How a Maryland immigrant’s case became a test of third-country removal — and what comes next

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran father living in Maryland, reported to the ICE Baltimore Field Office after his release from a Tennessee jail—and was told he could be deported not to El Salvador or Costa Rica, but to Uganda. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2), U.S. law permits third-country removal if the receiving nation agrees and other options are impracticable. His attorneys say this threat followed his refusal of a plea deal. ICE maintains it’s exercising lawful authority. The outcome will shape how far third-country deportations can reach.

What Happened — And Why This Case Matters

A complicated journey back to Baltimore

At 16, Abrego Garcia fled gang violence in El Salvador and gained withholding of removal in 2019. On March 15, 2025, administrative error led to his deportation to El Salvador and imprisonment in CECOT prison (CNBC). A federal court ordered his return in April 2025; the Supreme Court let that order stand on April 10, 2025. He was flown back June 6, 2025, and jailed in Tennessee on human-smuggling charges from a 2022 traffic stop (Fox News). On August 22, 2025, a Maryland judge and a Tennessee judge ordered his release and stayed any removal (Wikipedia).

The Uganda twist

One day after reporting to ICE Baltimore, lawyers learned Uganda was the intended destination if Abrego Garcia declined a Costa Rica plea deal. “They’re throwing the entire federal apparatus at one father of three to prove that no one should dare challenge their authority,” said Lydia Walther-Rodriguez of CASA (CNN Politics). His team calls the move punitive and unrelated to his life or safety.

Verified Timeline

• 2011: Enters U.S. at age 16 to escape Salvadoran gang threats.
• 2019: Immigration judge grants withholding of removal.
• March 15, 2025: Wrongfully deported to El Salvador; detained in CECOT prison.
• April 10, 2025: Supreme Court upholds federal order for his return.
• June 6, 2025: Returned to U.S.; forwarded to Tennessee custody on smuggling charges.
• July 23, 2025: MD and TN courts release him and bar immediate removal.
• August 22–23, 2025: Released from Putnam County Jail; reports to ICE Baltimore; attorneys alerted to possible deportation to Uganda.

The Law: How Third-Country Deportation Works

Quick definition

Third-country removal occurs when the U.S. deports a noncitizen to a country other than their origin, birth, or residence, provided that nation consents.

The statutory framework

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2), removal priority runs: country of nationality, birth, residence, then any willing country. Acceptance by the receiving state is nonnegotiable; without consent, deportation cannot proceed.

Why Uganda?

ICE has identified Uganda as willing to accept certain deportees. Details of any memorandum are not public. Attorneys argue Uganda has no ties to Abrego Garcia, speaking neither his language nor guaranteeing his safety—a tactic they deem coercive (AP News).

Voices from the Ground

Statements from ICE

“Immigration officials say they plan to deport Garcia to Uganda if he doesn’t accept the deal,” reported WMAR2 News (Aug 2025).

From Garcia and His Attorneys

“Promise me that you will continue to pray, continue to fight, resist and love, not just for me, but for everybody,” Abrego Garcia said at a Baltimore rally (CNN Politics).
“The administration is retaliating against my client for challenging his wrongful deportation,” said Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg of Legal Aid Justice Center (CNN Politics).

From Maryland Leaders and Advocates

“If his rights are denied, the rights of everyone else are at risk,” warned Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D–MD) (CNN Politics).

Context and Counterarguments

ICE’s Enforcement Rationale

ICE’s FY 2023 report records 73,822 arrests nationwide, prioritizing public-safety risks. Third-country removal is one tool in its enforcement arsenal (ICE FY2023 Annual Report).

Maryland’s Immigrant Landscape

Nearly 15 percent of Maryland’s residents are foreign-born, filling vital roles in healthcare, construction, and education (Pew Research). Groups like CASA Maryland and the ACLU offer legal aid and advocacy.

Fairly Addressing Counterarguments

The government notes third-country removal is lawful with consent. Civil-liberties advocates caution that sending someone to a nation with no ties raises due-process and human-rights concerns. The courts have already checked an outright error, but Uganda would set a new precedent.

What’s at Stake for Maryland — and Beyond

Due Process and Precedent

The Supreme Court-backed return order proved that courts can curb improper removals. An attempted removal to Uganda would test the outer limits of third-country deportation law.

Family and Community Impact

This case galvanized Baltimore communities, with rallies, legal clinics, and statements from officials. Its outcome will reverberate in immigration courts across the country.

How You Can Help

• Contact your federal and state representatives; urge them to support due-process protections and limit third-country removals.
• Donate to and volunteer with legal defense organizations such as CASA Maryland and the ACLU.
• Attend local “know your rights” workshops and community briefings.
• Share accurate updates from trusted news outlets on social media.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s journey—from a wrongful deportation to a potential removal to Uganda—raises urgent questions about fairness, authority, and human rights. Marylanders know that decisions in Baltimore echo nationwide. Stay informed, speak out, and support due process so justice isn’t determined by the most extreme option on the table.