Man Seeks Dismissal of Illegal Reentry Charges, Citing Flawed 2009 Deportation

Roberto Orozco-Ramirez argues his prior removal order was unconstitutional and deprived him of due process

Mar. 26, 2026 at 5:04pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Roberto Orozco-Ramirez has filed a motion to dismiss charges of illegal reentry, arguing that his 2009 deportation order was invalid and violated his constitutional rights. Orozco-Ramirez, who has lived in the U.S. since arriving as a minor to escape violence in his home country, claims he was not given proper notice, a hearing before an immigration judge, or the opportunity to apply for relief such as asylum or voluntary departure. His attorneys argue the 2009 order was "defective and invalid" and caused him prejudice, and are requesting the court dismiss the current illegal reentry charge.

Why it matters

This case highlights the complex legal issues surrounding deportation proceedings and the rights of immigrants, especially those who arrived as minors seeking refuge. Orozco-Ramirez's attorneys argue his 2009 deportation order violated his due process, and a ruling in his favor could set an important precedent regarding the standards immigration authorities must meet in removal cases.

The details

According to the court filing, Orozco-Ramirez was detained in September 2009 as part of an immigration sweep called Operation Community Shield. Within days, he was presented with a stipulated removal order that he signed, believing he had two options - request a hearing that would delay his deportation by 6 months, or voluntarily depart the U.S. immediately. However, Orozco-Ramirez's attorneys argue he was not properly informed that the voluntary departure document functioned as a removal order and waived his rights. They claim he was not given adequate time to consult a lawyer, was not advised of his eligibility for relief like asylum or voluntary departure, and was not provided a hearing before an immigration judge.

  • Orozco-Ramirez was detained on January 25, 2026 on the illegal reentry charge.
  • The motion to dismiss the charges was filed on March 19, 2026.

The players

Roberto Orozco-Ramirez

A man who came to the U.S. as a minor to escape violence in his home country, and has since married and built a successful business in Montana.

Rachel Julagay

A federal defender representing Orozco-Ramirez.

H. Henry Branom Jr.

A senior litigator with the Federal Defenders of Montana, also representing Orozco-Ramirez.

Roosevelt County Sheriff

Does not believe Orozco-Ramirez to be a danger to the community.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“In this instance, the government seeks to reinstate a defective and invalid stipulated removal order in 2009 pursuant to an unlawful process that violated Roberto's statutory, regulatory and due process in immigration court.”

— Rachel Julagay, Federal Defender

“Roberto had no disqualifying criminal history identified in the record, maintained strong family and community ties, and demonstrated long term stability and responsibility. Voluntary departure would have preserved Roberto's ability to lawfully reenter the United States and maintain family unity.”

— H. Henry Branom Jr., Senior Litigator, Federal Defenders of Montana

What’s next

The judge will decide on whether to grant Orozco-Ramirez's motion to dismiss the illegal reentry charges.

The takeaway

This case highlights the complex legal issues surrounding deportation proceedings and the rights of immigrants, especially those who arrived as minors seeking refuge. A ruling in Orozco-Ramirez's favor could set an important precedent regarding the standards immigration authorities must meet in removal cases.