I'm making no claims about the guy. You are. That's why you have to provide evidence and I don't have to provide a thing.
Since DHS is a party with interest in the dispute, citing them as a source falls out of bounds. They are not providing evidence—they are making claims. (1) is an unsupported claim; (5) is also an unsupported claim; (6) does not confirm he is a terrorist or criminal (and simply being undocumented is not in itself a crime); (7) is an unsupported claim; (8) is not relevant to any activities that are claimed he is being detained for. These are all easily dismissable.
(2-4) would be more interesting if they related to a crime committed recently. But the write-up is from 2019, during Trump's first term when his DHS could have dealt with Garcia at the time. But they didn't, meaning there must not have been enough evidence to move forward on the guy. Also, the document does not specify any criminal action the guy might have been involved in at the time, only a lot of circumstantial claims meant to imply criminality. Not for nothing, any provenance to the document was removed before being posted on the web page, meaning, we don't know where it's from and who put it together. So it's a lot of smoke from more or less an anonymous source.
Maybe you think the idea of "smoke equals fire" should lead to forfeiture of due process, as was the case here, to which I would reply, that's never been how justice in the United States rolls.