Post number 5374
The Government Must Remove a Noncitizen Within 90 Days of Detention
In Jean Marcel Perez Garcia v. Warden, Florida Side South Detention Facility, et al., No. 2:26-cv-788-JES-DNF John E. Steele United States District Judge United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 10, 2026) Jean Marcel Perez Garcia, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States in 2003. After convictions for a drug offense and felony insurance fraud, he was ordered removed in 2018 but was later released under supervision.
ICE revoked that supervision in December 2025 and detained him again to execute the removal order. In February 2026, ICE transported him to the U.S.–Mexico border and sought to have him depart to Mexico, but he refused. ICE then continued to detain him for more than six months without showing that any country had agreed to accept him or that travel documents had been secured.
LAW
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), the government must remove a noncitizen within 90 days after the removal order becomes final, and detention is mandatory during that period. Under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), post-removal detention is presumptively reasonable for six months, but after that period the detainee may be released if there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government may extend the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) if the noncitizen acts to prevent removal, but only where the government can show the detainee actually obstructed a realistic removal process.
DISCUSSION
The government argued that Perez Garcia was not entitled to release because he thwarted removal by refusing to board transport for Mexico and by refusing to sign removal paperwork. The court rejected that argument. It found no evidence that Mexico had actually agreed to accept him, no proof that ICE had obtained or even sought travel documents, and no concrete removal plan to any country.
The record showed only that ICE brought him to the border and tried to induce him to “voluntarily” leave for Mexico. The court concluded that this did not amount to a lawful or realistic removal effort and did not trigger tolling under § 1231(a)(1)(C).
ANALYSIS
The court applied Zadvydas and held that once Perez Garcia showed he had been detained beyond six months, the burden shifted to the government to demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government failed to meet that burden. The court emphasized that speculation that Mexico might eventually accept him was not enough. Nor could ICE rely on coercive pressure to force a “voluntary” crossing into a third country as a substitute for actual removal. Because there was no evidence of meaningful progress toward removal and no concrete plan, continued detention had become unreasonable and unauthorized.
CONCLUSION
In short, Respondents present no evidence showing any significant steps taken to remove Perez Garcia to Cuba or another country. Instead, the only effort at removal was a trip to the United States-Mexico border in an apparent attempt to coerce Perez Garcia into voluntarily departing to a country of which he is not a citizen.
Detaining a noncitizen and using the specter of continued detention to compel him to “voluntarily” depart by walking across the international border does not constitute removal; rather, it is an action designed to lead to the type of indefinite detention that Zadvydas sought to prevent. The Court also noted that it has been 128 days since the purported attempted removal to Mexico – far more than the 90 days contemplated by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), and Respondents admit that no further actions have been taken in the interim.
The court granted the habeas petition. It ordered Perez Garcia’s release within 24 hours, subject to an order of supervision. The court also noted that ICE could re-detain him in the future if removal became significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
ZALMA OPINION
The court, reluctantly granted Perez Garcia’s Habeas request because – although he was a criminal alien – ICE was unable to fulfill a deportation order and deport him. Thanks to that inability a convicted insurance fraudster was released into the country to commit more fraud until ICE could arrest, confine and deport him because the law does not allow them to keep him confined instead of deport him.
(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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
