More Evidence Submitted to Dismiss the Charges Against Kilmar Abrego

Friday night, we learned that the DOJ lied about the door being closed to Costa Rica. Mr. Abrego's lawyers feel that's enough to immediately dismiss on vindictive and selective prosecution grounds.

A lot went down in the last hearing in the civil case for Kilmar Abrego before Judge Xinis this past Thursday - most of which you can hear about in my latest Substack post with Adam Klasfeld of All Rise News. The least of which was a revelation that a DHS ERO - who had just been given a substantial promotion - did not write all of the declaration he signed about Costa Rica refusing to take Mr. Abrego.

As you probably know by now, rather than return Mr. Abrego to the United States after unlawfully kidnapping him and disappearing him to CECOT prison in El Salvador, the Justice Department levied two bogus felonies against him pursuant to a traffic stop in 2022, during which he was not given so much as a ticket.

Recently, the judge in Mr. Abrego’s criminal case found probable cause that the government vindictively and selectively prosecuted him, and ordered discovery to get to the bottom of it.

But late Friday, we learned from the Washington Post that “A Costa Rican official rebutted the Trump administration’s claim that the only possible destination to deport the undocumented Salvadoran immigrant is the West African nation of Liberia.”

While Judge Xinis had closed the evidentiary record in the civil case after Thursday’s hearing, the motion to dismiss his criminal case for vindictive and selective prosecution is still on the table. The story from the Post has prompted Mr. Abrego’s criminal defense lawyers to file notice in that case.

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia respectfully submits this supplemental notice to provide the Court with additional facts relevant to his motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution. Recent developments in Mr. Abrego’s habeas case before Judge Xinis, concerning the government’s misrepresentations about whether Costa Rica would accept Mr. Abrego upon his removal, make crystal clear that the government is willing to mislead the courts and defy court orders intended to shed light on its conduct, all in service of punishing Mr. Abrego. This provides further proof—if any were needed—of the government’s vindictiveness toward Mr. Abrego and underscores the need for discovery into the motivations of the high-level officials who initiated this prosecution and are ultimately responsible for the government’s misrepresentations regarding Mr. Abrego’s third-country removal.

On November 14, 2025, the government claimed in a sealed filing in the habeas proceeding that “Costa Rica has represented that it would not simply accept Petitioner if asked” and that “[t]he government can hardly be at fault for not removing Petitioner to a country that refuses to accept him.” In support of its position, the government also filed a declaration by Acting ICE Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations John E. Cantú, which stated in substance that it was the Department of State’s position that Costa Rica would not accept Mr. Abrego without further negotiations.

At the evidentiary hearing on Thursday in Maryland, Mr. Cantú testified, in substance, that a State Department attorney told him what to put in his declaration on a five-minute Teams call and email on November 7, and that he did not know whether the Department of State had even been in contact with Costa Rica. Judge Xinis again excoriated the government for putting on a witness who had “zero information” for the court—Mr. Cantú was “the worst” of the witnesses the government had put on the stand thus far—and he “knew nothing” and “didn’t know the meaning of the words in his own affidavit.”

In a statement to the Washington Post, Costa Rican Minister of Public Security Mario Zamora Cordero reiterated that his country would receive Mr. Abrego “under humanitarian conditions that guarantee the full respect for his rights and liberties” and “[t]hat position that we have expressed in the past remains valid and unchanged to this day.”

Now, Mr. Abrego’s lawyers contend that this should be enough to prove vindictive and selective prosecution:

When the Court first addressed Mr. Abrego’s motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution, it decided that it “need not resolve Abrego’s arguments on actual vindictiveness at this juncture, given that his showing of a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness entitles him to discovery and a hearing.” But the government’s brazen and misleading conduct regarding Costa Rica further proves the government’s actual vindictiveness, allowing the Court to resolve that question now. This conduct also makes it impossible for the government to rebut the realistic likelihood of vindictiveness that Mr. Abrego has established—a realistic likelihood that the government’s recent conduct has only made more concrete and more evident.

I discussed this egregious misrepresentation to the court by the DOJ in today’s episode of The Breakdown on the Meidas network, along with a supercut of all the lies this justice department has been caught telling red-handed. You can watch that episode here:

~AG