DHS admitted it deported the same 19-year-old twice in six months, despite court protections that should have stopped the second flight cold.
Story Snapshot
- DHS told a judge it re-deported Emerson Omar Avalos-Lopez to El Salvador on Tuesday.
- His lawyer says the second removal broke multiple court orders and left him without belongings.
- A prior federal order barred deporting covered class members before asylum decisions.
- DHS has not explained why a second removal happened after returning him in August.
What DHS Admitted And What The Court Already Ordered
The Department of Homeland Security told a federal judge that it deported Emerson Omar Avalos-Lopez to El Salvador again, just weeks after flying him back to the United States. The Washington Times reported DHS’s acknowledgment and the timeline of removal on Tuesday. A federal judge, Stephanie Gallagher, had earlier barred deportations for a protected class until asylum claims were decided, a category DHS itself said covered Avalos-Lopez. That is not a gray area; that is a stop sign.
Lawyer Brian Burgess said the second deportation defied “multiple court orders” and left Avalos-Lopez vulnerable in El Salvador without his phone, clothes, or papers. That detail matters. When the government sends someone out without belongings, it is not just a paper error. It is a real-world hit to safety and due process. DHS has not offered a reason for the second removal. Silence is not a defense when a court has set clear rules.
The Compressed Timeline That Raises Red Flags
DHS said Avalos-Lopez crossed the border in 2023, was caught and released under the prior administration, then was arrested at an immigration office in February. An immigration judge ordered him removed, and DHS deported him on March 13. After his lawyer told DHS on June 15 that he wished to return, the government flew him back on August 7—then deported him again weeks later. When a return happens, it signals the government knew a legal protection applied.
The key dispute is not whether he had a removal order at one point. The heart of the matter is whether class protections, plus Judge Gallagher’s order, barred removal until his asylum claim was decided. DHS acknowledged in court that he was covered by the settlement protecting those who came as children, turned 18, filed asylum, and await a ruling. That admission narrows the government’s wiggle room to near zero on a second removal.
Why This Case Fits A Larger, Costly Pattern
Cases like this recur when agencies move faster than their legal checks. Local news in Maryland recently documented another deportation despite “do not remove” directives, with officials later admitting a breach of recorded court orders. Federal judges have compelled returns when removals flouted active protections, because restoring the status quo is the only remedy that makes sense once a plane has already lifted off. The law’s muscle means little if compliance fails at the tarmac.
American conservative values prize the rule of law, agency accountability, and border order. Those principles are not in conflict here. The system must remove those who have no right to stay, but it must also obey court orders to the letter. When the government acknowledges someone is in a protected class, then removes him anyway without an explanation, it undercuts trust and wastes resources. That invites court sanctions, more litigation, and more costs borne by taxpayers.
What Needs Answers Now
Three questions demand clear written answers from DHS. First, who signed the second removal, and on what authority, given the court order and class coverage? Second, what alerts or holds were in his file when transport began? Third, why was he returned on August 7 if the government believed removal remained lawful? The absence of a public explanation allows the impression of either a serious systems failure or open defiance—both unacceptable in a nation of laws.
Bottom Line For Readers Who Want Order And Fairness
Courts set the rules. Agencies carry them out. When the executive branch breaks the chain, judges restore it. DHS has already confirmed the second deportation and the class coverage; the government has not supplied a reason for the repeat flight. If the facts in the filings match the lawyer’s account, the remedy is simple and firm: bring him back again, fix the process that failed, and ensure every removal pauses when a judge says, “Stop.” That is common sense, and it is the law.
Sources:
washingtontimes.com, nbclosangeles.com
