I'm assuming the response to this is going to be along the lines of 'oh this doesnt prove he was innocent, they say he was a member of ms-13 etc etc etc' because evidently innocent until proven guilty (which they provided no proof of) isn't a thing anymore
"The US government has conceded Mr Ábrego García was deported because of an "administrative error", though it also says he is a member of the MS-13 gang - something his lawyer denies. "
Try actually reading the article next time. Again, the burden of proof here should be falling on PROVING he is a member of ms-13, not proving he isn't. You are obviously arguing this in bad faith.
> Although the asylum claim proved to be time-barred—aliens are required to bring such claims within a year of entering the country—in October 2019 Judge Jones did grant his request for “withholding of removal” based on his “well-founded” fear of persecution by Barrio 18. The government did not appeal, so Jones’s ruling is now final.
> The removal being in error does not make him innocent.
Innocent is the default. That's a fundamental part of how our legal system works. The government must prove you guilty.
He's an illegal who had a credible (like actually credible, like you could pitch it to someone in the year 2002, not the flimsy 2020s BS) claim for asylum but didn't file in time. He was eventually caught up in the system for reasons not related to the commission of any crime. ICE looked at his case, and gave him a "we won't deport you because your case is pending" status.
"Withholding of removal" is a form of legal status.
They can deport you (if they find a willing third party nation), as it's not a path to permanent resident status, but until they do so, you're allowed to reside and work.
> As in the case of asylum, a person who is granted withholding of removal is protected from being returned to
his or her home country and receives the right to remain in the United States and work legally. But at the end
of the court process, an immigration judge enters a deportation order and then tells the government they
cannot execute that order. That is, the “removal” to a person’s home country is “withheld.” However, the
government is still allowed to deport that person to a different country if the other country agrees to accept
them.
> Withholding of removal provides a form of protection that is less certain than asylum, leaving its recipients in a
sort of limbo. A person who is granted withholding of removal may never leave the United States without
executing that removal order, cannot petition to bring family members to the United States, and does not gain
a path to citizenship. And unlike asylum, when a family seeks withholding of removal together a judge may
grant protection to the parent while denying it to the children, leading to family separation.
So this is a bit weird. The initial claim seems not well defined, because "legal" / "illegal" person is not really a thing without more context, so you can interpret it in many ways. The main takeaway though is "after the hearing, he's not breaking any rules by staying and working in the country". That's legal enough for me for a casual comment - I'll stay with my original then - he entered illegally and afterwards was allowed to legally remain.
Have you got the actual court decision about the crime? Not police accusations or similar - confirmation he was actually judged and found guilty in court?
False on both counts and contradictory to the source you cite. There is no right to reside, and you could only work if you were additionally authorised.
> "Withholding of removal" is a form of legal status.
In the same sense as trespassing is a legal status. The way in which it is not a legal status is that he does not have the status of legally residing in the US.
> As in the case of asylum, a person who is granted withholding of removal is protected from being returned to his or her home country and receives the right to remain in the United States and work legally.
I’ve seen you claim 1+1=3 all over this thread, so the gaslighting isn’t gonna work.
> In the same sense as trespassing is a legal status.
No. In the same sense that you’re allowed to stay in a homeless shelter legally for a while, but not necessarily forever.
MY CLIENT HAS BEEN GRANTED WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL… NOW WHAT?
Your client may apply for an Employment Authorization Document by using the form I765 available on the USCIS website (www.uscis.gov). Her Employment Authorization
Document will then be sent to her most recent address on file with USCIS. It is
therefore important to make sure that not only the court but also USCIS is informed of
any changes in her address through use of the form AR-11 (also available on the USCIS
website). The EAD is only issued for one year at a time and should be renewed with
ample time (at least three months) to allow for processing.
> they must have a valid CIS-issued employment authorization document in order to work lawfully in the United States.
---
Not one single claim I made is false, while this whole thread is in response to a blatantly false claim, that an innocent man was deported. You should check the mirror.
It's been pointed out, over and over again, that our system presumes innocence until convicted in a court of law. You know this. Don't pretend otherwise.
Until the government finds a different country to send him to, he's here legally. He's not breaking any law by remaining while awaiting that. Your source backs me up, in its first paragraph - "he can now safely remain in
this country".
> 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 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.
He had his day in court, twice, he was not innocent. I never contended that the government did not wrongfully deport him, not once, but that does not make him innocent. He is still an MS-13 member that is illegally in the US and subject to deportation at the pleasure of the executive.
You're also citing the government's assertions. If assertions were enough to deem someone a convicted criminal, we wouldn't need trials. It has never been proven, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that he was a member of MS-13.
> The Maryland police officer who formally attested to Abrego Garcia’s supposed gang affiliation in 2019—when he was detained the first time—was subsequently suspended from the force for a serious transgression: giving confidential information about a case to a sex worker, The New Republic has established.
Your two citations also preceed his being granted withholding of removal. At the time of his deportation, he had legal status here, until they found a valid place to send him. The deportation - again, per SCOTUS - was the illegal bit.
> But in Abrego Garcia’s case, to revoke his protections, the U.S. government “would have been required under law to reopen his immigration court proceedings and prove to the judge that he was a member of MS-13 and therefore no longer eligible for withholding.”
> The deportation - again, per SCOTUS - was the illegal bit.
Never disputed this. Why do you keep returning to this when it is not in question? Do you not get how the US could deport someone and the person still not be innocent, being an MS-13 gang member and an illegal alien?
> Why do you keep returning to this when it is not in question?
Because you keep falsely claiming the guy is a criminal. He has not been convicted of any crime; his membership in MS-13 is an allegation only. (And a shaky one.) Until convicted of a crime, our system presumes him to be innocent.
The only demonstrably, provably, without-a-doubt illegal act here was the deportation.
We deport and refuse entry to non-criminals (including for plenty of non-criminal acts, or even just vibes) all the time. It doesn't prove guilt.
> The only demonstrably, provably, without-a-doubt illegal act here was the deportation.
This is false. You and I know that it is provably, without-a-doubt, that he entered the US illegally and was remaining in the US illegally. There is nobody disputing this.
> You and I know that it is provably, without-a-doubt, that he entered the US illegally and was remaining in the US illegally.
No one has charged him, let alone convicted him, of a crime for entering the country as a minor. He has no criminal record. That's a fact.
You and I know he received withholding of removal (and a work permit!). His remaining here at that point was legal, albeit potentially temporary.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled the deportation an illegal act. No portion of the judicial branch has yet weighed in on Garcia's actions.
I don't disagree, but I bet ICE doesn't see it that way. I mean why else would someone who's been granted a legal status pending his case wind up on their list of people to roll up on.
If you google "innocent man sent to el salvador" you'll get dozens on dozens on dozens of results from which you can pick your favorite news site to catch up.
I checked the first two results and not one of them said the man was innocent [1][2]. It's okay if the claim is baseless and there is no citation, but asking me to find a citation for someone else's baseless claim is not really okay.
>asking me to find a citation for someone else's baseless claim is not really okay.
It is one of the biggest news stories in the last month, and various articles (at least 3 that I can think of) have been here on HN. It's trivially searchable. Asking for a citation is almost certainly bad faith.
>I checked the first two results and not one of them said the man was innocent
It's pretty obscure, but there's this thing called "innocent until proven guilty". The man never had his time in court. The US admitted it was a mistake. What are you looking for? Just being contrarian for the sake of it?
The Supreme Court has even stepped in, which I'm sure you're aware despite pretending not to be:
>On April 7, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam order, with no recorded dissents, requiring the government to “facilitate [Abrego Garcia’s] return”
And, despite any and all of that! There was no due process. Which, "illegal" or "legal", everyone is supposed to get a due process. If you remove due process for the people you don't like, someone else just needs to claim you're in that group and now you don't get due process! It's like Step 1 of authoritarianism.
Which, since you've not posted anything proving your innocence despite other commenters asking for it, perhaps we should remove your rights to due process.
All you do is ask for "cite?" and then complain when the citation isn't want you asked for, partly because you never ask for anything specific. You're just a troll.
"The Trump administration trapped a wrongly deported man in a catch-22", "There is no evidence that Abrego García is a terrorist or a member of the gang MS-13 as the Trump administration has claimed." from your first link.
Unless you can find a court hearing / docket / charges, or some report about them, he's innocent.
If you think that's not enough, you're probably not innocent either... unless you have a way to prove that no charge exists against you in any jurisdiction in the world. Do you get why people assume innocence here now?
You would think this administration would jump at the opportunity of showing the media any proof that Abrego Garcia was a member of any gang, no matter how circumstantial or weak the proof is. But I've yet to see any of it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vedkm7w2do
I'm assuming the response to this is going to be along the lines of 'oh this doesnt prove he was innocent, they say he was a member of ms-13 etc etc etc' because evidently innocent until proven guilty (which they provided no proof of) isn't a thing anymore
[flagged]
"The US government has conceded Mr Ábrego García was deported because of an "administrative error", though it also says he is a member of the MS-13 gang - something his lawyer denies. "
Try actually reading the article next time. Again, the burden of proof here should be falling on PROVING he is a member of ms-13, not proving he isn't. You are obviously arguing this in bad faith.
[flagged]
Your link says the opposite of what you claim.
> Although the asylum claim proved to be time-barred—aliens are required to bring such claims within a year of entering the country—in October 2019 Judge Jones did grant his request for “withholding of removal” based on his “well-founded” fear of persecution by Barrio 18. The government did not appeal, so Jones’s ruling is now final.
> The removal being in error does not make him innocent.
Innocent is the default. That's a fundamental part of how our legal system works. The government must prove you guilty.
They did not have "every right to remove him." As the article you linked says, Abrego Garcia was specifically granted a withholding of removal order.
To only one specific country. Not in general.
I can’t find any proof you’re innocent, only a complete lack or evidence that you are guilty.
Guess we better send you to CECOT. Have fun with your 0.6m^2 of living space. Too bad you weren’t innocent.
He's an illegal who had a credible (like actually credible, like you could pitch it to someone in the year 2002, not the flimsy 2020s BS) claim for asylum but didn't file in time. He was eventually caught up in the system for reasons not related to the commission of any crime. ICE looked at his case, and gave him a "we won't deport you because your case is pending" status.
> He's an illegal ...
Edit; see below for details
This is false. He has no legal status [1]. He could be removed, just not to El Salvador. That does not give him legal status or make him a resident.
[1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13...
Interesting. More details about that status can be found here https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/immigra...
I've heard the legal status mentioned by an online-person-who-should-know-better. I'll let them know.
"Withholding of removal" is a form of legal status.
They can deport you (if they find a willing third party nation), as it's not a path to permanent resident status, but until they do so, you're allowed to reside and work.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/fil...
> As in the case of asylum, a person who is granted withholding of removal is protected from being returned to his or her home country and receives the right to remain in the United States and work legally. But at the end of the court process, an immigration judge enters a deportation order and then tells the government they cannot execute that order. That is, the “removal” to a person’s home country is “withheld.” However, the government is still allowed to deport that person to a different country if the other country agrees to accept them.
> Withholding of removal provides a form of protection that is less certain than asylum, leaving its recipients in a sort of limbo. A person who is granted withholding of removal may never leave the United States without executing that removal order, cannot petition to bring family members to the United States, and does not gain a path to citizenship. And unlike asylum, when a family seeks withholding of removal together a judge may grant protection to the parent while denying it to the children, leading to family separation.
So this is a bit weird. The initial claim seems not well defined, because "legal" / "illegal" person is not really a thing without more context, so you can interpret it in many ways. The main takeaway though is "after the hearing, he's not breaking any rules by staying and working in the country". That's legal enough for me for a casual comment - I'll stay with my original then - he entered illegally and afterwards was allowed to legally remain.
This is simply false. He broke the law, was a criminal, had no right to reside in the US. Saying he was innocent is also simply false.
Have you got the actual court decision about the crime? Not police accusations or similar - confirmation he was actually judged and found guilty in court?
> you're allowed to reside and work.
False on both counts and contradictory to the source you cite. There is no right to reside, and you could only work if you were additionally authorised.
> "Withholding of removal" is a form of legal status.
In the same sense as trespassing is a legal status. The way in which it is not a legal status is that he does not have the status of legally residing in the US.
Here, I’ll quote my source again.
> As in the case of asylum, a person who is granted withholding of removal is protected from being returned to his or her home country and receives the right to remain in the United States and work legally.
I’ve seen you claim 1+1=3 all over this thread, so the gaslighting isn’t gonna work.
> In the same sense as trespassing is a legal status.
No. In the same sense that you’re allowed to stay in a homeless shelter legally for a while, but not necessarily forever.
Your source is wrong.
https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Withholdi...
MY CLIENT HAS BEEN GRANTED WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL… NOW WHAT?
Your client may apply for an Employment Authorization Document by using the form I765 available on the USCIS website (www.uscis.gov). Her Employment Authorization Document will then be sent to her most recent address on file with USCIS. It is therefore important to make sure that not only the court but also USCIS is informed of any changes in her address through use of the form AR-11 (also available on the USCIS website). The EAD is only issued for one year at a time and should be renewed with ample time (at least three months) to allow for processing.
https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/immigra...
> An applicant who has won withholding of removal does not receive as many benefits as an asylee. The individual can seek work authorization
https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/withhol...
> they must have a valid CIS-issued employment authorization document in order to work lawfully in the United States.
---
Not one single claim I made is false, while this whole thread is in response to a blatantly false claim, that an innocent man was deported. You should check the mirror.
It's been pointed out, over and over again, that our system presumes innocence until convicted in a court of law. You know this. Don't pretend otherwise.
Until the government finds a different country to send him to, he's here legally. He's not breaking any law by remaining while awaiting that. Your source backs me up, in its first paragraph - "he can now safely remain in this country".
He had the required work authorization, as well.
https://wtop.com/maryland/2025/04/us-judge-to-question-trump...
> He also was given a federal permit to work in the United States, where he was a metal worker and union member, according to Abrego Garcia’s lawyers.
A court has ruled that someone broke the law, though; the administration. As upheld by SCOTUS, even.
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.
Here is the initial ruling against him for being present in the US illegally:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578...
> 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.
The same ruling was upheld on appeal which specifically upheld the finding of him being part of MS-13, and in the US illegally: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578...
He had his day in court, twice, he was not innocent. I never contended that the government did not wrongfully deport him, not once, but that does not make him innocent. He is still an MS-13 member that is illegally in the US and subject to deportation at the pleasure of the executive.
Word games aren't going to change the facts.
That's not a criminal court; it's a wing of the Executive. They don't make guilty/not-guilty determinations at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_judge_(United_Stat...
The proceedings are administrative, the people are "respondents" instead of "defendants", etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_proceedings
You're also citing the government's assertions. If assertions were enough to deem someone a convicted criminal, we wouldn't need trials. It has never been proven, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that he was a member of MS-13.
The "proven and reliable source" they cite is a corrupt cop. https://newrepublic.com/article/194010/kilmar-abrego-garcia-...
> The Maryland police officer who formally attested to Abrego Garcia’s supposed gang affiliation in 2019—when he was detained the first time—was subsequently suspended from the force for a serious transgression: giving confidential information about a case to a sex worker, The New Republic has established.
Your two citations also preceed his being granted withholding of removal. At the time of his deportation, he had legal status here, until they found a valid place to send him. The deportation - again, per SCOTUS - was the illegal bit.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2025/kilmar-abrego-gar...
> But in Abrego Garcia’s case, to revoke his protections, the U.S. government “would have been required under law to reopen his immigration court proceedings and prove to the judge that he was a member of MS-13 and therefore no longer eligible for withholding.”
> The deportation - again, per SCOTUS - was the illegal bit.
Never disputed this. Why do you keep returning to this when it is not in question? Do you not get how the US could deport someone and the person still not be innocent, being an MS-13 gang member and an illegal alien?
> Why do you keep returning to this when it is not in question?
Because you keep falsely claiming the guy is a criminal. He has not been convicted of any crime; his membership in MS-13 is an allegation only. (And a shaky one.) Until convicted of a crime, our system presumes him to be innocent.
The only demonstrably, provably, without-a-doubt illegal act here was the deportation.
We deport and refuse entry to non-criminals (including for plenty of non-criminal acts, or even just vibes) all the time. It doesn't prove guilt.
> The only demonstrably, provably, without-a-doubt illegal act here was the deportation.
This is false. You and I know that it is provably, without-a-doubt, that he entered the US illegally and was remaining in the US illegally. There is nobody disputing this.
> You and I know that it is provably, without-a-doubt, that he entered the US illegally and was remaining in the US illegally.
No one has charged him, let alone convicted him, of a crime for entering the country as a minor. He has no criminal record. That's a fact.
You and I know he received withholding of removal (and a work permit!). His remaining here at that point was legal, albeit potentially temporary.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled the deportation an illegal act. No portion of the judicial branch has yet weighed in on Garcia's actions.
I don't disagree, but I bet ICE doesn't see it that way. I mean why else would someone who's been granted a legal status pending his case wind up on their list of people to roll up on.
Citation for this: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13...
And that does make the deportation erroneous, that does not make him innocent.
If you google "innocent man sent to el salvador" you'll get dozens on dozens on dozens of results from which you can pick your favorite news site to catch up.
I checked the first two results and not one of them said the man was innocent [1][2]. It's okay if the claim is baseless and there is no citation, but asking me to find a citation for someone else's baseless claim is not really okay.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/14/abrego-garci...
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-meet-with-el-salvador...
>asking me to find a citation for someone else's baseless claim is not really okay.
It is one of the biggest news stories in the last month, and various articles (at least 3 that I can think of) have been here on HN. It's trivially searchable. Asking for a citation is almost certainly bad faith.
>I checked the first two results and not one of them said the man was innocent
It's pretty obscure, but there's this thing called "innocent until proven guilty". The man never had his time in court. The US admitted it was a mistake. What are you looking for? Just being contrarian for the sake of it?
[flagged]
Last reply, because you are very obviously trolling and commenting in bad faith.
>the US government had every right to deport him,
No.
These are all from that article. Special attention to "his removal was illegal".
>Abrego Garcia, who has no criminal record in the United States or anywhere else
>the government has conceded that it wrongfully removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States
>his removal was illegal because an immigration judge had granted him “withholding of removal”
>Jones’s 2019 ruling, barring Abrego Garcia’s removal
The Supreme Court has even stepped in, which I'm sure you're aware despite pretending not to be:
>On April 7, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam order, with no recorded dissents, requiring the government to “facilitate [Abrego Garcia’s] return”
And, despite any and all of that! There was no due process. Which, "illegal" or "legal", everyone is supposed to get a due process. If you remove due process for the people you don't like, someone else just needs to claim you're in that group and now you don't get due process! It's like Step 1 of authoritarianism.
Which, since you've not posted anything proving your innocence despite other commenters asking for it, perhaps we should remove your rights to due process.
Our system deems people innocent until proven guilty of a crime. That has not happened - he is not charged with any.
Can you cite anything showing him having been convicted of something?
I made no claim one way or the other. I asked you to cite a claim.
All you do is ask for "cite?" and then complain when the citation isn't want you asked for, partly because you never ask for anything specific. You're just a troll.
Then here’s the cite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
You probably were taught this in elementary school.
"The Trump administration trapped a wrongly deported man in a catch-22", "There is no evidence that Abrego García is a terrorist or a member of the gang MS-13 as the Trump administration has claimed." from your first link.
[flagged]
Unless you can find a court hearing / docket / charges, or some report about them, he's innocent.
If you think that's not enough, you're probably not innocent either... unless you have a way to prove that no charge exists against you in any jurisdiction in the world. Do you get why people assume innocence here now?
He entered illegally, had no legal status, had his asylum request rejected [1]. He was not innocent, he could be deported, just not to El Salvador.
[1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13...
I think you're arguing in bad faith.
You would think this administration would jump at the opportunity of showing the media any proof that Abrego Garcia was a member of any gang, no matter how circumstantial or weak the proof is. But I've yet to see any of it.
He entered illegally, had no legal status, had his asylum request rejected [1]. He was not innocent, he could be deported, just not to El Salvador.
[1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13...
You're moving the goalposts. You were arguing about his alleged gang membership and now your point is that he was an illegal.
Also, other users showed that his deportation was suspended as he had been threatened by the gang members you allege he's a member of.
Not even almost once did this discussion start with me claiming he was a member of a gang.
Check any website with news from the last few weeks.
[flagged]
This is some grade A trolling.
Yeah, imagine making a false claim and then asking other people to cite it for you.
Cite? Really? I haven’t seen an article about the situation or the visit that didn’t mention it.