Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia detail ‘torture and mistreatment' in El Salvador's mega prison
In court documents filed in federal court in Maryland, Abrego Garcia's legal team alleges the Salvadoran national 'was subjected to severe mistreatment upon arrival' at the Center for Terrorism Confinement, 'including but not limited to severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture.'
When Abrego Garcia arrived at the prison, his head was shaved and he was kicked and 'struck on his head and arms,' which left 'visible bruises and lumps all over his body,' according to the filing.
Abrego Garcia and 20 others were then made to kneel overnight, with prison guards striking those who fell, his attorneys said – 'During this time, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was denied bathroom access and soiled himself,' the filing added.
The lawyers describe where Abrego Garcia was first held as a windowless, 'overcrowded' cell, with metal bunks without mattresses, 'bright lights that remained on 24 hours a day, and minimal access to sanitation.'
Lawyers also claimed in the filing that at one point, Abrego Garcia and four other detainees were transferred to a different part of the prison to take photos 'with mattresses and better food,' which they said 'appeared to be staged to document improved conditions.'
He remained at the mega prison for nearly a month before he was transferred to a facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador. During the first two weeks, his lawyers claim Abrego Garcia lost around 31 pounds.
The request to revise the lawsuit comes as Justice Department attorneys have argued that the case is moot because the government has returned Abrego Garcia to the US to face human smuggling charges.
Abrego Garcia's lawyers argued in Wednesday's filing that including details of his time in the prison 'is essential to present a complete picture of the violations and ensure adequate relief.'
In a statement to CNN, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin dismissed the claims from Abrego Garcia's lawyers as a 'sob story.'
'Once again the media is falling all over themselves to defend Kilmar Abrego Garcia,' McLaughlin said. 'The media's sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal gang member has completely fallen apart, yet they continue to peddle his sob story. We hear far too much about gang members and criminals' false sob stories and not enough about their victims.'
Abrego Garcia's wife and lawyers have denied he is part of a gang.
The Maryland man's case has become a political flashpoint, and he is seen by many critics of the Trump administration – whose admission that he was wrongfully deported brought the case to the national forefront – as the face of the administration's aggressive crackdown on immigration.
Abrego Garcia remains in federal custody in Tennessee as he faces human smuggling charges. The Trump administration has said it plans to eventually deport him to a country other than El Salvador, where he is from – a detail that Abrego Garcia's lawyers also asked in Wednesday's filing to be included in the lawsuit.
The Department of Homeland Security will initiate removal proceedings after Abrego Garcia returns to the agency's immigration custody, a Justice Department lawyer said during a brief court hearing last week. The attorney said at the time that DHS had not communicated a timeline for the deportation.
While Abrego Garcia will remain in the custody of US Marshals until at least mid-July following a federal magistrate judge's order earlier this week, the undocumented immigrant still appears to be in limbo on what's next for him.
Wednesday's filing also asked that details from a former Justice Department lawyer's whistleblower letter be included in the lawsuit. CNN reported last week that in the letter, the whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, who worked on the Abrego Garcia case, claimed that top DOJ leaders and judicial nominee tried to mislead judges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Destination: Africa - Is it legal for US to deport foreign criminals to the continent?
The US administration has turned to the African continent as another destination to deport migrants who it says are convicted criminals. While dozens have been flown to countries in Central and South America, 12 men from countries including Mexico, Myanmar and Yemen were last month sent to Eswatini and South Sudan. One South Sudanese was also flown back home. Other African countries are also reportedly being courted by the US to accept people, whose home countries will not take them back, according to the US authorities. President Donald Trump's mass deportation pledge drew support during his campaign last year. But UN rights experts and human rights groups are alarmed by what has happened and argue that these removals to a nation that is not the migrant's place of origin – known as third countries - could violate international law. Is third-country deportation legal in international law? Third-country deportations can be legal - but only under certain conditions. "The whole concept of third-country removal has to be seen in light of the broader concept of asylum," says Prof Ray Brescia, from the Albany Law School in the US. "There is a principle in international law - non-refoulement - which means you are not supposed to return someone to their home country if it's unsafe for them, so a third country could provide a safe option," he says. This principle not only applies to the migrant's home country but also to any third country they might be sent to. If that country is unsafe, deportation may violate international law - as when the UK's Supreme Court blocked the British government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in 2023. Due process is also essential. Nigeria has 'enough problems' and can't take deportees from US, minister says 'We can't do without these people': Trump's migrant crackdown has businesses worried Migrants must have the chance to challenge deportation if the destination is dangerous, based on evidence from credible sources like UN reports or US State Department findings. Courts are expected to assess this risk carefully. "The courts should examine what kind of legal status migrants will have, if they'll be detained, and what kind of housing is provided," says Dr Alice Edwards, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. But many migrants struggle to access legal support in time. "It takes significant effort and access to a lawyer who can act quickly," says Prof Brescia. "That legal route may not be available to everyone." Do the Eswatini and South Sudan deportations violate international law? "They certainly do in two respects," says Prof David Super, from Georgetown University Law Center. "There's no evidence the US is giving people a chance to challenge their deportation, and they're not permitted to send people to countries where they might face oppression. "South Sudan and Eswatini have serious questions about their human rights records," he tells the BBC. When the migrants were first bound for South Sudan in May, a legal challenge was filed in a US district court after the flight had already taken off. The judge ruled that the attempts to deport the men had violated his order that migrants must be allowed to challenge their removal to third countries. The plane was rerouted to Djibouti, on the East African coast, where the men were reportedly held in a shipping container on a US military base while the case was heard. The case was referred to the Supreme Court which allowed the deportations to proceed but did not specify whether South Sudan was deemed a safe place for the migrants. "What we've seen in similar cases is that people are often denied legal help when they need it, and proceedings begin far too late," says Dr Edwards. "In this case, they were already en route to a US military base and that's deeply problematic." She adds that the courts must remain apolitical, especially when basic rights are at stake. Lesotho declares state of disaster amid US tariff uncertainty US cuts visa validity for most Nigerian applicants Trump's tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact Prof Brescia warns that the Supreme Court's decision could set a dangerous precedent. "There's real concern it will encourage the administration to move even faster, before individuals can access the courts at all," he says. Are Eswatini and South Sudan safe? In addition to being denied due process, migrants are being sent to potentially unsafe countries - violating international law. The US State Department currently advises against all travel to South Sudan, citing threats including crime, armed conflict and kidnapping. Earlier this year, the country, one of the poorest in the world, was said to be on the brink of a return to civil war. "There are very real concerns about law and order in South Sudan - about violence, instability, and ongoing conflict," says Dr Edwards. Those deported to South Sudan are reportedly being held in a detention facility in the capital, Juba, known for poor conditions, according to political activist, Agel Rich Machar. The government has not confirmed their location or how long they will spend in detention. In Eswatini, a small landlocked kingdom in southern Africa, officials say the migrants are in a correctional facility and will be repatriated with support from the International Organization of Migration (IOM). The US State Department has said Eswatini's prisons face problems of overcrowding, poor ventilation, and deficiencies in dietary nutrition and health services. "We don't foresee they will stay long enough to be integrated into society," Eswatini government spokesperson Thabile Mdluli told the BBC, without giving any indication of how long they would stay in the country, or whether they would serve the rest of their sentences first. The US government says those who have been deported to Eswatini committed "barbaric" crimes including child rape, murder and sexual assault. A backlash is growing in Eswatini. The country's largest opposition party, the People's United Democratic Movement (Pudemo) says that the agreement between the two countries was "human trafficking disguised as a deportation deal". Pro-democracy activist Lucky Lukhele says the country must not become "a dumping ground for criminals". Even if international law has been violated, Prof Super says the US is unlikely to face consequences as it does not recognise many international courts. "This appears to be about deterrence, sending a message that if you come to the US you'll be treated very, very harshly," he says. Regardless of legality, third-country deportations often place vulnerable individuals in unfamiliar environments with little support or legal status, says Dr Edwards. "It's a deeply flawed idea." She stresses that the human rights community is not trying to block each and every deportation - only where people face human rights violations. What's in it for the host countries? The details of the deportation deals remain largely secret. Ms Mdluli tells the BBC that Eswatini's reasons for accepting the deportees "remains classified information for now". However, both the Eswatini and South Sudan governments cited their strong ties with the US as a key motivation. Prof Brescia suggests some countries may fear US retaliation if they refuse, such as stricter visa rules or higher tariffs. In April, the US said it would revoke all visas issued to South Sudanese nationals after it would not accept a deported citizen. It is not clear if that has changed, now that it has accepted deportees from the US. Political activist Machar says South Sudan has also agreed to this deal as it wants the US to lift sanctions on Vice-President Benjamin Bol Mel. The US government issued sanctions against Bol Mel in 2021 due to alleged corruption and renewed them this year. However, other countries, like Nigeria, are pushing back. "We have enough problems of our own," Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar said in July, rejecting a request to take in Venezuelan detainees. Dr Edwards notes that such deals often come with incentives. "In past arrangements of third-country deportations, large sums of money, as well as military and security cooperation, were part of the package," she says. In March, reports said the Trump administration would pay El Salvador $6m (£4.5m) to accept Venezuelan deportees. You may also be interested in: US cuts visa validity for applicants from four African countries Six things Trump should know about Liberia after he praised leader's 'good English' Why Trump invited five African leaders to the White House Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica BBC Africa podcasts Focus on Africa This Is Africa
Washington Post
6 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Judge extends migrant status protections for 60,000 people from Central America and Nepal
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California extended on Thursday temporary protected status for 60,000 people from Central America and Asia, including people from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem determined that conditions in their home country no longer warranted protections. Temporary Protected Status designations for an estimated 7,000 from Nepal was scheduled to end Aug. 5. And protections allowing 51,000 Hondurans and nearly 3,000 Nicaraguans to reside and work lawfully in the U.S. for more than 25 years were set to expire Sept. 8. The secretary said both Honduras and Nicaragua had made 'significant progress' in recovering from 1998's Hurricane Mitch.
Associated Press
36 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge extends TPS expiration dates for 60,000 people from Central America and Nepal
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge in California extended on Thursday protected status for 60,000 people from Central America and Asia that was ended by the Trump administration. The order affects about 7,000 people from Nepal along with 51,000 Hondurans and 3,000 Nicaraguans. The order came as the people from Nepal's protection was set to expire Tuesday while people from Central America were set to have their protections expire on Sept. 8. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the government had determined that conditions in their home countries no longer warranted protections. Temporary status protections have allowed Hondurans and Nicaraguans to reside and work lawfully for more than 25 years, but the secretary said that both countries had made 'significant progress' in recovering from 1998's Hurricane Mitch. Temporary Protected Status is a temporary protection that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people of various nationalities who are in the United States, which prevents them from being deported and allows them to work. The Trump administration has aggressively been seeking to remove the protection, thus making more people eligible for removal. U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in San Francisco said that plaintiffs had provided evidence that the government's decision to end protections was racially motivated, granting the request for an extension made by the National TPS Alliance, an advocacy group that alleges the terminations were unlawful. 'Color is neither a poison nor a crime,' she wrote.
