That is not what happened. That's just the mischaracterization you're being fed that you've been too lazy to vet. The judge never found Garcia’s alleged gang membership to be credible. Quite the opposite. The only “evidence” ICE had was a confidential informant and a Chicago Bulls hoodie—something the judge explicitly called out as flimsy. It was enough
to deny bond before trial, not to prove affiliation. That
denial of bond is now being dishonestly repackaged as a finding of guilt—by people who either don’t understand the difference or are hoping you don’t.
The bond ruling was not that the evidence showed that he was a gang member, but that the accusation was serious enough to justify keeping him detained while his case played out. And mind you, in immigration bond hearings, the burden of proof is actually on the detainee to show they’re
not a danger to the community. That means even a vague or uncorroborated allegation (such as in this case) can be enough to deny bond, especially when it involves gang claims. What you are referring to was based solely on the
bond determination, not on a finding of gang membership. The ruling you're referencing was not a judicial finding that he was in a gang, but rather a decision that he had not met the high
pre-trial evidential burden required to be released from detention
before presenting his case in the hearing. Put simply and practically speaking, in immigration court, “we believe he’s in a gang” is often all it takes to keep someone detained pre-hearing. So his denial of bond does not hold any evidentiary weight, and it certainly is not accurate to treat it - as you have - as the claim being proven in court.
And for goodness sake, "even though the rest of his family were not targeted by the gang"? Can you make it any more obvious that you haven't read up on the case?
Let's review:
The gang was extorting the family business, threatening Kilmar, his older brother (Cesar), and the family in general. The gang threatened to press Cesar into membership. The family kept hiding Cesar and eventually sent him to the US once the gang escalated the threat to murdering him. This prompted the gang to switch targets to Kilmar, who was then 12 years old.
They continued to extort the family and threatened to kill Kilmar, The family moved to a nearby town in hopes of getting out of the gang's sights, but members of the gang found them and renewed their threats and extortions, including threats to rape Kilmar's sisters. The family closed their business and moved again to another nearby town (about 15 minutes away), and eventually sent Kilmar to the US for his protection. The gang is
still harassing the family, despite them moving again.
This doesn't even take much digging to find! It's laid out in the memorandum of decision and order!
And once again, it was Garcia, not his accusers, that the court found credible. Let me
quote the ruling:
"The Respondent provided credible responses to the questions asked. His testimony was internally consistent, externally consistent with his asylum application order and other documents, and appeared free of embellishment. Further, he provided substantial documentation buttressing his claims. Included in his evidence were several affidavits from family members that described the family's pupusa business, and threats by Barrio 18 to various family members - in particular the Respondent - over the years. The court finds the Respondent credible."
It further goes on to say that "the facts here show that the Barrio 18 gang continues to threaten and harass the Abrego Family over these several years, and does so even though the family has moved three times".
And let me reemphasize something. When it comes to the accusation of gang membership, Kilmar is innocent until proven guilty, and the accusations against him didn't even come close to meeting the preponderance of evidence, much less overcoming reasonable doubt.
Moreover, for Kilmar's application of asylum,
he bore the burden of proof. And the court found that
he met it. It's not a simple matter of him just spinning together a story, as you dishonestly suggest, and the courts simply nodding their heads in agreement. Hell, immigration courts are famously hostile to asylum seekers and highly deferential to immigration officials, so your insinuation is a special kind of absurd. This is not something he could simply bluff. He had to show the court that his story was well-evidenced, and the record shows that it was.
You’ve also wildly misrepresented the legal process. Garcia didn't "drop" an appeal. There was no separate appeal. There was one continuous case. The gang allegation and asylum claim
were part of the same proceeding, as anyone who’s read even a summary of the case would know. For bonus points, this is where the actual lack of appeal comes in, but it was
ICE and the government that decided not to try and appeal when the court ruled in Garcia's favor. And now, six years later, they're just flat-out
lying to people like yourself that the ruling went the other way.
Again, you clearly have not familiarized yourself with even the most basic facts of the story, and are making no effort to rectify that.
You've been repeatedly provided with more data and sources to develop an informed opinion, but here you are, still making the
objectively false argument that the courts concluded he was an MS-13 member, because you never bothered to read any deeper than the Trump administration's talking points and your own personal incredulity. You aren't even trying to learn the facts of the case, you're just scrambling to dismiss the ones that don't fit the conclusion you want to believe.
It is more than clear that you don't have enough interest in the topic to even look into the data points shoved in your face in this very discussion, much less do any independent research. Indeed, you've consistently made a point of flat out ignoring it even when it's handed to you. Hell, as recently as your last few posts, you demonstrated both your total disinterest in the topic and stubborn unwillingness to learn by claiming - in response to being provided with links to domestic and international law on immigration and refugee treatment - that you had been supplied with "no proof that these are protected immigrants that legally can't be deported"
because your ctrl+f search didn't find the word "protected". That is embarrassingly lazy for someone trying so hard to pretend to be informed. Someone who's smart in their bluff reads up on the subject between posts and acts like they knew it all along. But you are pointedly and openly refusing to do even that much - making it abundantly clear that you're not only uninformed, but you're looking for an excuse to stay that way.
So, once again, why do you insist on wasting everyone's time with the pretense? You've consistently made it clear you’re not arguing from evidence, you’re reacting out of ego. When the actual evidence was offered you got offended that it contradicted you. But rather than doing the mature thing - engaging with and learning from the correction - you’ve been throwing a tantrum ever since. And everyone can see it, no matter how much you try to bluff otherwise.
humanrightsfirst.org
www.amnesty.org
amnesty.ca
www.aclu.org
www.theguardian.com
