'Banal Horror': Asylum Case Deals Trump Yet Another Loss on Due Process
President Trump is entitled to try to execute his immigration policy. He is not entitled, however, to violate the Constitution.

The Trump administration this week formally agreed to comply with a ruling that ordered it to facilitate the return of a migrant who was unlawfully deported—in what was another loss for the government as it attempts to subvert basic due process rights in immigration proceedings.
The migrant—named in court documents as O.C.G., who has no criminal history—arrived in the U.S. in May 2024 and sought asylum. An officer agreed he had a credible fear of persecution and torture if returned to Guatemala; a judge assented as well and granted him withholding of removal to that country.
During his proceedings, when he asked if he might be sent to Mexico, a judge replied: "We cannot send you back to Mexico, sir, because you're a native of Guatemala." Deportations to a nonnative country legally require, at a minimum, additional steps in the process.
That was particularly relevant to O.C.G.'s case, because, as he testified in court, he claims to have been held for ransom and raped while passing through Mexico, securing release only after a family member paid the sum. Yet two days after his withholding of removal was granted, the government unlawfully deported him—without giving him a chance to contest it—to Mexico, after which he returned to Guatemala, where his attorneys say he lives in hiding and in fear of serious harm.
Particularly fraught is that the government had submitted in a declaration under oath that it could prove O.C.G. had no fear of returning to Mexico. Turns out that wasn't true. "The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm," Judge Brian E. Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote. "Defendants admitted, hours before the scheduled deposition of the witness who could allegedly verify the facts included in the prior declaration made under oath, that, in fact, there was no such witness and therefore no reliable basis for the statements put forward by Defendants."
"O.C.G. is likely to succeed," Murphy added, "in showing that his removal lacked any semblance of due process."
The order—and the Trump administration's agreement to comply with it—is noteworthy for a few reasons. Foremost, it shows that the government can, in fact, facilitate the return of someone it unlawfully deported. It has contested its ability to do so in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national whom the administration says it wrongfully sent to El Salvador, where he had a withholding of removal, due to an "administrative error." The Supreme Court last month ordered that the administration facilitate Abrego Garcia's return.
Also in April, the Court ruled the government may not expel individuals under the Alien Enemies Act without due process, as the Trump administration had tried to do. This month, the justices extended an injunction prohibiting the government from using that law to remove Venezuelan immigrants, finding that detainees were entitled to a more robust process than the government had given them.
But Murphy's ruling is also a reminder that the administration will continue losing on this front, so long as it continues flouting the law. There is an irony there: In trying to deport people as quickly as possible, the government finds itself constantly spending time and resources in court, having to justify and backtrack on cases it fumbles. President Donald Trump campaigned on hawkish immigration policy, and as chief executive he is entitled to try to execute that vision. He is not entitled, however, to violate the Constitution to do so. That isn't going to change. It's not a conspiracy against him.
In this instance, O.C.G.'s case is fairly simple. "In general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances," Murphy writes, "only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped." And now he will receive a taxpayer-funded plane ride back to the United States, so he can receive the due process he is promised by the Constitution.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
..sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped.
So is Mexico a shithole or not?
Depends on who's using the term. If it's a Democrat, it's (D)ifferent, and Mexico is a shithole. If it's Trump, then obviously he's wrong, and Mexico isn't a shithole, even if it is a shithole when a Democrat claims it is. Personally, I'd call it a basketcase. Haiti is a shithole.
Haiti is indeed a sithole. But get outside of the tourist centers and Mexico is every bit the same shithole as Haiti, but with 5,000x the beheadings. If you could do an inverse inflation adjustment for natural resources and climate, Mexico would be in the running for the worst country on Earth.
What is the basis for his asylum claim? Why was he passing through Mexico rather than seeking asylum there? Where and how did he arrive in the country and seek asylum? I'm also going to need some more details about how the whole kidnapping and raping thing happened.
The story sounds implausible. It's only made worse because Billy decides to stretch the truth to make this apply to other cases.
Fuck "journalists" for misrepresenting everything and advocating against citizens. Fuck the activist judges and pussy supreme court for making it even more difficult to kick out people who don't belong here
You dont understand. Any victim of any crime anywhere in the world allows someone yo migrate to the US.
So the victims of the Cologne sex attacks are entitled to asylum in the U.S., according to these people?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35250903
I could see a time in the near future where white European women would be legitimate asylum seekers from some countries.
Maybe the globalists are on to something...
Like Sweden perhaps?
No. It consistently has lower unemployment rates than the US, it has universal health insurance, and total religious freedom. It is easy to immigrate to and treats immigrants well. Mexico City is safer than most US cities. But the organized crime gangs prey on migrants. This is an example. Mexico should have refused to accept OCG -- it is under no obligation to accept a deported person who isn't Mexican.
lol
Fucking parody.
Do you actually believe the bullshit you spew here? I know you’re stupid, but this defies credulity.
Well this is pretty complicated. International law requires this guy to apply for asylum in Mexico. But he claims he was raped and kidnapped in Mexico so he showed up here. But he also faces some unspecified danger in Guatemala. It's not clear to me if the withholding order applied to Mexico or Guatemala or both. So he's sent to Mexico and then apparently voluntarily returns to Guatemala. I don't wish this guy any harm but I have to assume that he doesn't qualify for asylum so is subject to deportation but refuses to be returned to his native country. Kind of looks to me like this guy is scamming the system but in any case the government is admitting to error. When he gets back here he'll just end up in a deportation facility until he gets sent somewhere else. El Salvador probably has room at the right price. Or maybe Canada could help out but I hear rape and kidnapping are rampant up there too. In any case this is pretty mundane bureaucratic bullshit not worthy of a headline.
It says he was passing through Mexico. You could bring up the semantic argument that it was the end result rather than the intent to end up in the US, but I don't feel that's a reasonable assumption.
As with most of these stories it's individuals scamming the system with the help of activist judges, lawyers, and propagandists like Billy.
" International law requires this guy to apply for asylum in Mexico."
US law does not, and US law overrides international law when there is a conflict. This is not complicated.
I'm glad it's not complicated. That's why everyone agrees.
“US law overrides international law when there is a conflict”
Look at the MAGA nationalist over here!
Being a crime victim in Mexico doesn’t seem like a rational reason to prohibit deportation to Mexico.
That’s not the same as being persecuted by the Mexican government or hunted by a gang.
What law allows a judge to issue a withholding order?
I can post the law again if you want. Guess Billy wants him sent to Sudan as that is one of the options allowed. 3rd country willing to accept illegals.
What Billy wants is any lame excuse to take a dig at Trump. And this is how desperate he is to do it. Whether it’s to meet his quota to receive those brown envelopes from Koch, or a personal obsession as an extreme leftist to attack our president. Maybe both.
In any event, it’s pathetic. And so is he.
Particularly fraught is that the government had submitted in a declaration under oath that it could prove O.C.G. had no fear of returning to Mexico. Turns out that wasn't true. "The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm," Judge Brian E. Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote. "Defendants admitted, hours before the scheduled deposition of the witness who could allegedly verify the facts included in the prior declaration made under oath, that, in fact, there was no such witness and therefore no reliable basis for the statements put forward by Defendants."
So they are all being disbarred & indicted for lying under oath, professional misconduct, and subjected to criminal prosecution... right ? Right ?
But the Mexican Government is completely capable of protecting their own citizens. So not a refugee.
OCG isn't Mexican. Did you bother to read the article?
He’s not American either.
"""The Court was given false information, upon which it relied,""
Just pretend it was a warrant application given to a secret court.
"The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm," = No Due Process????
Apparently there was "due process" just not the "due process" fans of invaders wanted.
Course that was the deception game being played all along by the 'due process' circle jerkers.
Yet two days after his withholding of removal was granted, the government unlawfully deported him—without giving him a chance to contest it —
I think that is the due process they are talking about. Hence, SCOTUS specifically spelling out now that it is illegal to deport without giving a chance to contest a deportation in court.
What law gives the judge power over withholding?
What law gives the executive the power to ignore judges? We can do this all day. They teach this in school.
So the government can lie and imprison you and deport you and maybe execute you and that constitutes due process. Got it.
After what you cunts have done the last four years, no democrat is entitled to say anything.
When someone applies for asylum or refugee status and is denied, like over 80% of these types of claims, these people have now been given their due process and need to leave the country. When they do not, they are not entitled to additional due process.
So yes in a couple of cases when a judge has had concern for the denied asylum seeker to return to the country they came from then they can be moved to a third party country. Since Mexico was deemed unsafe for him, why was he not removed to another country?
Was any investigations done or factual evidence presented to prove the asylum seekers claims of rape an threats on his life? Even then, are these criteria for allowing the asylum seeker to be granted asylum? No.
Obviously he felt safe enough to return to Guatemala. Like over 80% of people who apply for asylum, they initially use the same reasons as OCG did. I see no reason why this is a big deal or the article was even written for that matter.
Judges are violating the law with 3rd country deportation as well. See Sudan
You didn't read the article.
Who would read that misbegotten shit?
Not I.
>"President Trump is entitled to try to execute his immigration policy. He is not entitled, however, to violate the Constitution.
That privilege is reserved for those Democratic Presidents who wish to forgive student loans and import violent foreigners.
Interesting he didn't head to El Salvador.
But its interesting that *finally* Reason found ONE dude who seems to actually be getting screwed by Trump.
Finally found one person.
ERO Phoenix is currently working with ICE Air
Be funny if they pulled a Temple of Doom on him.
He should just do whatever he wants the worst that can happen is he's impeached. From a libertarian point the government is fucked up beyond belief now anyway so let's get our kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.
Exactly. Ignore the courts - at least on the issue of deportations. They have zero teeth on the subject. Nothing they say is enforceable at all.
"It has contested its ability to do so in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national whom the administration says it wrongfully sent to El Salvador, where he had a withholding of removal, due to an "administrative error.""
IIRC, they didn't contest that they were able to, so much as the contested that they were able to without actions the court had no power to command. Trump actually conceded that he could get back Garcia if he wanted, it's just that it would be an exercise of foreign policy power which was outside the court's authority to force.
"There is an irony there: In trying to deport people as quickly as possible, the government finds itself constantly spending time and resources in court, having to justify and backtrack on cases it fumbles."
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is a FEATURE not a bug of the deportation scramble. The old saw about a lie traveling around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots comes to mind. Mission accomplished for Team Trump - chaos and fear spreading through the immigrant population and American citizens perhaps keeping their heads down to avoid being caught up in the crossfire. MAGA crowds cheer wildly from the bleachers.