A rare third-country removal plan tests due process and prosecutorial power
The Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation notice to Uganda on August 23, 2025, has thrust his case into the national spotlight. ICE directed the Salvadoran national—who already won a 2019 protection order and survived a mistaken March 2025 removal to El Salvador—to report to its Baltimore office. His lawyers call the Uganda plan “prosecutorial retaliation” and warn it sidesteps due process. Read on for the full story and its wider implications.
A convoluted timeline
Abrego Garcia’s journey through the U.S. system defies easy summary. Three critical events shaped the current dispute:
- In 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal, ruling he faced a “well-founded fear” of gang persecution in El Salvador.
- On March 15, 2025, ICE mistakenly sent him to El Salvador despite that safeguard. He endured prison there until a June 6 Supreme Court order returned him to U.S. custody.
- Soon after, federal prosecutors in Nashville indicted him on human smuggling charges tied to a 2022 traffic stop. He pleaded not guilty, and on August 22, 2025, a judge ordered his release under strict supervision.
The very next day, ICE notified him of its intent to deport him to Uganda—a country with which he has no personal or legal ties.
What is a third-country removal?
A third-country removal occurs when the U.S. deports someone to a nation other than their country of origin. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2), immigration officials may use this option if returning an individual home is “not practicable or appropriate” and if the receiving country agrees. Such removals are rare and demand clear legal justification.
Why Uganda?
Recent reporting indicates the U.S. and Uganda have explored a deportation agreement, broadening partner countries beyond traditional destinations. Yet sending a Salvadoran national to East Africa is unprecedented. Critics argue the move undermines established protections and risks violating Abrego Garcia’s legal rights.
Allegations of prosecutorial retaliation
His defense team filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive and Selective Prosecution” on August 20, 2025. They contend that:
- The Uganda removal notice was timed to pressure him into a plea in the smuggling case.
- No evidence links him to gang activity or large-scale smuggling.
- Prosecutors chose an unusual removal country to coerce a conviction.
“This is prosecutorial retaliation, plain and simple,” the filing states. “Senior officials sought vengeance for Mr. Abrego’s challenge to their overreach.”
The human smuggling charges
Prosecutors allege that Abrego Garcia transported nine undocumented passengers during a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop. The defense highlights that officers issued only a warning and no formal detention at the time. He pleaded not guilty, and discovery disputes center on whether evidence exists to support a conviction.
Legal and policy stakes
This case raises several hard questions:
• Does ICE have the discretion to override a judicial protection order by selecting a third country?
• Can prosecutors leverage deportation threats in parallel criminal proceedings?
• What safeguards exist for individuals who fear persecution if sent abroad?
Courts will examine whether these tactics breach due process or exceed statutory authority. A Maryland federal judge previously enjoined any removal without three business days’ notice to the court and defense counsel—a critical procedural check.
Counterarguments and government position
Officials may argue that:
- Third-country removals are lawful under federal statutes and part of a broader enforcement policy.
- Criminal charges rest on valid investigative findings unrelated to immigration fights.
- Prosecutorial discretion extends to pursuing charges when evidence merits it.
However, when deportation notices coincide with criminal deadlines, courts often suspect improper motives. Transparency over the U.S.-Uganda agreement and internal ICE memos will be key.
What’s next
- Emergency motions: Defense may seek an injunction blocking the Uganda removal.
- Discovery battles: Both sides will push for or resist disclosure of evidence and communications about the removal plan.
- Policy scrutiny: Lawmakers and advocates might demand hearings on third-country deportations.
Center-left readers concerned with both rule of law and humane immigration policy should monitor these developments and urge accountability.
Call to action
Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case is about much more than one man’s fate. It tests the limits of executive power, the sanctity of judicial orders, and the line between enforcement and coercion. ICE’s plan to send a Salvadoran national to Uganda challenges legal norms and raises urgent questions about due process. Readers can support transparency by following court filings, sharing reputable reporting, and contacting representatives to demand clear rules for third-country removals.
Your voice matters. Reach out to policymakers and ask for strict safeguards that prevent deportation from becoming a tool of retaliation.
