A federal judge in Maryland has again held the Department of Homeland Security in civil contempt after a young asylum seeker was removed to El Salvador for a second time despite court orders protecting him from removal while his AsylumProtection granted to a person already in the United States or at a port of entry who meets the definition of a refugee and cannot safely return to their country.See it in the glossary claim is pending.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher issued the latest order on September 25 in J.O.P. v. Department of Homeland Security, a long-running class action involving asylum seekers who entered the United States as unaccompanied minors. The court record documents the broader litigation and the court’s earlier civil-contempt finding over removals of protected class members.
What happened to E.L.A.
The individual, identified in court records as E.L.A., had previously been removed to El Salvador and later returned to the United States. According to the September 25 ruling as reported from the court docket, he presented himself to immigration authorities after returning and remained in immigration custody before the government removed him to El Salvador again.
The government acknowledged that the second removal should not have occurred and attributed it to a communication failure. Judge Gallagher concluded that the removal violated multiple court orders governing E.L.A.’s case and the class-action settlement.
The judge ordered the government to facilitate his return
The September 25 order requires the government to facilitate E.L.A.’s return to the United States if he chooses to return. The government must also refrain from executing a final removal order against him while the protections specified by the court remain in effect.
The parties were directed to provide the court with an update by October 2 concerning whether E.L.A. wants to return and the government’s plan for facilitating that return.
Why the J.O.P. case matters
The litigation began in 2019 and concerns asylum seekers who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied minors. A court-approved settlement established protections governing how the government handles asylum applications and removals for people covered by the class.
Judge Gallagher had already found the government in civil contempt earlier this year after concluding that protected individuals had been removed in violation of court orders. In that earlier ruling, the court distinguished between removals caused by failures to identify potential class members and removals carried out after immigration authorities had been alerted that a person might be protected.
What the latest ruling does not decide
The contempt ruling does not grant E.L.A. asylum and does not decide the merits of his asylum application. It addresses compliance with the court’s orders and the protections governing whether he may be removed while his asylum claim is processed.
The order also does not categorically prohibit immigration detention if E.L.A. returns to the United States. The litigation therefore remains focused on compliance with the settlement and court orders while the underlying immigration proceedings continue.
What happens next
The immediate deadline is October 2, when the parties must update the court about E.L.A.’s potential return. Further proceedings may address compliance with the September 25 order and the broader settlement governing protected class members.