Orozco Case: Explaining What Illegal Reentry Means

In January, the federal government charged Roberto Orozco-Ramirez, a 42-yearold father of four and auto mechanic, with illegal reentry into the U.S., a felony.

While Orozco-Ramirez has lived for more than a decade in Froid, a town of 195 people in northeast Montana, he’s legally a citizen of Mexico. Court documents allege that he was removed from the United States by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2009.

Orozco-Ramirez’s arrest has shaken the tiny, conservative town of Froid, where some residents have shown support for him through protests, meal trains, donations, and by driving hundreds of miles to attend his court hearings in Great Falls. It’s also captured the attention of people far beyond Montana. Orozco-Ramirez has been held in the Cascade County Detention Center since Jan. 27. The primary concern of his neighbors and family is deportation.

As the story has played out, we found ourselves wanting to know more about the illegal reentry charge. What exactly does it mean, how common is it, and what does it have to do with deportation? And what might it mean for Orozco-Ramirez and his family if he is convicted in the coming months? Montana Free Press spoke with seven criminal defense and immigration lawyers to find out.

Illegal reentry is a criminal charge accusing a person of returning to the U.S. after having previously been removed from the country. While illegal entry into the U.S. is typically treated as a misdemeanor, illegal reentry is a felony, meaning the penalties and consequences are more severe.

“[Illegal reentry] is more harsh,” said Josh Kolsrud, a criminal defense attorney in Arizona who previously served as a federal prosecutor. “It is more aggravated to have an official, like an immigration judge, order you to be excluded from the country and then you come back, as opposed to just a first-time entrant who’s never been ordered out.” Illegal reentry is one of the most common federal criminal charges in the country. In some years it’s prosecuted more often than illegal entry. In 2024, more people in the U.S. were sentenced for immigration-related offenses — including illegal entry and reentry — than for fraud, sexual abuse and firearm charges combined, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In Montana, from 2015 to 2024, 99 people were sentenced for immigration-related offenses. President Donald Trump has made mass deportation a cornerstone of his administration’s agenda, and in 2025 criminal immigration prosecutions have increased, according to the Transactional Record Access Clearinghouse.

A person found guilty of illegal reentry can face up to two years of imprisonment, $250,000 in fines and one year of supervised release, though jail time and fines can vary depending on the specifics of a case and a defendant’s criminal history.

Illegal reentry is easy to prove and hard to fight, lawyers told MTFP. Prosecutors can point to documents detailing a person’s past removal from the U.S. and then show evidence that the person was found in the U.S. without permission to return.

Lawyers defending people accused of illegal reentry have a few options. A judge can dismiss charges if an individual can prove that they are a legal citizen. Attorneys can also challenge their client’s initial removal from the U.S. and argue that the person’s constitutional rights were violated during the deportation process. Some lawyers have argued that the illegal reentry charge was created for discriminatory purposes and disproportionately affects people from Latin America.

But challenging illegal reentry on any of those fronts is difficult. Nate Crowley, a California- based defense lawyer whose firm handles illegal reentry cases, said people charged with illegal reentry often plead guilty to receive a lesser sentence. In 2024, 97 percent of people charged with immigration-related offenses in the U.S. pleaded guilty, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

At a court hearing in Great Falls on Feb. 9, Orozco- Ramirez pleaded not guilty to his illegal reentry charge.

Regardless of whether Orozco-Ramirez is found guilty or not guilty of illegal reentry, immigration lawyers told MTFP, he will likely still have to contend with severe consequences of his arrest, including deportation.

Immigration courts operate separately from criminal courts, and lawyers say the two systems don’t exactly work together, though they often overlap. The consequences Orozco-Ramirez could face are outlined in a 1996 law passed under President Bill Clinton that significantly tightened U.S. immigration policies, adding harsher penalties for people entering the U.S. illegally. The law also established expedited removal processes that allow the Department of Homeland Security to deport some people without an immigration hearing.

Randall Caudle, an immigration attorney for a Missoula- based law firm, said federal immigration agencies track criminal cases like Orozco-Ramirez’s. So even if Orozco-Ramirez serves prison time for the criminal illegal reentry charge, immigration officers could detain and deport him upon his release without a hearing.

During Orozco-Ramirez’s Feb. 9 arraignment hearing in Great Falls, a lawyer representing the federal government argued that Orozco- Ramirez should remain in jail rather than be released, calling him a “flight risk.” Some Froid residents, who drove seven hours one-way to pack the courtroom, shook their heads in disbelief, and many were confused when Orozco-Ramirez’s public defender chose not to argue for his release. According to Caudle, if Orozco-Ramirez had been released from jail while his court case continued, federal immigration agents “could just pick him up and remove him” from the U.S. — a penalty made possible through the Clinton-era law. It happens often enough to inform some lawyers’ strategies in criminal court, Caudle said.

“If we have someone arrested for something and they don’t have legal status, or they have immigration issues, often we’ll tell their family, ‘Don’t bail them out,’” Caudle said. “Because as soon as you bail them out, ICE is going to pick them up and remove them.”

The 1996 law also states that a person who illegally reenters the U.S. after having been removed once is subject to a “permanent bar” from ever accessing immigration benefits, including a Green Card.

Orozco-Ramirez’s 19-yearold son, Roberto Orozco Lazcano, who is a U.S. citizen, said he is waiting to turn 21 to file a petition to sponsor his father’s lawful permanent residence in the U.S. A permanent bar would make Orozco-Ramirez ineligible for that kind of petition, Caudle said.

“Technically, after 10 years of being outside the country again, you can file for a waiver of the permanent bar, but that’s almost never granted,” he said.