Migrant Deported to Third Country Returns to US After Trump Administration Caves to Court Order
Guatemalan man O.C.G. flown back to the U.S. after wrongful deportation ruling.

A Guatemalan man, known as O.C.G., who was previously deported to Mexico by the Trump administration, has been returned to the United States this week, his legal team has confirmed. The return is believed to be the first time the administration has complied with a federal judge's order to bring back someone wrongfully removed from the country under disputed circumstances.
O.C.G. reportedly re-entered the U.S. on a commercial flight on Wednesday, months after his original removal in March. The move comes less than two weeks after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy found that O.C.G. had been deported without due process and without giving him the opportunity to present claims of danger in Mexico—a right protected under both American and international law.
The court's decision highlighted significant shortcomings in the procedures surrounding O.C.G.’s removal. Judge Murphy noted that O.C.G. was not only denied the chance to challenge his deportation, but was also forcibly sent back to a country where he had been previously kidnapped and sexually assaulted. "This case presents no special facts or unique legal circumstances, 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," Murphy wrote, sharply criticizing the administrative process as lacking "any semblance of due process."
After the ruling, lawyers representing the government informed the court last week that they were coordinating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to facilitate O.C.G.’s return. The operation culminated in O.C.G. arriving on U.S. soil via commercial airline, underscoring the administration’s reluctant compliance with the judicial directive.
This development occurs against the backdrop of an escalating legal battle over the Trump administration's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old law recently invoked to expedite the removal of certain migrants. Many of those affected by this policy have been sent to CECOT, El Salvador's high-security facility, often without the chance to contest their deportation or their alleged gang affiliations—the primary basis for their removal.
To date, the administration has resisted other court orders to return migrants who may have been deported erroneously or without full consideration of their claims. O.C.G.’s case represents a rare exception, and raises questions about whether further compliance will follow in similar cases still pending before federal courts.
Adding complexity, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an additional order this week requiring the government to provide all migrants deported to CECOT the opportunity to seek habeas relief and to challenge claims about their gang status. The administration now faces a one-week deadline to outline how it intends to comply, setting up a potentially contentious legal showdown.
Amid continuing friction between the executive branch and the judiciary, Judge Boasberg’s rulings have prompted sharp criticism from senior administration officials—most notably from former President Donald Trump himself, who earlier this year called for Boasberg’s impeachment. That move led to a rare public response from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, defending judicial independence.
Despite these legal developments, administration officials maintain the position that America’s asylum system must not become a loophole for avoiding lawful deportation. “America’s asylum system was never intended to be used as a de facto amnesty program or a catch-all, get-out-of-deportation-free card,” said Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
The return of O.C.G. to the United States marks a significant setback for the administration's hardline immigration stance and signals increased judicial scrutiny over the practical implementation of removal proceedings. How the government responds to ongoing court challenges could set critical precedents for future immigration enforcement actions.