NBC 5 Investigates reporter Bennett Haeberle introduces a case that sounds almost impossible on paper: a woman who had been living in the Chicago area for years, checking in with immigration authorities as required, suddenly ended up locked in an ICE detention center for nearly seven months.
Her name is Marina Lopez Perez, and Haeberle reports she is now back home in Lake County, trying to rebuild normal life in her own kitchen while she prepares meals and waits for her children to come home from school.
But “normal” isn’t really the right word, Haeberle makes clear, because Marina says her kids are still scared that any day she could be taken again.
Haeberle includes Marina speaking in Spanish about her children clinging to her, not wanting her to go anywhere, and insisting she stay home until they return.
It’s the kind of fear that doesn’t fade just because a door opens and someone gets released.
And according to Haeberle’s reporting, that fear is tied to the most unsettling detail in the story: when Marina’s case reached a federal judge, the U.S. government could not clearly explain why it had detained her in the first place.
The Text Message That Changed Everything
Haeberle traces this back to June, when Marina received a text message telling her to show up for an ICE check-in appointment at an immigration office in Chicago’s South Loop.
She went, believing it was routine, Haeberle reports.
Instead, Haeberle shows video of Marina being led away, arrested along with several other people.
Those arrests spurred protests, Haeberle notes, months before Chicago’s immigration crackdown “reached a fever pitch.”
What stands out in Haeberle’s telling is how quickly life can flip when the system decides you’re no longer “checked in” and “compliant,” but suddenly treated like someone who has to be held.
And it didn’t become a short hold.
Haeberle reports Marina spent more than 200 days in custody at the Grayson County, Kentucky, detention center.
That’s not just long.
That is long enough for kids to start living like a parent is gone for good, and for the person inside to start wondering if anyone outside can even hear them.
“It Was Like Speaking To The Void”
Haeberle reports that Marina’s immigration attorney, Cynthia Fernandez, described the months of trying to get answers as exhausting and, at times, hopeless.
Fernandez told Haeberle they spent months trying to figure out what was happening and why.
And she described the experience as “speaking to the void,” which is a brutal phrase because it captures what people fear most about bureaucracy: the silence.
Haeberle also reports the practical obstacles Fernandez faced.
To even see Marina, she had to deal with the detention facility being far away, requiring an 8.5-hour drive, and she said it was difficult to schedule visits.
Distance becomes a weapon all on its own in situations like this.
If someone is sent far away from their community, their lawyer, their family, and the place where anyone knows their story, that isolation does damage even before you get to the legal questions.
Why Marina Came Back And Why She Was Allowed To Stay
Haeberle includes key background from Fernandez to explain that Marina’s immigration path was not some mystery of “show up and disappear.”
Fernandez told Haeberle that Marina first entered the U.S. in 2014 from Guatemala, but was immediately removed through a process called expedited removal.
Then, Fernandez says, Marina returned about eight months later.
Fernandez told Haeberle the reason was urgent and personal: Marina was fleeing severe domestic violence.
In 2015, Fernandez says Marina returned with her young son.
Haeberle reports that the child was allowed to go through an asylum process and ultimately won based on the claim, and because the child was a minor, Marina was allowed to enter under something called an order of supervision.
Fernandez described that supervision, as Haeberle reports it, as a kind of immigration “probation,” requiring check-ins and compliance.
And Fernandez told Haeberle Marina had been compliant.
Which brings the story back to the central question Haeberle keeps pressing: if she was following the rules, why did she end up locked up for more than 200 days?
A Federal Judge Asked The Question ICE Couldn’t Answer
Haeberle reports that in December, another attorney filed a habeas petition in federal court, essentially forcing the government to justify why it was holding Marina.
This is where the case takes a turn that should make anyone pause, even if they have strong opinions on immigration.
Haeberle says the federal judge noted that while immigration agencies can detain and deport people who entered the country illegally, the government still has to show a reason and a record for the detention.
In this case, Haeberle reports, the judge wrote that the government admitted it had no record of why Marina’s order of supervision was revoked, and it made no effort to explain why she was detained.
Haeberle says the government conceded it couldn’t find any notice showing the supervision order had been revoked.
It couldn’t find documents memorializing the decision.
It couldn’t even produce paperwork that typically would exist in a case where someone is suddenly detained after years under supervision.
Haeberle’s reporting makes the point without screaming it: this is the system saying, in court, “we can’t show our work.”
And that’s why Marina was set free.
Detained Four Times Longer Than The Average
Haeberle adds another detail that gives this story weight beyond one family’s nightmare.
NBC 5 Investigates reviewed ICE data, he reports, and found Marina’s 200-day stay was four times longer than the average detention stay, which is about 47 days.
That comparison matters because it helps separate “long but common” from “long and unusual.”
It also suggests that if Marina’s case fell through cracks, those cracks are wide enough for someone to vanish into custody for months.
And if it can happen to someone who has been living under supervision for years, it’s hard not to wonder how many people are caught in similar loops, especially those without lawyers pushing and pushing.
Christmas Day Came, But The Trauma Stayed
Haeberle reports Marina returned home on Christmas Day, and she described it like a gift. She talked about not wanting to spend Christmas alone, and she thanked God for being home.
For a moment, in Haeberle’s reporting, you can almost feel the relief. But he also describes how her smile fades when she talks about what detention did to her.
Haeberle says Marina told him she has trouble sleeping and feels traumatized by what she lived through.
She talks about wanting to stay in a place where her children can be protected.
She talks about having things in her home country she does not want to go back to.
And she talks about wanting to continue her process.
It’s not a political speech.
It sounds like a mother explaining the simplest goal imaginable: stay safe, keep the kids safe, and keep moving forward.
The Silence From DHS And The Bigger Pattern
Haeberle closes the loop on accountability in a way that is quietly damning.
He reports NBC 5 Investigates sent three emails to DHS in a single week, along with a copy of the judge’s order releasing Marina, asking what happened and why.
And Haeberle says they still haven’t heard back.
That silence matters because it leaves the family living with the same uncertainty that defined her detention: nobody will explain what happened, and nobody will say it won’t happen again.
Haeberle also reports that Marina’s situation fits into a broader national reality.
He cites an NBC News analysis finding that 117,000 immigrants – more than half of them in the U.S. for ten years or more – face potential deportation as the Trump administration moved to reopen cases that were previously paused.
That part is important because it shows Marina’s story isn’t just a one-off tragedy.
It sits inside a larger crackdown that can reach into the lives of people who have already built families and routines in the U.S.
A Hard Truth About “Process” When The Process Goes Missing
It’s difficult to read Haeberle’s reporting and not come away unsettled.
Not because everyone has to agree on immigration policy, but because the basic expectation in any system is that if the government takes someone’s freedom, it should be able to explain why.
In Marina’s case, as Haeberle lays it out, the explanation never came until a judge demanded one – and then, even then, it wasn’t there.
That should worry people across the spectrum.
A person should not have to spend 200 days in custody just to prove that paperwork is missing.
And kids should not have to walk out the door for school wondering if their mother will still be there when they return.
Haeberle’s report doesn’t try to turn Marina into a symbol.
It keeps her human, in her kitchen, with children who are scared, and with a future that still feels shaky because the agency that detained her hasn’t even offered the dignity of an explanation.
And until that changes, it’s hard to blame her family for treating every day at home like it could be temporary.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
