Again, you are incorrect.
The finding of MS-13 membership in the bond hearing was legally sufficient under civil standards, and the evidence was more substantial than just an anonymous source and a Bulls hat/jacket, which the BIA affirmed.
Bond hearings in immigration court are civil proceedings, but the standard for denying bond is a “preponderance of the evidence” showing the individual poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. The immigration judge found Garcia to be a danger due to MS-13 membership , and the BIA affirmed this finding as not “clearly erroneous”. This meets the civil standard of proof, contrary to your claim that such a finding isn’t “legally considered proof.”
The bond memorandum states the judge found Garcia to be a “verified member of MS-13” based on evidence presented. The BIA document notes the judge’s finding was supported by “information… in the record,” suggesting more than just an informant and clothing. Additionally, you are glossing over the reliability of the source, which was detailed in the court documents.
Additionally, the WH has cited “multiple pieces of proof” of MS-13 ties, including alleged human trafficking involvement, which ICE and DHS had access to. Although you dismisses this, the court’s relied on the evidence (upheld by the BIA) which indicates it met the legal threshold for a bond denial.
This does not negate the findings of dangerousness or his removability and compliance did not legitimize his presence.
The bond denial was based on MS-13 affiliation, not a criminal conviction. Immigration law allows bond denial based on dangerousness without a criminal record, and the BIA upheld this. His lack of convictions does not erase the court’s finding of gang membership.
It was a screw up. But, the government’s admission of an administrative error in deporting Garcia does not negate the earlier MS-13 finding, which was legally established.
The error was in the deportation process, not the MS-13 finding from 2019.
Again, he MS-13 finding was made during the 2019 bond hearing and affirmed by the BIA. The government’s later error does not retroactively invalidate this finding, which was based on evidence the court deemed sufficient. Thus, it which remains legally valid proof of gang membership in the context of the bond hearing
No, I believe that he lied to avoid deportation, as I outlined in the previous post by the timing and lack of corroboration, and my argument is grounded in legal facts. I'm not going to get into your obvious bias on this subject, so there's no need to project on to me what you believe my thought process is.
Again, the story about the 18th Street Gang targeting his family’s pupusa business only emerged after his bond was denied. There is a complete lack of corroborating evidence beyond family affidavits (who clearly have reasons to want him to avoid deportation) and an eight-year delay in raising this claim.
This clearly suggests the story may have been a tactical move to delay deportation, a reasonable inference given the timing which I can hope you can at least acknowledge.
My argument is not about defending Trump’s policy but about the legal merits of Garcia’s case. I show how Garcia had no legal status, was found to be an MS-13 member, and could have had his withholding terminated after 2022 due to changed circumstances in El Salvador. My critique is rooted in court documents and immigration law, not a desire to justify Trump’s policy.
My "sob story" label is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, not bias.
This does not disprove Garcia’s MS-13 finding and justifies his classification as a dangerous individual under US policy.
SCOTUS temporarily allowed them to continue keeping him in El Salvador pending further proceedings.
The administration may be leveraging the SCOTUS ruling’s jurisdictional finding to delay his return while arguing that his withholding should be terminated (likely for the reasons I addressed earlier). The SCOTUS decision allows for such a process, as it requires only an opportunity to contest, not a guaranteed return.
Here, we agree.
