&w=3840&q=100)
Lawyers seek to delay Abrego Garcia's release over deportation fears
US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, US officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation.
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a US immigration judge's order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.
The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn't charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a US Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the US last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called preposterous.
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
US officials have said they'll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn't El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he's a danger to the community.
US Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he's not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns.
Holmes' ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government's plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw's decision imminent, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.
Earlier this month, US officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That's where Abrego Garcia's American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.
US officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the US illegally around 2011 and because a US immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.
Following the immigration judge's decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said. But US officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia's supervised release.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland have asked US District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation.
His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he's released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
States file lawsuit against Trump administration over efforts to collect SNAP recipients' data
A coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Trump administration's demand that their states turn over personal data of people enrolled in a federally funded food assistance program, fearing the information will be used to aid mass deportations. The data demand comes as the Trump administration has sought to collect private information on mostly lower-income people who may be in the country illegally. It has already ordered the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to share private information with the Department of Homeland Security to aid in deportation efforts. The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states last week that it had until Wednesday to hand over the data for those enrolled in its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which serves more than 42 million people nationwide. The USDA said the data will help it combat waste, fraud and abuse. The states' lawsuit seeks an injunction to block the data transfer. In the meantime, state attorneys general in the SNAP lawsuit said they will not disclose what they consider to be private information of recipients - including their immigration status, birthdates and home addresses - because they believe it would be a violation of privacy laws. "It's a bait-and-switch of the worst kind," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a Monday afternoon news conference announcing the lawsuit. "SNAP recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families, not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president's inhumane immigration agenda." In May, the department announced it was seeking the data as part of President Donald Trump's executive order to obtain data from state programs to help root out fraud and waste. "For years, this program has been on autopilot, with no USDA insight into real-time data," USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins said in a statement at the time. "The Department is focused on appropriate and lawful participation in SNAP, and today's request is one of many steps to ensure SNAP is preserved for only those eligible." USDA officials declined a request for comment on the USDA did not mention immigration enforcement in the announcement or later notices. It is not clear why USDA officials believe the data will help it weed out fraud and abuse. The agency claims the program is already "one of the most rigorous quality control systems in the federal government." Immigration advocates noted that the Trump administration has used the same argument to obtain other sensitive data, only to later admit it would be using the information to enhance its deportation operations. Trump administration officials, for example, initially claimed they were seeking state Medicaid data to fight fraud. Last week, a top immigration official conceded they would be utilizing that same information to locate officials have threatened to withhold SNAP funding if states fail to comply with their demand for immigrants without legal status are ineligible to receive SNAP benefits, they can apply on behalf of their children who are U.S. citizens or those who are part of a mixed-status the program, formerly known as food stamps, the federal government pays for 100% of the food benefits, but the states help cover the administrative costs. States are also responsible for determining whether individuals are eligible for benefits and for issuing those benefits to enrollees. Immigration and data privacy advocates expressed alarm at the Trump administration's efforts to obtain sensitive SNAP data maintained by states. "The administration has all but told us that their intention is to comb this data and use it for unlawful purposes that include immigration enforcement," said Madeline Wiseman, an attorney with the National Student Legal Defense Network, which filed a lawsuit in May with privacy and hunger relief groups that are also challenging USDA's efforts for SNAP data. (AP)
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump administration offers $1000 exit bonus, free air tickets to illegal immigrants, attorney says ‘latest insult to…'
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services on Monday again urged illegal immigrants to self-deport, offering them free plane tickets and a $1000 bonus among others — a move that has been called an 'insult' to those who tried to make their way legally. In a post on X, the USCIS said, 'We encourage all aliens in the US illegally to self-deport using the @DHSgov @CBP Home App.' 'Through the App, you'll receive a complimentary plane ticket home, a $1,000 exit bonus upon your return home, and any unpaid fines for failing to depart previously will be forgiven.' A US immigration attorney, Robert Webber, slammed the Donald Trump administration over the $1000 bonus that it has announced for self-deportation. 'I was curious whether any laid off H-1B or L-1 workers have sought the $1,000 exit 'bonus' being offered by the Trump Administration. Or maybe F-1s whose OPT or STEM OPT ran out? But digging into the details, linked in the first comment below, it looks like non-immigrants may not be eligible. Classic,' he said in a post on LinkedIn. Webber also reflected on a case he fought about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration policy that did not allow legal immigrants perks like a work permit. 'I remember when DACA was announced, a widow I represented in H-1B status wanted EADs for her teenage children but because they were here legally as H-4s, they were not eligible for DACA,' he said. Slamming the Trump administration, he said the $1000 exit bonus was the 'latest insult' to legal immigrants. 'The exit bonus: I suppose is is just the latest insult to people who tried to make their way through the legal process. You apparently get nothing. But if you came through irregular means - we will throw $1,000 at you,' he quipped. The move was first announced in May by the Department of Homeland Security, headed by Kristi Noem. The stipend and potential airfare for migrants who voluntarily depart would cost less than an actual deportation, the agency said. The average cost of arresting, detaining and deporting someone without legal status is currently about $17,000, according to the DHS.
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
No call between PM Modi, Trump during Operation Sindoor, trade not discussed: S Jaishankar
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Monday told Parliament that there was no phone call between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and United States President Donald Trump during Operation Sindoor. 'I want to make two things clear: one, at no stage in any conversation with the US, was there any linkage with trade and what was going on,' Jaishankar said during a debate in the Lok Sabha on the Pahalgam terror attack and the four-day India-Pakistan conflict. 'Secondly, there was no call between the Prime Minister and President Trump from April 22, when President Trump called up to convey his sympathy, and June 17 when he called up the PM in Canada to explain why he could not meet him,' he added. The external affairs minister's remark came against the backdrop of Trump repeatedly claiming that he helped India and Pakistan settle the tensions. The US president has also claimed that he pressured both countries into accepting the ceasefire by threatening to stop trade with them. New Delhi has rejected Trump's assertions. Jaishankar also said that Operation Sindoor had ensured that terrorists would no longer be treated as proxies, adding that the military action created a 'new normal' by conveying that cross-border terror attacks from Pakistan would draw an 'appropriate response'. All issues with Pakistan would be settled through bilateral means, the minister said. 'The challenge of cross-border terrorism continues but Operation Sindoor marks a new phase,' he added. The minister said that this 'new normal' had five points. 'One, terrorists will not be treated as proxies; two, cross-border terrorism will get an appropriate response; three, terror and talks are not possible together – there will only be talks on terror,' he said. This would also entail not yielding to 'nuclear blackmail', Jaishankar said. Reiterating comments made by Modi after Operation Sindoor in May, Jaishankar added: 'Finally, terror and good neighbourliness cannot co-exist, blood and water cannot flow together. This is our position.' Earlier during the debate on Monday, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh told the Lok Sabha that it was ' absolutely wrong ' to claim that India halted Operation Sindoor under any pressure. Singh said that India decided to pause its action against the terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as it had achieved its political and military objectives. The defence minister also said that nine terror camps were destroyed at the start of the operation of May 7, and that India has proof of damage caused inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad escalated on May 7 when the Indian military carried out strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on what it claimed were terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The strikes were in response to the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which killed 26 persons on April 22. The Pakistan Army retaliated to Indian strikes by repeatedly shelling Indian villages along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. At least 22 Indian civilians and eight defence personnel were killed in the shelling. India and Pakistan on May 10 reached an 'understanding' to halt firing following the conflict. New Delhi had announced the decision to stop military action minutes after Trump claimed on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to the ceasefire. The US president had claimed that the ceasefire talks were mediated by Washington. However, the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had said that the decision to stop the firing was 'worked out directly between the two countries', a position that New Delhi has maintained. Ahead of the Parliament session, the Congress had demanded discussions on a range of matters, including Trump's repeated claims of having brokered the ceasefire.
