Deported Migrant’s Identity Revealed as Trump Administration Defies Court Orders
The identity of a second migrant, previously only known as Cristian, who was deported from Maryland to El Salvador in March has been revealed as Daniel Lozano-Camargo, a 20-year-old Venezuelan man. This revelation comes as the Trump administration continues to resist federal court orders to facilitate his return to the United States. Lozano-Camargo’s case is drawing increased scrutiny as it highlights the administration’s stance on immigration enforcement and its willingness to challenge judicial rulings.
Prior to his deportation, Lozano-Camargo resided in Houston, Texas. He was arrested in January for cocaine possession, which subsequently led to his deportation to El Salvador in March. News of his identity was first reported by Politico, bringing increased media attention to the case.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher issued a ruling late last month stating that the Trump administration had violated a settlement agreement with a group of young asylum seekers, including Lozano-Camargo. The agreement had been struck between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the asylum seekers the previous year. Gallagher asserted that by deporting Lozano-Camargo before his asylum request was fully heard, the administration had breached the terms of the settlement.
Lozano-Camargo was part of a larger group of migrants who had entered the United States illegally as unaccompanied children. These migrants later filed asylum claims to legally remain in the U.S., citing fears of persecution or harm in their home countries.
In her April ruling, Judge Gallagher underscored that this case was distinct from other legal challenges to Trump-era deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Instead, it rested on an alleged "breach of contract." Gallagher argued that DHS had agreed not to deport these individuals until their asylum claims had been fully adjudicated in U.S. court.
Lozano-Camargo’s asylum request, filed in December 2022, was still pending when he was deported to El Salvador on March 15, along with hundreds of other migrants. As a result, Judge Gallagher specifically ordered the Trump administration to make a "good faith request" to the government of El Salvador to "release Cristian, [or Lozano-Camargo], to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS."
Judge Gallagher also alluded to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another Maryland resident who was deported to El Salvador the previous month. Administration officials have acknowledged that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was an administrative error. Abrego Garcia had also sought protection from his wife, who claimed abuse.
To date, U.S. officials have resisted court orders to "facilitate" the return of Abrego Garcia. The administration doubled down on this position in a recent court filing to Judge Gallagher.
The Trump administration has previously told the court that it had determined Lozano-Camargo was eligible for removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration cited his arrest and conviction for cocaine possession earlier this year, characterizing it as his second low-level drug offense.
In a recent court filing, Trump administration officials argued that there was no breach of contract with DHS in Lozano-Camargo’s case. They asserted that his designation as an "alien enemy pursuant to the AEA" resulted in him "ceasing to be a member" of the class that had negotiated the settlement. The administration contended that "aliens subject to removal" under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act proclamation "cannot claim asylum, and therefore are not class members."
As of yet, there is no public evidence that Lozano-Camargo is a member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Trump declared the gang a designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization" on March 15, intending to expedite the deportation of certain migrants from the U.S.
Justice Department officials claimed in earlier court documents that Lozano-Camargo was a member of a "violent terrorist gang," but have not linked him to TdA. Portions of their most recent court filing have been redacted, further fueling speculation about the government’s rationale.
The case of Daniel Lozano-Camargo underscores the complexities of immigration enforcement and the ongoing legal battles between the Trump administration and immigrant advocates. As the legal proceedings unfold, Lozano-Camargo’s fate, and that of other deported migrants, hangs in the balance. The legal battle involves arguments about the validity of settlement agreements, the application of the Alien Enemies Act, and the rights of asylum seekers. The case underscores the administration’s tough stance on immigration, its willingness to challenge judicial orders, and the ongoing legal battles that define this aspect of American policy.
The case raises questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government, particularly in matters of immigration. As the Trump administration continues to resist court orders, critics argue that it is undermining the rule of law and due process rights. Supporters, on the other hand, maintain that the administration is prioritizing national security and enforcing existing immigration laws. The case also raises questions about the government’s criteria for designating individuals as "alien enemies" and the implications of such a designation on their legal rights.
The outcome of Lozano-Camargo’s case could have broader implications for other asylum seekers and migrants facing deportation. It could set a precedent for future legal challenges to the administration’s immigration policies. Immigration advocates are closely monitoring the case, viewing it as a crucial test of the administration’s commitment to due process and the rights of asylum seekers. The case highlights the challenges faced by migrants seeking refuge in the United States, particularly those who have entered the country illegally as unaccompanied children. It sheds light on the complexities of the asylum process and the difficulties faced by those who seek to navigate the legal system.
The legal and political battles surrounding Lozano-Camargo’s deportation continue to unfold, with both sides digging in and the case moving forward. Ultimately, the courts will have to weigh the competing legal arguments and determine whether the Trump administration acted lawfully in deporting Lozano-Camargo. The outcome will serve as a reminder of the ongoing tension and controversy surrounding immigration policy in the United States.
