A U.S. federal judge has mandated the release of a Colombian immigrant detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after it was revealed that immigration court denied him bail based on, among other discrepancies, testimonies that were completely fabricated.
Judge Leonard T. Strand from the Northern District of Iowa's Federal Court found that the hearings held to decide whether Ernesto Rodríguez Martínez should remain in custody were a blatant violation of his due process rights.
On October 26, Judge Strand issued a judicial order instructing immigration authorities to release Rodríguez Martínez within three days, reinstating the conditions he had before his arrest in April 2026.
The judge determined that the authorities failed to present evidence justifying the need to keep the immigrant detained, even though a previous court order required them to demonstrate this with clear and convincing evidence.
Questionable Court Proceedings and Fabricated Testimonies
The case dates back to April 2026 when the Colombian national was pulled over by Lennox Police in South Dakota for speeding and driving with a suspended vehicle registration. Although he was released from state custody the same day, ICE took over his detention, placing him under immigration custody.
Rodríguez Martínez entered the United States in May 2023, initially receiving a temporary stay permit. He was later granted work authorization twice and applied for asylum, citing fear of a paramilitary group in Colombia that, according to his testimony, killed his father.
On August 17, 2026, Judge Strand ruled that Rodríguez Martínez was entitled to a bail hearing, which was to be held within 14 days. However, the subsequent proceedings led to another federal court intervention.
The initial hearing on August 21 occurred without proper notification to the detained or his attorneys. When Rodríguez Martínez requested legal representation, the immigration judge postponed the proceedings.
During a second hearing on August 25, the court claimed his attorneys hadn't submitted the necessary documents, forcing him to proceed without them. Rodríguez Martínez expressed confusion, recounting that his lawyer assured him of representation the day before. Despite this, the immigration judge denied him bail.
The federal court highlighted the severity of the situation, noting the decision referenced non-existent oral testimonies. Furthermore, it falsely stated that Rodríguez Martínez waived his right to attorney presence.
Government Fails to Provide Evidence for Detention
Judge Strand concluded that the procedure didn't meet the minimum guarantees required by his prior order. He criticized the immigration judge for merely supporting the government's stance without demanding necessary evidence to justify detention.
Instead of providing clear and convincing evidence, authorities managed to keep Rodríguez Martínez detained without offering any proof during the hearings. The federal judge warned that if this practice is found to be common in immigration courts, he would stop ordering bail hearings in certain habeas corpus cases, opting instead for direct release orders when appropriate.
The decision also stipulates that if authorities wish to re-detain Rodríguez Martínez administratively during his deportation process, they must properly notify him and ensure an impartial immigration judge hearing.
Asylum Case Still Unresolved
While the ruling is a legal victory for Rodríguez Martínez, it does not indicate approval of his asylum claim or the cancellation of his deportation proceedings. On July 31, 2026, an immigration judge denied his asylum request, ordering his removal from the United States. However, this decision was still subject to appeal and wasn't administratively final when the federal court reviewed his detention.
On October 8, the immigration judge again denied a request for another bail hearing, falsely asserting that Rodríguez Martínez waived his right to legal representation and that testimonies were provided. The new order specifically affirms his right to remain free during the immigration process under previously established conditions.
As of now, court documents do not confirm whether ICE has executed the release.
Key Questions about Immigration Detention and Legal Proceedings
Why was Ernesto Rodríguez Martínez detained by ICE initially?
He was initially detained by the Lennox Police for speeding and driving with a suspended registration, after which ICE assumed his custody.
What did Judge Strand criticize about the immigration court's proceedings?
Judge Strand criticized the lack of evidence presented by authorities to justify the detention, and the reliance on non-existent testimonies during the hearings.
Does the judge's ruling affect Rodríguez Martínez's asylum case?
No, the ruling only affects his detention situation, not the outcome of his asylum application, which was previously denied but still subject to appeal.