ICE Wrongly Deports Man TWICE in 6 Months

U.S. ICE document against American flag — Photo: danielfela / Shutterstock

DHS flew a 19-year-old back to El Salvador again—despite a federal judge’s order protecting him from removal while his asylum claim waited for a decision.

Story Snapshot

DHS admitted in court it re-deported Emerson Omar Avalos-Lopez on Tuesday.
A prior order barred deporting covered class members until asylum merits were decided.
His lawyer says the second removal violated multiple court orders and left him without belongings.
DHS earlier returned him to the U.S. on August 7 after a March 13 removal.

What DHS Admitted And What The Court Had Ordered

The Department of Homeland Security told a federal judge it removed Emerson Omar Avalos-Lopez to El Salvador for a second time. The agency did not offer a reason for the new removal. The same case record says a U.S. district judge had already barred deportations of class members like him until asylum decisions were issued. That order set a bright line: no removals while claims were pending. The government also acknowledged he fit the protected class under that settlement.

Counsel says the removal did not just cross a line. It trampled several. Attorney Brian Burgess told the court the second removal broke multiple court orders and left Avalos-Lopez in El Salvador without his phone, clothes, and papers. That detail matters. Stranding someone without identification and records makes return and legal defense far harder. It also heightens safety risks if the person fears harm in that country, the very point of an asylum claim.

The Timeline That Raises Red Flags

The record shows a tight, troubling sequence. Avalos-Lopez entered in 2023 and was later arrested after going to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. An immigration judge ordered removal. He was deported on March 13, then brought back on August 7. DHS has not said what changed between August and Tuesday to justify shipping him out again. His lawyer had informed DHS of his wish to return on June 15, which the government acted on by August. Then came the whiplash: re-deportation weeks later.

That pattern looks less like a one-off error and more like a system problem many courts have seen before: removals that run ahead of, or run over, court protections. Other recent cases show judges ordering the government to fix these mistakes by bringing people back when removal violated a stay or injunction. Courts have little patience for agencies that ignore a judge’s line in the sand. When that happens, judges often restore the status quo and consider sanctions to deter a repeat.

What The Government Says—And What It Doesn’t

DHS gave a basic narrative: he crossed in 2023, was caught and released, later arrested, ordered removed, sent out in March, returned in August, and then removed again on Tuesday. That recital skips the why for the second removal. It also sidesteps the judge’s protective order for this class. If DHS believed he fell out of the class, it has not said how. If it believed some new decision allowed removal, it has not shown it. Silence is not a defense when a court has spoken.

This is not about being “for” or “against” enforcement. It is about the rule of law. Courts set the rules, and agencies must follow them. American conservative values demand predictable process, respect for judicial orders, and careful use of state power. If an agency can move the goalposts after kickoff, none of us can trust the field. The fix is simple and strict: follow the order, account for the breach, return the person, and show the paper trail that prevents a third strike.

What Comes Next And What Accountability Looks Like

The court can require DHS to facilitate return again and to file sworn reports that explain who approved the second removal and why. The court can also direct case-wide safeguards so this does not happen to other class members. Congress and inspectors general can press for audit trails, including transport logs and custody records, to pin down breakdowns. These are not heavy lifts; they are basic controls any serious enforcement system should already have.