DHS sought to label Kilmar Abrego Garcia an MS-13 member but failed to substantiate the claim. Whistleblower Erez Reuveni reported that DHS and DOJ pushed for terrorist-membership arguments without record evidence. Reuveni declined to advance those arguments in court because they were absent from government briefs, unsupported by evidence, and inconsistent with withholding-of-removal law. Drew Ensign relayed that the White House prompted the inquiries. Todd Blanche terminated Reuveni after he refused to sign a brief calling Abrego a terrorist. Judges rejected DOJ's attempts, and a magistrate found the MS-13 evidence uncorroborated and largely based on a cooperating witness's feeling.
Ensign asked Mr. Reuveni why he did not argue that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a member of a terrorist organization or that being a member of such organization meant Mr. Abrego Garcia's protection from removal to El Salvador was nullified. Mr. Reuveni told Ensign he did not make those arguments because: 1 ) those were not arguments in the government's briefs, which Ensign had reviewed; 2) there was no evidence in the record to support the arguments;
and 3) the laws governing withholding of removal do not support a theory that declaring someone a member of a terrorist organization retroactively nullifies a grant ofwithholding relief. Ensign had little reaction but called again a few minutes later asking similar questions and informing Mr. Reuveni that these inquiries were prompted by the White House. Mr. Reuveni again repeated the same concerns he had on the first call.
And when DOJ attempted to convince two judges that Abrego was a dangerous terrorist, they failed. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes laid out that the evidence presented to her of MS-13 membership largely amounted to the feeling of a cooperating witness whose family has ties to a competing gang, but their key cooperating witness said he knew of no evidence Kilmar was a MS-13 member.
Collection
[
|
...
]