He Was Never Supposed to Be Sent Back. The Trump Administration Deported Him Anyway

A federal judge has now ruled the removal illegal and ordered the government to return him to the United States. The full story is even worse than it sounds.

When U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama issued a nine-page emergency order this week, it documented in brutal detail how the Trump administration illegally deported a man to Guatemala despite a standing immigration court ruling that he would likely be tortured if returned there.

The case of Faustino Pablo Pablo v. Lyons et al. is not an isolated bureaucratic mistake. It is a window into a deeper pattern of lawless removals that the courts have repeatedly warned the federal government to stop.

And yet, as the court records show, it happened again.

The judge’s order lays out a timeline that is disturbing both for its clarity and its implications. Pablo Pablo, a Guatemalan citizen who fled to the United States in 2012, had already convinced an immigration judge that he faced likely torture at the hands of Guatemalan authorities. As the ruling notes, the immigration judge explicitly found that he had “shown it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the Guatemalan government” (United States District Court, 2025, p. 2). Under U.S. law, that finding bars removal to Guatemala.

The law is not ambiguous. It is binding.

He could be removed to a third country, but never Guatemala itself.

Despite that, the government deported him there anyway.

The Deportation That Should Never Have Happened

After living under supervision in California for more than a decade, reporting regularly to ICE as required, Pablo Pablo arrived for a routine check-in on November 5, 2025. There was no warning, no allegation of non-compliance, and no notice that his supervision was being revoked.

ICE detained him on the spot.

His attorney immediately contacted officials to remind them of the standing judicial order preventing his removal to Guatemala. It did not matter. As the court explains, ICE transferred him to El Paso for “staging of removal to Guatemala” (p. 3). On November 20, 2025, at five in the morning, he was taken to the airport and placed aboard a flight.

One hour later, at the exact moment the court issued an order preventing his removal, the plane was already in the air.

By the time the order reached ICE, he had landed in Guatemala City.

The judge later wrote that the government admitted the removal was “unlawful” (p. 4). The admission is remarkable. It is also a confession that the government knowingly violated both the Convention Against Torture and United States law.

The Judge’s Response: Bring Him Back

In response to a second emergency motion, the court found every element of a preliminary injunction satisfied. The opinion is blunt, stating that the risk of torture “clearly and unequivocally supports a finding of irreparable harm” (p. 7).

The government argued that because it no longer had custody of Pablo Pablo, the court might lack jurisdiction to order his return. Judge Guaderrama rejected that view, explaining that the removal itself—not merely the detention—was the violation. Removal to Guatemala was prohibited under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), and therefore the court had authority to order corrective action.

The judge ordered the government to bring him back to the United States no later than December 12, 2025, and to provide daily status updates documenting each step taken to secure his return (pp. 8–9). The language reflects a lack of trust that ICE will act without judicial oversight.

And that mistrust is earned.

Even after acknowledging the removal was illegal, the government announced that they had “tentatively scheduled” a return flight for December 4. Then they failed to put him on the flight. As the court notes, “Petitioner was not returned to the United States” (p. 4). The government offered no explanation as to why.

He remains in Guatemala today.

What Each Page of the Order Reveals About a Bigger Crisis

Page 1:

The court identifies every named official, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi. This signals the seriousness of the violation. High-level officials are now formally respondents in a case centered on an unlawful deportation.

Page 2:

The order recounts the original finding of likely torture. This is crucial. The government cannot claim it was unaware of the danger. The judge’s language makes clear that the risk was documented, adjudicated, and binding.

Page 3:

This is the heart of the misconduct. ICE detains him at a routine check-in, ignores legal warnings, and transfers him for expedited removal without explaining why supervision was revoked.

Page 4:

The government concedes the removal was illegal. It also acknowledges that, despite scheduling a return flight, it failed to actually place Pablo Pablo on it.

Page 5–6:

The court rejects jurisdictional objections, citing Noem v. Abrego Garcia (2025), a Supreme Court case affirming the courts’ authority to order returns when the government violates withholding protections.

Page 7:

The judge applies the preliminary injunction standard. The reasoning is devastating to the government. The court states plainly that removing a man to a country where he faces torture violates statutory obligations and the U.S. Constitution.

Page 8–9:

The court orders his return, mandates daily compliance reports, and directs the government to transmit the order to all relevant officials. Normally, such directives are reserved for agencies that have already shown they cannot be trusted to obey the law.

The Broader Issue: This Is Not an Outlier. It Is a Pattern.

Immigration lawyers across the country have documented multiple cases where the Trump administration has removed individuals to countries where their removal was legally barred. Courts have repeatedly ordered returns. In several rulings over the past year, judges have accused DHS and ICE of “reckless disregard” for binding legal protections.

The Pablo Pablo case is alarming not simply because the government broke the law. It is alarming because the order shows:

1. The government knew removal was illegal

2. It did it anyway

3. It admitted wrongdoing

4. It still failed to return him when it promised

Legal scholars have warned that such cases point to a breakdown in institutional compliance, where executive agencies no longer treat judicial orders as binding.

This case is now a test of whether the courts can still enforce the rule of law.

Final Word

This is not just a story about one man.

It is a story about a government ignoring binding legal protections, defying the authority of federal courts, and placing a man directly into conditions a judge already ruled constituted a likely threat of torture.

The question now is not whether the removal was illegal. The government already admitted that.

The question is whether the United States will bring him back in time.

References

United States District Court. (2025). Order granting preliminary injunction, Pablo Pablo v. Lyons et al., No. EP-25-CV-00566-DCG (W.D. Tex.).

Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 145 S. Ct. 1017 (2025).

J.G.G. v. Trump, 772 F. Supp. 3d 18 (D.D.C. 2025).

WHAT TO READ: