Judge Upholds Order for Return of Deported Asylum Seeker
A federal judge in Baltimore has reaffirmed her previous ruling, demanding that the Trump administration facilitate the return of a 20-year-old Venezuelan asylum seeker, Daniel Lozano-Camargo, who was deported to El Salvador. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, rejected the government’s request to modify her order, emphasizing the importance of due process rights.
The case revolves around Lozano-Camargo’s deportation under the Trump administration’s Alien Enemies Act. Judge Gallagher had previously ruled that the deportation violated a 2024 settlement agreement between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a group of young asylum seekers, including Lozano-Camargo. The settlement stipulated that these migrants, all of whom entered the U.S. as unaccompanied children, would not be deported until their cases were fully adjudicated in court.
Gallagher’s initial ruling in April stated that Lozano-Camargo’s deportation constituted a "breach of contract" because his asylum case had not been heard. She ordered the U.S. government to take steps to ensure his return.
During a hearing on Tuesday, the government argued that Lozano-Camargo’s deportation was justified under the Alien Enemies Act, citing his arrest and conviction for cocaine possession in Houston earlier this year. The administration asserted that this designation meant Lozano-Camargo was no longer protected by the settlement agreement.
Judge Gallagher acknowledged the government’s position but maintained that her decision was primarily based on the principle of due process. She emphasized that the strength of Lozano-Camargo’s asylum claim or his past offenses were not the determining factors in her ruling. Instead, she stressed the need to uphold the legal process and the commitments made in the settlement agreement.
The judge highlighted that the settlement agreement mandates that Lozano-Camargo be present in the U.S. for his asylum hearing. His deportation without a proper hearing, she argued, "pre-judges the outcome" and deprives him of the opportunity to challenge his case in court through his attorneys.
Judge Gallagher also addressed the government’s arguments regarding the Alien Enemies Act, asserting that their focus was misplaced. She said that the core issue was not whether Lozano-Camargo would ultimately be granted asylum but rather whether he was afforded the proper legal process.
To provide the government with an opportunity to appeal her ruling, Judge Gallagher agreed to temporarily suspend the order for 48 hours. This pause allows the government to seek intervention from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the 4th Circuit declines to take up the case, Judge Gallagher stated that she would amend her ruling to establish a specific timeline for the government to return Lozano-Camargo to the United States.
Judge Gallagher drew a comparison to criminal cases, pointing out that even when the outcome of a trial seems predictable, individuals are still entitled to a trial under U.S. law. She stated, "We don’t skip to the end and say, ‘We all know how this is going to end so we’ll just skip that part."
The judge’s decision has been met with varied reactions. Supporters of immigration rights have praised her commitment to due process, while some conservative voices have questioned her emphasis on legal procedure over the government’s assessment of Lozano-Camargo’s potential threat.
The case underscores the ongoing debate surrounding immigration enforcement and the rights of asylum seekers. It also highlights the complexities of balancing national security concerns with the principles of due process and fairness.
The Trump administration has until Thursday afternoon to file an appeal with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The outcome of that appeal will determine whether the government is required to return Lozano-Camargo to the U.S. to pursue his asylum claim.
The case also sheds light on the Alien Enemies Act, a law that grants the government broad authority to detain and deport individuals deemed to be threats to national security. The Trump administration has increasingly relied on this act to justify its immigration enforcement policies.
The dispute over Lozano-Camargo’s deportation is one of many legal battles that have arisen over the Trump administration’s immigration policies. These cases often involve complex legal questions about the scope of executive power, the rights of immigrants, and the role of the courts in overseeing immigration enforcement.
The judge’s decision can also be viewed in the context of ongoing political polarization surrounding immigration. The issue has become a central dividing line in American politics, with Democrats generally advocating for more lenient immigration policies and Republicans often favoring stricter enforcement measures.
The case of Daniel Lozano-Camargo represents a microcosm of these broader debates. It raises fundamental questions about how the U.S. should treat asylum seekers, how to balance security concerns with due process rights, and how to interpret and apply immigration laws.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will now have the opportunity to weigh in on these important issues. Its decision could have significant implications for Lozano-Camargo’s future and for the broader landscape of immigration law.
