Withholding Order for Garcia applied to GUATEMALA not EL SALVADOR

Post the paragraph right above the conclusion.

The one that says El Salvador.

No. You’re reading it wrong.

quote:

---

Why doesn’t Bondi come out and state this?

---

That's the only thing that gives me pause. Once the initial DOJ attorney was removed, why hasn't DOJ amended its pleadings?

I suppose one could argue that the Immigration Judge MEANT to write "El Salvador," but that should have been an argument for Abrego Garcia’s lawyers...and it doesn't fit the facts as alleged. Abrego Garcia’s family had moved to Guatemala from El Salvador in an attempt to flee persecution

The media is SO bad. ALL this discussion about the Withholding Order without producing that Order for the public to read.

I only found it thanks to the Tennessee Star, the same outlet that broke the details of the human trafficking allegations. However, much you hate Mainstream Media, it's not enough.

Here is the entire document:
LINK

quote:

---

Yeah, the quote looks like it is ok to deport him to Guatemala. Doesn't say anything about El Salvador.

---

It doesn’t say that at all.

Good find Ivory. This is why you don’t go full on trusting the medias initial reporting.


This is part of the law where I don’t think it mattered sending him to El Salvador anyway.

quote:

---

(3) Restriction on removal to a country where alien's life or freedom would be threatened

(A) In general Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

(B) Exception

Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an alien deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(D) of this title or if the Attorney General decides that-

(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of an individual because of the individual's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime is a danger to the community of the United States;

(iii) there are serious reasons to believe that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States before the alien arrived in the United States; or

(iv) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.

---

quote:

---

Post the paragraph right above the conclusion.

The one that says El Salvador.

---

Why are you shilling for a MS-13 terrorist by pointing out that the judge also mentioned El Salvador in addition to Guatemala? Why do you hate America and Trump so much? I think your TDS has gotten the better of you.

The reference was to a different legal proposition: an analysis under the Convention Against Torture of whether or not Abrego Garcia would be tortured.

Admittedly, the document was sloppy in its analysis, but the portion on which country Abrego Garcia could not be removed to is clear: it was Guatemala.

I'm not going to do the further heavy lifting of researching whether or not a withholding order can apply only to one country. You and others on the Board HATE actual legal analysis and would prefer to label those who bother to engage in it as "shilling for terrorists" or "wanting to bring Abrego Garcia back" despite the truth of what I have been doing.

My semi-educated guess is that an illegal alien subject to deportation only gets ONE country to which they cannot be deported through a withholding order. If that's true, that country was GUATEMALA, not El Salvador in Abrego Garcia's case.

Against my better judgment, here's my last courtesy to you. Here's the paragraph before the conclusion that you requested:

Thanks NC_Tigah. Spotless analysis.

I wish I had seen your excellent summary, before I took 10 minutes to lash out at 808Bass in explaining the portion about CAT.

quote:

---

I'm definitely no lawyer, but it appears that OP is correct. Seems this should have been a talking point for the DOJ in the beginning. Why haven't they revealed this?

---

I agree. It's a head scratcher. I understand the accusation that the initial DOJ attorney sabotaged the case...but why hasn't a DOJ lawyer...actually acting FOR the United States government...amended the pleadings to highlight what the Immigration Judge's Order actually said?

I know you have heard this before...

You are mind numbingly stupid!