A federal judge in the United States ordered the release of a Colombian immigrant detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after discovering that an immigration court denied him bail based, among other irregularities, on testimonies that never existed.
Judge Leonard T. Strand of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa found that the hearings held to determine whether Ernesto Rodríguez Martínez should remain detained constituted a flagrant violation of his due process rights.
In a court ruling issued on Monday, October 26, Strand ordered immigration authorities to release Rodríguez Martínez within three days, under the same conditions he had before his arrest in April 2026.
According to their analysis, the authorities did not provide evidence that justified keeping the immigrant in custody, despite a prior court order requiring them to demonstrate this through clear and convincing evidence.
Hearings without a lawyer and a decision based on nonexistent testimonies
The case dates back to April 2026, when the Colombian citizen was arrested by the Lennox Police in South Dakota for speeding and driving with a suspended vehicle registration.
Although he was released from state custody that same day, ICE took over his detention and kept him in immigration custody.
Rodríguez Martínez had entered the United States in May 2023 and then received a temporary stay permit (parole). Subsequently, the authorities granted him work authorization on two occasions.
He also submitted a request for asylum, citing fear of an active paramilitary group in Colombia, whose members, according to his testimony, had murdered his father.
On August 17, 2026, Judge Strand ruled that the immigrant was entitled to a bail hearing and ordered it to be held within a maximum of 14 days.
However, what happened next ultimately led to a new intervention by the federal court.
The first hearing was held on August 21, apparently without the detainee or their lawyers receiving proper notification.
When Rodríguez Martínez expressed that he wanted to have legal representation, the immigration judge decided to postpone the proceedings.
In a second hearing held on August 25, the court stated that his lawyers had not submitted the necessary documentation to represent him and that he must continue without them.
The affected party expressed his confusion and explained that he had spoken with his lawyer the day before, and she had assured him that she would represent him.
Despite this, the immigration judge ultimately denied him bail.
The most serious matter, according to the federal court, was that the decision mentioned oral testimonies from both parties that had never taken place.
The ruling also stated that the immigrant had waived the presence of their lawyers, something that the federal judge determined was false.
The government did not present evidence to justify the detention
Strand concluded that the procedure did not meet the minimum guarantees required by his previous order.
The magistrate considered that the immigration judge merely supported the government's position without demanding the necessary evidence to justify the detention.
Instead of presenting clear and convincing evidence, the authorities managed to keep the man detained without providing any proof in the hearings, he noted.
The federal judge went further and warned that if he finds that this type of procedure constitutes a common practice in immigration courts, he will cease to order bond hearings in certain habeas corpus cases and will directly mandate the release of those affected when appropriate.
The decision also states that if the authorities wish to detain the immigrant administratively again while the deportation process is ongoing, they must provide proper notification and ensure that the immigrant is granted a hearing before an impartial immigration judge.
Liberation does not mean that they have won their asylum case
Although the ruling represents a legal victory for the immigrant, it does not imply that their asylum application has been approved or that their deportation proceedings have been canceled.
On July 31, 2026, an immigration judge denied his asylum request and ordered his removal from the United States. However, that decision could still be appealed and was not administratively final when the federal court reviewed his detention.
On October 8, the immigration judge once again denied a request to hold another bail hearing. In his decision, he stated that Rodríguez Martínez had waived his right to the presence of his lawyers and that testimonies had been received, two claims that the federal judge deemed false.
The new order specifically refers to your right to remain free while the immigration process continues, under the previously established conditions.
So far, the reviewed judicial documentation does not confirm that ICE has carried out the release.
Related videos:
Filed under: