a gang member one way or the other. The only ruling made was that no bond was appropriate.

 

[rjs330]

HERE is what the judge said. I have summarized it below:

The DHS asserted that the Respondent is a verified gang member. The Respondent was arrested in the company of other ranking gang members and was confirmed to be a ranking member of the MS-13 gang by a proven and reliable source.

An alien seeking a custody redetermination under section 236(a) of the Act bears the burden of demonstrating that he merits release on bond. The respondent may satisfy this burden by demonstrating that his release does not pose a danger to persons or property, a threat to national security, or a risk of flight, and that he is likely to appear for any future proceedings.

An immigration judge has broad discretion to consider any matter deemed relevant to determining whether an alien's release on bond is permissible or advisable.

After considering the information provided by both parties, the Court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter. The Court first reasoned that the Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as the evidence shows that he is a verified member ofMS-13.

The determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet.

The fact that a "past, proven, and reliable source of information" verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion.

The Court further held that no bond was appropriate in order to ensure the Respondent's appearance at future hearings, as he had not met his burden of showing that he would not be a flight risk.

In light of these findings, the Court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter.


The DHS asserted that Garcia was a verified gang member, and the judge agreed with that assertion based on the evidence that was presented and Garcia's inability at the time to provide evidence to the contrary. Assertions can be proven to be true or false and that wasn't determined during the hearing. All the judge is saying in her ruling is that the evidence supports the DHS' assertion that Garcia is a gang member. She never made a ruling on him being a gang member one way or the other. The only ruling made was that no bond was appropriate.

See the judge determined he was a gang member. Just like I said.

The fact that a "past, proven, and reliable source of information" verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion.

 

[JosephZ]

See the judge determined he was a gang member. Just like I said.

The fact that a "past, proven, and reliable source of information" verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion.

That's not what's being said in that sentence. The judge didn't determine during the hearing that he was a gang member, nor did she know whether or not Garcia actually was a gang member. What the judge determined was that the reliable source's testimony was sufficient to support Garcia being a gang member.

 

[rjs330]

and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member,

That's not what's being said in that sentence. The judge didn't determine during the hearing that he was a gang member, nor did she know whether or not Garcia actually was a gang member. What the judge determined was that the reliable source's testimony was sufficient to support Garcia being a gang member.

It's pretty clear what the judge said.