Judge Slams U.S. Government for Illegal Deportation of Guatemalan Man

In a remarkable rebuke of government immigration enforcement, a federal judge has condemned the deportation of a Guatemalan man as “blatant lawlessness” and ordered his immediate return to the United States. U.S. District Judge David C. Guaderrama of the Western District of Texas issued a scathing ruling on December 5, demanding that immigration authorities return Faustino Pablo Pablo to American soil by December 12 after he was deported in direct violation of a previous court ruling. The case represents a troubling example of what appears to be a pattern in which immigration authorities have removed individuals from the country despite legal protections specifically designed to prevent such actions. Judge Guaderrama didn’t mince words, pointing out that the government’s own lawyers had admitted the deportation was unlawful, and requiring daily updates from officials on their efforts to bring Pablo back from Guatemala.

The story of Faustino Pablo Pablo reveals the human impact of procedural failures within the immigration system. Pablo entered the United States illegally in 2012, and while an immigration judge had ordered his removal, that same judge crucially found he would likely face torture if returned to Guatemala. This critical determination granted him protection under U.S. law against deportation. For years, Pablo lived in California and regularly reported to immigration authorities as required. However, on November 5, 2023, immigration agents detained him despite his legal protections. Just fifteen days later, on November 20, he was flown to Guatemala before the court could intervene to stop the removal. “Pablo Pablo has already shown in immigration court that ‘it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the Guatemalan government,'” Judge Guaderrama emphasized in his ruling, highlighting the serious consequences of the government’s actions.

The judge’s preliminary injunction clearly stated that Pablo’s deportation violated federal law, particularly statutes explicitly prohibiting the removal of individuals who have been granted withholding of removal. The court rejected the government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to order Pablo’s return because officials no longer had “actual custody or control” over him once he was in Guatemala. Judge Guaderrama noted that despite this claim, the government had actually committed to facilitating Pablo’s return, which allowed the court to exercise authority in the case. Most importantly, the judge stressed the grave dangers Pablo faces while in Guatemala, including the very real possibility of torture—precisely the outcome U.S. law is designed to prevent through humanitarian protections. “In Pablo Pablo’s case, the potential risk to his bodily safety, coupled with the losses he has already experienced from his deprivation of liberty, steeply outweigh the costs to the Government in facilitating his flight home,” the judge wrote, emphasizing that the court must act decisively to uphold both due process and the protections guaranteed by statute.

This case isn’t an isolated incident but appears to fit a disturbing pattern of deportations carried out despite existing legal safeguards. Another high-profile example involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was abruptly deported to El Salvador in March despite a 2019 ruling by an immigration judge finding he would likely face persecution by a local gang. Abrego’s case gained national attention when a judge ordered his immediate return to the U.S., prompting strong criticism from the White House and senior Homeland Security officials who questioned both Abrego’s character and the judges involved in his case. The government has admitted to other improper deportations as well, including individuals sent to El Salvador or Mexico despite court orders, pending asylum claims, missed “credible fear” interviews, or findings that they faced high risks of torture in their home countries. These cases collectively raise serious concerns about systemic flaws in immigration enforcement practices, especially as the administration pursues an increasingly aggressive deportation policy.

The impact of these enforcement actions extends far beyond legal abstractions, affecting real human lives and potentially placing individuals in life-threatening situations. Journalist David Toro Escobar highlighted the gravity of Pablo’s situation on social media, noting: “The US government admitted to having illegally deported Guatemalan Faustino Pablo Pablo, who was protected by a court order. A federal court ordered his immediate return to the country.” The case underscores the tension between aggressive immigration enforcement policies and the legal protections designed to prevent the return of individuals to countries where they face persecution or torture. When courts find that individuals like Pablo have credible fears of torture, these protections aren’t optional or discretionary—they represent binding legal obligations that the government must respect, regardless of broader policy goals concerning immigration enforcement.

With Judge Guaderrama’s order in place, the government now faces a clear directive to return Pablo to the United States by mid-December. This case serves as an important reminder of the judiciary’s critical role in ensuring that executive agencies operate within legal boundaries, particularly when human rights and safety are at stake. The outcome will be watched closely by immigration advocates, legal experts, and those concerned with proper adherence to established legal protections in the immigration system. Beyond Pablo’s individual case, the ruling raises broader questions about oversight and accountability in immigration enforcement actions, especially when those actions potentially place deportees in danger of persecution or torture. As courts continue to intervene in cases where deportations appear to violate legal protections, the administration may face increased scrutiny regarding its compliance with court orders and statutory requirements designed to prevent exactly this kind of situation—where an individual protected from deportation nonetheless finds himself returned to the very danger from which the law sought to shield him.