Orlando federal judge orders release of two Venezuelans, citing invalid ICE paperwork and detention irregularities
Judge questions paperwork sequence and signatures in two ICE detention cases
A federal judge in Orlando ordered the release of two Venezuelan nationals from immigration custody after finding that key documents used to justify their detentions were not valid and contained irregularities. The rulings scrutinized the timing of an arrest warrant in one case and conflicting signatures on documents in the other, raising questions about whether proper procedures were followed.
The judge’s orders came amid a broader wave of litigation in Central Florida in which detainees have challenged custody through habeas corpus petitions, arguing they were held without lawful authority, proper hearings, or valid legal process.
Two cases, two sets of alleged defects
In the first case, the judge found that the warrant used to justify the arrest of Junier Silva-Parucho was signed hours after he was already taken into custody. The court concluded the sequence rendered the warrant invalid and described the detention as illegal on that basis.
In the second case, the judge ordered the release of Fadya Contreras de Rondon after determining that documents bearing the same agent’s name did not match in signature, creating doubts about whether the paperwork was authentically and properly executed.
Both releases were ordered from custody tied to immigration enforcement actions. The litigation focused on the validity of warrants and the legal basis for continued detention, not on criminal charges. In related Central Florida cases, judges have repeatedly emphasized that detention authority must track the correct statute and required procedures, including access to bond hearings where applicable.
Detention timeline and transfers described in court proceedings
Contreras de Rondon and her husband, Johnny Rondon Rodriguez, were detained on Jan. 9, 2026, while traveling to work. Court proceedings also described her movement between facilities, including time at the Orange County Jail and the Broward Transitional Center, before she was returned to Orange County.
In testimony to the court after her release order, Contreras de Rondon described telling agents that she and her husband had valid documentation and pending asylum matters. She also described repeated transfers between an immigration office on Delegates Drive and the jail, which her legal team argued was used to evade limits on how long detainees can be held under certain local custody arrangements.
“There are only two explanations for this — and neither of them are good,” the judge said in court while addressing signature discrepancies in the paperwork.
How the rulings fit into a larger legal dispute
The Orlando decisions intersect with ongoing national court battles over the federal government’s detention practices for people placed in removal proceedings. In Florida, recent federal orders have repeatedly required the government to use the proper detention authority and provide required hearings within specified timeframes, particularly when detention is based on immigration detainers and contested statutory grounds.
Additional cases remain active in federal court in the Middle District of Florida, reflecting a continued reliance on emergency habeas filings to challenge detention, seek temporary restraining orders, and obtain releases where judges find the legal basis for custody insufficient or procedurally defective.