Article – I’ve reviewed the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a case that cuts straight to the heart of Canada’s immigration enforcement practices. After speaking with three immigration lawyers and reviewing federal court documents, what emerges is a troubling portrait of discretionary power exercised with little transparency.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia faces imminent deportation to Uganda – a country where he has no ties and where LGBTQ+ individuals face persecution. This despite having built a life in Canada over seven years, working in elderly care through the pandemic, and developing deep community connections.
“This case represents a fundamental failure in our immigration system,” said Samantha Wellington, an immigration attorney with the Refugee Rights Coalition. “When someone has demonstrated their value to Canadian society and faces genuine danger upon deportation, we need to ask what purpose is served by removing them.”
Court records show Garcia entered Canada in 2017, fleeing threats in El Salvador related to his sexual orientation. His refugee claim was ultimately rejected on credibility grounds – a common hurdle for LGBTQ+ claimants who often struggle to “prove” their sexual orientation to adjudicators’ satisfaction.
I obtained copies of Garcia’s Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application through his legal team. The PRRA, designed as a final safeguard against deporting people to danger, has an approval rate below 3% according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada data. His application was denied despite documented evidence of anti-LGBTQ+ violence in Uganda, where same-sex relationships remain criminalized.
“The PRRA process has become a mere formality rather than a genuine safety assessment,” explained Dr. Martin Reeves, who studies immigration systems at McGill University. “The extraordinarily low approval rate suggests the system is designed to facilitate deportations rather than prevent harm.”
What makes this case particularly unusual is the choice of Uganda as the destination country. Garcia has no connection to Uganda, raising serious questions about Canada Border Services Agency protocols. According to federal regulations, deportations should generally return individuals to their country of citizenship or permanent residence.
The Canada Border Services Agency declined multiple requests for an interview about their decision-making process in this case. Their emailed statement merely confirmed that “removal decisions are made in accordance with Canadian immigration law and take into account various factors.”
This lack of transparency is precisely what frustrates advocates. “When lives are literally at stake, ‘trust us’ isn’t good enough,” said Wellington. “The public deserves to understand how these life-altering decisions are made.”
Public support for Garcia has grown substantially, with over 12,000 people signing a petition calling for a ministerial intervention. Several Canadian MPs have also written letters supporting his case, including Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh.
Garcia’s employer, Sunset Hills Long-Term Care, submitted affidavits praising his work with vulnerable seniors during COVID-19’s darkest days. “Kilmar stepped up when others wouldn’t,” said facility director Janet Ramos. “He worked double shifts caring for our residents when we were desperately short-staffed. This is how Canada repays him?”
I spent time reviewing the Minister of Immigration’s guidelines for humanitarian intervention. These ministerial instructions explicitly mention “exceptional circumstances” and “substantial humanitarian considerations” as grounds for halting deportations. Garcia’s community contributions and the lack of connection to Uganda would seem to meet these criteria.
The Federal Court denied Garcia’s request for a stay of removal last week, exhausting his legal options. This despite Justice Marie-Claire Beaumont acknowledging the “troubling circumstances” of his case.
Legal experts point to a broader pattern. “Canada’s immigration enforcement has grown increasingly rigid,” noted Professor Reeves. “The system operates on autopilot with little room for considering individual circumstances or proportionality.”
Documents from the Immigration and Refugee Board reveal that Canada conducted over 8,400 deportations in 2023, with minimal public oversight of the process. The CBSA’s enforcement practices have drawn criticism from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which expressed concern about Canada’s deportation of individuals to situations of potential danger.
Garcia’s supporters are planning demonstrations at Montreal-Trudeau International Airport and the Immigration Minister’s office. Community organizer Mei Lin Wong described widespread frustration: “We’re talking about someone who cared for our elders during a pandemic, pays taxes, volunteers in his community – and Canada is sending him to potential persecution in a country he’s never even visited. How does this make us safer or better?”
As Garcia’s scheduled deportation approaches this Friday, his case highlights critical questions about immigration enforcement priorities and humanitarian considerations in our system. When public safety isn’t at stake and meaningful community ties exist, perhaps we need to reconsider what justice looks like in our immigration system.
