Tom Pappert, lead reporter at The Tennessee Star, detailed a federal filing that has revealed new details about the immigration case of Colombian-born Nashville Noticias journalist Estefany Rodriguez, who was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Nashville on March 4.
According to reporting by Pappert, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) narrative included in a court filing states that Rodriguez married a U.S. citizen 13 days after receiving a call-in letter from ICE ordering her to appear before immigration officials.
Pappert explained during an interview on Monday on The Michael Patrick Leahy Show that the timeline raises questions about the sequence of events surrounding the case.
The DHS narrative cited in the filing states that Rodriguez married U.S. citizen Alejandro Medina III on January 21.
Pappert emphasized that the marriage occurred shortly after ICE first contacted her.
“It is very interestingly noted… that she married a U.S. citizen pretty recently,” Pappert said. “In fact, it was on January 21, which was only 13 days after she received her first-ever letter from ICE.”
According to the DHS record, Rodriguez received a G-56 call-in letter on January 8 instructing her to appear at an ICE office on January 26.
“So you receive a letter notifying you you have an active immigration case, you’re expected to appear before immigration officials. What’s your first move? Apparently, for this young journalist, it was to get married,” Pappert said.
The DHS narrative acknowledged the January 26 appointment coincided with severe winter weather in Tennessee during Winter Storm Fern, which closed government offices.
However, Pappert said the filing indicates ICE expected Rodriguez to notify the agency if she could not attend.
“What the document instructed her to do is to write that she was unable to go, there was an ice storm, and then mail it right back to the return address,” Pappert said. “This did not occur.”
According to the DHS filing, ICE later issued a second letter with another appointment date. Instead of appearing personally, Rodriguez’s husband and a member of her legal team went to the ICE office.
Pappert said the filing claims the call-in letter was not shown to officials during that visit.
“They allegedly did not show the G-56 document that she was sent, but instead showed some of her other immigration paperwork,” Pappert said. “Because ICE did not know what they were talking about without this G-56 letter, they set a new date for March 17th.”
The government narrative states that the date referenced in the second letter passed without Rodriguez appearing, leading officials to determine she had missed two scheduled meetings.
“So she essentially, according to DHS, did in fact miss two dates,” Pappert said. “That is what led to her arrest.”
Pappert also criticized local television coverage of the case, arguing that some reports focused on sympathetic details while overlooking information contained in court filings.
“The narrative we were told… seems completely contradictory to what’s being reported by DHS in their filings to the court,” Pappert said.
He also said the timing of the marriage had not been widely reported, despite its appearance in federal documents.
“We’ve had now almost a week of reporting about this journalist… and nobody has reported this despite it being in the black and white in the DOJ filing,” Pappert said. “To me, that is highly suspicious.”
Rodriguez’s attorneys have filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that her detention was unlawful and violated her constitutional rights.
Pappert said the legal strategy appears to hinge partly on a claim that the administrative warrant used in the arrest was not properly served.
“The key argument seems to be… that the arrest was unlawful because it was not via a warrant,” Pappert said. “The only problem with this is… you are actually not required to do this in an immigration case.”
He added, “Any immigration official can arrest an illegal alien. This warrant just needs to be provided as soon as possible in the arrest process.”
Pappert said the attorneys have also suggested the detention was retaliation for Rodriguez’s journalism critical of ICE.
“They’re now asserting that the Trump administration… detained Estefany Rodriguez because they wanted to stop her anti-ICE journalism,” he said. “So this is now… a First Amendment case.”
Pappert noted that, according to the Department of Justice filing, Rodriguez had not yet requested a bond hearing, which could potentially allow her release while her immigration case continues.
“As the U.S. Department of Justice pointed out in their own filing, she has yet to file a request for a bond hearing,” Pappert said. “That’s a mistake.”
Rodriguez entered the U.S. in March 2021 on a 14-day tourist vSisa, according to the DHS narrative. She later applied for asylum, and the case remains pending.
Her detention case is currently before U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson in the Middle District of Tennessee.
Tune in now to The Michael Patrick Leahy Show – your AMERICA FIRST news talk!
– Watch LIVE here on X
– Watch LIVE on Roku
– Listen on Spotify
– Listen on WENO AM760 in Nashville
– Read more at @TheTNStarhttps://t.co/q53OJOpEHd— Michael Patrick Leahy (@michaelpleahy) March 9, 2026
– – –
Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Kaitlin on X / Twitter.
Photo “Estefany Rodriguez” by Estefany Rodriguez.
