Kilmar Abrego Garcia is currently navigating a precarious situation regarding his immigration status as the Trump administration seeks to deport him to the African nation of Eswatini. Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia desires to apply for asylum in the United States. The outcome of his case is likely to involve a protracted legal battle.

At 30 years old, Abrego Garcia became a focal point in discussions about Trump's strict immigration policies after he was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration accused him of being affiliated with the MS-13 gang, a claim he vehemently denies and for which he has never faced charges.

In June, the administration returned him to the U.S., only for him to confront human smuggling charges. His legal team has deemed these allegations baseless and vindictive. Following his release from a Tennessee jail in September, Abrego Garcia was taken into immigration custody shortly thereafter and is currently held in a detention center in Virginia.

The Trump administration's intention to deport him to Eswatini arises from legal restrictions that prevent his return to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia fled his home country around 2011 due to threats and violence from local gangs targeting him and his family. He eventually settled in Maryland without documentation to join his brother, a U.S. citizen.

In 2019, while seeking employment as a day laborer, law enforcement misidentified him as affiliated with MS-13 based on his appearance and tattoos. Although he was never charged with any crime, he was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). His asylum application was denied due to timing, yet an immigration judge subsequently granted him protection against deportation to El Salvador, acknowledging his credible fear of persecution.

Despite this protective order, ICE deported Abrego Garcia to a notorious prison in El Salvador during the Trump administration's early days, an action that violated the judicial order. Following a Supreme Court directive, he was returned to the U.S. but subsequently faced human smuggling charges.

In a recent announcement, the Trump administration declared its intent to deport him to Eswatini. Abrego Garcia has expressed anxiety over this potential move, citing fears of persecution, especially considering that the U.S. government has noted his concerns regarding multiple countries.

The deportation process involves a series of steps where Abrego Garcia can voice his fears of persecution during a reasonable fear interview. If the decision is unfavorable, he can appeal to an immigration judge and subsequently to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Immigration judges operate under the Department of Justice's authority, which has seen a turnover of judges during the Trump administration, notably those appointed by former President Joe Biden.

Kenneth Rankin, an immigration attorney based in Memphis, indicated that even if Abrego Garcia successfully contests deportation to Eswatini, he will likely face additional deportation attempts. By his legal positioning, the focus may shift back to El Salvador, where he has already demonstrated a well-founded fear of gang violence.

An asylum application could provide him with a pathway to a green card and eventual citizenship. However, significant risks are involved; if his bid is unsuccessful, he may lose his protective status against deportation to El Salvador.

Currently, his motion to reopen his immigration case remains pending. If denied, he has the option to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and then to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. If granted an asylum hearing, a comprehensive evaluation of evidence and witness accounts would take place, highlighting the stakes involved in immigration court—a setting described as having "death penalty consequences in a traffic court setting."

Additionally, Attorney General Pam Bondi holds the power to influence Abrego Garcia’s immigration case decisions. Legal experts warn that any ruling from her could be subject to challenge and might be viewed as politically motivated, potentially undermining public faith in the judicial system.