Shipped to El Salvador: An Austin Immigration Lawyer on Her Teen Client’s Forced ‘Disappearance’

Simply being in the United States without a legal immigration status is a civil matter—not a criminal one. Yet Donald Trump’s regime increasingly treats immigrants like criminals. In March, the administration sent more than 200 immigrants to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a mega-prison with a history of human rights abuses. The Trump administration has claimed—without providing evidence in any court—that men sent to CECOT were criminals and gang members.

Per reporting from multiple news outlets, most of the men sent to CECOT had no criminal records in the United States. The Trump administration has admitted that at least one, Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego García, was targeted by mistake; a judge had issued an order barring his deportation.

Edna Yang is co-executive director at American Gateways, an Austin nonprofit that provides low-cost and pro-bono legal services for low-income families and individuals across Central Texas. Yang represents Carlos Daniel Terán Aguilar, an 18-year-old originally from the Gran Sabana region in Southeast Venezuela, whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement has accused—without presenting evidence—of being a member of a transnational organized crime syndicate. Terán Aguilar was living in Texas and seeking asylum. In March, the federal government sent him to CECOT, where he remains. 

Carlos Daniel Terán Aguilar family photo (Courtesy)

In April, the Supreme Court halted removals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a war-time law that the Trump administration is using to fast-track expatriations—without due process—of immigrants accused of belonging to criminal gangs or government-designated terrorist organizations. On Monday, the Trump administration asked the court for permission to resume removals. Depending on the court’s decision, nearly 200 more Venezuelan men held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson could be sent to CECOT.

Yang spoke with the Texas Observer about Terán Aguilar, due process, and immigration under the Trump administration. 

---

TO: Your client, Carlos Daniel Terán Aguilar, was sent to El Salvador as an accused member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Has the government ever provided any evidence to substantiate that claim?

No, they have not. I didn’t get any actual direct response from ICE, from phone calls and messages that I had left at Carlos Daniel’s removal hearing. I asked the chief counsel, the assistant chief counsel, who are the attorneys that represent DHS and ICE, about what evidence they had to substantiate accusations of gang membership. They didn’t produce anything. Essentially, the government attorney said it was what was on his computer screen, but they didn’t produce anything in writing. They didn’t produce any records of any sort from anywhere or any other kinds of materials. The only reason I received confirmation that he was removed to El Salvador—because I didn’t even receive that from the assistant chief counsel or from DHS when I called multiple times to verify what I had seen in [a] report from CBS—was when I contacted a congressional office, and they asked DHS. DHS confirmed that he was sent to El Salvador, and then no other information was provided. 

Despite being in the country lawfully, some of Carlos Daniel’s family members told Texas Monthly earlier this year that they’re terrified that they could be next. I understand they are all seeking asylum. Are they still considering leaving the United States? 

They’re moving forward with an asylum case. Their first hearing isn’t until 2027. I am representing the rest of the family as well, but they are really concerned. But the reality is that they are unable to return to their home country. They have a valid asylum claim based on political activism in Venezuela, and they fear that they will be imprisoned or harmed if they return. I don’t think they particularly wanted to leave everything behind, but they felt that they had to. They had no choice but to protect themselves and their family. And now, I think they’re grappling with some difficult decisions because they’re afraid of what might happen to them [in the United States] as well. Carlos Daniel’s dad and stepmother were members of an opposition party [in Venezuela], and they were quite vocal members, and that is why they were forced to flee.

Many right-wing politicians have said that the act of sending people to the CECOT mega prison in El Salvador is a “deportation.” Some journalists and immigration attorneys argue such an act constitutes a “rendition,” or a state-sanctioned kidnapping of sorts. What are your thoughts?

I do not agree with those politicians, and I don’t believe that DHS even agrees with those politicians either. At my client’s actual removal hearing, there was no request for a deportation order, or any statement from assistant chief counsel saying, “Well, he’s already been deported. So you know, this is a moot issue.” 

The judge instead said that he had no ability to actually move forward with removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, because my client wasn’t there to answer any allegations that had been placed against him, and to seek any relief, should he qualify for that relief. I asked for a dismissal of the proceedings, and instead, the government countered with an administrative closure. Should my client be returned to the United States, the government could pursue removal proceedings, and my client could pursue any relief that he may be eligible for. … I think the law is pretty clear: This isn’t a removal. It’s not lawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It doesn’t conform to anything that was previously passed in legislation, or [in] the Code of Federal Regulations that say that this individual was given his due process in order to contest allegations of removability and apply for relief. Essentially, he was disappeared forcefully.

What makes you say that even DHS doesn’t agree that this is a deportation?

They didn’t make those arguments at his removal hearing. Instead, they asked for an administrative closure of the actual removal proceedings, which means that the proceedings are still pending. There’s no final deportation order. 

My sense is that if DHS or the government actually believed that this was a deportation, they would argue that in front of the judge and say, “Judge, this is a deportation. He’s not here. Either he [was] deported or we deported him to this third country, and that’s that.” But, they didn’t make those arguments. Instead, they asked for an administrative closure of the proceedings, which means deportation proceedings are still pending against my client and can be reopened any time … when he is back in the United States and able to fully participate in those legal proceedings, as is his right.

How common is it for people to be removed to a third country, instead of being repatriated to the place they’re from—or a place where they have citizenship?

It is very rare that third country removals happen. They’re usually for individuals who are considered stateless, or for individuals who may have ties to other countries and lawful status in those other countries. 

The exception would be for people who have maybe gotten withholding of removal, or relief under the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, and they may request a third country accept them.

But in any of those types of cases, the individual has an opportunity to go before the immigration judge, answer all of the allegations against them, contest them if they need to, and also apply for a form of relief. What we see in these cases [involving El Salvador] is a complete disregard for that due process that says you, as an individual who is accused of being deportable from the United States, you have an ability to answer those charges about removability or deportability, and you have the opportunity that to either accept a removal and say, “I want to be removed, either to a home country, a country of nationality and birth, or a third country that may accept me.” Or you can say, “Even though I have these allegations of deportability against me, I have a way under the current immigration laws to allow me to remain here.” 

So in that process, a person has been able to go before a judge, present their case, answer allegations. What we see here with Carlos Daniel, and with the other individuals [sent to El Salvador] is they haven’t had that opportunity to go before a judge. They haven’t had an opportunity to discuss what is happening in their case, [or] to answer any allegations. 

My client never saw a judge in his case. Ever. He was removed before his first hearing. I’m representing him, and the government initially said, “Well, he’s been released,” and they didn’t even know where he was at first. They alleged that he was released. When I said, “No, he’s been illegally deported and disappeared to El Salvador,” that’s when they started looking and said, “Oh, well, he’s a gang member.” Due process hasn’t been protected. The process that is set in place in this country that is the basis and foundation of our legal system was not allowed to work.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The post Shipped to El Salvador: An Austin Immigration Lawyer on Her Teen Client’s Forced ‘Disappearance’ appeared first on The Texas Observer.