Habeas Corpus Petition Granted 

Post 5483

Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing

In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.

On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud and theft and released him pending trial. He has no prior criminal history.

On June 27, 2026, roving Border Patrol agents arrested Palomino-Crespo and commenced removal proceedings by serving a notice to appear. In a bond hearing held on July 23, 2026, Immigration Judge Jennifer Mazza found Palomino-Crespo subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) due to the pending state charges.

Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § 1226(c) because he was admitted into the United States. The government conceded the point and acknowledged Judge Mazza’s decision is legally incorrect.

The Government argued that Palomino-Crespo is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c). But it argues his detention is nevertheless lawful under § 1226(a) because Judge Mazza included this line at the end of the bond order: “Even if Respondent was not subject to Mandatory Detention, Respondent also failed to demonstrate that he does not present a risk of flight.”

The parties agree that as a noncitizen detained under § 1226(a), Palomino-Crespo has a right to an individualized bond hearing. They disagree on whether he already received one.

The USDC found he did not. Palomino-Crespo alleges that the Department of Homeland Security incorrectly argued for § 1226(c) mandatory detention at the bond hearing, and that Judge Mazza accepted that argument and did not consider any other evidence or allow Palomino-Crespo’s attorney to present any argument regarding danger to the community or risk of flight.

The government does not contest Palomino-Crespo’s characterization of the bond hearing. Palomino-Crespo has not received the individualized, merit-based bond hearing he is entitled to.

The Court will thus order the respondents to either bring Palomino-Crespo before an immigration judge for an individualized bond hearing within ten days or release him.

To satisfy this Order, the hearing must include—and the resulting order must reflect—consideration of evidence properly submitted by the petitioner and the factors announced in In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37 (BIA 2006), and the government must bear the burden of proof. The Court is aware the EOIR is the agency that conducts bond hearings, it is not a party to this action, and it may decide not to hold a hearing that satisfies these requirements. But to be clear, subjecting Palomino-Crespo to mandatory detention under § 1225(c) is unlawful.

If the respondents are unable to ensure Palomino-Crespo receives a bond hearing that complies with this Order within ten days, they must release him.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted (1) Within ten days of this Opinion and Order, the respondents shall either (1) bring Palomino-Crespo for an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge or (2) release Palomino-Crespo under reasonable conditions of supervision. If the respondents release Palomino-Crespo, they shall facilitate his transportation from the detention facility by notifying his counsel when and where he may be collected.

ZALMA OPINION

Although rare, in this case Habeas was granted. Insurance fraud is a serious crime and is, in my experience, conducted by people of every race, religion, national origin or gender. Since Palomino-Crespo was on a Visa since 2017 the detention was probably correct for overstaying a Visa.

He had been charged with insurance fraud, but not yet tried or otherwise resolved, and was innocent of the crime until proven guilty. Since the government failed to fulfill its obligation for Palomino-Crespo to receive a bond hearing the court ordered the government to provide the hearing or release him immediately.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.