Deportation delayed as hearings set

A federal judge delays Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s removal as officials prepare to testify and review asylum claims.

Judge blocks Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation until October hearing

US District Judge Paula Xinis on Wednesday scheduled an evidentiary hearing for October 6 to review the government’s handling of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case and ordered him to stay in the United States while that review proceeds. The order effectively pauses any removal for several weeks as the judge assesses compliance with agency procedures and the legality of the government’s actions.

Before the hearing, Abrego Garcia will undergo an interview with immigration officials to determine whether he credibly fears persecution or torture in Uganda. If officials conclude he has a credible fear, they must identify another country to which he could be deported. A Justice Department attorney said the process would take at least two weeks, underscoring how long the review can take even before a final asylum decision. The October hearing will also probe whether the government followed its own rules in past steps and whether those steps were lawful. Abrego Garcia continues to pursue asylum before an immigration judge in a separate track.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in mid-March, where he spent time in a mega-prison. He was later brought back to the United States to face human smuggling charges, and officials are trying to deport him again even as those cases move forward. The current pause buys time for more hearings and review rather than a quick return to deportation.

The ruling shows how courts increasingly serve as a check on rapid immigration enforcement. By delaying removal and ordering testimony, the judge creates space for due process at a moment when policy pushes to speed up deportations collide with asylum protections.

Yet the case also highlights the fragility of safeguard mechanisms. Credible fear reviews are supposed to screen out dangerous or unfounded claims, but they depend on administrative processes that can become prolonged and complex. Keeping someone in detention while those questions wind through hearings raises questions about humane treatment and resource use. The outcome could influence how similar cases are handled in the future and shape public perception of how the administration balances border control with legal rights.

Highlights

The clash between asylum protections and fast-track deportations will continue to unfold in courtrooms.