Justin, you have due reason to be confused. It stems from the nature of the document -- it is a news release from ICE, not a scholarly article, amateur magazine write-up,
nor even a local reporter's piece. A news release is a statement by the issuer, here a federal government agency, setting out a version of events that they wish the public to take note of. Such things are not bound to any particular information
standard, other than generally avoiding un-truth to the extent the lack of truth of a proposition is actually known to the issuing agency.
Nor is it a policy statement in itself. The release would be more
complete had ICE attached a set of the papers upon which it is based, but I suspect that the narrative is not as linear or neat as either the agency or the individual would prefer and the papers either make that apparent or are written to avoid committing either
side to a particular version of facts. Likely, they just say "X" was seized on "Y" date pursuant to "Z" authority, and Mr. Q does not contest it.
News releases (including ones announcing settlements) rarely detail the
complete versions of facts and law.
You can perhaps best understand this one as an advertisement with a mild warning: "This is what we do from time to time, and, if you are thinking about doing something similar to this guy, think again." Much like a local police department announces it does DWI patrols on New Year's Day.