The Disappearance Was Real. The Excuse May Not Be.
A federal judge just expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s claim that my Burmese client was sent home — not to a third country.
After conflicting removal notices to South Africa and South Sudan, the judge now suspects his own order was violated. He wants answers—who was on the plane, where they were taken, and who gave the order to disappear them.
On Friday, May 16, I met with a man from Burma detained at the South Texas Detention Complex in Pearsall, TX. He speaks very limited English. He was anxious, vulnerable, and entirely in the dark about what the U.S. government was planning to do to him.
By Tuesday, he was gone.
Transferred to Port Isabel Detention Center without warning, he was handed two conflicting removal notices in English—a language he barely understands. The first said he was being sent to South Africa. The second, issued just hours later, listed South Sudan. He refused to sign either. He was not provided an interpreter. He was not given an interview to express his fear.
Then ICE went silent.
We feared he had been disappeared to a third country — South Sudan, most likely — in direct violation of a federal court injunction issued in DVD v. Noem. That injunction bars the U.S. government from sending noncitizens to third countries unless they are given notice in a language they understand, a meaningful chance to raise a fear of return, and at least 15 days to seek reopening of their case.
ICE met none of those requirements. And now, under the glare of federal judicial scrutiny, their story is falling apart.
A Judge Demands the Truth
This evening in court, the presiding federal judge made it clear: he is skeptical of ICE’s claim that my client was removed to his home country of Burma. The timeline doesn’t add up. The conflicting notices make no sense. And the speed with which the narrative shifted from “South Sudan” to “Burma” has raised alarms.
The judge stated openly that he is inclined to believe his injunction was violated.
So now, the burden is on the Department of Homeland Security. The judge has ordered DHS to appear in court tomorrow and provide:
Confirmation of whether my client was in fact removed to Burma
The precise time he arrived
Where he was taken upon arrival
Whether he is in custody, and if so, whose custody
The full manifest of the flight he was on, and
Whether others on that flight were also removed in violation of the injunction
Let that sink in: A sitting federal judge is now treating this not as a routine removal — but as a potential cover-up.
The Disappearance Doctrine
This is what authoritarianism looks like in the shadows of bureaucracy.
You take a man with limited English, detain him in a rural facility far from legal help, hand him contradictory orders in a language he cannot read, deny him interpretation, deny him a hearing, deny him access to his attorney — and then remove him without notice.
Then, when you’re caught, you scramble to say, “He was sent to his home country, so technically, it’s fine.”
But it’s not fine.
Because when the process is a fog, and the truth is constantly shifting, the law becomes meaningless. ICE knows this. DHS knows this. And the Trump administration is actively using this chaos as a tool — not just to remove people, but to test how far they can go before courts, lawyers, or journalists can catch up.
This time, they may have gone too far.
This Isn’t About One Man
It’s about a pattern.
This is not the first time the government has issued a third-country removal notice to someone it later claimed to be sending home. It’s not the first time ICE has hidden flights, obscured destinations, or issued removal paperwork in languages detainees don’t understand.
But this time, a federal judge saw through it. And he’s asking the right questions:
Where is this man? Who sent him? And who else was taken?
We Know What’s at Stake
We are witnessing the transformation of immigration enforcement into a tool of authoritarian control — one that operates just below the threshold of public outrage, and just fast enough to outpace accountability.
At The Firewall, we’ve been warning that this isn’t just about deportation. It’s about disappearance — about the state experimenting with impunity, normalizing the erasure of rights until what is illegal today becomes routine tomorrow.
ICE wanted to disappear my client in procedural fog.
The courts — this time — may be refusing to let that happen.
Tomorrow’s hearing could bring rare daylight into an agency that prefers to operate in the dark. But it’s only a first step.
We need answers. We need accountability. And we need to remember that what happens to immigrants today will shape what happens to all of us tomorrow.
Because systems that can erase people can erase anything.
Stay ready.