Judge orders Trump administration to return deported gay asylum seeker fearing persecution

Federal court ruling faults Trump-era deportation process, ordering facilitation of return for Guatemalan man facing anti-gay violence.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents load detainees into a van in Miami in May 2025. Photo by Rebecca Blackwell/AP

By Clarisa Sendy and Anna Fadiah

A federal court has directed the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a Guatemalan man, known in court filings as O.C.G., who was deported despite explicit fears of persecution due to his sexual orientation. The ruling by Judge Brian E. Murphy of the U.S. District Court in Boston adds to growing legal scrutiny of Trump deportation due process violations.

O.C.G., who is gay, is currently living in hiding in Guatemala and told the court he exists in a state of “constant panic and constant fear.” In a sworn statement, he declared, “I can’t be gay here, which means I cannot be myself.” His deportation to Mexico—where he previously endured rape and captivity—occurred without the proper safeguards required under both U.S. law and international human rights conventions.

Court finds evidence of systemic failure

Judge Murphy criticized the government's inconsistent narrative, initially claiming that O.C.G. had expressed no fear of being sent to Mexico, only to later admit it was “unable to identify” the officials who recorded that statement. The court found that O.C.G. was likely to succeed in proving that his deportation lacked any semblance of due process.

“This isn’t a mere bureaucratic oversight,” the judge stated during proceedings. “It is a fundamental failure of the government to uphold constitutional protections and obligations under international law.”

Similarities to other wrongful deportations

The case draws parallels to the ongoing legal saga of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongfully deported to El Salvador, who remains imprisoned there. In both cases, federal judges have ordered the government to correct its own mistakes. However, while the Supreme Court upheld a mandate to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, it avoided backing the more direct “effectuate” language, giving the administration leeway to claim its hands are tied.

Judge Murphy emphasized that such ambiguity carries less weight in O.C.G.’s case since no foreign government currently holds him. “He is not in detention abroad,” the judge noted. “There is no legal impediment to his return beyond the government’s willingness to act.”

Faulty data and exposed identity compound harm

The case also revealed additional government missteps. A Department of Homeland Security official based the false claim that O.C.G. felt safe returning to Mexico on data retrieved from a software system known as the ENFORCE Alien Removal Module.

Judge Murphy called into question the integrity of using software tools in place of human assessment during asylum processing. “It really is a big deal to lie to a court under oath,” he remarked, demanding a full investigation and detailed report on how the misinformation was entered and used.

In a separate blunder, a government filing mistakenly included O.C.G.’s full name, putting him at greater risk of persecution. Although the error was swiftly retracted, Judge Murphy acknowledged its potentially irreversible impact, saying it was “a bell that perhaps cannot be unrung given the permanent nature of the internet.”

Asylum process ignored despite prior trauma

According to court documents, O.C.G. first fled Guatemala in March 2024 but was quickly arrested and deported. He returned again in May 2024, only to be kidnapped and raped in Mexico by a group of men who extorted money from his sister for his release.

After reaching the U.S., an immigration judge promised that he would not be deported to Mexico without further review. Nevertheless, he was put on a bus and sent to Mexico, where he was presented with two options: face prolonged detention or return to Guatemala. He chose the latter.

Now, back in his home country, O.C.G. lives alone in a house owned by his sister, avoids public spaces, and remains estranged from family. “Anything could happen to me in the street,” he said. “I am constantly afraid.”

Legal challenge expands to other deportation cases

O.C.G. is one of four anonymous plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit targeting the Trump administration’s deportation practices. The case argues that immigrants facing potential persecution or torture are being removed without the procedural safeguards required by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, a treaty to which the United States is a signatory.

The plaintiffs are also seeking the return of eight other men, all convicted of serious crimes in the United States, who are believed to have arrived recently at a U.S. base in Djibouti. Their deportation to South Sudan—now on the brink of civil war—was halted by Judge Murphy, who ordered the U.S. to maintain custody while assessing their legal status and rights.

White House pushback and rising political tension

The Trump administration has vehemently opposed judicial intervention in deportation policies. The White House labeled the eight men “monsters” and derided Judge Murphy, a Biden appointee, as a “far-left activist judge.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio entered the fray with a late Friday declaration confirming that the military flight carrying the men had used “the only U.S. base on the African continent.” Rubio cautioned that Judge Murphy’s orders risk damaging diplomatic relations with both Libya and Djibouti.

Despite these warnings, Judge Murphy insisted the government facilitate attorney access for the men, ordering arrangements be made for them to contact legal representation by phone. As of Friday evening, lawyers involved in the suit reported that no such communication had yet occurred.

Broader implications for Trump deportation due process

This ruling adds to a series of legal rebukes against the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation tactics, many of which have been criticized for bypassing due process protections.

While Judge Murphy’s order to facilitate the return of O.C.G. falls short of mandating his physical repatriation, it nonetheless places renewed pressure on federal immigration authorities to act within the bounds of the law.

Legal experts argue the outcome of this case could influence broader immigration policy, particularly as more federal courts review similar due process concerns. If upheld, it could reinforce the constitutional requirement that even non-citizens deserve fair and consistent treatment under U.S. law.

As O.C.G. awaits news of his potential return, his case stands as a chilling reminder of the personal costs embedded within systemic administrative failure. For many like him, the stakes are not political—they are existential.

More from United States coverage

• Trump attacks federal judge over South Sudan deportation ruling
• Ernie Els defends South Africa as Trump confronts Ramaphosa over white farmer claims
• Trump defends new Air Force One gift from Qatar amid legal concerns