A federal judge on Friday considered whether to release a man in custody who suffered torture at the hands of government authorities in his home country and who remains detained, even after prevailing on multiple occasions in recent immigration proceedings.

Exactly two years ago, the Denver-based federal appeals court concluded an immigration judge’s decision to deport Dennis Arostegui-Maldonado “defies logic and the law” considering the abuse he experienced from Costa Rican police. Earlier this year, Maldonado received protection from deportation to Costa Rica and El Salvador, his countries of citizenship.

However, Maldonado has been detained continuously in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s privately-run Aurora facility since December, in addition to a year spent in custody previously. He has asked U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez to order his release on due process grounds, or at least to order an individualized review of his suitability for release on bond. Further, Maldonado seeks to prevent ICE from removing him from Colorado, if he is to remain in custody.

During a hearing before Martínez, attorney Laura Lunn teared up as she explained why she believed judicial intervention was necessary.

“I am terrified he will be removed unlawfully like Kilmar Abrego Garcia,” she said, referring to a Maryland man wrongfully removed to an El Salvador prison where numerous detainees have described widespread abusive conditions. The federal government did not return Abrego Garcia for months.

“You have a fear that under this administration, (the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) and ICE will not follow the rule of law?” asked Martínez, a Barack Obama appointee.

“That is exactly what I’m saying,” Lunn replied.

The government countered that Maldonado was not entitled to the relief he sought. Benjamin Gibson, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said the law and federal regulations would permit the government to remove Maldonado to countries other than the two he was protected from.

“My understanding is it is not ICE’s practice to do that,” he added.

“But you are not able to provide that assurance?” Martínez pressed.

No, said Gibson.

Because of the federal rules governing immigration cases, the vast majority of Maldonado’s proceedings is shielded from public view. However, the prior decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit gave a fuller picture of Maldonado’s circumstances, and testimony during the hearing illuminated an ICE mix-up that prompted Martínez to recently halt Maldonado’s transfer out of Colorado.

Maldonado testified in his immigration proceedings that Costa Rican police officers kidnapped him at gunpoint and took him to an isolated location. They beat him and sexually assaulted him, demanding he sell drugs on their behalf. They also threatened to kill him if he made a report, and they demanded his family’s contact information. Finally, the officers transported him to jail and held him for 24 hours without any criminal charge.

An immigration judge found him credible, but ultimately denied protection from deportation. Specifically, the judge decided Maldonado had not shown the police who tortured him were acting as government agents at the time.

The 10th Circuit disagreed with that finding and ordered another look, culminating in a new order protecting him from deportation to Costa Rica and El Salvador. The government has since appealed that decision. Although the government removed Maldonado after a year in custody, he returned after he prevailed at the 10th Circuit — only to be immediately detained again.

On July 18, Maldonado’s lawyers learned ICE intended to move him somewhere unknown. Martínez, in response, temporarily blocked the removal.

“Notwithstanding that it appears ICE has, for the time being, suspended its efforts to transfer Maldonado, the Court is troubled by the unknown question as to where ICE was intending to transfer Maldonado,” Martínez wrote in a July 21 order.

During the hearing, ICE deportation officer Irma Quinones testified about the intended transfer. She received an email on July 18 with a list of detainees who “might be transferred to another facility” because the Aurora detention center was reaching capacity. Detainees with pending habeas corpus petitions — meaning those seeking release from confinement — were not supposed to be transferred.

“There was no alert for any habeas” for Maldonado, said Quinones, even though he had a pending federal case. Subsequently, ICE realized Maldonado was not eligible for transfer to Natrona County, Wyo. with the others on the list.

“But for my order directing (ICE) not to transfer Mr. Maldonado out of Colorado,” asked Martínez, “would ICE have transferred him to Wyoming?”

Quinones said the habeas case would have still precluded the move.

Upon cross-examination from Maldonado’s lawyers, Quinones acknowledged she did not know the capacity of the Aurora detention center and did not know anything about Maldonado’s criminal history or his suitability for release. However, she confirmed the existence of a policy that “no paroles be granted” for those in immigration detention.

Maldonado testified through an interpreter, saying he has three children — one of whom is a U.S. citizen — and family in Virginia.

“I don’t know that anybody knows when it will end,” he said, referring to his immigration proceedings. Maldonado testified that he needs medical attention because of his torture and sexual assault, but he is not receiving care while in custody. He also has no criminal convictions in the U.S. or elsewhere.

“I am not a delinquent. I am not a criminal,” he said. “I really don’t know of any other country that has treated me with the respect and equality I have received here.”

Martínez said he would issue a written decision on Maldonado’s request for release or a bond hearing. In the meantime, he extended his temporary restraining order barring Maldonado’s transfer out of Colorado through Aug. 8.

The case is Arostegui-Maldonado v. Baltazar.