The public meeting of April 14 of President Donald Trump with the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, focused on the erroneous deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego García.
Trump and Bukele administration officials said Abrego García would not be returned to the United States, four days after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate García’s return.
On March 15, the United States government deported Abrego García to Cecot, a Mega Prisbin from Salvadoran where Trump has sent hundreds of Salvadoran and Venezuelan men who were previously in the United States. But Abrego García had a protection that was supposed to be deported to El Salvador. The Department of Justice described the deportation of Abrego García as “supervision” and “an administrative error” in a judicial presentation.
Duration The Oval Office meeting, Bukele and several Trump administration officials made misleading statements about the case of Abrego García and the role that the governments of the United States and El Salvador are working in their possible return.
Here are the facts.
Did the courts issued Abrego García Member of MS-13?
That is what the attorney general Pam Bondi claimed. “In 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appeal immigration court, ruled that (Abrego García) was a member of MS-13,” he said at the White House.
This needs context. The application of immigration and customs of the United States, Arrego García, in 2019, since he was looking for day work outside an Home Depot store in Maryland. A police informant told the police that Abrego García was a member of MS-13. Immigration judges denied the Abrego García Bono, both initial and in appeal, citing the accusation of the intructant.
In the initial denial, the judge said that the determination of the gang membership of Abrego García “seems to be reliable and is supported” by evidence of the gang field interviews to what, in part, referred to the informant. Abrego García’s lawyers have repeatedly said in the Court that the informant’s accusation was manufactured.
The decision of the immigration judges to deny the bail is not equivalent to the decision that Abrego García was a member of the gang, David Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
In immigration bond audiences, Detenese has the burden of proof to demonstrate that they are a risk of escape or a danger to the community. Abrego García “failed to fulfill his burden to prove that it was not a danger,” said Bier. That is not the same as the government’s evidence that was a member of MS-13.
“The immigration judge is only taking any evidence provided by the government to the letter,” Bier said. “It is not evaluating its underlying validity at that stage.”
Abrego García then received an immigration protection called retention or elimination. Grant that protection required that the National Security Department decide that Abrego García was not “a danger to the security of the United States,” said Bier, citing the United States Immigration Law.
“The Trump administration did not appeal these determinations or the granting of elimination retention,” Bier said. “Then, at that time, he did not consider it a threat and there has been no new evidence as then.”
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer for Abrego García, said his client “has never been convicted of any crime, related to gangs or otherwise.” Neinder of the procedures of the Immigration Court constitutes a conviction, because they were not judgments.
Did the ‘terrorist’ label of MS-13 justify the expulsion of Abrego García?
“When President Trump declared that MS-13 was a foreign terrorist organization, that meant (Abrego García) was no longer eligible, according to federal law … for any form of immigration relief in the United States,” said the deputy of the White House.
It is inaccurate that the designation of the US government of MS-13 as a foreign terrorist organization automatically revoked the protection against the elimination of Abrego García, said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, main member of the American Immigration Council.
People who are proven members of a terrorist organization are unigable for protection against elimination. But in the case of Abrego García, to revoke his protections, the United States government “would have been required under the law that reduced its immigration court processes and demonstrate the judge who was a member of MS-13 and, therefore, no longer.”
“The government could certainly have tried to demonstrate that (Abrego García) was not eligible for any form of immigration relief, but did not,” Beer said.
Is Abrego García a “terrorist”?
Asked by a journalist if El Salvador would return to Abrego García to the United States, the president of the country, Nayib Bukele, said doing so would be similar to “smuggling a terrorist in the United States.”
There is no evidence that Awgo García is a terrorist. It has not been proven that Abrego García is a member of MS-13 and, therefore, a terrorist after the foreign terrorist designation of the gang.
Abrego García is detained in a saving prison at the request of the United States government, not because he committed a crime in El Salvador, said Reichlin-Melnick. Therefore, Bukele could release Abrego García and the United States government could its humanitarian probation “as part of the court order that requires the issue to facilitate its return,” added Reichlin-Melnick.
Did the Trump administration win the case of the Supreme Court in Abrego García?
Yes, agree for Miller. “We won the case (the Supreme Court) 9-0 and people like CNN portray it as a loss,” he said.
But that is misleading. On April 10, the Supreme Court ruled, in an unpleasant order, that the United States government had to “facilitate” the release of Abrego García de la Custody in El Salvador and ensure that the case was handled as it would have been inappropriate
The Supreme Court also asked the lower court to “clarify its directive, with the due consideration for the defene or the executive branch in the realization of foreign affairs.” The lower court had ordered that the release of “facilitation and carrying” of the United States of Abrego García.
On April 11, the federal judge said that the United States government had “not fulfilled” the order of the court and ordered the government to present daily updates about the location of Abrego García and the steps that the government has tasks to facilitate its return.
Louis Jacobson contributed to this report.